57540 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) OctOber 2008 Evaluation Office G LOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY Global Environment Facility Evaluation Office GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) October 2008 (The main findings and recommendations of this evaluation were presented to the GEF Council in April 2008.) Evaluation Report No. 43 © 2008 Global Environment Facility Evaluation Office 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433 Internet: www.gefeo.org Email: gefevaluation@thegef.org All rights reserved. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the GEF Council or the governments they represent. The GEF Evaluation Office does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denomi- nations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of the GEF concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Rights and Permissions The material in this work is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this work without permission may be a violation of applicable law. The GEF encourages dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission promptly. ISBN-10: 1-933992-13-1 ISBN-13: 978-1-933992-13-6 Credits Director of the GEF Evaluation Office: Robert D. van den Berg Task Manager: Claudio R. Volonté, Chief Evaluation Officer, GEF Evaluation Office Evaluation Team: Gemma Paine-Cronin and Marlene Laros, consultants; and Timothy Ranja, Evaluation Officer, GEF Evaluation Office Editing and design: Nita Congress Printing: Master Print, Inc. Cover photo: Cape Town, South Africa, photo by Cronin-Paine family Evaluation Report No. 43 A FREE PUBLICATION Contents Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................... vi Foreword ...................................................................................................................................... vii Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................... viii 1. Main Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Conclusions...................................................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Recommendations........................................................................................................................................ 11 Notes ........................................................................................................................................................................ 13 2. Evaluation Framework .......................................................................................................... 14 2.1 Background on GEF CPEs.......................................................................................................................... 14 2.2 Objectives of the South Africa Evaluation.............................................................................................. 14 2.3 Methodology.................................................................................................................................................. 16 2.4 Limitations of the Evaluation ..................................................................................................................... 17 Notes ........................................................................................................................................................................ 19 3. Context of the Evaluation ..................................................................................................... 20 3.1 General Description..................................................................................................................................... 20 3.2 Status of Environmental Resources in Key GEF Focal Areas............................................................. 25 3.3 Environmental Legal, Operational, and Policy Framework .............................................................. 36 3.4 The GEF and the South African Focal Point Mechanism................................................................... 45 Notes ........................................................................................................................................................................ 46 4. The GEF Portfolio in South Africa ......................................................................................... 48 4.1 Difficulties with Portfolio Data at the Country Level .......................................................................... 48 4.2 Projects in the GEF South Africa National Portfolio ........................................................................... 48 4.3 Allocations by Focal Area ........................................................................................................................... 50 4.4 Project Status ................................................................................................................................................. 50 4.5 Allocations by GEF Agency........................................................................................................................ 50 4.6 GEF Funding by Executing Agency.......................................................................................................... 51 4.7 The SGP and the CEPF ............................................................................................................................... 51 v 4.8 Regional and Global Projects ..................................................................................................................... 52 Notes ........................................................................................................................................................................ 53 5. Results of GEF Support to South Africa ............................................................................... 54 5.1 Biodiversity..................................................................................................................................................... 54 5.2 Land Degradation ......................................................................................................................................... 63 5.3 International Waters ................................................................................................................................... 64 5.4 Climate Change ............................................................................................................................................ 67 5.5 Multifocal Area Projects ............................................................................................................................. 73 5.6 Other Focal Areas......................................................................................................................................... 75 Notes ........................................................................................................................................................................ 76 6. Relevance of GEF Support to South Africa .......................................................................... 77 6.1 The GEF Portfolio and South Africa's Sustainable Development Agenda and Environmental Priorities............................................................................................................................. 78 6.2 Relevance of GEF Allocations by Focal Area to Environmental Priorities and Frameworks .... 87 6.3 Relevance to the GEF Mandate ................................................................................................................. 95 6.4 Relevance of the RAF Index to Country Priorities ............................................................................... 98 6.5 Relevance to GEF Agency Strategies and Frameworks ....................................................................... 99 Notes ........................................................................................................................................................................ 99 7. Efficiency of GEF-Supported Activities in South Africa.................................................... 100 7.1 Time, Effort, and Financial Resources Required for Project Processing .......................................100 7.2 Roles and Relationships.............................................................................................................................106 7.3 Learning .......................................................................................................................................................107 7.4 GEF Focal Point Mechanism ..................................................................................................................108 7.5 Emerging Issues Concerning the RAF...................................................................................................112 Note ........................................................................................................................................................................112 Annexes A. Terms of Reference.....................................................................................................................................113 B. Evaluation Matrix .......................................................................................................................................123 C. Interviewees .................................................................................................................................................129 D. Sites Visited ..................................................................................................................................................131 E. Workshop Participants..............................................................................................................................132 F. GEF Portfolio in South Africa, 1994­2008...........................................................................................133 G. Framework for Analysis of Results .........................................................................................................139 H. Country Response ......................................................................................................................................140 I. Global Environment Benefit Assessment Analysis and Environmental Legal Framework Analysis...............................................................................................................ON CD-ROM J. Project Review Protocol ........................................................................................................ON CD-ROM K. Summary of Project Results .................................................................................................ON CD-ROM vi GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) L. List of Small Grants Programme Projects ........................................................................ON CD-ROM M. Scope of Regional/Global Projects in Which South Africa Participates ...................ON CD-ROM Bibliography .............................................................................................................................. 144 Boxes 6.1 NBSAP: Overarching Strategy .................................................................................................................. 88 Figures 3.1 Biomes of South Africa, Lesotho, and Swaziland ................................................................................ 26 3.2 Primary Sources of Energy in South Africa, 2000 ................................................................................ 29 3.3 Distribution of Land Degradation in South Africa .............................................................................. 32 4.1 Distribution of GEF Funding to GEF Agencies across GEF Phases ................................................. 49 4.2 GEF Approvals of South Africa Projects by Agency and Replenishment Period.......................... 51 6.1 Cofinancing of GEF Projects in South Africa by Focal Area and Source, 1994­2007 ................. 86 7.1 GEF Activity Cycle .....................................................................................................................................103 Tables 3.1 General Profile for South Africa ............................................................................................................... 20 3.2 Changes in Key Indicators .......................................................................................................................... 21 3.3 South Africa's Environmental Sustainability Profile: Status and Trends ......................................... 23 3.4 Status of South African Ecosystems ........................................................................................................ 26 3.5 Status of Species in South Africa .............................................................................................................. 27 3.6 Habitat Transformation and Protection of Biomes in Formal Protected Areas in South Africa .. 27 3.7 Status of POPs in South Africa before 2002........................................................................................... 33 3.8 International Conventions by Focal Area and Year Ratified .............................................................. 44 4.1 RAF Allocation and Use as of February 25, 2008 ................................................................................ 49 4.2 GEF Funding by Focal Area, 1994 through GEF-4 ............................................................................... 50 4.3 National Projects by Status and Focal Area ........................................................................................... 50 4.4 GEF Support to National Projects by Focal Area and Agency .......................................................... 50 4.5 GEF Funding of National Executing Agencies ...................................................................................... 51 4.6 SGP Allocations by Phase as of February 2008 ..................................................................................... 52 4.7 Number of Regional and Global Projects in Which South Africa Participates, by Focal Area ..... 53 6.1 Correlation of the GEF Portfolio with the Draft SFSD's Five Critical Pathways ........................... 79 6.2 Cofinancing Ratios by Modality, Focal Area, and GEF Replenishment Period ............................. 87 7.1 Project Preparation Costs as Percentage of GEF Grant ....................................................................101 7.2 National Project Fee by Agency and Project, for Projects Approved Since 2000 .......................102 7.3 Duration of Activity Cycle for GEF-Supported FSPs in South Africa ...........................................104 7.4 Duration of Activity Cycle for GEF-Supported MSPs in South Africa..........................................104 7.5 Planned and Actual Durations of FSPs, MSPs, and Enabling Activities in South Africa ..........105 Contents vii Abbreviations ABI Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative NGO nongovernmental organization BCLME Benguela Current Large Marine NEPAD New Partnership for Africa's Ecosystem Development CAPE Cape Action for People and the NIP national implementation plan Environment ODA official development assistance CEO Chief Executive Officer PDF project development facility CEPF Critical Ecosystems Partnership Fund POP persistent organic pollutant CFC chlorofluorocarbons PPG project preparation grant CO2 carbon dioxide R South African rand COP conference of the parties RAF Resource Allocation Framework CPE country portfolio evaluation REMT Renewable Energy Market DEAT Department of Environmental Affairs Transformation and Tourism SADC Southern African Development DList Distance Learning and Information Community Sharing Tool for Benguela Coastal Areas SANBI South African National Biodiversity DME Department of Minerals and Energy Institute ExA Executing Agency SANParks South African National Parks FSP full-size project SFSD strategic framework for sustainable GDP gross domestic product development GEF Global Environment Facility SGP Small Grants Programme GHG greenhouse gas UNCBD UN Convention on Biological Diversity IA Implementing Agency UNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification INC initial national communication UNDP United Nations Development LME large marine ecosystem Programme MSP medium-size project UNEP United Nations Environment MTPF medium-term priority framework Programme NBSAP National Biodiversity Strategy and UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention Action Plan on Climate Change NCSA National Capacity Self-Assessment WSSD World Summit on Sustainable Development viii Foreword This report is the sixth in a series of country port- The evaluation found that, at a country level, GEF folio evaluations produced by the Evaluation support to South Africa has produced significant Office of the Global Environment Facility (GEF). results and global benefits in biodiversity and Using the country as the unit of analysis, these in the South Africa component of international evaluations examine the totality of GEF sup- waters projects, potential catalytic effects in cli- port across all GEF Agencies and programs. The mate change projects, but limited results in the overall objectives for undertaking such studies other focal areas. Additionally, GEF support has are (1) to evaluate how GEF-supported activi- been consistent with its global mandate. ties fit into national strategies and priorities as Despite these successes, the long-term sustain- well as within the global environmental mandate ability of the global benefits and local benefits of the GEF and (2) to assess the results of GEF- achieved is uncertain. Although systemic and indi- supported activities and how these activities are vidual capacity was built and is relatively strong implemented. in biodiversity and international waters, there Country portfolio evaluations are conducted inde- are gaps in the country's organizational capacity pendently by the Evaluation Office in partnership, to sustain the gains embedded in key mandated when possible, with other GEF Agency evaluation institutions. Capacity gaps identified are the skills offices, the national government, and nongovern- of a range of key players and mandated depart- mental organizations. ments, poor policy coordination and coherence, a weak enabling regulatory and fiscal environment, This evaluation was part of a series of country and other market barriers. The evaluation recom- portfolio evaluations examining GEF support in mends the establishment of a foundation for more Sub-Saharan Africa. Among several consider- flexible country-based portfolio management in ations, South Africa was selected because of the order to strengthen country ownership, account- country's historically large and diverse portfo- ability, sustainability, relevance, and efficiency. lio, which includes 11 completed projects with potentially important results, and a government The first Annual Country Portfolio Evaluation developed medium-term priority framework for Report presented the findings and recommen- GEF support. South Africa will also receive a large dations of the evaluations in Benin, Madagascar, allocation in the Resource Allocation Framework and South Africa to the GEF Council. The Annual based on its important global biodiversity and Report was discussed on April 22, 2008 and it is dependency on fossil fuels. published separately (Evaluation Report No. 44). ix The summary of the South Africa portfolio evalu- on March 5, 2008. I would like to thank all partici- ation was made available to the Council as an pants for the interest shown in the evaluation and information document. Throughout the Council their support of the Evaluation Office. The feed- discussions during the April 2008 meeting, refer- back received was highly constructive, and the ence was made to the findings of the specific coun- comments have been incorporated in this evalu- try portfolio evaluations in Benin, Madagascar, ation report The government of South Africa has and South Africa, which was a very positive sign responded to the evaluation and its response is in that the evaluations were bringing information to an annex to this report. the Council that was relevant to its discussions on other subjects. The findings of the evaluation were discussed in Rob van den Berg Pretoria with a wide range of national stakeholders Director, Evaluation Office Acknowledgments This report was prepared by a team led by Claudio support provided by staff from the United Nations Volonté, Chief Evaluation Officer of the GEF Eval- Development Programme and the World Bank. uation Office. The team's lead consultants were The team also acknowledges Jemima Harlley of Gemma Paine-Cronin and Marlene Laros; Timo- the World Bank Office, South Africa, for helping thy Ranja of the GEF Evaluation Office served as to organize the national stakeholders' workshop. research assistant. A draft document was presented in Pretoria on Representatives of the South Africa Department March 5, 2008, to national stakeholders, including of Environment and Tourism--Zaheer Fakir and representatives of the national government, GEF his team, including Noluthando Vithi and Merlyn Agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and Van Voore, and their colleagues--provided full other civil society partners. The feedback received cooperation and participated actively in the evalu- was highly constructive, and the comments have ation. The Evaluation Office is particularly thank- been incorporated in this evaluation report. The ful to them for facilitating access to GEF stake- Evaluation Office remains fully responsible for the holders. The team is grateful for the field mission contents of the report. x GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) 1. Main Conclusions and Recommendations 1.1 Background the GEF mandate and achievement of global environmental benefits, and GEF policies and South Africa's participation in the Global Envi- procedures ronment Facility (GEF) started after the GEF pilot phase, when South Africa submitted its instru- z Assess the effectiveness and results of com- ment of participation in 1994 and once its inter- pleted and ongoing projects in each relevant national isolation had been broken. Since then, focal area South Africa has been an active participant in the z Provide feedback and knowledge sharing to GEF, not only through 26 national projects (total- (1) the GEF Council in its decision-making pro- ing about $81.27 million), but also as a leader in cess to allocate resources and develop policies the GEF Council and in supporting the third GEF and strategies, (2) the country on its participa- Assembly in August 2006. About 65 percent of tion in the GEF, and (3) the different agencies the GEF funding has gone to support projects in and organizations involved in the preparation the biodiversity focal area, 30 percent to climate and implementation of GEF support change, and the rest to persistent organic pollut- ants (POPs) and the Small Grants Programme Among several considerations, South Africa was (SGP). There are no national land degradation selected for this year's CPE because of the coun- or international waters projects, although South try's historically large and diverse portfolio, which Africa participates in some regional and global includes 11 completed projects with potentially projects in these areas. In fact, South Africa has important results and a government-developed participated in 22 regional and 7 global projects GEF Medium-Term Priority Framework (DEAT supporting objectives across all focal areas. 2001) for GEF support. South Africa will also receive a large allocation under the Resource Based on the overall purpose of the GEF country Allocation Framework (RAF) based on its impor- portfolio evaluations (CPEs) and their terms of tant global biodiversity and dependency on fossil reference, the evaluation of GEF support to South fuels. Africa has the following specific objectives: An evaluation team consisting of staff of the GEF z Independently evaluate the relevance and Evaluation Office and two consultants based in efficiency of GEF support in the country from South Africa conducted the South Africa CPE several points of view: national environmental between October 2007 and March 2008. frameworks and decision-making processes, 1 1.2 Conclusions and management systems, and biodiversity main- streaming. These influences are evident in two Results and Effectiveness acts: the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act and the National Environmental Conclusion 1: GEF support to biodiversity in Management: Protected Areas Act. South Africa has resulted in significant impacts. GEF investment in the biodiversity focal area has The success of GEF biodiversity support has resulted in significant global benefits by increas- been founded mostly on existing highly devel- ing the formal protection of two globally impor- oped capacity within South Africa, notably the tant ecosystems and recognized biodiversity South African National Parks (SANParks) and hotspots--the Cape Floristic Region and the Suc- the South African Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) culent Karoo. It has also contributed to strength- as agents for the Department of Environmental ening biodiversity conservation systems and man- Affairs and Tourism (DEAT). The expertise and agement in South Africa. support provided through GEF Agencies, par- ticularly the United Nations Development Pro- The National Biodiversity Strategy and Action gramme (UNDP) and the World Bank, have also Plan (NBSAP), which was the product of an been important. enabling activity of the GEF portfolio, provided a nationally owned and strategic basis for the Conclusion 2: GEF support to marine inter- subsequent GEF investment in biodiversity. As national waters projects has resulted in the a result, GEF support has focused on identified strengthening of South Africa's commitments priorities for improving the coverage (size and to global and regional cooperation to reduce representativeness) of South Africa's terrestrial overexploitation of fish stocks and land- and sea-based pollution in the region. and marine protected area networks and on pilot- ing approaches to mainstreaming biodiversity in GEF support has resulted in South Africa's involve- productive landscapes and sectors, valuing and ment in agreements for coordinated regional and paying for ecosystem services, and using natural international management of marine resources resources sustainably. It is the latter two, however, and has provided a robust scientific platform that require further systematic focus in terms of and cooperative networks for coherent regional ensuring that biodiversity conservation initiatives response and action. As a result of the interna- are strategically targeted to optimize and dem- tional waters projects, South Africa helped shape onstrate an impact on improved sustainability of and is now a signatory to the International Mari- ecological services and sustainable development. time Organization Convention on Ballast Water. In addition, South Africa has made significant There have been significant catalytic effects on progress toward establishing capacity to formally biodiversity conservation policy, strategy, and regulate International Maritime Organization management practice. Replication effects are requirements and to support the region's efforts to evident within and beyond the portfolio where do the same. The Benguela Current Commission project design and good practice have been devel- and the strategic action plan provide a platform oped and replicated. Key areas include the devel- for cooperative management of a highly produc- opment of bioregional approaches, systematic tive and economically significant large marine conservation planning, protected area planning ecosystem (LME). 2 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) Key replication effects in design and approaches The climate change portfolio is probably one of are evident in other LME initiatives, such as the the most complex and difficult in the South Afri- Agulhas-Somali Current LME. The Benguela Cur- can context. The country's existing climate change rent Large Marine Ecosystem (BCLME) has cata- strategy has not yet established concrete priori- lyzed the harmonization of policy and manage- tized plans for climate change response that could ment across the region--for example, enabling an direct project selection. At the time this report ecosystems approach to fisheries management. was published, completion of a concrete strategy was likely by the end of 2008. The international waters interventions have sig- nificantly improved the scientific basis for regional All climate change projects up to the end of prioritization of cooperative interventions in man- the third operational phase of the GEF (GEF-3, aging marine resources and land-based activities 2003­06) targeted the mitigation of GHG emis- affecting these resources. sions by increasing the contribution of renewable energy, with the exception of the INC. A transport As yet, there are no direct and significant bene- project--Sustainable Public Transport and Sport: fits for freshwater international water resources, a 2010 Opportunity--has been endorsed for although a number of regional biodiversity proj- GEF-4 (2006­10), and an energy efficiency proj- ects, for example, the Maloti-Drakensberg Trans- ect focusing on appliance labeling has been con- frontier Project, may contribute to such results. A ceptualized, but is not listed as a project endorsed regional project for the Orange-Senqu Basin has for GEF-4 on the GEF Web site.1 recently been initiated. Only one completed project has any data on actual Conclusion 3: There have been limited direct reductions of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, and impacts on greenhouse gas emissions from the this is relatively small: 5.1 kilotons of CO2 equiva- climate change portfolio, but some catalytic and lent. The ongoing projects have not yet estimated replication effects are expected. their reductions on CO2, mainly because they are The Initial National Communication under the just beginning implementation. United Nations Framework Convention on Cli- Given South Africa's context and the renewable mate Change (DEAT 2003a) has been and is energy projects involved, the value of almost all likely to be significant in shaping ongoing action; the projects will not be in their direct impact on debate; and future climate change policy, strategy, reducing GHG emissions, but in their catalytic and planning decisions. This was accomplished by and replication effects. These include the contri- providing baseline data, including a greenhouse bution they make through testing and demonstrat- gas (GHG) inventory and vulnerability assess- ing technology, removing market barriers, and ments, and an analysis of options for mitigation improving the enabling environment in terms of and adaptation. The initial national communica- policy, regulatory, budgetary, and strategy frame- tion (INC) has influenced DEAT's National Cli- works needed to support technology changes. mate Change Response Strategy for South Africa (2004a) and the Department of Minerals and The two completed renewable energy proj- Energy's (DME's) Energy Efficiency Strategy for the ects were effective pilots in that they system- Republic of South Africa (2005) and White Paper atically tested viability and demonstrated that on Renewable Energy (2003). solar cookers (Pilot Production and Commercial 1. Main Conclusions and Recommendations 3 Dissemination of Solar Cookers) and solar ther- No evidence exists of increased resilience of sec- mal energy (Concentrating Solar Power for Africa) tors and communities to adverse impacts of cli- were not likely to be viable for renewable energy in mate change. The climate change portfolio does not the South African context. The Solar Water Heat- include any adaptation projects, but some effects ers for Low-Income Housing in Peri-Urban Areas are likely through GEF biodiversity projects and in project identified the cost and other conditions SGP projects. GEF support for adaptation has only necessary for the viability of the industry. recently been available and is still limited. The evidence of impact on renewable energy There have been no direct results in increased markets is mixed for completed projects or those energy efficiency. whose implementation is well under way. Almost all projects reported that the ongoing lack of an Conclusion 4: Results in other focal areas are enabling environment and continuing market limited. barriers are likely to threaten the extent to which Multifocal areas. Learning derived from Best renewable energy is successful in mitigating GHG Environmental Practice in the Hosting of the emissions. However, the situation has changed World Summit on Sustainable Development significantly since the time of those reports. (WSSD)--the project that is designed to "green" Recent developments linked to the energy short- this international summit--is to be used in plan- age suggest a strong likelihood that an enabling ning for the 2010 World Cup that South Africa environment conducive to renewable energy will will host. The National Capacity Self-Assessment be established relatively soon, especially in rela- (NCSA) has not yet been completed; this frame- tion to cost barriers that could improve the fea- work could have provided a foundation for stra- sibility of renewable energy. Yet the energy short- tegic decision making on capacity building in the age also has the potential to divert attention and GEF portfolio and other relevant donor agree- resources from exploring long-term renewable ments, as well as South Africa's identification of options in the search for relatively quick measures the key enabling conditions necessary to ensure to increase available power. effectiveness and sustainability of results. Clear evidence exists of potential replication Small Grants Programme. Evidence of results effects from GEF support in climate change from the 36 SGP projects is limited because of related to the increasing market for solar water a lack of effective support from the local UNDP heaters based on the standards, codes of practice, office, as well as from the central management training, and other enabling conditions that have team in New York. This led to interruptions in been developed. The power utility Eskom is build- management and implementation, during which ing on the GEF project in an extensive program several projects were left without support. The to install 1 million solar water heaters, and a rela- potential of the SGP has not been fully realized, tively large city in the Eastern Cape Province plans specifically in exploring how best to build links to install solar water heaters in all houses; how- between the environmental, social, and economic ever, the model probably needs more work, as the dimensions of sustainable development. installation industry is reportedly reluctant to sign up for the Eskom program and is skeptical about Persistent organic pollutants. The National its feasibility. Implementation Plan (NIP) for this focal area 4 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) has been somewhat delayed, but is now close to z extent to which capacity for sustaining these completion. It will potentially provide a strategic gains is improved and embedded within the and informed basis for analysis, prioritization, and mandated biodiversity conservation and other action and for identifying projects for GEF sup- key agencies; port in terms of the Stockholm Convention on z contribution biodiversity conservation makes Persistent Organic Pollutants. and is seen to make to overall long-term sus- Land degradation. There are no national proj- tainable development, including its proven ects approved in this focal area, although it was direct and indirect social and economic ben- introduced within the GEF in 2002 and funding efits. became available in 2004. Somewhat differing Although the latter is not regarded as the core views exist on why no projects have been approved mandate of the GEF, in the context of South since this window was opened in GEF-3 and when Africa, securing and sustaining global biodiver- about $6 million reportedly had become avail- sity benefits is directly tied to the eradication of able for South Africa. The TerrAfrica program for poverty. Although approaches to the duration of land degradation was established during GEF-4, the biodiversity portfolio have changed, improved which included an allocation for South Africa, definition and targeting of the social and eco- but according to the GEF Secretariat, South nomic development contribution of GEF support Africa did not prepare a project proposal in time. would improve the effectiveness of the portfolio South Africa has expressed skepticism about the as a whole. TerrAfrica program, because of the inclusion of loans and the limited support available for land Individual capacity has been developed through degradation. However, the South African com- projects in the climate change focal area, but lim- ponent of regional projects, such as the Desert ited institutional or systemic capacity has been Margins Programme and others, are likely to have created despite its identification as a potentially affected land degradation. decisive risk. Although the GEF projects could not be expected to address all capacity gaps, this Ozone. There are no results in the ozone focal issue poses significant barriers to the sustainabil- area, and South Africa is not eligible for GEF fund- ity of any results if not addressed. Capacity gaps ing in this area. identified occur in the skills of a range of actors, capacity of mandated departments, policy coordi- Conclusion 5: The long-term sustainability of the nation and coherence, enabling regulatory and fis- global and local benefits achieved is uncertain. cal environment, and other market barriers. How- Systemic and individual capacity was built and is ever, others are currently in the offing in some relatively strong in the biodiversity and interna- areas, specifically in terms of tariff structures and tional waters focal areas, but gaps exist in orga- the fiscal and regulatory environment. nizational capacity to sustain the gains embedded in key mandated institutions. Furthermore, the The NCSA could have provided a systematic basis long-term sustainability of the global and local for identifying and prioritizing capacity gaps that biodiversity benefits achieved will largely depend might limit the effectiveness or threaten the sus- on the tainability of results, and for how to address them and by whom. 1. Main Conclusions and Recommendations 5 The general sustainability of results is further prioritization and planning. Although significant qualified by the overall decline in the state of results were achieved in the INC in the climate the environment in South Africa, as reported by change focal area, this did not culminate in a con- DEAT (2006b) and by the scope and complexity crete strategy and plan. The two other enabling of the challenges to achieving sustainable devel- activities--the NIP for POPs and the NCSA--are opment inherited from South Africa's apartheid not yet complete. past. DEAT (2006a) notes that environmental Individual and systemic capacity development has gains are bound up with the progress of social and been relatively strong in most ongoing or com- economic development in ways that pose specific pleted projects, but institutional capacity build- dilemmas for South Africa and tie the sustainabil- ing has been less effective. Gaps in capacity and ity of environmental benefits to the eradication of an adequately enabling environment in key areas poverty. render the sustainability of results uncertain. In summary, at the country level, GEF sup- port to South Africa has produced significant Relevance results and global benefits in the biodiversity projects and in the South African components Conclusion 6: GEF support has addressed national priorities, particularly in the biodiver- of international waters projects, potentially sity projects and South African components of catalytic effects in the climate change projects, international waters projects, but less clearly for and limited results in the other focal areas. climate change. As the GEF national portfolio is a set of projects, Biodiversity rather than a planned program, it is difficult to The biodiversity interventions have been directly judge the impact of the portfolio as a whole, as relevant to South Africa's agenda; however, socio- no set of expected results exists against which economic relevance and benefits, sustainable use, to assess it. The marked concentration of the and integration with other relevant mandates national portfolio in the biodiversity focal area (sustainable land management and water resource does not appear to have been the result of planned management) remain key challenges for the port- programming. folio and for implementation of the NBSAP. South A factor limiting reportable results is the relatively Africa's priorities lie in sustainable and integrated small number of completed projects (representing natural resource management which factors in only 20 percent of GEF support. The overwhelm- the need for social and economic development, ing majority of these fall into the biodiversity focal complements it, and builds toward sustainable area, which is therefore able to show more impact. development. A number of projects in the climate change focal Climate Change area--the next most significant in the portfolio-- have been seriously delayed in implementation. South Africa's climate change strategy and action plan is still evolving and, although a broad response The results of the enabling activities across the strategy has been developed, South Africa does portfolio mirror this pattern with strong levels of not yet have a concrete strategy and action plan effective achievement in the biodiversity focal area, in the area of climate change to guide GEF sup- resulting in strategy and concrete frameworks for port. The INC to the United Nations Framework 6 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was offshore), mining (coastal and offshore), impacts extremely relevant in this context and provided of coastal developments, and climate change. the first reliable baseline data, including a GHG Furthermore, the investment has enabled South inventory and vulnerability assessments, and sys- Africa to strengthen partnerships with its neigh- tematic analysis of the potential and risks of vari- bors in transboundary marine resource manage- ous options. However, projects up to the end of ment, specifically in the area of marine research. GEF-3 focused exclusively on mitigation rather than adaptation measures, and on renewable Conclusion 7: The GEF portfolio at a country energy rather than energy efficiency; this focus is level is relevant to South Africa's draft sustain- not clearly aligned with the analysis of the needs, able development framework and the South challenges, and options in several government Africa GEF medium-term priority framework in the broadest sense, but the balance of support documents which highlight needs for urgent to different focal areas raises questions. action in adaptation and energy efficiency.2 There is no clear basis for determining the rele- The exclusion of off-grid energy generation from vance of GEF support to South Africa's sustainable support in the GEF-4 framework does not align development agenda, needs, and priorities at the with recent developments in the South Afri- country level. For the period under review, South can context--namely, increased interest in solar Africa did not have an agreed sustainable develop- power as an alternative energy source, as noted ment strategy or a concrete program guiding its above. The focus and design of the renewable interaction with the GEF. The South Africa-GEF energy projects are somewhat uneven in terms medium-term priority framework (MTPF) for of the prioritization of sources with the strongest 2001­03 did not prioritize among or within focal potential and commercial feasibility, and in terms areas, but outlined a broad set of priority issues of the design of projects in ways that would gener- in each of them. Once the GEF framework was ate reliable information on economic and techni- established, it was used to test whether projects cal feasibility. were aligned with the broad set of priorities iden- In the absence of a concrete national climate tified for all focal areas, but the composition of the change plan, none of the project designs is able overall portfolio does not appear to have been the to adequately take into account the central chal- result of deliberate strategy. lenge that South Africa will not be able to tackle Furthermore, gaps exist both within focal areas poverty effectively without an inevitable increase and across the GEF portfolio as a whole, as out- in energy generation and increased access to eco- lined in conclusions 3 and 4 above on results; nomic benefits. The maximizing of global benefits these gaps appear to result partly from the struc- and national needs and priorities do not clearly ture of the GEF framework itself and partly from align with each other. the lack of a proactive promotion of projects in these areas from South Africa. The significant International Waters concentration of projects in biodiversity does not GEF support has made a relevant contribution to appear to be based on a clear decision to concen- addressing South Africa's most significant chal- trate on this focal area in terms of the portfolio as lenges in the marine environment: fishery impacts a whole and accessing of GEF support. However, it and management, pollution (land based and does reflect the GEF global strategy, in which the 1. Main Conclusions and Recommendations 7 biodiversity focal area is usually about 40 percent that design could be more relevant in terms of of total allocations. South Africa's needs and context. In terms of South Africa's sustainable develop- The SGP has significant potential for identifying ment agenda, a number of the project documents opportunities for catalytic and replication effects mentioned the need to create jobs or contribute to in terms of promoting sustainable livelihoods and livelihoods. This is often noted as an added bonus generating environmental benefits. However, it rather than as recognition of the absolute interde- has had serious implementation problems up to pendence in South Africa of a specific set of social, the global level related to inadequate support and economic, and environmental factors, although unfilled management vacancies, has received lim- this has improved in the design of recent biodiver- ited resource allocation, and has completed few sity projects. Insufficient attention appears to be projects. given to the imperatives for social and economic development in the contextual analyses and design Conclusion 8: Country ownership of the GEF of most of the projects. Designs do not adequately portfolio varies from focal area to focal area, recognize the fact that environmental sustainabil- but overall ownership of the portfolio needs ity is closely tied to how successfully South Africa strengthening. addresses poverty and inequality, on the one hand, Country ownership is understood in a variety of and overconsumption, on the other; nor do they ways: recognize that the zero-growth scenario relevant in developed countries is not relevant in South z Who developed projects, and were they Africa. signed off by the relevant person? The evalu- ation concludes that South Africans developed There has been limited focus on improving effi- the vast majority of projects. ciency of resource use; yet this is clearly necessary z The national executing agency has the if South Africa is to achieve the needed social and required capacity to manage the proj- economic development objectives without pur- ect. Although initially weak, its capacity has suing the current unsustainable resource- and improved, but is still somewhat uneven. waste-intensive path, although this is changing in recent projects. z The agency with the public mandate is com- mitted to sustaining it. This has been uneven. The potential impact of the portfolio is probably less likely to exist in the actual delivery of mea- z The project is embedded in medium-term surable results in GHG emissions reduced or plans and budgets relevant to the associated hectares of biodiversity secured. More important focal areas and global convention, and com- will be supporting and assisting South Africa in mitment to ensure the required capacity and addressing the challenges of sustainable develop- enabling environment will be established. ment through projects with the potential for sig- Necessary for sustainability, this has been nificantly strengthening institutional or systemic achieved to a large extent in the biodiversity capacity; replication; catalysis of further action focal area. and change; or developing, sharing, or transferring The South African government has provided a sig- important technical experience and knowledge. nificant amount of cofinancing that is higher than The current portfolio and project design suggest 8 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) average in the GEF and an indication of country programmatic approach to land degradation, in ownership; it has also involved the contribution of particular through TerrAfrica, as a barrier to max- significant amounts of time, attention, and other imizing global benefits linked with action to halt resources. This cofinancing, together with other desertification and land degradation. resources coming from South Africa to support The allocation of resources within the climate the GEF, makes it all the more important to ensure change focal area has probably meant that poten- that the GEF portfolio is driven by a country strat- tial global benefits have not been maximized. egy that aligns global convention requirements Although the wind, solar, and transport projects and South Africa's needs and priorities within a are clearly relevant, the targeting and design of a clear and concrete program. few projects have not been optimal, and gaps exist The absence--except in the biodiversity focal in the portfolio. For example, energy efficiency area--of clear and concrete strategies and plans, benefits in GHG emission reduction could have ideally nested within an integrated and concrete been achieved relatively cost-effectively (although strategy for sustainable development and outlin- the standards and labeling project will improve ing how South Africa will respond to the global this if it is approved). A significant proportion of conventions, is an obstacle to effective country GEF funding is in solar energy, assessed in these ownership. Country ownership is strongest in the projects to be the strongest renewable option in biodiversity focal area in which the national plans South Africa; because it is off-grid, solar energy and GEF portfolio are closely aligned and national is no longer relevant to GEF-4 strategic programs mandated agencies have executed most projects as these explicitly exclude off-grid solar energy so that synergies and relevance can be entrenched projects. as far as possible. Efficiency Conclusion 9: GEF support to South Africa is rel- evant to the GEF mandate, principles, and objec- Conclusion 10: The GEF is seen as overly com- tives in each focal area, but this varies according plicated and inefficient in ways that negatively to focal area. affect the extent to which the portfolio is coun- try driven. GEF support has been targeted at the areas of The South Africa CPE confirms the findings of greatest potential global benefit in biodiversity previous evaluations conducted by the Evaluation and the South African component of the inter- Office. Stakeholders consider the GEF processes national waters focal area, which follows the GEF and procedures overly complicated and ineffi- mandate in these two areas. cient. A key frustration expressed by project pro- Gaps and weak areas in the portfolio may rep- ponents and implementers is that they often must resent missed opportunities to achieve benefits, comply with the provisions of three separate enti- such as land degradation, the SGP, and POPs. ties (those of the national agency, the GEF Agency, In terms of the latter, it will only be possible to and the GEF itself), resulting in significant trans- identify how significant the problem in South action costs but adding limited value to the pro- Africa is once the NIP and associated inven- cess and results. tory have been completed. Many DEAT officials interviewed regard the small allocation and fixed 1. Main Conclusions and Recommendations 9 Long time delays in project processes often erode Conclusion 11: The focal point mechanism the energy and interest mobilized during project should have played a more effective role in pro- design. Such energy and interest are often harder viding strategic guidance and information and to regenerate later and negatively affect the extent in facilitating learning and synergies. to which the eventual project is driven by the The work of the focal point mechanism has been country or by contracted consultants. The average hampered by the absence of clear focal area strat- time taken between GEF pipeline entry and start- egies and plans for South Africa's response to up is, respectively, 3.7 and 1.8 years for full-size the global conventions, except for biodiversity, and medium-size projects (FSPs and MSPs). This as well as absence of a concrete national strategy is longer than in Costa Rica and the Philippines. for sustainable development. Although the MTPF All but two MSPs required extensions of about approved by the South African cabinet provided two years (extending the projects to more than a clearer outline of the issues and their alignment three years), which may indicate that projects set with the concerns of the relevant conventions, it unrealistic end dates. This may in turn negatively did not establish an agreed program and frame- affect the extent to which they are institutional- work of priorities. This has affected the relevance ized, potentially limiting sustainability. of the portfolio and prospects for replicating and sustaining interventions. Although the national executing agencies are drivers of the projects, it is the GEF Agencies A staff shortage contributed to limiting the focal that ultimately translate the projects into "GEF- point's ability to ensure strategic coherence and able" proposals. In the process, country owner- effective stakeholder access to decision making. A ship and needs may be modified in translation. recent increase in staffing, a newsletter, and other This is largely inevitable, unless the GEF systems initiatives are intended to improve this. are changed to integrate clearer, more stable, and transparent requirements that are standardized The focal point itself and many stakeholders inter- across GEF Agencies and unless wider local capac- viewed indicated that the role of sharing informa- ity is built to do effective project design. tion and disseminating learning had been a partic- ularly weak area. A significant contributing factor Another important issue regarding efficiency is that projects and GEF Agencies have not rou- is that the roles of the GEF Agencies and the tinely included the focal point in the monitoring national focal points (the GEF political and opera- and evaluation of projects or circulation of nar- tional focal points, as well as those from the global rative and financial reports and evaluations. This conventions) are generally unclear to stakehold- has improved, and reports are now circulated to ers and indicate the need for improved specifica- the focal point. tion and communication. The lack of clarity of roles and responsibilities of the GEF Agencies is DEAT and UNDP initiated a process to develop also reflected in the fact that national executing a comprehensive, long-term, country-driven pro- agencies, the local SGP, and the focal point do not grammatic approach to the GEF portfolio, but this know what they should expect from the 10 per- was suspended with institution of the RAF. cent agency fee received from the GEF Council (based on project grant approval). 10 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) 1.3 Recommendations z increased support for adaptation; z increased focus in biodiversity on the key chal- Recommendations to the GEF Council lenges of sustainable use and sustaining eco- Recommendation 1: GEF strategies and pro- system services and benefits in the context of grams should recognize and respond to existing sustainable land management (addressing land integrated regional and national analyses and degradation and rehabilitation of ecosystems); strategies for meeting the requirements of the conventions, and/or support their development z budget allocations for SGP management and where relevant. operations that take into account the country context and the specific nature of the program: National and regional plan links to the require- the need for increased allowance for travel and ments of the global conventions provide a poten- meetings to provide the support required by tially strong foundation for shaping GEF strategies community projects, as well as facilitate a rep- and resource allocations. In addition, these plans resentative civil society board that may be geo- are most likely to secure optimal global environ- graphically dispersed. mental benefits while ensuring that programs are relevant to national and regional contexts. Recommendation 2: Improve the basis for moni- toring and evaluating GEF support. The positive experience with international waters projects provides valuable lessons and indicates The objectives in each focal area should form a how important a regional approach is to tackling clearer chain of results in terms of global, regional, many environmental issues successfully. Consid- and country benefits, as well as the overall purpose erable experience from working in a regional con- of the GEF. The GEF Secretariat should facilitate text has been established, and many regions have improved reporting and basic recordkeeping for developed environmental regional agreements. the country portfolio. Implementation of enabling Regional allocations could be made on the basis activities should on completion be monitored and of regional analyses and strategies, thus avoiding evaluated to provide an opportunity for comment the potential negative effect of the current coun- and peer review by independent specialists based try focus of the RAF. on the requirements and guidelines provided by the global conventions. Countries should be Based on the specific case of South Africa, the involved in selecting the independent specialists framework and allocation of GEF support should and have discretion to apply or not apply the eval- be reviewed to maximize global benefits and opti- uation recommendations, as is the case with any mize relevance to the country context in terms of external evaluation. Improved alignment should z increased support to land degradation through exist among conventions, frameworks, and priori- flexible mechanisms that do not involve grants ties emerging from conference of parties' decisions blended with loans and can be tailored to coun- and the GEF framework and strategies to enable a try contexts and needs; more coherent country and regional response and an improved basis for aggregation and assessment z inclusion of support for off-grid renewable of results. energy in the climate change focal area; 1. Main Conclusions and Recommendations 11 Recommendation 3: Establish a basis for more Recommendations to the South African flexible country-based portfolio management Government to strengthen country ownership, accountabil- ity, sustainability, relevance, and efficiency. Recommendation 5: Establish a strategic basis for directing the portfolio and for the selection, Recommended elements are to design, and implementation of GEF projects and z recognize the capacity of countries to manage monitoring and evaluating of what is achieved. their own portfolios and give as much responsi- Issues to be considered include the following: bility to focal point mechanisms as possible; z Ensure that the strategies, plans, and budgets to z enable greater discretion for within-country achieve the requirements of the global conven- allocations, when an overall agreed country tions are completed and contextualized within strategy exists; South Africa's sustainable development frame- z find ways to reduce transaction costs for the work. recipients such as z Use the NCSA enabling activity to identify ­ adoption of country-based governance, capacity required to implement the strategy accountability, financial management and and plans for meeting the requirements of each procurement systems, formats, and require- convention and to establish plans and budgets ments when these meet required standards to act on the priority capacity needs identified. and enable the GEF Agencies to meet their z Have the plans related to the conventions and own responsibilities as such (the experience the NCSA form the foundation for strategic of UNDP with national implementation decisions on what, if anything, GEF support could be an example), should be used for across and within focal ­ standardize, simplify, and stabilize require- areas. ments, formats, and procedures, so recipi- z Have regular reports on progress in achieving ents can become familiar with one basic the strategies and plans related to each conven- interface. tion that identify the contribution of the GEF Recommendation 4: Specify and communicate portfolio (if any) to the achievement of targets GEF Agency roles and responsibilities. and objectives, contextualizing the results in relation to the conventions and avoiding dupli- The roles and responsibilities of the GEF Agencies cation in reporting. should be clarified, in particular, to indicate what level of support should be expected for project Recommendation 6: Take decisive action to development and implementation and in terms of strengthen the SGP. the deliverables from the agency fee. One area of particular interest to national GEF stakeholders in As found in the GEF Evaluation Office evalua- South Africa is that the GEF Agencies should be tion of the global SGP (GEF EO 2008b), this pro- required to report on project progress to the focal gram can potentially strengthen the capacity of point. In the case of the SGP, UNDP should estab- civil society to make an important contribution lish and communicate minimum requirements for to generating global environmental benefits in the management of this program. South Africa. In particular, the SGP and civil soci- ety could pioneer integrated community-driven 12 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) approaches, but civil society needs support to country frameworks guiding South Africa's take this role on effectively. The focal point should response should be finalized as soon as possi- work with UNDP to identify what kind of enabling ble and cover how the focal point and selection environment the SGP and its stakeholders would process work and can be accessed; the current require to play this role effectively and how best to portfolio, status of projects, and key emerging establish this. The focal point should also ensure learning; and the project cycle, decision mak- that UNDP provides adequate administration and ing, and reporting. support for the SGP. Recommendation 8: Improve the sustainability Recommendation 7: Strengthen the focal point of the gains made through GEF support. mechanism. Where GEF support is focused on scaling up Approaches to consider include the following: activities to secure benefits (and not intended to be purely catalytic), South Africa should ensure z The focal point mechanism should involve the that plans exist to embed capacity within man- global convention focal points more formally dated institutions to sustain the gains made. How- and specifically in shaping the GEF portfo- ever, when GEF support is meant as a catalytic or lio in each focal area and selecting GEF proj- pilot intervention, it is important to ensure that ects. Convention focal points should facilitate project development and research design and project selection based on strategies and plans a strong monitoring and evaluation framework related to each convention. adequately enable learning. Attention should be z To improve the effectiveness and efficiency of given to ensure that all decisions on the portfolio, the GEF, the focal point should establish effec- the spread of projects in focal areas, and project tive accountability, reporting, and communica- design and evaluation frameworks adequately tion channels among the focal points (political, take into account all dimensions of sustainability, operational, and convention, as relevant), GEF including social and economic. Agencies, and South African treasury. Notes z The monitoring and reporting system should be based on the expected results of the inte- 1. The energy efficiency project, initiated in 2004, was removed with other pipelined projects at the grated strategy for GEF support and proactively end of GEF-3 and has not yet been registered on identify opportunities for sharing experience the official GEF Web page for South Africa within and learning or establishing synergy among the RAF-allocated projects, although it seems to national projects or with regional and global be in the pipeline for the second part of the RAF (after July 2008). projects. 2. These documents include white papers on energy z Current communication initiatives to ensure policy, renewable energy, and an Energy Efficiency easily accessed information on and widespread Strategy (DME 1998, 2003, 2005); the INC (DEAT understanding of the GEF mechanism and the 2003a); and the National Climate Change Response Strategy (DEAT 2004a). 1. Main Conclusions and Recommendations 13 2. Evaluation Framework This chapter presents the background informa- common issues across different types of coun- tion, objectives, and methodology related to and tries. South Africa was selected, among several used in the GEF country portfolio evaluations. considerations, because of the country's histori- cally large and diverse portfolio, which includes 2.1 Background on GEF CPEs 11 completed projects with potentially important results, and the government-developed MTPF for The GEF Council requested that the GEF Evalua- GEF support. South Africa will also receive a large tion Office conduct evaluations of the GEF portfo- allocation under the RAF, based on the country's lio at the country level--that is, GEF country port- important global biodiversity and dependence on folio evaluations. The overall purpose is twofold: fossil fuels. z To evaluate how GEF-supported activities fit into national strategies and priorities, as well 2.2 Objectives of the South Africa as within the global environmental mandate of Evaluation the GEF Based on the overall purpose of the CPEs, the z To provide the Council with additional infor- evaluation for South Africa has the following spe- mation on the results of GEF-supported activi- cific objectives (annex A presents the terms of ref- ties and how these activities are implemented erence for the South Africa CPE): Countries are selected for portfolio evaluation z Independently evaluate the relevance and from among 160 GEF-eligible countries, based on efficiency of GEF support in the country from a stratified randomized selection and a set of stra- several points of view: national environmental tegic criteria. So far the Evaluation Office has con- frameworks and decision-making processes; ducted three CPEs: Costa Rica (pilot case in 2006), the GEF mandate and achievement of global the Philippines, and Samoa (both in 2007). In 2007, environmental benefits; and GEF policies and the Evaluation Office began four CPEs in Africa: procedures Benin, Cameroon, Madagascar, and South Africa. z Assess the effectiveness and results of com- The findings and recommendations from these pleted and ongoing projects in each relevant four CPEs were synthesized in a single report and focal area presented to the Council at its April 2008 meet- ing (GEF EO 2008a). The synthesis report allowed z Provide feedback and knowledge sharing the Office to assess and report on experiences and to (1) the GEF Council in its decision-making 14 process on allocating resources and developing Scope of the Evaluation policies and strategies, (2) the country on its The main focus of the evaluation is projects imple- participation in the GEF, and (3) the different mented within the boundaries of South Africa, agencies and organizations involved in prepa- that is, national projects. The national com- ration and implementation of GEF support ponents of the global programs--the SGP and The CPE will also be used to provide information Critical Ecosystems Partnership Fund (CEPF)-- and evidence to other evaluations conducted by although themselves representing a portfolio of the GEF Evaluation Office, specifically the mid- projects, have been treated as single projects with term review of the RAF.1 The CPE will address the subcomponents. (Chapter 4 outlines the national performance of the GEF portfolio, in terms of rel- portfolio and the projects considered in the evance, efficiency, and effectiveness, and the con- report.) The GEF has provided about $81.27 mil- tributing factors to this performance. The CPEs lion for 26 national projects, including the 36 SGP do not have an objective of evaluating or rating projects, from 1994 to February 2008. the performance of the GEF Agencies, partners, In addition, the evaluation reviewed four regional or national governments. The evaluation will ana- projects and one global project in which South lyze the performance of individual projects as part Africa participates, selected because they are part of the overall GEF portfolio, but without rating of the international waters program (this focal such projects. area has no national projects) and are completed or near completion. South Africa has partici- Key Evaluation Questions pated in about 22 regional and 7 global projects Chapters 5, 6, and 7 deal with the three main areas in all. (Chapter 4 also outlines GEF support to the of the evaluation--respectively, the results and regional and global projects in which South Africa effectiveness, relevance, and efficiency of GEF participates.) A full assessment of their aggregate support. Each chapter begins by listing certain relevance, results, and efficiency was beyond the key questions that guided the CPE. An evaluation scope of this CPE. matrix (see annex B) supports each question. The matrix contains a tentative list of indicators or Proposals under preparation--for example, in basic data, potential sources of information, and pipelines--are not explicitly part of the evaluation, methodology components; the evaluation team although those that have received approval by the developed it further during the evaluation pro- GEF Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and for which cess. As a basis, the evaluation used the indicators the GEF has made a financial commitment within in GEF project documents, as well as indicators of the RAF are listed and discussed, as appropriate. each of the focal areas and the RAF and any appro- These include support to a global biodiversity priate national sustainable development and envi- project, one project preparation grant (PPG), and ronmental indicators. Weaknesses in monitoring one project development facility (PDF) block A. and evaluation at the project and GEF program The GEF portfolio assessed in this evaluation is levels have been an issue in past evaluations and therefore the aggregate of the national projects posed challenges to the assessment. Not all the plus the five selected international waters regional/ information is quantitative. global projects. 2. Evaluation Framework 15 The stage of the project has determined the focus, tative aspects of the evaluation are based on the as shown in table A.3. following sources of information: The context in which the projects were developed z At the project level, project documents, proj- and approved and are being implemented consti- ect implementation reports, terminal evalu- tutes a focus of the evaluation. Chapter 3 high- ations or closure reports, and reports from lights and annex I provides overviews of the three monitoring visits main contextual areas.2 z At the country level, documents relevant to z Potential for securing global environmental the broad national sustainable development benefits in each focal area. This situational and environmental agenda, priorities, and analysis provides a basis for assessing whether strategies; specific policy, strategies, and action the maximum potential national and global plans relevant to focal areas; GEF-supported benefits have been secured. strategies and action plans relevant to the global conventions; and national environmen- z Relevant national policy, legislative, strat- tal indicators egy, planning, and institutional frameworks. This provides a basis for assessing the relevance z At the GEF Agency level, country assistance of the portfolio to national frameworks and pri- strategies and frameworks and their evalua- orities. tions and reviews, specifically from the World Bank and UNDP z GEF policies, principles, programs, and strategies. These are in preparation for assess- z Evaluative evidence at the country level from ing the relevance of the portfolio to the GEF. GEF Evaluation Office evaluations, such as the Joint Evaluation of the GEF Activity Cycle and The evaluation is not intended to comprehen- Modalities, the overall performance studies, or sively cover the country's response to the different from national evaluations global conventions, because this response goes z Statistics and scientific sources, especially for beyond the GEF. This evaluation only considers national environmental indicators GEF support, whereas the country will usually have a wider set of responses to the conventions z Interviews with GEF stakeholders, including that do not include the GEF. DEAT as the focal point, other relevant govern- ment departments, national executing agencies 2.3 Methodology (including SANBI, SANParks, and the CEPF); nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), both The South African CPE was conducted between local and international with a presence in South October 2007 and March 2008 by staff of the GEF Africa; presently active GEF Agencies; and the Evaluation Office and two consultants based in SGP (annex C lists those interviewed) South Africa; they made up the evaluation team, and were led by a task manager from the GEF Eval- z A limited number of field visits to project sites, uation Office. The methodology included a series including limited interviews with GEF benefi- of components using a combination of qualitative ciaries at the community level where possible and quantitative methods and tools. The quali- (annex D lists these field visits) 16 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) z Information from the national consultation 2.4 Limitations of the Evaluation workshop held to enable comment and discus- Country portfolio evaluations are challenging, as sion on the draft report before it was finalized, the GEF does not operate by establishing coun- as well as written comments try programs that specify expected achievements The quantitative analysis used indicators to assess through programmatic objectives, indicators, the efficiency of GEF support using projects as the and targets. In general, CPEs entail some degree unit of analysis (that is, time and cost of preparing of retrofitting of frameworks to be able to judge and implementing projects and so on). The evalu- the relevance of the aggregated results of a diverse ation team used standardized tools and protocols portfolio of projects. South Africa did develop the for the CPEs and adapted these to the South Afri- MTPF, a broad framework to guide the GEF port- can context. These tools included folio between 2001 and 2003 that was also applied beyond that year. Although the MTPF provided z a project matrix outlining the information rel- a useful outline of issues and needs in each focal evant to the evaluation and expected sources area, it did not provide a prioritized framework (see annex B); across or within the focal areas or a clear statement z two project review protocols (see annex J) of expected results of the portfolio as a whole or in to conduct the desk and field reviews of GEF each focal area. Nevertheless, it served as a basic national and regional projects; frame for the evaluation and was used, along with the other relevant policy, strategy, and planning z an interview guide for interviews with different frameworks outlined in chapter 3 and presented stakeholders. in more detail in annex I, as a basis for assessing Projects were selected for visits based on whether the results and relevance of the portfolio to South they had been completed and on their geographic Africa's context. clustering (which made a visit to a number of proj- It is generally accepted in the evaluation field that ects in a particular geographic area within limited the value of the process and the outcome of evalu- time frames a possibility). ations directly depend on the extent to which key The process and outputs of the evaluation are out- stakeholders believe that the evaluation is nec- lined in the terms of reference for the evaluation essary and will be useful. These dimensions are (see annex A). The three main phases of the evalu- usually explored in an analysis of "evaluability." ation were to When initially approached by the GEF Evaluation Office, the GEF focal point indicated that "evalu- z conduct the evaluation, including at least one ation fatigue" exists in South Africa. Indeed, sev- visit by GEF Evaluation Office representatives; eral evaluations that involve GEF support are now z visit the GEF Evaluation Office to present a draft ongoing in South Africa, conducted by different report at a consultation workshop with major organizations (post-completion evaluation of the stakeholders (held March 5, 2008 (annex E lists Cape Peninsula Trust Fund by the World Bank, the participants); evaluation of the United Nations Development Framework by evaluation offices of UN agencies, z prepare a final report incorporating any com- and an assessment of the Paris Declaration by UN ments, which was then presented to the GEF agencies). Coordination among these evaluations Council and the recipient government. 2. Evaluation Framework 17 has not been as successful as anticipated, as they of information on project impacts is also attrib- occurred at different times with different dead- uted to the time frames of evaluation cycles; eval- lines. It is hoped that this will not negatively affect uations are usually conducted before measurable the value and use of the findings and recommen- impacts can be expected. As this evaluation was dations for South Africa. restricted to secondary sources, it did not have scope for conducting primary research to supple- Attribution is another area of complexity. GEF ment project reports or identify impact and out- support within any area is one contribution comes. The evaluation team depended on docu- among others and provided through partnerships mentation supplied by the GEF Agencies that was with many institutions. The CPE does not attempt not always complete and relied on project reports to attribute development or even environmental that were sometimes relatively dated, given that the results directly to the GEF, but assesses the contri- reporting cycle is at best annual. Also, the evalua- bution of GEF support to overall achievements. tion team did not have access to a complete set of The assessment of results is focused, where pos- terminal evaluations for even completed projects sible, at the level of outcomes and impacts rather (fewer than half of all the projects), because some than outputs. Project-level results are measured of the terminal evaluations are under preparation against the overall expected impact and out- or are not required by GEF procedures (such as comes from each project. Expected impacts at for completed enabling activities). Nevertheless, the focal area level are assessed in the context of many projects provided some information that GEF objectives and indicators of global environ- was relevant to impacts or outcomes or indicative mental benefits. Outcomes at the focal area level of the potential for future impact or outcomes. are primarily assessed in relation to catalytic and Results reported come from various sources: replication effects, institutional sustainability and some have been established through external capacity building, and awareness (see annexes B evaluation and others are drawn from internal and K). This report provides information com- project reports and interviews. As the focus of the piled primarily from project documents, reports, evaluation is at the portfolio level and there are 26 and evaluations, supplemented by interviews and national projects, some of which are large com- a limited number of field visits. posite projects, this evaluation has not been able Evaluating the impacts of GEF-funded initiatives to do full justice to the achievements of individual is not straightforward (in fact, this is a notoriously projects. However, annex K summarizes the lat- complex area for all projects, environmental or est available information comparing expected and otherwise). Many projects do not clearly or appro- actual impacts and outcomes on a project-by- priately specify the expected impact and some- project basis. It has also not been possible or use- times even the outcomes of projects. Often the ful to enumerate all results of all projects. In the type of information provided by project reports process of selection, an attempt has been made and terminal evaluations is limited to outcomes to highlight those that have the greatest value in or even just outputs and does not contain an illuminating the achievements of the portfolio or evaluation of impacts. The project documents do overall impact and outcomes in the focal areas. not always provide clear, consistent formulations The evaluation team has struggled to establish a of objectives, indicators, and targets or baselines clear, reliable set of data on projects and project from which progress can be assessed. The absence 18 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) documentation. The available data, including the processes in South Africa, as well as other com- list of projects in the GEF portfolio, contained mitments that affected the availability of many key inconsistencies, gaps, and discrepancies. A full set stakeholders. In any event, it was not possible to of documents for a few projects was not available, conduct a comprehensive set of interviews with and the information in the documents was not all the relevant government departments or key always consistent. For example, start and comple- stakeholders. tion dates for projects, as well as formulations of objectives, varied from document to document or Notes even within documents, and between documents 1. Given the early stage of implementation of the RAF and the GEF database. Documents were often not and following the approval of the terms of refer- dated, and ensuring use of the most up-to-date ence for its midterm review by the GEF Council in version was difficult. November 2007, it is expected that questions will be focused on the design and early implementa- The evaluation was conducted in a very tight time tion of the RAF. frame in order to be ready for the GEF Council 2. Annexes A through H are presented in this docu- meeting and during a period that included a sum- ment; annexes I through M are available in an elec- mer break and annual strategy and budget review tronic version only. 2. Evaluation Framework 19 3. Context of the Evaluation Relevance is one of the three key dimensions of jobs, and other resources and in the distribution the GEF portfolio assessed in this evaluation. The of population, wealth, skills, and opportunities. first section of this chapter provides the general context of the evaluation. The second summarizes Table 3.1 annex I, a contextual analysis assessing the current General Profile for South Africa state of the environment in each GEF focal area. This analysis formed the basis for review of the Indicator Value Surface area 1.2 million square kilometers relevance of the South African GEF portfolio-- Population 0.9% (2005 estimate) that is, the extent to which the portfolio is rele- growth rate vant to the context and to maximizing potential Distribution by y black, 79.4% global benefits. The third section summarizes a race y Mixed race, 8.8% review conducted of South Africa's policy, legisla- y Indian-Asian, 2.5% tive, strategy, and planning frameworks as a basis y White, 9.3% for assessing the relevance of the GEF portfolio to Distribution by y Male, 49.2% gender y Female, 50.8% South Africa's environmental priorities in general and as reflected in the frameworks in each focal Population y eastern cape, 15.0% distribution by y Free State, 6.3% area. A more systematic analysis is included as province y Gauteng, 19.2% annex I. The fourth section briefly discusses the y KwaZulu-Natal, 20.6% GEF South African focal point mechanism. y Limpopo, 12.0% y Mpumalanga, 6.9% 3.1 General Description y Northern cape, 1.9% y North West, 8.2% South Africa is a middle-income country with a y Western cape, 9.9% per capita gross domestic product (GDP) of about Major sectors, y Finance, real estate, and services (20%) 35,970 South African rands (R) or $5,321 and an 2004 (percent y Wholesale, retail, hotels, and restau- of GDP) rants (14%) overall GDP of R 1,725.828 billion or $255.3 bil- y transport and communications (10%) lion in 2006 and a population estimated at about y Manufacturing (20%) 47 million (South Africa 2007b).1 Table 3.1 pres- y Mining (7%) ents a general profile of the country. Any attempt y Agriculture (3%) to characterize the country must be supplemented Social grants 3.2% of GDP (distributed to 12 million by a detailed understanding of the large disparities people) in access to secure and stable livelihoods, land, Source: eU­South Africa 2006. 20 This context is essential to any understanding of UNDP's 2006 Human Development Report (Win- the nature, scale, and scope of the challenges of kler and Marquard 2007). South Africa also rates sustainable development in South Africa. This relatively low in terms of the UNDP's Human section provides an overview of this context and Development Index (UNDP 2007b)--121st of 177 then describes opportunities and challenges for countries--and the Gender Development Index; in the environment and South Africa's key role in terms of GDP per capita, South Africa ranks 56th. regional initiatives. Since 1994 economic growth has been positive: By the end of the apartheid era, South Africa had expenditure on social grants in the 2005­06 bud- an economy in crisis and one of the highest levels get year amounted to R 55 billion (EU­South of inequality in the world. The persistence of this Africa 2006), and significant gains have been made legacy is evident in South Africa's ranking as 116th in redressing the legacy of South Africa's apartheid most unequal, in terms of the Gini coefficient, of past.2 Table 3.2 indicates the gains made, but also 126 countries for which data were available in the scale of the challenge entailed by the continuing Table 3.2 Changes in Key Indicators Indicator Value, 1990s/early 2000s Value, mid-2000s Population size 40.5 million (1996) 48.5 million (2007) School attendance by population aged 5­24 63% (1996) 74% (2007) Adult literacy rate 69.6%, males; 67.2%, females (1995) 74.2%, males; 72.1%, females (2005) Population with no schooling 19% (1996) 10% (2007) GDP growth 3.2% (1994) 5.0% (2006) Per capita GDP growth 1.1% (1994) 3.6% (2006) Unemployment a 29.4%; 40.6% (2001) 25.5%; 37.3% (2006) Per capita income: poorest 10% (% total income) r 534 (0.6%) (1993) r 734 (0.6%) (2006) Per capita income: richest 10% (% total income) r 48,412 (54.8%) (1993) r 70,114 (55.9%) (2006) Gini coefficient 0.672 (1993) 0.685 (2006) Population living below r 3,000 per year 50.1% (1993) 43.2% (2006) Life expectancy (and for females) 54.6 years (2001) 50, males; 48.4, females (2007) Households in formal dwellings 64.4% (1996) 70.5% (2007) Households with access to flush toilets 49.1% (1996) 55.1% (2007) electricity for lighting lighting: 58%; cooking: 47%; lighting: 80%; cooking: 67%; heating: 45% (1996) heating: 59% (2007) HIV prevalence in antenatal surveys 7.6% (1994) 30.2% (2005) Malaria cases 4,693 (1991) 12,322 (2006) Motor vehicles registered 4.9 million (1994) 6.5 million (2004), 25% increase; 6.9 million (2005), 29% increase economic contribution of tourism 31.3% (2000) 55.8% (2005) Surface area protected for biodiversity 5.9% (1994­95) 6.2% (2003) Sources: South Africa 2007a and 2007e. a. the first value is the number of people seeking employment who could not find any work in the previous two weeks (narrow definition); the second value includes people who have been discouraged from seeking employment (broad definition). 3. Context of the Evaluation 21 sharp disparities along racial and gender lines that Its principles include sustainable use of natural are still strongly evident and must be factored into resources and the environment. NEPAD includes any sustainable development agenda. a strategy for sustainable environmental manage- ment and highlights biodiversity, desertification, Opportunities and Challenges for the and climate change as key issues in its environ- Environment mental initiative plan (DEAT-UNDP 2004). Historically, the imperatives for social and eco- Regional initiatives highlighted in DEAT's stra- nomic development were often seen to be in tegic framework for sustainable development opposition to concerns regarding the state of the (SFSD) include the following (DEAT 2006a): environment. The demand for access to land, resources, and services for South Africa's major- z NEPAD's environment action plan, peer review ity were often characterized as "threats" to envi- mechanism, short-term action plan, and health ronmental conservation, whereas concern for the strategy; environment was often perceived by the majority z Numerous SADC strategies, protocols, and as a preoccupation of a white elite involved in con- plans, such as the Protocol on Wildlife Conser- servation for conservation's sake. Although both vation and Law Enforcement, the Protocol on of these positions continue to have some support, Fisheries, the Subregional Action Programme South Africa's current policy reflects a commit- to Combat Desertification, the SADC Regional ment to and understanding of sustainable develop- Indicative Strategic Development Plan, and the ment that emphasizes all three dimensions: social, SADC Common Agenda; economic, and environmental. Table 3.3 presents an environmental snapshot of South Africa drawn z A host of sector- or locality-specific agreements from DEAT (2006b), which presents an integrated and strategies: picture of the state of the environment and envi- ­ Tripartite Interim Agreement between the ronmental sustainability trends through a range of Republic of Mozambique and the Republic of indicators. South Africa and the Kingdom of Swaziland for Co-operation on the Protection and Sus- South Africa, SADC, and NEPAD tainable Utilisation of the Water Resources South Africa plays a key role in regional initia- of the Incomati and Maputo Watercourses, tives aligned with the objectives of the interna- ­ Two conventions and associated protocols tional conventions through the Southern African on Cooperation in the Protection and Devel- Development Community (SADC), the New Part- opment of the Marine and Coastal Environ- nership for African Development (NEPAD), and ment of the West, East, and Central African the African Union, such as the Southern African Regions, Botanical Diversity Network, State of the Environ- ment Reporting Programme, and the SADC Pro- ­ African Union Maputo Declaration on Agri- tocol on Shared Water Course Systems. culture and Food Security, ­ Agriculture Strategy for the Millennium NEPAD's stated objectives are to accelerate Africa Programme, growth and sustainable development, eradicate ­ Regional Biodiversity Strategy and Action widespread and severe poverty, and halt the mar- Plan. ginalization of Africa in the globalization process. 22 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) Table 3.3 South Africa's Environmental Sustainability Profile: Status and Trends Factor Status/trends Agricultural practices Food production per person Decreasing since 1975, notably for maize, the major crop Food productivity per unit land area Increasing, pointing to increased fertilizer use and technology conservation tillage Increasing, 500,000 hectares in 1975 to 1.5 million hectares in 2005 Air quality Air quality in general Decreasing, with high sulfur dioxide and particulate matter (PM10a) levels Health problems attributable to air pollution Increasing at an estimated 20% in the next decade Vehicle exhaust emissions Increasing, with various pollutants predicted to increase by 27% by 2007 and up to 44% by 2011 (from 2002 levels) if emission controls are not in place Biodiversity biodiversity loss Increasing, almost 10% of birds and frogs and 20% of mammals threatened ecosystem health Declining in general, with aquatic ecosystems in worst condition Programs to rehabilitate ecosystems Increasing, including budget increase for invasive alien plant clearing program from r 25 million in 1995­96 to r 442 million in 2003­04 Climate change GHG emissions Increasing, cO2 concentration increasing by 0.6% per year GHG emissions from road transport Increasing significantly, with a 38% increase between 1990 and 1994 GHG emissions per person Disproportionately high, owing to reliance on coal and high energy intensity of the economy Coastal development Uncontrolled coastal development Increasing, leading to habitat change and degradation blue Flag beachesb Increasing, showing a commitment to coastal management Energy consumption and efficiency energy consumption Increased by 23% since 1992 energy efficiency Low, but slight improvement in recent years Environmental governance role of South Africa in international environ- Increasing, for example, hosting the World Summit on Sustainable Develop- mental governance ment in 2002, 5th World Parks congress in 2003, and 27th Antarctic treaty consultative Meeting in 2004 Access to environmental information Improving, but many citizens not aware of their environmental rights enforcement of environmental manage- Improving, but dedicated attention still needed ment legislation environmental data Improving quality and scope, but many gaps remain Freshwater resources Use of available water resources Increasing, most exploitable sources tapped, and freshwater flows decreasing Water quality Variable, with overall deterioration Health of river ecosystems Declining, with effluent pollution continuing to encourage invasive alien species Spread of alien invasive plants Increasing (faster than clearing programs can clear) (continued) 3. Context of the Evaluation 23 Table 3.3 South Africa's Environmental Sustainability Profile: Status and Trends (continued) Factor Status/trends Land degradation extent of land degradation Uncertain whether increased since 1999 because of lack of data Land use Availability of arable land Declined in 1990s because of the expansion of settlements and other activities Land restitution Increasing, but majority of successful land claims are in the urban areas Marine biodiversity and fish stocks threats to marine biodiversity All threats, including extractive use, pollution, and mining expected to increase in the next 10 years Populations of abalone and line fish continuing to decline dramatically Species listed as endangered or vulnerable Increasing, for example, bird species affected by longline fishing Sardine fishery Recovering after near collapse in late 1960s, currently healthy Ozone depletion Use of ozone-depleting substances Decreased significantly since 1990 Persistent organic pollutants concentrations Unknown and needs to be quantified Poverty and human development Human Poverty Index Increased from 16.4% in 1995 to 31.7% in 2002, reflecting an increase of 1.7 million people living on less than a dollar a day Human Development Index Decreased after 1995, although increased investment in education Renewable energy Use of renewable energy Increasing slowly, mainly solar water heating, experimental wind farms, some landfill gas projects, and testing of wave energy Urbanization and housing Urban sprawl Increasing, 58% of population living in urban areas, up from 53% in 1996 Informal settlements Expanding rapidly, around urban centers and periurban areas Housing backlogs Increasing, from 1.5 million units in 1994 to 3 million units in 2000 Use of natural resources Natural resources that support livelihoods Rapidly declining, because of overexploitation, particularly in forests, grass- lands, KwaZulu-Natal coastal belt, and cape Floristic region Levels of abalone poaching Increasing dramatically since 2000, threatening sustainability of fishery Overall state of the environment: international indicators ecological footprint per person Higher than the global average; increased by 2% between 1991 and 2001 environmental Sustainability Index Declining to an overall rank of 93 of 146 countries in 2005 Source: DeAt 2006b. a. PM10 is particulate matter 10 micrometers or under in size. b. blue Flag Awards is a european-based campaign that measures beach quality against strict environmental, tourist and safety standards. 24 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) South Africa's role in the region through these and Succulent Karoo (which, along with the Horn other initiatives is substantial. A recent analysis by of Africa, shared with Namibia, is one of two the World Bank notes that South Africa arid biodiversity hotspots in the world), and the Maputaland-Pondoland-Albany center of ende- contributes 40 percent of Sub-Saharan Africa's GDP-- its nine largest cities alone account for about 24 per- mism (shared with Mozambique and Swaziland).3 cent of Africa's GDP. Growth spillovers to the rest of South Africa is the only country in the world to the continent are exceptionally large by international include one of the six floristic kingdoms of the standards: an additional percentage point of South world--the Cape Floristic Kingdom--entirely African growth is associated with 0.5 to 0.75 percent within its boundaries. GDP growth increases in the rest of Africa, indepen- dent of common regional shocks (World Bank and South Africa occupies only 2 percent of the world's DME 2007, p. 29). surface area, but is home to nearly 10 percent of the world's plant species (about 24,000), about The same report notes that South Africa 7 percent of the world's vertebrate species, 6 per- "accounted for 45% of the total power produced in cent of mammal species, 8 percent of avifaunal all of Africa" (p. 29). species, 5 percent of reptile species, and 5.5 per- The UN (2007) reviews progress on the environ- cent of the world's known insect species. In terms ment, indicating that subregional environmental of the number of endemic species of mammals, action plans are in development and a number of birds, reptiles, and amphibians, South Africa ranks senior environmental experts will be appointed as the fifth richest country in Africa and the 24th who will integrate environmental issues into the richest in the world. Marine biological diversity is development programs of the different regional also high; more than 11,000 species are found in economic communities. It notes South African waters (about 15 percent of marine species globally), of which more than 25 percent implementation of the "climate change adaptation in Africa" research and capacity-building programme, (or 3,496 species) are endemic (UNCBD Secre- supported by the NEPAD secretariat, and financed tariat 2008). by the Department for International Development of the United Kingdom and the Canadian International Status of Ecosystems Development Research Centre. The programme has Biomes found in South Africa are desert, fynbos, just entered the implementation phase, with 12 proj- Succulent Karoo, Nama Karoo, grassland, savanna, ects addressing various capacity-development issues Albany thicket, and forest (see figure 3.1). Based relating to climate change (UN 2007, pp. 8­9). on an analysis of 440 ecosystem types mapped at a scale of 1:250,000, Driver and others (2005) found 3.2 Status of Environmental that 34 percent of South Africa's terrestrial ecosys- Resources in Key GEF Focal Areas tems are threatened (see table 3.4). South Africa's Biodiversity Intactness Index is 80 percent, com- Biodiversity pared with 84 percent for Southern Africa.4 The South Africa is considered the third most biologi- grassland, fynbos, and forest biomes have the cally diverse country in the world, and is one of lowest rating on this index within South Africa, 17 identified "megadiverse" countries. The coun- underscoring the biodiversity assessment's find- try includes three internationally recognized ing that these biomes have the highest numbers of biodiversity hotspots: the Cape Floristic Region, threatened ecosystems. 3. Context of the Evaluation 25 Figure 3.1 Biomes of South Africa, Lesotho, and Swaziland Source: Driver and others 2004. Table 3.4 South Africa's river ecosystems are relatively Status of South African Ecosystems worse off than terrestrial ecosystems, as South Percent Africa is a water-scarce country and freshwater Critically Total systems are heavily used. Eighty-two percent of endan- Endan- Vulner- threat- South Africa's 120 river ecosystem types or "sig- Ecosystem gered gered able ened natures" (classified according to a national typol- terrestrial 5 13 16 34 ogy) are threatened, and 44 percent are critically rivera 44 27 11 82 endangered. A national database of wetland eco- estuary 23 39 15 77 groups systems is currently being compiled; however, an Marine 12 15 38 65 estimated 50 percent of South Africa's wetlands biozones have already been destroyed, while 77 percent of Source: DeAt 2006b. estuary groups are considered threatened. a. Main rivers only. 26 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) South Africa's marine ecosystems straddle three Protection Status of Biodiversity in South Africa oceans--the Atlantic, Indian, and Southern-- Although 5.4 percent of South Africa's land sur- including an exceptional range of habitats, from face area is currently formally conserved through cool-water kelp forests to tropical coral reefs. national and provincial protected areas (see Sixty-five percent of South Africa's 34 marine table 3.6), the protected area network is not ade- biozones are threatened; 12 percent are critically quately representative; biomes such as grasslands endangered. and Succulent Karoo are underconserved. Riv- ers in particular are poorly conserved and, even Status of Biodiversity at the Taxa and Species Levels where they are included in a protected area, they Table 3.5 provides a summary of the overall status are not adequately protected. Some coastal and for the taxonomic groups. marine biozones are poorly protected. Only 2 of 13 estuarine groups are considered well protected. Table 3.5 Although 18 percent of South Africa's coastline Status of Species in South Africa falls within marine protected areas, these tend to be located close to the coastline; less than 1 per- Ende- Critically Endan- Vulner- endangered gered able cent of offshore biozones are protected. Marine Taxonomic mism group (%) Number of species biozones on the west coast are least protected and Mammals 16 4 9 27 most threatened. Some coastal and marine species birds 8 5 11 42 are under severe pressure because of commercial Amphibians 56 4 5 2 overexploitation and, in some cases, illegal har- reptiles 36 1 6 12 vesting. Up to 20 species of commercial and rec- Freshwater -- 7 6 9 reational marine fish are considered overexploited fish or collapsed. Marine fish 13 5 2 11 Plants 60 175 216 814 Source: DeAt 2006b. Table 3.6 Habitat Transformation and Protection of Biomes in Formal Protected Areas in South Africa Area Total area of country Remaining area Protected area Biome (square kilometers) (%) (%) (%) Desert 8,548 0.7 93.4 12.5 Succulent Karoo 85,207 6.7 96.5 3.1 Fynbos 84,580 6.7 70.2 11.0 Nama Karoo 250,069 19.7 98.4 0.6 Grassland 373,984 29.5 70.8 1.9 Savanna 412,753 32.6 86.1 8.9 Albany thicket 30,256 2.4 91.9 6.3 Forest 4,730 0.4 94.7 39.6 Wetlands 16,790 1.3 92.1 4.6 Source: DeAt 2006b. 3. Context of the Evaluation 27 Climate Change would exceed our sustainable carbon budget by As the climate change projects supported by the approximately 340%" (UNDP 2008). GEF are largely focused on mitigation of GHG Highly Uneven Contributions from Different Social emissions, this section focuses on relevant status Groups and trends, only briefly covering issues related to One of the most intense challenges South Africa South Africa's vulnerability to climate change and faces is how to establish greater equality in access key adaptation priorities. Annex I covers all these to services, secure livelihoods, and a decent qual- issues in more detail. ity of life while ensuring sustainability in terms Status: Greenhouse Gas Emissions of impact on natural resources. The dramatic inequalities in South African society are mir- The most recent inventory of greenhouse gases rored in the differential consumption patterns for South Africa (1990­94) formed the basis for and impact on the environment in general. South the INC prepared by the DEAT for the UNFCCC.5 Africa's SFSD notes that, although South Africa's That inventory found, in brief, that 1990 total GHG overall "ecological footprint" is double the sustain- emissions of 347,346 gigagrams of CO2 equiva- able level, some sections have a footprint that is lents increased in 1994 to 379,842 gigagrams. 14 times the sustainable level while the footprint Work is currently under way to design a process of the majority is about half what is regarded as and approach for preparation of an updated GHG sustainable.6 The draft SFSD notes, "It is highly inventory for South Africa, whose preparation is unlikely that there are sufficient resources to erad- DEAT's responsibility. icate poverty by increasing the footprint of the South Africa is by far the largest emitter of GHGs poor if the footprint of the rich remains so large" in Africa and one of the most carbon emission­ (DEAT 2006a, p. 20). intensive countries in the world: some seven tons of carbon dioxide per capita per year, owing to an Sectors That Are Primary Contributors energy-intensive economy and high dependence The evaluation's contextual analysis established on coal for primary energy (DME 2004). The the following: South African GEF MTPF gives a figure of 10 tons z Carbon dioxide is the most significant GHG per capita per year. for South Africa: more than 80 percent of total South Africa's emissions are regarded as dispro- emissions came from the three main GHGs portionately high. UNDP notes that high-income (CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide) for both countries of the Organisation for Economic Co- 1990 and 1994. operation and Development are responsible for z The main source of CO2 is the energy sector, the vast majority of emissions: "with 15% of the which generated 90 percent of total CO2 emis- world's population, they account for almost half sions in 1990 and 90 percent in 1994 (DEAT of all emissions...emitting 6 times our sustainable 2003a). carbon budget." However, South Africa's emis- sions are proportionately higher: "with 0.7% of the Energy world's population, [South Africa] accounts for The total primary energy supply to South Africa 1.5% of global emissions...If all countries in the increased by 9.5 percent from 1993 to 2000. In world emited [sic] CO2 at levels similar to SA's, we 28 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) 2000, coal contributed 79 percent of the total majority of the population since 1990 (from an national primary energy supply (see figure 3.2). estimated 30 percent in 1990 to currently an esti- mated 75 percent) has had relatively little effect on Sectoral Usage electricity consumption. The largest energy-consuming sectors were The result of gaining about three million new (primar- industry, including mining (47 percent), residen- ily low-income) residential customers between 1990 tial (16 percent), and transport (27 percent, of and 2004 only increased Eskom's sales by 4 percent, which 97 percent is from petroleum).7 Although whereas growth in Eskom's industrial sales in the same the remaining sectors accounted for less than 10 period added 17 percent to energy consumption based percent of final energy demand in 2000, 3.5 per- on the 1990 total (Winkler and Marquard 2007, p. 6). cent of this is in commercial and public buildings. Hot water heating represents about 30 percent It is useful to highlight one trend here that is fur- of all household electricity use.9 Annex I pro- ther elaborated and contextualized in annex I. The vides a detailed analysis of the main energy-using extension of electrical service has resulted in sig- sectors. nificant increases in electricity as a key household Mitigation Options source of power. Household electricity use has increased more for lighting (58 percent in 1996 A central issue for mitigation options is that "given and 80 percent in 2007) than for cooking (from 47 the challenges of development to meet basic percent in 1996 to 67 percent in 2007).8 However, needs, mitigation policies and measures have to be contrary to conventional wisdom, it would appear integrated with development goals" (Winkler and that the impact of extending electrification to the Marquard 2007, p. 1). The South African govern- ment's policy on renewable energy notes, "emis- sion constraints could have a significant impact Figure 3.2 on the South African economy and trade" (DME Primary Sources of Energy in South Africa, 2000 2003, p. 8). Hydro Gas The analysis of the feasibility, potential cost, prac- 1% 2% Nuclear 3% ticability, and likely impact of various mitiga- tion options is the subject of ongoing and heated Renew- ables debate. The following discussion is based on the 6% work of the Energy Research Centre at the Uni- Crude oil versity of Cape Town, which in turn draws on a 10% wide range of other research. The discussion also reflects some key divergent views where possible Coal 79% and relevant, but cannot cover the full spectrum of research-based analyses and projections. The Energy Research Centre divides South Afri- ca's mitigation options into three broad categories (Winkler and Marquard 2007), which annex I out- lines in more detail: Source: DMe 2005. 3. Context of the Evaluation 29 z Energy efficiency (reduces demand for energy for a number of years, which makes develop- or uses it more efficiently for the same service), ment of a renewables market difficult and does which can be implemented in the short term, not incentivize efficiency in use; when cost implications are well understood z technological capacity largely limited to spe- z Changing the fuel mix (moving to lower or cific areas of energy efficiency and renewable non-carbon-emitting energy sources), which energy technologies; would require a longer time frame linked to the z constraints arising from current structures of lifespan of refineries and power stations institutions and policy domains; z Structural changes to the economy made in the z lack of consumer awareness on benefits and long term, which lower the energy intensity of opportunities of renewable energy; the economy as a whole by shifting economic activity and investment to less energy-intensive z centralization of electricity generation, gas sup- sectors or by taking other measures to reduce plies, and liquid fuel provision; the need for energy services, such as changing z financial, legal, regulatory, and organizational urban planning practices to reduce transport barriers to implementation of renewable energy requirements technologies and the development of markets; The Energy Research Centre points out that, even z lack of nondiscriminatory open access to key if the energy efficiency­based options and options energy infrastructure, such as the national elec- for changing the fuel mix outlined in annex I were tricity grid, certain liquid fuels, and gas infra- all implemented, it "would reduce CO2 emissions structure; likely to occur by 143 Mt (24%), but these would z market power of utilities. still be 30% higher than the 2000 level" (Win- kler and Marquard 2007, p. 19). Only significant Alternative energy is the subject of vigorous changes to the structure of the energy system debate, and many of the barriers to renewable and, therefore, of the economy, will significantly sources of energy identified are contested. A study change this result. conducted in 2005, for example, concludes that an analysis of cost data undertaken "indicates that Barriers to Renewable Energy Implementation costs of power from renewables are already less Many commentators note that, unlike many than those from conventional resources in some developing countries, South Africa does not suf- selected cases" (Banks and Schäffler 2005, p. 54). fer from lack of technological capacity, skills and expertise, or access to finance (Winkler and Mar- Vulnerability to Climate Change quard 2007). Instead, the key constraints are Potential changes to the South African climate in the next 50 years identified in the INC pose sig- z low energy prices, which are probably the most nificant threats and include fundamental constraints to more extensive renewable energy and energy efficiency pro- a warming of between 1°C and 3°C; a potential reduc- grams and, although they are set to increase to tion of approximately 5 to 10% of current rainfall; increased daily maximum temperatures in sum- fund new plant development, are predicted to mer and autumn in the western half of the coun- remain below the marginal cost of production try; increased incidents of flood and drought; and, 30 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) enhanced temperature inversions exacerbating air pol- growing population (Hoffman and others 1999). lution problems" (DEAT 2003a, p. vi). Predictions of trends and impacts from climate change show South Africa to be highly vulnera- These changes are likely to affect most negatively ble to intensified degradation and desertification. those already made vulnerable by poverty.10 The Although the importance of desertification and South African Country Studies Programme iden- its potential impacts on agriculture, food security, tified the health sector, maize production, plant and biodiversity and links to poverty are acknowl- and animal biodiversity, water resources, and edged, there have been no comprehensive and rangelands as areas of highest vulnerability to cli- replicable national-scale studies of land degrada- mate change and proposed suitable adaptation tion and desertification trends (DEAT 2006b). measures to offset adverse consequences. Urban air pollution from low-level sources is also pre- In January 1995, South Africa signed the UN Con- dicted to become a greater problem. See annex I vention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), for specific details on the changes predicted in which it ratified on September 30, 1997. As each area. required by the convention, the South African Cabinet developed and approved the National Land Degradation Action Programme to Combat Land Degradation Both degradation and desertification are impor- and Alleviate Rural Poverty in 2004. The program tant forms of land transformation and are among recognizes the need to reverse land degradation, South Africa's most critical environmental issues, both to improve livelihoods and protect biodi- intricately linked to food security, poverty, urban- versity. To inform the program, Hoffmann and ization, climate change, and biodiversity. others (1999) undertook a national assessment of land degradation, whose major findings are sum- As much as 91 percent of South Africa consists of marized below. Key to addressing land degrada- dry lands, which together with the unreliability of tion is ongoing monitoring and assessment; how- rainfall and droughts, soil types that are vulnerable ever, the 1999 assessment is difficult to repeat for to degradation, and unsustainable land-use prac- monitoring purposes. It is therefore not yet pos- tices, make them susceptible to degradation and sible to develop a clear picture of national trends desertification. Overexploitation and unjust land since 1999, and it is difficult to say with certainty policies have left large tracts (250,000 hectares whether the condition of land has improved, dete- is a conservative estimate in the National Action riorated, or remained the same (DEAT 2006b). Programme to Combat Land Degradation and Alleviate Rural Poverty) of South Africa degraded, Although only about 13.5 percent of South Africa especially in the historical communal and com- is arable, about 81 percent of the total land area mercial farming areas. This poses a serious threat of South Africa is farmed. Only 70 percent of this to ecosystem functioning, biodiversity, house- area is suitable for grazing. Overgrazing and ero- hold food security, and rural livelihoods when sion diminish the carrying capacity of the veld 42 percent of the population living in rural areas and lead to land degradation (South Africa 2004). depends on livelihoods derived from the natural Large areas of land are still covered by natural resource base. Global climate change threatens to habitat: in 2002, 18 percent of the country's land worsen desertification in some parts of the coun- was transformed and 82 percent was natural. try, making it even more difficult to feed a rapidly 3. Context of the Evaluation 31 The areas experiencing the most severe degrada- species composition, loss of plant cover, and bush tion (of both soil and vegetation) and desertifica- encroachment are the most frequent forms of veg- tion are perceived to correspond closely with the etation degradation. The three provinces with distribution of communal rangelands, specifically the lowest combined degradation index are (in in the steeply sloping environments adjacent to the decreasing order) the Western Cape, Gauteng, escarpment in Limpopo, KwaZulu-Natal, and the and the Free State provinces. Eastern Cape provinces (see figure 3.3).11 Many communal areas in the Limpopo, North West, POPs Northern Cape, and Mpumalanga provinces are POPs are chemical substances that are toxic, also severely degraded. The commercial farm- persist in the environment for long periods, and ing areas with the most severe degradation are bioaccumulate as they move up through the food located in the Western and Northern Cape prov- chain.12 POPs pose risks to human health and to inces. Wind and water erosion are the major natu- the environment. Evidence of long-range trans- ral causes of soil degradation, whereas change in portation of these substances to regions where Figure 3.3 Distribution of Land Degradation in South Africa Insignificant Light Moderate Severe Source: Hoffman and others 1999. 32 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) they have never been used or produced, as well of lives."13 This is also seen to be a key adaptation as the threats they pose to the environment of the strategy to climate change. Earth as a whole, spurred the international com- Progress in taking effective remedial action has munity to call for urgent global actions to reduce been painfully slow in the view of the latest state and eliminate releases of these chemicals. of the environment report, mainly because funds Little or no current data exist on POPs in South are lacking. In nearly a decade of activity, fewer Africa, and an inventory has not been established. than 3,000 tons of obsolete pesticides have been DEAT's latest state of the environment report destroyed. South Africa is one of 14 countries par- (DEAT 2006c, p. 39) notes that the current situ- ticipating in the first phase of the Africa Stockpiles ation regarding the concentrations of POPs is Program, funded by the GEF, to find sustainable unknown and recommends that they be quanti- solutions to the problem of obsolete pesticide fied to establish existing concentrations of key stockpiles. The scale of the problem and South POPs and updated annually. Africa's lack of reliable information are implicit in the fact that 10 times more obsolete pesticides During the POPs negotiations in 2000, South were found in one of South Africa's nine provinces Africa negotiated the continued use of DDT for than had been estimated for the whole of South malaria vector control (see table 3.7). DDT had Africa.14 been phased out at the beginning of 1999 and replaced with products containing pyrethroids, The following industrial activities in South Africa but a significant increase in the number of malaria were identified in the project document for the cases and mortalities was observed because of NIP (UNEP and DEAT 2002) as potential sources resistance of mosquitoes to pyrethroids. DDT was of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins, dibenzo- reintroduced in South Africa because "the extent furans, and hexachlorobenzene: waste incinera- of [DDT's] usefulness has been demonstrated tion (municipal and industrial), pulp and paper by a successful malaria-spraying programme in manufacturing, and thermal processes in the met- Southern Africa resulting in the saving of millions allurgical industry. The NIP was intended to pro- vide a source inventory of these and other sources, Table 3.7 but no inventory has yet been completed. Status of POPs in South Africa before 2002 The latest state of the environment report lists Compound Registration status a number of POPs that are increasing in sig- Aldrin Withdrawn, 1992 nificance as pollutants and are likely to require chlordane Withdrawn for agricultural use, increased attention in the future: POPs such as 1970; withdrawn for all uses, 2001 dioxins and furans, finer particulate fractions, for DDt Withdrawn except for malaria vec- tor control, 1983 example, PM2.5 (particulate matter diameter less Dieldrin Withdrawn, 1983 than 2.5 micrometers in size), and indoor air pol- endrin Withdrawn, 1980 lutants that are unrelated to fuel burning for cook- Heptachlor Withdrawn, 1976 ing and space heating (for example, formaldehyde Hexachlorobenzene Withdrawn, 1983 and radon). Mirex Not used in South Africa toxaphene Not used in South Africa Source: UNeP and DeAt 2002. 3. Context of the Evaluation 33 Ozone discard dumps and open cast mines, wastewater The consumption in South Africa of several treatment works, emissions from tire burning, substances that deplete stratospheric ozone and fugitive releases related to commercial agri- decreased from 1998 to 2002, but there was a dra- culture, such as crop and livestock farming. matic increase in hydrochlorofluorocarbon­124 Emerging Priority Pollutants consumption in 2001 and 2002.15 South Africa has almost completely phased out the use of ozone- A number of pollutants are singled out by the gov- depleting substances such as chlorofluorocarbons ernment as important (CFCs) and carbon tetrachloride, and it stopped due to their widespread exposures and risks. Nota- using ozone-depleting CFCs in aerosol spray can ble amongst these are inhalable particulates (PM10), propellants as far back as July 1992. nitrogen dioxide, tropospheric ozone, and benzene. PM10 concentrations are elevated across the country Although South Africa is classified as a developing with significant exceedances of human health lim- country, its consumption of CFCs, halons, methyl its. Increasing emphasis is being placed on PM10 by chloroform, and carbon tetrachloride was equal health organizations such as the WHO [World Health Organization]...The spatial extent and frequency of to that of some developed countries (South Africa nitrogen dioxide air quality limit exceedance is antici- 2007d). Its success in phasing out these substances pated to increase due to increased vehicle activity. makes it the only developing country in the world Ozone concentrations exceed health limits at most to align with the phaseout schedule for developed sites at which this pollutant is measured. Benzene is countries. a concern as it is a carcinogen and related to vehicle exhaust emissions (DEAT 2006b, p. 229). A small amount of legal CFCs are imported and exported to fill asthma inhalers, as well as air International Waters conditioners and refrigerators manufactured Marine Resources before 1996. The CFC methyl bromide (used as a pesticide in the agricultural sector) is still being South Africa's coastline is 2,798 kilometers from imported and used. DEAT is formulating a full the Orange River in the west, bordering Namibia, phaseout plan, but might need to seek United to Ponta do Ouro in the east, adjacent to Mozam- Nations' assistance, as the replacement products bique. The coastal shelf area is 1,839,582 square are very expensive. kilometers. The western coastal shelf is highly productive, attributable to nutrient-rich water Air Quality: Key Sources of Emissions upwelling. The east coast is far less productive, DEAT lists the following as atmospheric sources but has high species diversity, including local of pollution that contribute to exceeding air qual- and Indo-Pacific species. The national fishing ity limits and an increase in associated emissions: zone (excluding the Prince Edward Islands) is road vehicle exhaust emissions, coal-fired power 688,926 square kilometers (FAO 2008). South stations, airport releases, poorly controlled indus- Africa shares responsibility with its neighboring trial operations, the growth of road transporta- countries in coordinating responses to the sus- tion, and power generation. Increasing attention tainable management of the Benguela Current is being paid to a number of atmospheric sources, and Agulhas and Somali Current LMEs (UNEP including filling stations, landfill gas emissions, 2006). An estimated 30 percent of the popula- spontaneous combustion emissions from coal tion live within 60 kilometers of the coast; there 34 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) are indications that increasing population pres- Inland Water Resources sure and overexploitation of coastal and marine With a water availability of only 1,100 square resources and environmental degradation are meters per person per year, South Africa is water reducing the ability of coastal systems to sustain stressed. Its average rainfall is about 450 milli- human activities (South Africa 2007d). meters per year, about half the world average of 860 millimeters per year. The geographic distri- Although the fisheries sector plays a small direct bution of rainfall is highly variable; the eastern part in the South African economy as a whole, and southern parts of the country receive signifi- contributing only about 1 percent to GDP, fisher- cantly more rain than the northern and western ies play a major role in the economy of the West- regions. Water resources are currently allocated ern Cape, which is the center of industrial fisher- to 19 water management areas covering the coun- ies and the dominant employer in areas such as try. Because of the uneven distribution of water, Saldanha Bay and St. Helena Bay, valued at R 3 bil- a significant amount of water transfer needs to lion per year (DEAT 2006b). In 2002 the total take place among these areas, both nationally catch for South Africa was 746,808 tons (BCLME and internationally. Surface water resources are Programme 2008). Marine pollution from land- generally highly developed across the country; based discharges to sea is ameliorated by a very about 320 major dams have a total capacity of high-energy coastline, which diffuses wastewa- more than 32,400 million square meters, which is ter readily within the oceanic waters. Since 1965, some 66 percent of the total mean annual runoff 14 major deep-sea outfalls have been constructed, of about 49,000 square meters per year.16 which discharge industrial and sewage wastewater in excess of 600,000 square meters per day. There Groundwater is used extensively, particularly in are also a number of outfalls with shorter pipelines rural and arid areas such as in the greater Orange along the coast, some discharging within the surf River catchment, but groundwater resources tend zone. In total, marine outfalls account for about to be limited in South Africa, because much of the 86 percent of the total wastewater discharges in underlying geology is hard rock. The most exploit- South Africa, regulated through a licensing proce- able groundwater occurs in the eastern and north- dure and established quality standards (UN 2002). eastern parts of the country and in the Western The primary sources of sea-based pollution are Cape, where aquifers are concentrated. The lat- from the shipping industry, including accidental est data indicate that, of a total of 235,000 million oil spills; deliberate discharge of oily wastes from square meters stored a year, between 10,000 and ships at sea; deliberate discharge of ballast, plas- 16,000 million square meters a year are available tics, and other pollutants released from ships; and for use in an average rainfall year, and 7,000 mil- ship maintenance activities. South Africa is situ- lion square meters per year in a drought year. Sig- ated on one of the major global oil tanker routes; nificant constraints on increasing the abstraction an estimated 80 percent of the world's oil tankers of groundwater include inadequate water qual- pass its coast. This, together with its notoriously ity, owing to excessive concentration of chloride, rough sea conditions, makes it highly vulnerable nitrate, and other salts, which are costly to remove. to oil spills. Overabstraction can result in adverse impacts on groundwater-dependent ecosystems, including estuaries, wetlands, and springs (DEAT 2006b). 3. Context of the Evaluation 35 The irrigation sector has the largest water demand Draft Sustainable Development of all water sectors in South Africa: 54 percent of Framework total demand. Industry uses 11 percent and for- The draft national SFSD notes, "fundamental to estry 8 percent. The major areas for demand understanding sustainable development is rec- growth are likely to be the domestic, urban, and ognising the interdependence between the way industrial sectors. Water demands in South Africa in which we devise and manage our economic, have grown at 4 to 5 percent per year since the social and environmental systems" (DEAT 2006a, 1930s (UN 2002). p. 16). The first two sections of this chapter out- lined the scope of the challenge involved in ensur- South Africa shares several river basins with its ing sustainability, while correcting the distortions neighbors--the Incomati Umbeluzi Maputo (with in social and economic development that were the Mozambique and Swaziland), the Limpopo (with legacy of apartheid. This challenge is central. Botswana, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe), and the Orange-Senqu (with Botswana, Lesotho, and The core of South Africa's sustainable development Namibia)--covering 896,368 square kilometers of agenda and priorities will be to find ways of reduc- southern Africa's land surface area. ing the footprint of the "advantaged" minority, while ensuring access to rapid social and economic 3.3 Environmental Legal, development for the majority, without following Operational, and Policy Framework the same natural resource­intensive development path typical in the past. Relevant support to South South Africa joined the GEF in 1994, the same Africa will need to align with this central strate- year as the first democratic elections were held in gic challenge through initiatives such as those South Africa. This, in itself, is a powerful indica- related to improved efficiency in natural resource tor of South Africa's commitment to the environ- use, those that promote increased economic and ment. "South Africa is emerging from a period of social development through low resource con- unsustainable and inequitable development, one sumption and waste-production paths, and those outcome of which was environmental degrada- that ensure a more equitable development trajec- tion, which has significant economic and social tory by significantly increasing the availability of impacts" (DEAT 2000, p. 12). The task of ensuring decent jobs and promoting sustainable livelihoods a transformation to development that is economi- for all. cally, socially, and environmentally sustainable has required a new way of thinking, as much as Efforts to promote sustainable social and eco- a redefinition of policy, the legislative framework, nomic development will need to be supplemented strategy, and the management of implementation. by deliberate action to restore and protect from This section summarizes key policy and legisla- further degradation and depletion those natu- tion in each of the GEF focal areas, but empha- ral resources on which the poor most depend. sizes biodiversity and climate change, as the port- This makes measures for adaptation to the nega- folio is overwhelmingly focused on these two tive effects of climate change--and specifically areas. Annex I provides a more detailed overview for halting desertification, land degradation, and and analysis. pollution--of central importance. The draft SFSD does not provide a detailed prioritized plan against which to assess the relevance of the GEF portfolio. 36 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) The document identifies the broad agenda and Environment Policy Overview priorities of the SFSD in the following five critical The principal relevant instruments of environ- pathways for action: mental policy administered by DEAT are the 1998 National Environmental Management Act and z Enhancing systems for integrated planning and legislation based on it. The act has been developed implementation as a framework statute within which other key z Sustaining ecosystems and using resources sus- laws are promulgated. It is intended to improve tainably environmental management while facilitating sus- z Economic development via investing in sus- tainable development, and to improve coordina- tainable infrastructure tion and governance of environmental issues. All organs of state are obliged to apply the national z Creating sustainable human settlements environmental management principles contained z Responding appropriately to emerging human in the act when taking any action that may signifi- development, economic, and environmental cantly affect the environment. The act's principles challenges serve as the general framework within which environmental management and implementation The Constitution and Key Cross-Cutting plans must be formulated, guiding the interpreta- Policy tion, administration, and implementation of the The Constitution act and all other laws concerned with the protec- The Constitution of South Africa (Act No. 108 of tion or management of the environment. 1996) provides the legal basis for allocating powers to different spheres of government. The constitu- Biodiversity tion enshrines a bill of rights and includes specific South Africa's comprehensive response to the environmental rights within these. challenge of biodiversity protection has really only taken shape since the 1994 change in government Since 1994 social and economic policies have and after South Africa became a signatory to the largely been informed by three strategies: the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD) "White Paper on Reconstruction and Develop- in 1995. South Africa's first report to the UNCBD ment" and its program "for integrated and coher- in 1996 preceded the National Policy for the Sus- ent socio-economic progress" (South Africa 1994, tainable Use of South Africa's Biological Diversity p. 71), the macroeconomic Growth, Employment, in 1997. This policy--together with the National and Redistribution Strategy (South Africa 1996), Environmental Management Policy, the National and the 2006 Accelerated and Shared Growth Ini- Environmental Management Act framework law, tiative. The draft SFSD that is currently open for the National Environmental Management Pro- public discussion is intended to provide a frame- tected Areas Act (2003, amended in 2005), and the work for ensuring coherent integrated action and National Environmental Management Biodiver- sustainability in the three dimensions: social, sity Act (2004)--has resulted in major law reform environmental, and economic. Annex I provides in the sector. See annex I for further details of key an overview of these key frameworks. relevant policy and law in related sectors. 3. Context of the Evaluation 37 DEAT--together with its key agencies, SANParks prioritize areas for inclusion into the national and SANBI--is responsible for biodiversity conser- estate. Since 1995, more than R 240 million has vation in South Africa. Partners include all of the been invested in land purchases to expand pro- provincial environmental, development planning, tected areas.17 This expansion program has been and conservation agencies, as well as the national linked to programs for poverty relief and job cre- Departments of Agriculture, Water Affairs and ation. DEAT has set a target of including at least 8 Forestry, Arts and Culture, Science and Tech- percent of terrestrial land surface area in the for- nology, and Trade and Industry. The expansion mal protected area system (mainly national and of SANBI's mandate to cover all research, policy, provincial parks) by 2010, and 20 percent of the and planning in all ecosystems, together with the coastline in marine protected areas by 2010. enabling laws, policy, and strategy, has provided A number of poverty relief­based programs are a level of necessary strategic integration across aimed at rehabilitating and restoring degraded national departments; among local, provincial, systems (Working for Wetlands, CoastCare, Land- and national spheres of government; and within Care) and addressing key threats to biodiversity partnerships with NGOs and the private sector. such as invasive alien plants (Working for Water The NBSAP--completed in 2005, informed by Programme, Working on Fire). The budgets for a range of integrated studies, and including the these programs, which amounted to R 650 million National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment--pres- in 2004­05, is one of the highest in the world rela- ents a 20-year strategy for biodiversity conserva- tive to GDP. tion, which is further enabled legally through a Critical contextual challenges in biodiversity con- national biodiversity framework in terms of the servation include rationalizing among spheres National Environmental Management Biodiver- and integrating and harmonizing among sectors18 sity Act, a draft of which was published in 2007. biodiversity conservation management mandates, SANBI is also currently developing a biodiversity as well as securing the ongoing delivery of ecosys- monitoring and review framework. The biodiver- tem services and conservation of priority habitats sity assessment provides the scientific basis for outside formal protected areas. South Africa's informing a range of legislative provisions for the bioregional programs, which enable biodiversity protection of biodiversity, including the regulations conservation in productive landscapes, are seen for threatened species and ecosystems. Other key globally as best practice. relevant regulations in terms of the national bio- diversity act include those on bioprospecting and Climate Change and Energy Policy benefit sharing, threatened and protected species, invasive alien species and norms, and standards South Africa's response to climate change is for publishing bioregional plans. Regulations founded on the need to address simultaneously have also been published for the National Envi- the huge and urgent social and economic develop- ronmental Management Protected Areas Act for ment imperatives that are the legacy of apartheid, the Proper Regulation of Special Nature Reserves, as well as limit GHG emissions and ensure sus- National Parks, and World Heritage Sites. tainability. This is not an easy task, and the over- all policy, legislative, and strategy framework in South Africa has recently compiled a national the area of climate change is still evolving. South protected areas expansion strategy, which will Africa does not yet have a concrete climate change 38 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) strategy and plan. The Energy Resource Centre production and distribution of energy should notes that "there is still a significant gap between be sustainable and improve citizen standard of development and sustainable development" and living. "given the challenges of development to meet basic z White Paper on the Energy Policy of the needs, mitigation policies and measures have to be Republic of South Africa. DME (1998) sets integrated with development goals" (Winkler and out the government's policy on supply and con- Marquard 2007, p. 23). Some tensions and even sumption of energy for the 10 years starting in contradictions between policies and strategies in 1998. The paper identifies specific measures to these areas persist, especially in relation to indus- promote energy efficiency, including measures trial and energy policy. The operational frame- to influence vehicle fuel efficiency and identi- work is also evolving, with significant challenges fies what needs to be done to create an enabling in terms of ensuring coherence, intergovernmen- environment for renewable energy. tal cooperation and coordination, and allocation of clear mandates. Annex I summarizes some of z Energy Efficiency Strategy. This DME policy the key challenges; key legislation is listed below. (2005) is the key policy intended to reduce energy demand. It sets a target for national z Initial National Communication. South improvement in energy efficiency of 12 percent Africa signed the UNFCCC in 1993 and ratified by 2015 to be implemented through a series of it as a non-annex 1 country in 1997, acceding to sectoral strategies. The South African cabinet the Kyoto Protocol in 2002. The INC was sub- has not yet endorsed it. mitted to the UNFCCC conference of the par- z White Paper on Renewable Energy. This ties (COP) 9 in 2003. The INC provides base- policy (DME 2003) sets a target of producing line measures in a range of areas and analyses of 10,000 gigawatt hours of final energy demand South Africa's vulnerability, as well as options from renewable sources by 2010; this is an for adaptation and mitigation of GHGs. average of about 1,000 gigawatt hours per year, z National Climate Change Response Strategy which is 0.15 percent of total final energy for South Africa. This strategy (DEAT 2004a) demand in 2002. To achieve this, the policy sets outlines an analysis of issues and actions to out a number of strategic, goals, objectives, and be taken in developing concrete strategy and deliverables, which include financial and fis- action plans and some of the key challenges cal instruments, legal instruments, technology involved, rather than specific strategic plans for development, and awareness raising, capacity responding to climate change. building, and education. z Constitution and the Reconstruction and Annex I provides a more detailed outline of the Development Program. In addition to general provisions and implications of these policies and environmental rights, the constitution states analysis of the options and requirements. It also that government must establish a national outlines current initiatives taken by the South energy policy to ensure that national energy African government relevant to climate change resources are adequately tapped and deliv- and the operational framework and institutions ered to cater to the needs of the nation. Energy involved. should be made available and affordable to all citizens, regardless of geographic location. The 3. Context of the Evaluation 39 Policy Coherence, Coordination, and Alignment Land Degradation DEAT notes that although it has been South Africa developed the National Action Programme to Combat Land Degradation and designated as the lead agency for climate change response in South Africa, it is recognized that this is Alleviate Rural Poverty, which was approved by a cross cutting issue that has ramifications for diverse the South African cabinet in 2004. The program activities in other government departments. A national (1) follows an integrated approach that addresses climate change strategy will thus require that many natural and socioeconomic aspects of the process government departments work together in a coordi- of land degradation and drought; (2) synergizes nated manner, to ensure that response measures are the implementation of the three Rio conventions: properly directed, acceptable to all and carried out with a national focus (DEAT 2004a, p. v). UNCCD, UNCBD, and UNFCCC; and (3) pro- motes the use of existing bilateral and multilat- As coordination and alignment of policy and eral mechanisms and arrangements that mobilize implementation across government is a key chal- financial resources to affected country parties in lenge,19 various committees have been estab- combating land degradation and mitigating the lished to assist DEAT in this task. One such is the effects of drought. National Committee on Climate Change estab- lished in the late 1990s, which consists of key Relevant legal and policy frameworks fall into government (Agriculture, Science and Technol- the broad areas of macro- and microeconomic ogy, Foreign Affairs, Health, Housing, Local and policy, integrated rural development, land and Provincial Government, Minerals and Energy, land reform, environment, agriculture, water, for- Trade and Industry, and Transport), business, and ests, and energy mining and minerals. Effective nongovernment stakeholders. Other committees implementation involves almost every national include the Government Committee on Climate department. Although the national action pro- Change and the National Committee for Ozone gram envisaged a natural resource management Layer Protection. A development process for the framework to enable the necessary integration national climate change policy was initiated in for implementation, this has not transpired. The January 2008. expectation that the National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment and National Biodiversity Framework Pollution, Air Quality, and Waste Management would address land degradation in a sufficiently South Africa has a number of policies and laws integrated manner has also not been met.20 Key relating to the protection and management of the conflicts in terms of the respective legal mandates environment or aspects of the environment that among relevant government partners include directly link to climate change, including DEAT those between the environment and biodiversity, (2000a), DWAF (1997), and the 2005 National mining, and agriculture. Environmental Management: Air Quality Man- South Africa is engaged in a number of regional agement Act. Other relevant legislation on pollu- and international initiatives for sustainable land tion, air quality, and waste management includes management. The Land Degradation Assessment the Air Pollution Prevention Act (1965), Dumping Programme is intended to address the required at Sea Control Act (1980), Marine Pollution Act ongoing monitoring and assessment of land (1981), and National Framework for Air Quality degradation. Management (2007). 40 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) POPs substances and is formulating a full phaseout plan The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic for methyl bromide. The use of ozone-depleting Pollutants was ratified by South Africa in 2002 substances has decreased substantially following and came into force in 2004. South Africa has not South Africa's signature and ratification of related yet completed a NIP, as required under article amendments (DEAT 2006b). This strategy is still E of the convention, which involves three main under development. activities: undertaking a baseline study, develop- As some overlap exists between legislation on cli- ing a strategy for mitigating emissions, and pre- mate change and POPs with that on ozone, espe- paring an accompanying implementation frame- cially on air quality, the outline of legislation will work. Key national legislation dealing directly or not be repeated here. indirectly with hazardous chemical management and, in certain instances, specifically with POPs, International Waters includes the Hazardous Substance Act (1973); Fer- tilizers, Farm Feeds, Agricultural Remedies, and Marine Resources Stock Remedies Act (1947); and the Occupational The National Marine Fisheries Policy of 1998 Health and Safety Act (1993). The key to effective formed the basis of the Marine Living Resources policy in this area will be the development of the Act (1998). Since promulgation of the act's subse- NIP, which is under development, so a reliable quent issuance of medium-term rights in 2003, a inventory is made and any policy and strategy new set of policies, including both a general policy are based on sound data. Annex I provides more as well as sector-specific policies, was released in detail on the legislation and current initiatives in 2005. In the allocation of rights, strict evaluation South Africa. criteria were laid down, as well as specific criteria for vessels and management measures, such as the DEAT (2004b) sets out to "obtain [a] measur- ecosystem approach to fisheries. able decrease (i.e. >10% on 2003 base and GDP) in the generation of Persistent Organic Pollutants Other key legislation pertaining to the marine and (POPs)" (p. 23). coastal environment includes the National Water Act (1998), the National Environmental Manage- Ozone Depletion ment Act (1998), the National Environment Bio- South Africa acceded to the Vienna Convention diversity Act (2004), and the Integrated Coastal for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and rati- Management Bill (2006). Policy initiatives also fied the Montreal Protocol on Substances that address specific needs; for example, the National Deplete the Ozone Layer in January 1990; it rati- Policy for Seals and Seabirds is intended to man- fied the London Amendment in May 1992, and age the impact of fishing activities on marine and ratification of the Copenhagen Amendment is coastal biodiversity. in process. DEAT indicated that South Africa is DEAT is responsible for integrated coastal zone currently in full compliance with the conditions management, marine pollution control and sus- of the protocol (DEAT 2007). As the designated tainable use, and conservation of marine liv- custodian of the environment in South Africa, ing resources; these functions are mostly del- DEAT has started the process of developing a egated to the Directorate of Marine and Coastal national strategy for phasing out ozone-depleting Management. The department has boosted its 3. Context of the Evaluation 41 compliance unit to counter illegal activities along Region and Related Protocol (Abidjan Conven- the 3,000-kilometer coastline, as well as the coun- tion) try's 1,155,000-square-kilometer exclusive eco- z SADC Protocol on Fisheries nomic zone. The department has developed the National Contingency Plan for the Prevention South Africa also participates in a number of and Combating of Pollution from Ships, in con- international commissions, such as the Inter- sultation with the South African Maritime Safety national Commission for the Conservation of Authority and the National Department of Trans- Atlantic Tunas, the Commission for the Con- port. Furthermore, DEAT is making satellite tech- servation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, nology obligatory on fishing vessels so that the and the International Whaling Commission. Key department can monitor their movements. GEF-funded international waters initiatives in the region include the following: DEAT has initiated sustainable coastal livelihood initiatives which are being implemented at the z Benguela Current LME Programme provincial level. The national poverty relief pro- z Benguela Fisheries Interaction Training Pro- gram, CoastCare, engages and trains unemployed gramme people in skills and work associated with coastal management. South Africa is a signatory to nearly z West Indian Ocean Land-Based Activities Proj- 40 international treaties, conventions, and agree- ect (deals with the protection, prevention, and ments, including the following (South Africa management of marine pollution from land- 2007d): based activities) z Toward an Ecosystem Approach to the Sustain- z International Convention for the Prevention of able Use of the Resources of the Agulhas and Pollution from Ships Somali Currents LME Program z UNCBD z Western Indian Ocean Marine Highway Devel- z United Nations Convention on the Law of the opment and Coastal and Marine Contamina- Sea (management of straddling and migratory tion Prevention Project fish stocks) z Development and Protection of Coastal and z Convention on Prevention of Marine Pollution Marine Environment in Sub-Saharan Africa by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matters (reg- z Southwest Indian Ocean Fisheries Project ulating the dumping of waste at sea) z Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Inland Water Resources Species of Wild Animals (including seabirds) South Africa's national legal framework for water resource management is considered one of the z Convention for the Protection, Management, most advanced in the world. The White Paper on and Development of the Marine and Coastal a National Water Policy for South Africa (DWAF Environment of the East African Region and 1997) and the National Water Act of 1998 estab- Related Protocols (Nairobi Convention) lished the key principles in the management of z Convention for Co-operation in the Protection water resources in South Africa: equity, sustain- and Development of the Marine and Coastal ability, and optimal use (efficiency). They estab- Environment of the West and Central African lish the catchment as the unit of management for 42 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) water resources and provide for the establishment The SADC states concluded the SADC Proto- of water resource management institutions (catch- col on Shared Watercourse Systems in 1995. ment management agencies). The National Water Malzbender and Earle (2007) note that the water Act requires that water resource protection imper- resource governance framework in the SADC has atives (including conservation and demand man- seen significant changes in the past decade, which agement) should be balanced with water resource has largely been influenced by South Africa's development imperatives to achieve sustainable changing role in the region.21 Cooperation is mov- use of the resource. The act emphasizes meet- ing away from bilateral, and toward regional and ing international obligations on shared resources basinwide, cooperation. in prioritizing these obligations, together with Basin-wide agreements are being concluded and basin "the Reserve" (the quantity and quality of water organisations established where all basin states are required to meet basic human needs and the need being represented. A good example is the Orange- of the river ecosystems) above any other use. The Senqu River Basin shared between Botswana, Leso- act also provides for transboundary water bodies tho, Namibia and South Africa. While the bilateral and management frameworks. organisations between Lesotho and South Africa (Lesotho Highlands Water Commission, LHWC) and The Department of Water Affairs and Forestry is Namibia and South Africa (Permanent Water Com- the responsible national department for decisions mission, PWC) are still in place, they now have to liaise with the basin-wide Orange-Senqu River Com- on water quality and quantity, management and mission (ORASECOM) that was established between development of water resources, and provision of the four basin states in 2000. Basin-wide Commissions water supply and sanitation. Although decision have also been established for other major rivers in the making regarding water resource use and alloca- region, e.g. Limpopo, Okavango and Zambezi (Malz- tion is currently at the national level, a strategy is bender and Earle 2007, p. 13) in place to devolve this responsibility to catchment management agencies. The development of key Relevant International Treaties and national strategies--the Water Conservation and Protocols Demand Management National Strategy (1999), Table 3.8 lists the key conventions to which South the National Water Resources Strategy (2004), Africa is a party. and the Draft Position Paper for Water Alloca- tion Reform in South Africa (2005)--is further Official Development Assistance enabling ambitious water management reform in Unlike the situation in many developing countries, South Africa. Key national partnership programs official development assistance (ODA) makes up include the River Health Programme, as well as the a very small percentage of the overall South Afri- Working for Water Programme. At the regional can government budget. ODA to the country cur- level, the guiding instruments for water resource rently amounts to 1.0 to 1.5 percent of its annual management are the SADC Regional Water Policy budget (South Africa 2003). According to the gov- and Regional Water Strategy. The Regional Stra- ernment's policy framework on official develop- tegic Action Plan 2 (2005­10) spells out the con- ment assistance, ODA in South Africa can play crete projects that are implemented in the region. a key role in providing solutions and tools that Both the water policy and strategy subscribe to the enable the country to use its own resources more overarching principle of integrated water resource effectively, thereby stimulating development for management (Malzbender and Earle 2007). 3. Context of the Evaluation 43 Table 3.8 International Conventions by Focal Area and Year Ratified Conventions by focal area Year ratified Biodiversity convention on Wetlands of International Importance 1975 convention on International trade in endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 1975 convention on the conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals 1991 UN convention on biological Diversity 1995 convention concerning the Protection of the World cultural and Natural Heritage 1997 cartagena biosafety Protocol 2003 Southern African Developing countries Protocol on Wildlife conservation and Law enforcement in the South- 2003 ern African Development community Climate change United Nations Framework convention on climate change 1997 Kyoto Protocol 2002 International waters convention on Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matters 1978 convention on the conservation of Antarctic Marine Living resources 1982 United Nations Law of the Sea convention 1997 convention on the conservation and Management of Fishery resources in the South east Atlantic Ocean 2001 (Abidjan) convention for cooperation in Protection and Development of Marine and coastal environment of 2002 east and central African region and related protocol convention for cooperation in Protection and Development of the Marine and coastal environment of the 2002 east African region and related protocol (Nairobi convention) UN Law of the Sea convention: Management and conservation of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory 2003 Fish Stocks Albatrosses and Petrels Agreement 2003 Southern African Developing countries Protocol on Fisheries 2003 Ozone depletion Montreal Protocol: Protection of the Ozone Layera (amendments have yet to be ratified) 1990 Land degradation United Nations convention to combat Desertification 1997 Persistent organic pollutants basel convention on the control of transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal 1994 Stockholm convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants 2002 rotterdam convention on Prior Informed consent 2002 Sources: GeF, review of GeF Portfolio in South Africa (www.thegef.org); DeAt 2006b. Note: table includes only the major conventions. South Africa is a signatory to other important conventions. a. South Africa acceded to both the Montreal Protocol and the Vienna convention in January 1990. the most disadvantaged sections of the population finance, which in most cases should be accessible (South Africa 2007c). ODA therefore should not domestically. The report further highlights that be regarded primarily as an additional source of the quality of ODA and its ability to spearhead 44 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) new and more effective approaches for enhanc- z Enabling activities, intended to help countries ing service delivery are thus considered much meet their obligations under the various con- more important than the mere quantity of ODA ventions the GEF services in South Africa. z Project preparation grants (formerly known According to DEAT (2006b), donor assistance as project development facility grants), which to DEAT constituted less than 4.5 percent of its provide funding for the preparation and devel- annual budget in 2004­05, having declined from opment of projects 20 percent in the 1999­2000 budget; such assis- The GEF officially began with a two-year pilot tance was estimated to decrease further in the phase from 1992 to 1994. This was followed by 2007­08 financial year. three regular four-year replenishment periods: GEF-1 (1995­98), GEF-2 (1999­2002), and GEF-3 3.4 The GEF and the South African (2003­06). In July 2006, GEF-4 was initiated and Focal Point Mechanism will continue until 2010. Through GEF-3, allo- The GEF provides funding to achieve global envi- cations were not made by country. Eligible GEF ronmental benefits in biodiversity, climate change, member countries submitted their requests to the international waters, depletion of the ozone layer, various windows through the different GEF Agen- POPs, and land degradation, according to their cies on a demand basis. respective international agreements. GEF-4 and the RAF GEF activities are carried out through the Agencies: In September 2005 the GEF Council adopted the the World Bank, UNDP, United Nations Environ- RAF, a system for allocating GEF resources to ment Programme (UNEP), all regional banks, the recipient countries for the biodiversity and climate Food and Agriculture Organization of the United change focal areas, to be implemented in GEF-4. Nations, the International Fund for Agricultural Allocations might be made individually (coun- Development, and the United Nations Industrial try allocation) or to a group of countries (group Development Organization. GEF Agencies have allocation), depending on the index assigned to direct access to GEF funding through a memoran- each country based on its potential biodiversity dum of understanding with the GEF. and climate change global benefit and country GEF support modalities include the following: performance. z Full-size projects (FSPs): funding of more than The RAF system was set up to allocate resources $1 million to countries in a transparent and consistent man- ner based on global environmental priorities and z Medium-size projects (MSPs): funding of less relevance of country capacity, policies, and prac- than $1 million tices to successful implementation of GEF proj- z Small grants: funding of less than $50,000, ects. Funding allocations during GEF-4 for the directed to NGOs and local organizations; small international waters, land degradation, POPs, and GEF grants are structured into the global Small ozone focal areas are not subject to the RAF and Grants Programme, administered by UNDP function on a demand basis. 3. Context of the Evaluation 45 South Africa is one of the few countries with National Government Departments, Provincial Heads individual allocations for both climate change of Department (Environment) and representatives of local governments. The process of channelling all ($23.90 million) and biodiversity ($22.50 million). GEF projects through the CEC enables broad based The GEF Benefit Index rating for South Africa is governmental opinions to be canvassed, particularly 120,649, which represents 1.7 percent of the total from the Provincial, municipal and local council levels, index share. and decisions made in a participatory and transparent manner. This in turn ensures that global environmental Focal Point management objectives are nested properly within the national sustainable development agenda, to enhance The GEF guidelines for focal points indicate that the basis of national ownership, and the impacts and there should be two focal points: operational and sustainability of interventions. Furthermore it affords political. In South Africa, both are located within the Focal Point an opportunity to identify syner- DEAT, but are linked to different job designations. gies with existing initiatives, as well as obtain inputs In January 2008, South Africa informed the GEF from various quarters that may add value to projects. that the operational focal point would be the chief This process is clearly important to enhance project sustainability and impact and will be continued and director for international cooperation, rather than, gradually strengthened as projects within the various as previously, the South African representative to programmes are pipelined (DEAT 2001, p. 18). the United Nations; the political focal point con- tinues to be the DEAT director general. The polit- Notes ical focal point is responsible for GEF governance 1. An exchange rate of R 6.8 = $1 was used through- issues and policies, and the operational focal point out the report, except where otherwise noted; the is responsible for ensuring effective engagement 2006 GDP figure cited here was obtained using a and coordination at the country level. The focal mid-2006 exchange rate of R 6.76 = $1. point is also responsible for all other ODA and 2. Social grants provide support and protection for must manage a number of bilateral agreements, as vulnerable groups, addressing different types well as carry responsibility for South Africa's sub- of potential exclusion, such as grants for senior citizens or people with disabilities, or for child stantial involvement in international governance support. in environment. The mechanism is supplemented by the appointment of technical focal points for 3. Hotspots are areas with especially high concentra- tions of biodiversity that are under serious threat. all focal areas. 4. The Biodiversity Intactness Index, an overall indi- The MTPF, developed by DEAT to guide its cator of the state of terrestrial biodiversity, was engagement with the GEF, outlined the antici- proposed by Scholes and Biggs (2005). pated role of the focal point and the mechanisms 5. This section draws directly or indirectly from related to it as follows: DEAT (2003a) and the DEAT Web site (www.envi- ronment.gov.za/ClimateChange2005/National_ Presently all GEF projects requiring the endorse- Greenhouse_Gas_Inventory.htm). ment of the Operational Focal Point are subjected to a governmental screening process through the Com- 6. "Footprinting" is an accounting tool that measures mittee for Environmental Coordination (CEC). The how much biologically productive land is required CEC is an interdepartmental mechanism, respon- to support the living standards of an individual, sible for promoting the integration and coordination city, or country. This includes the land required to of environmental functions by the relevant organs produce the physical resources consumed, absorb the wastes generated, and sequester CO2 emissions of State and comprises of the Director-Generals of associated with energy demand (DEAT 2006a). 46 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) 7. This section is drawn from DME (2005) and is a further 500 million square meters a year draining based on data from 2000. from Swaziland to South Africa. 8. This discussion is drawn from South Africa (2007d). 17. About 20 percent of funds come from DEAT, 25 percent from donors, and 55 percent from the 9. Interview with Harald Winkler, Energy Research SANParks conservation efforts. Centre, University of Cape Town. 18. Conflicts in policy, law, and mandates exist among 10. This section is mainly based on DEAT (2004a). agencies tasked with environmental management, in particular, biodiversity, mining, and agriculture. 11. Regarding soil and vegetation degradation, Hoff- man and others (1999) present the status of land 19. One example of this challenge is the recently degradation in "spatializing" three indexes: soil introduced Developmental Electricity Pricing Pro- degradation index, veld degradation index, and gramme by the Department of Trade and Indus- combined index of soil and veld degradation. try, under which below-price electricity tariffs are negotiated with potential international investors 12. The majority of this section is drawn from in new energy-intensive projects. The aim is to DEAT (2006b), except where references indicate encourage investors who "would in the absence otherwise. of [the program] not invest in the Republic," by 13. As per a statement to the media by the South Afri- guaranteeing lower electricity prices (Winkler and can Delegation to the Initial National Communi- Marquard 2007, pp. 10­11). cation 5 on POPs in Pretoria. 20. Personal communication from Leseho Sello, 14. Interview with Thandi Gxaba, senior environmen- DEAT. tal specialist, and Eugenia Marinova, World Bank 21. The protocol has subsequently been revised to country officer. reflect the principles of the 1997 UN Convention 15. This overview is drawn from DEAT (2006b). on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of Inter- national Watercourses. 16. This includes about 4,800 million square meters a year draining from Lesotho into South Africa and 3. Context of the Evaluation 47 4. The GEF Portfolio in South Africa This chapter presents an overview of GEF support clear national allocations, although they are allo- to South Africa in terms of the financial resources cated according to phases that do not coincide and number of projects, by type of project, GEF with the GEF operational phases and are not allo- focal area, GEF Agency and/or national executing cated globally according to particular focal areas, agency, and GEF phase. but rather are multifocal. In addition, with the introduction of the RAF, allocations for biodiver- 4.1 Difficulties with Portfolio Data sity and climate change projects are clearer, even at the Country Level in cases of regional and global projects, because the country must agree on an amount from its Determining the actual allocation of GEF funding RAF allocation. to any recipient country is not a trivial exercise, but it is particularly difficult in a country with a Given all these caveats, this evaluation estimates, as substantial portfolio, as in South Africa. Data- of the end of February 2008, that South Africa has bases are not consistent across the GEF Secre- received about $81.27 million for national projects tariat, Evaluation Office, and even GEF Agencies. (including one PPG and a PDF block A grant), the Several types of project grants exist, which have national components of the SGP and CEPF, and a changed over time. The projects that are easier to component of a global project approved in GEF-4. review are the national projects. GEF funding for GEF Agency fees are not included in this figure. these projects includes PDFs (now called PPGs), the grant for project implementation (GEF grant), 4.2 Projects in the GEF South Africa and the fee given to the GEF Agency to super- National Portfolio vise the project (this fee did not exist until 2000, and since then it has changed from 9 to 10 per- Presenting information on the portfolio accord- cent of the GEF grant). Another group is regional ing to number of projects is sometimes confus- and global projects, for which the cost of national ing, because projects vary from small investments implementation is not readily available and is for an enabling activity to large full-size projects. very difficult to isolate. (GEF grants are allocated GEF support to national projects in South Africa for the entire project, not necessarily by country, is shown in annex F. Figure 4.1 provides an over- although in GEF-4 the grants for regional and view of the support given by focal area during the global projects under the RAF are built with spe- different GEF phases. This figure does not include cific country contributions.) However, a group of funding for the SGP or CEPF or projects in the global programs, such as the SGP and CEPF, has pipeline; GEF-4 is discussed below. 48 Figure 4.1 Addo Elephant National Park Project, and Con- Distribution of GEF Funding to GEF Agencies across servation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity on GEF Phases the South African Wild Coast projects. Million $ The allocation under the RAF for biodiversity and 40 climate change is one of the largest in the world POPs $0.50 35 Multifocal $0.20 for a single country. Table 4.1 presents the allo- 30 Climate change cation for biodiversity and climate change, as Biodiversity $11.57 25 well as the funding that has been used and proj- ect information forms that have been cleared, 20 but not yet approved as projects. Three projects 15 $0.32 $1.00 $22.31 have been approved so far in GEF-4: one under 10 $1.76 climate change--the Sustainable Public Transport $12.41 5 $8.50 and Sport: A 2010 Opportunity ($11.2 million)-- 0 and two for biodiversity--the National Grasslands GEF-1 GEF-2 GEF-3 Biodiversity Program ($8.65 million) and the South African contribution to the Conservation and Management of Pollinators for Sustainable Agriculture through Ecosystem Approach proj- South Africa's first GEF project, the Cape Pen- ect ($0.62 million, although not yet under imple- insula Biodiversity Conservation Project, was mentation). In addition, the SGP has received two approved in November 1997 with GEF funding contributions for biodiversity and climate change of more than $12 million. This has been the big- projects (both $240,000), and one PPG has been gest project funded by the GEF in South Africa approved for the St. Lucia Wetland Park ($0.31 mil- so far and accounts for almost 15 percent of total lion). No projects in the focal areas outside the RAF funding. The only other projects approved in this are documented as approved in this phase. period were enabling activities for the Preparation of the Initial National Communication Related to Table 4.1 the UNFCCC and the First National Report to the Convention on Biodiversity. RAF Allocation and Use as of February 25, 2008 Million $ GEF-1 started a pattern that was to persist for the Bio- Climate next two phases--a concentration of GEF support Allocation/use diversity change in the biodiversity and climate change focal areas, GeF-4 indicative allocation 22.50 23.90 although biodiversity has been by far the larger of Allocation used the two--about $53 million compared with $25 Grants 9.71 11.00 million (in GEF-1 to GEF-4, as shown in tables Agency fee 0.86 1.01 4.3 and 4.4). Several of the completed projects Project identification forms cleared by ceO awaiting approval reviewed by this evaluation were approved during Proposed grant 9.00 0.00 GEF-2. During GEF-3, some of the major biodi- Proposed agency fee 0.90 0.00 versity projects under implementation in South Allocations remaining to be 2.03 11.89 Africa were approved, such as the Cape Action programmed for People and the Environment (CAPE), Greater Source: GeF Web site (www.thegef.org). 4. The GEF Portfolio in South Africa 49 4.3 Allocations by Focal Area are either ongoing or will start implementation soon. The majority of the completed projects are Biodiversity and climate change are the largest in the biodiversity focal area, while the larger pro- focal areas, according to both funding and number portion of climate change projects are still under of projects. Biodiversity accounts for 65 percent implementation. of all national projects, whereas climate change accounts for 31 percent. POPs and multifocal include mostly enabling activities. The absence of 4.5 Allocations by GEF Agency international waters projects reflects the nature of UNDP and the World Bank are the main Imple- these projects, which are usually regional or global menting Agencies of the GEF in South Africa, and in nature. Table 4.2 presents the amount of GEF they share about the same allocation according to funding by focal area. funding (46 percent for UNDP and 39 percent for the World Bank). In the only jointly implemented Table 4.2 project, CAPE Biodiversity Conservation and Sus- tainable Development, actual funding is mostly GEF Funding by Focal Area, 1994 through GEF-4 implemented by the World Bank. UNEP has Focal area Million $ % of total been primarily responsible for enabling activities, biodiversity 52.80 65 although in GEF-4, South Africa has contributed climate change 24.85 31 $620,000 from its RAF contribution to the global International waters 0.00 0 biodiversity project on pollinators implemented POPs 0.50 1 by UNEP. Both UNDP and the World Bank have Multifocal 1.20 1 significant responsibility in both biodiversity and SGP 1.92 2 climate change focal areas; only UNDP is involved Total 81.27 100 in multifocal area projects (see table 4.4). 4.4 Project Status Table 4.4 GEF Support to National Projects by Focal Area and Only about 20 percent of the funding allocated to Agency South Africa from 1994 until today has been allo- Million $ cated to projects that are completed (see table 4.3). WB- Most of the rest of the funding is for projects that Focal area UNDP UNEP WB UNDP SGP biodiversity 19.19 0.62 21.67 11.32 Table 4.3 climate change 15.02 0.32 9.51 POPs 0.50 National Projects by Status and Focal Area Million $ Multifocal 1.20 Total 35.41 1.44 31.18 11.32 1.92 Com- On- Focal area pleted going Pipeline Total Note: Wb = World bank. biodiversity 15.06 37.40 0.34 52.80 climate change 1.35 23.50 0 24.85 Figure 4.2 shows the approvals by time and Agency. POPs 0 0.50 0 0.50 The World Bank was the dominant Agency in Multifocal 1.00 2.12 0 3.12 both GEF-1 and GEF-2; UNDP and UNEP played Total 17.41 63.52 0.34 81.27 only a marginal role. The balance has changed 50 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) Figure 4.2 Table 4.5 GEF Approvals of South Africa Projects by Agency GEF Funding of National Executing Agencies and Replenishment Period Agency Million $ Million $ DeAt 8.31 20 DMe 9.82 GEF-1 GEF-2 GEF-3 GEF-4 18 eskom 0.23 16 Guateng Province 1.00 14 International Finance corporation 3.28 12 National Department of transport 11.20 richtersveld Municipality 0.90 10 SANbI 21.37 8 SANParks 22.20 6 St. Lucia Wetland Park Authority 0.31 4 United Nations Office for Project Services 1.92 2 Universities of cape town and Port elizabeth 0.74 0 Total 81.28 UNDP WB UNEP WB-UNDP SGP Note: comments received on the draft of the current report indicate that an agreement has been made to channel the funding for the Note: Wb = World bank; data for the SGP is for all four replenish- Wild coast Project ($6.839 million) directly to the eastern cape Parks ment periods. board and not through DeAt. over time; the role of the World Bank has dimin- entities; very small amounts have been allocated ished, especially in GEF-4, and that of UNDP has directly to the provincial and municipal levels or increased more than six times between GEF-2 and to academic or research institutions. No NGOs GEF-4. The amount allocated to the World Bank have received GEF support directly (other than will increase once the St. Lucia Wetland Parks through the SGP and CEPF, which have mostly project (allocation of $9 million) is approved. being implemented through NGOs and commu- nity-based organizations). 4.6 GEF Funding by Executing Agency 4.7 The SGP and the CEPF National executing agencies are the national Small Grants Programme entities that take responsibility for executing GEF-supported projects. SANBI and SANParks The SGP was launched globally in 1992 to com- together account for about $48 million of the plement the GEF's other grants by support- total (see table 4.5), which is more than half of all ing activities of NGOs and community-based funding from the GEF and by far the majority of organizations in developing countries that are funding for biodiversity. In climate change, two aligned with objectives of the global conventions institutions--DME and the National Department in each of the GEF focal areas, while generating of Transport--have received most of the funding. sustainable livelihoods.1 Funded by the GEF as a corporate program, the SGP is implemented by The majority of GEF funding (almost 90 percent) UNDP on behalf of the GEF partnership and is has been channeled through national government executed by the United Nations Office for Project 4. The GEF Portfolio in South Africa 51 Services. The maximum grant amount per proj- The SGP global Web site as of December 2007 ect is $50,000, channeled directly to the recipient provided information on 36 projects (this infor- organizations. mation is uploaded by the national program and revised by the global SGP). The latest information Formally initiated in South Africa in 2001, the SGP provided by the national program directly to the actually began to operate in 2003. Since then man- evaluation team included five additional projects, agement issues have led to several breaks in SGP bringing the total to 41, although it is not clear implementation. The program lacked a national why they were not included in the global database. coordinator for a year; in mid-2007, a new coor- According to this new information, most projects dinator was appointed, but resigned in February are either completed (about half) or under imple- 2008. A new strategy is under discussion. Infor- mentation, which also differs from information on mation about allocations to the national program the Web site, which lists 15 of the 36 projects as not and projects supported (status, amounts, and yet active. Annex L lists SGP projects as reflected focal areas) is not consistent across the SGP sys- on the Web site. Roughly equal amounts (about tem, particularly when comparing the SGP global 40 percent) of the funding have been allocated to Web site (which has a window for South Africa) biodiversity and climate change projects. with information gathered at the local level.2 The evaluation team obtained information from the Critical Ecosystems Partnership Fund SGP Web site as of December 2007; at the Febru- The World Bank, the French and Japanese govern- ary 2008 consultation workshop, the SGP national ments, the MacArthur Foundation, the GEF, and program provided the evaluation team with Conservation International launched the CEPF new data, but some inconsistencies could not be in 2000 to initiate a global program to address resolved. Whenever appropriate, the data pre- threats to the Earth's biodiversity hotspots. The sented here are further explained with the more CEPF investment in South Africa, implemented recently received information. through Conservation International, is seen as Table 4.6 presents the allocations to the SGP in part of the GEF biodiversity focal area invest- South Africa according to SGP phases. Allocations ment in the country. The CEPF investment has to phase 4 include $480,000 from the South African focused on the Cape Floristic Region (CAPE) and RAF for biodiversity and climate change (half for the Succulent Karoo (Succulent Karoo Ecosystem each) and $252,000 of funding for the other focal Programme); the CEPF has supported these bio- areas not included in the RAF. regional strategies by committing funds for proj- ects in the civil society, research, and government sectors. In terms of investment, $6,133,169 and $5,788,689 are the total amounts of committed Table 4.6 grants for the Cape Floristic Region and Succulent SGP Allocations by Phase as of February 2008 Karoo, respectively.3 SGP Phase Total allocation ($) Phase 2 (1998­2004) 705,389 4.8 Regional and Global Projects Phase 3 (2005­2007) 479,954 South Africa has also received support from the Phase 4 (2008­ ) 732,000 GEF through regional and global projects (listed Total 1,917,343 in annex F). An assessment based only on the 52 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) number of projects is somewhat distorting, but Annex M presents the focus of regional and regardless of size, the biodiversity and interna- global projects. This summary indicates a heavy tional waters focal areas clearly have the great- emphasis on capacity building, legislative reforms, est number of regional and global projects (see and assistance to governments on implementing table 4.7). Five international waters projects were the conventions, especially on biodiversity. No selected for review in this evaluation. regional climate change projects have a South African component, and the global projects have Table 4.7 mainly been aimed at market reform. As outlined Number of Regional and Global Projects in Which in chapter 3, regional cooperation is a key policy South Africa Participates, by Focal Area in the South African development agenda. Regional Global Focal areas projects projects Notes biodiversity 8 3 1. The information presented here is taken from the climate change 0 2 SGP Web site. International waters 8 2 2. Two reasons were highlighted for this: when the Land degradation 3 0 new coordinator took his position, he had to POPs 1 0 recreate the database, because the existing one was Multifocal 2 0 not maintained and there seemed to be problems Total 22 7 with the global Web site, including in uploading information. 3. Personal communication from Sarah Frazee, Con- servation International. 4. The GEF Portfolio in South Africa 53 5. Results of GEF Support to South Africa This chapter examines the following questions on national components) in South Africa is included global environmental impacts: as a completed project. z What are the results at the aggregate level by The projects often include subcomponents that focal area? relate to the various GEF strategic biodiversity z What are the aggregated results at the country outcomes of (1) on-site and sustainable biodiver- level? sity conservation in protected areas (catalyzing sustainability of systems), (2) on-site and sus- z What are the cross-cutting results in terms of tainable biodiversity conservation in production catalytic and replication effects, capacity build- landscapes and seascapes (mainstreaming), and ing, awareness, and improvements in enabling (3) implementation of the Cartagena Protocol environment? on Biosafety and knowledge generation, dissemi- z What is the likelihood that objectives will be nation, and good practices. However, annex K achieved for those projects still under imple- presents them under single outcomes. The clas- mentation? sification is made according to the outcome that is most prevalent. Of the 11 projects that are not 5.1 Biodiversity enabling activities, 1 project, the Conservation of Globally Significant Biodiversity in Agricultural The results delivered through the national biodi- Landscapes through Conservation Farming, was versity project portfolio in the past 10 years are aimed almost entirely at knowledge generation, best viewed in the sequence of project implemen- dissemination, and good practices. tation, as no doubt exists that the portfolio has evolved over time based on learning and in adjust- Summary of Global Environmental ing to the changing South African context. Of the Impacts 14 national biodiversity projects, 7 have been com- The support to biodiversity conservation in South pleted (2 of which are enabling activities) and 7 are Africa has resulted in significant global benefits ongoing (1 of which is a clearinghouse enabling by contributing to the formal protection of glob- activity). All the projects are expected to affect ally significant biodiversity and has strengthened biodiversity resources that are being conserved or systems for management. This success is founded sustainably used, or genetic resources shared. The mostly on the existing highly developed capac- CEPF phase 1 investment (a global project with ity within South Africa, notably SANParks and 54 SANBI as agents for DEAT; effective targeting of the UNCBD, nor have any resulted in compliant biodiversity hotspots and recognized biodiversity access and benefit-sharing agreements. spatial priority areas; and expertise and support Overall, securing direct and sustained social and provided through the GEF Implementing Agen- economic impact has been the most challeng- cies, notably UNDP and the World Bank. ing area of results for the biodiversity portfo- GEF support in South Africa has had a signifi- lio. Although projects have had a positive effect cant effect on the protection of habitat in priority on poverty alleviation and communities have biomes and marine ecosystems,1 thereby improv- shown buy-in, the extent to which they have gen- ing ecosystem representation under formal pro- erated social and economic benefits may not be tection. Protected area management effective- significant. ness tracking tools are being adapted and applied The long-term sustainability of the biodiversity and indicate satisfactory management or an impact will largely depend on the extent to which improvement. capacity for sustaining these gains is improved Most of the landscape-based initiatives are and embedded within the mandated biodiversity addressing mainstreaming in production land- conservation and key relevant agencies; it will also scapes; however, no comprehensive data sets exist depend on the long-term social and economic of the total number of hectares in production land- defensibility of biodiversity conservation, as well scapes/seascapes under sustainable management as its proven direct and indirect social and eco- for the portfolio. The projects have extended the nomic benefits, even though the latter is not the areas under conservation and sustainable use, and core mandate of the GEF. The improved definition supported South Africa's developing approaches and targeting of the social and economic develop- to biodiversity mainstreaming in productive land- ment contribution of GEF support and its location scapes and related sectors. Although there is no within an effective national strategy for sustain- direct reporting of improvements on biodiversity able development would improve the effective- (other than the proxy of areas conserved), the ness of the portfolio as a whole. projects are likely to provide impacts in the con- Overall, the catalytic effects have been marked, servation and sustainable use of these resources. specifically in the landscape-based initiatives and Although the GEF has supported studies for valu- especially where SANParks and SANBI are execut- ation of ecosystem services and sustainable use, ing agencies. Institution strengthening and capac- both of these dimensions require significant fur- ity building in general have been focused on the ther focus in terms of establishing biodiversity individual and systemic dimensions. More effort conservation as the essential basis for ongoing is apparently required in sustaining gains through delivery of social and economic benefits. embedded capacity within mandated institutions. All the landscape-based initiatives have resulted directly or indirectly in addressing the key threat Impacts of Completed Projects of invasive alien plants through project activities The GEF enabling activity supporting South Afri- or linking to the national Working for Water Pro- ca's first national report to the UNCBD had the key gramme, which is dedicated to the management effect of initiating implementation of the South and control of invasive alien plants. No projects African government's response to the UNCBD. directly affect access and benefit sharing through 5. Results of GEF Support to South Africa 55 The key issues identified in this first report pro- management plan, part of the integrated environ- vided an important baseline for the second (2003) mental management system (based on Interna- and third (2006) reports and assisted in inform- tional Standards Organization 14000) funded by ing the National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment the GEF, concluded that the park had been suc- (Driver and others 2005) and the NBSAP, which cessful in establishing the foundations for sustain- in turn have significantly affected South Africa's able management and operation of the park in the capability to respond to the UNCBD by providing future. Overall capacity to manage environmental a prioritized basis for planning and achievement resources has improved significantly within the of biodiversity conservation objectives. park, which is financially in surplus as the second most profitable national park in South Africa. The completed projects that have had a direct effect in terms of biodiversity resources being conserved Included within this project was the establishment and sustainably used or genetic resources shared of the Table Mountain Fund, considered a model were interventions in two biodiversity hotspots, fund that is outperforming targets for project the Cape Floristic Region (Cape Peninsula Biodi- funding and has provided catalytic resources for versity Conservation Project) and the Succulent more than 60 projects (many community based), Karoo (Sustainable Protected Area Development amounting to $2.5 million in the past six years. in Namaqualand). These were the first two of In at least 80 percent of cases, Table Mountain four GEF projects that involved SANParks as the Fund funding has served as seed money, lever- national executing agency. aging resources from other sources and building partnerships. The first and largest GEF investment to date ($12.39 million) in landscape-based biodiversity The development of the CAPE strategy has had a initiatives was the Cape Peninsula Biodiversity profound effect on the conservation of the Cape Conservation Project. It had far-reaching effects Floristic Region through the GEF-financed CAPE on the portfolio as a whole in piloting a bio- Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Devel- regional conservation planning approach within opment project and the Agulhas Biodiversity Ini- the Cape Floristic Region; development of best tiative (ABI) and has informed the bioregional practice in protected area planning, development, programs approach led by SANBI. It has further and management; and establishment of the Table leveraged $60 million for implementation, includ- Mountain Fund, an NGO-administered funding ing for these two projects, as well as cofinancing mechanism for conservation action. The project from the CEPF. leveraged significant cofinancing of $78.9 million. The Namaqualand protected area project played It also secured national park status of the land an essential role in improving the conservation of now known as the Table Mountain National Park Namaqualand. Targets for incorporation of land (25,000 hectares or 83 percent of the land tar- into formally protected areas exceeded the pre- geted), including the marine protected area, and dicted targets (318,201 hectares) by more than addressed the key threat of invasive alien plants 22,000 hectares, securing 340,874 hectares of pri- (85 percent cleared by project end). Fifty percent ority conservation land comprising about 6.8 per- of contracts for clearing were allocated to trained, cent of the region. A program supporting farmers previously disadvantaged contractors. An external to adopt biodiversity-friendly farming was initiated review of the implementation of the park's strategic to add to the area under conservation; successful 56 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) negotiations with farmers and mining companies Development). As the first national project exe- expanded the land in the Namaqualand Protected cuted by SANBI, the conservation farming proj- Area from 980 hectares to 150,000 hectares. The ect prepared the SANBI administrative systems conservation of the targeted land should ensure for GEF engagements.4 the protection of 1,232 plant species; 102 are listed The overall impacts of the thicket biome proj- on IUCN's (International Union for Conservation ect are advances in methods for the analysis and of Nature's) Red List of Threatened Species, and conservation planning of plant biomes of South 47 are endemics. The project also supported cre- Africa, existence of a plan for the conservation ation of the Namaqualand Marine Protected Area of an important vegetation type in South Africa, covering 970,000 hectares, whose formal procla- better understood threats to the thicket vegeta- mation is planned for 2007­08. This project has tion, greater awareness on the value and role of catalyzed six new protected areas.2 The project's vegetation type, building of local government implementation completion report indicates that implementation capacity to conserve the thicket the park has injected $1.3 million into wages. through guidelines and workshops, and better About 351 work opportunities, mostly contract understanding of building community-based con- and short term, were created; four are permanent servation activity in parts of the Eastern Cape. The contracts within the SANParks. The conservation impact is evidenced by the uptake of the detailed planning analyses completed for this project are plan into the Eastern Cape provincial biodiversity being incorporated into local authority and pro- conservation plan, as well as SANBI's intention to vincial biodiversity plans. establish an Eastern Cape bioregional coordina- The results of the remaining completed proj- tion unit. ects--conservation farming and Conservation The CEPF has made and continues to make, sig- Planning for Biodiversity in the Thicket Biome-- nificant investments in two biodiversity hotspots have generally occurred in knowledge generation, in South Africa: the Cape Floristic Region and the dissemination, and good practices, providing an Succulent Karoo, contributing to the protection information platform to inform further biodiver- of, respectively, 204,612 hectares (16 percent of sity conservation initiatives. The conservation the identified priority areas) and 97,979 hectares farming initiative was largely a research project, (12 percent of identified priority areas). In terms which successfully identified and evaluated the of investment and leveraging impact in the Cape economic and ecological costs and benefits (in Floristic Region, the committed grants amount terms of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and to $6,133,169,5 while leveraged funds amount to ecosystem health) of conservation farming prac- $3,839,326. In the Succulent Karoo, committed tices, compared with more widespread land-use grants amount to $5,788,689, while leveraged and management practices.3 Influence on policy funds amount to $2,600,229. The CEPF invest- cannot be measured directly; however, informa- ment, owing to its flexibility, has played a signifi- tion from the project has been transferred to tar- cant role in stopping gaps, funding bridging activi- get groups and has influenced related bioregional ties, and maintaining momentum in interventions programs (Subtropical Thicket Ecosystems Plan- in the Cape Floristic Region and Succulent Karoo, ning, Succulent Karoo Environment Programme, while GEF funds were being released. Maloti-Drakensberg Transfrontier Project, and CAPE Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable 5. Results of GEF Support to South Africa 57 Likely Impact of Ongoing Projects The Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative is the fourth The third major SANParks­World Bank project project in the portfolio's evolution for which SAN- to be approved was the Greater Addo Elephant Parks is the national executing agency; UNDP is National Park Project. This ambitious undertaking the IA. The ABI is seen as a pilot initiative of the is proceeding well with achievement of 164,000 of CAPE Strategy Implementation Programme. The the 236,000 hectares terrestrial target and 7,400 of independent midterm evaluation indicated that the 120,000 hectares of declared marine protected the ABI is making excellent progress in achiev- area. A further 17,600 hectares of private land ing its ecological goals. The total amount of land (of the 46,000-hectare target) have been secured. under legally binding conservation management However, it is unlikely that the original targets will on Agulhas Plain is 102,785 hectares (92 percent be met, and revisions are likely because of land of target). The baseline management effective- price escalation and purchase of targeted pri- ness tracking tool scores are at an acceptable stan- vate land for the Coega Industrial Development dard of management; the joint extension service Corporation. The project is intended to effect an of SANParks and the Provincial Department of increase of 30 percent in employment from the Agriculture is overseeing conservation on 120,000 current baseline of 1,228 people. However, the hectares of private land, and targets for alien clear- project implementation reports mention apparent ing and uncontrolled fires are being met. Techni- concerns regarding the extent to which the project cal assessments of the ecological and economic can help generate the planned direct and sustain- sustainability of fynbos harvesting now exist, con- able social and economic benefits. A further key siderable progress has been made toward certifi- concern for this project is how quickly resettled cation, and training strategies and materials are farm workers are being compensated, specifically of high quality; questions remain as to the long- through provision of housing. term viability of fynbos harvesting. The targeted proportion of benefits arising from the project The Richtersveld Community Biodiversity Con- for historically disadvantaged groups--that is, servation Project, the only project within the 40 percent (1,200 families)--is being met (1,032 portfolio that a local authority--the Richtersveld families). The most significant impact beyond Municipality--is executing, is intended to contrib- increased areas under protection has been the ute to the protection of globally significant biodi- piloting of the joint extension service among the versity (a portion of the Succulent Karoo biome) Department of Agriculture, CapeNature, and in the Richtersveld, South Africa, by establishing SANParks, thus securing conservation value out- a strong system of community-based biodiver- side the formal protected area network. The proj- sity conservation in partnership with other key ect has also provided a platform for an assessment stakeholders. Unfortunately, no project reports of model testing for potential rationalization and are available on which to evaluate progress and cooperative governance mechanisms to create impact. Since the GEF funding application was appropriate conservation management capacity first submitted, the Richtersveld has attracted in South Africa. significant funding from other donors, was nomi- nated as a World Heritage Site in 2006, and is part The CAPE Biodiversity Conservation and Sustain- of the greater Gariep Transfrontier Conservation able Development Project, seen as phase 1 of the Area. implementation of the CAPE strategy, is the sec- ond largest biodiversity project investment to date 58 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) and has the global objective of securing conser- kilometers, which will likely need revision, as vation of the Cape Floristic Region and adjacent targets may not be realized by 2009. marine environment by 2024. The project has two z Creation of temporary jobs under the Extended development goals: Public Works, Poverty Relief, Working for z Capable institutions cooperate to develop a Water, and Working on Fire programs. The foundation for mainstreaming biodiversity in project also resulted in the creation of per- the Cape Floristic Region into economic activi- manent positions in conservation and nature- ties, including components and outcomes for based tourism, which are increasing according strengthening institutions; supporting conser- to annual projections. vation education; and implementing a program z Continuing to provide local planning authori- coordination, management, and monitoring ties with defensible biodiversity conservation framework. priorities and guidelines through fine-scale z Conservation of the Cape Floristic Region is planning and land-use planning initiatives. enhanced through piloting and adapting site- These have been incorporated into four spa- based models for sustainable, effective manage- tial development frameworks, including Over- ment and includes components and outcomes strand (through the ABI project), Cape Agul- for managing protected areas, establishing the has, and Theewaterskloof and Drakenstein foundations of the biodiversity economy, and (supported through the CEPF-funded Putting integrating biodiversity concerns into water- Biodiversity Plans to Work project), although shed management. legal mechanisms for ensuring compliance are yet to be tested. The CAPE project has been independently evalu- z Securing 19,276 hectares as of early 2007 ated at midterm (2007). Some of the more inter- through formal stewardship agreements esting measured impacts and outcomes reported dependent on voluntary cooperation. This is an include the following: increase from a 2004 baseline of 16,115 hect- z Development and implementation of a com- ares and toward a target of 56,402 hectares for prehensive strategy for capacity building that June 2009. is flexible and responsive to emerging needs. Numerous positive unintended consequences Graduates of this effort have already been are not adequately dealt with in tracking the log- deployed within projects (for example, Ced- frame indicators. These include the myriad proj- erberg) and cooperating agencies. The CEPF ects resulting from landscape initiatives, as well Table Mountain Fund and World Wide Fund as through the CEPF and Table Mountain Fund. for Nature­South Africa Capacity-Building Overall, the CAPE project has had a profound Programme have significantly contributed to effect on the approach to achieving biodiversity the numbers of black and female managers conservation targets through a bioregional pro- receiving training and placement within the grams approach (see catalytic impacts below). Cape Floristic Region. z Securing just over 100,000 hectares within the protected area system. The target is 4,000 square 5. Results of GEF Support to South Africa 59 Projects Just Starting Implementation Peninsula Biodiversity Conservation Project. Not The goal of the Conservation and Sustainable Use only did it catalyze the conservation of the Cape of Biodiversity on the South African Wild Coast Floristic Region (by establishing the Table Moun- project is to set up a representative system of pro- tain National Park and the Table Mountain Fund, tected areas in priority bioregions that are effec- and by developing the CAPE strategy), but it also tively managed and contribute to the sustainable had a significant influence on South African gov- development objective. ernment institutions and management practices. Examples follow: The GEF CEO finally endorsed this project in 2006, even though it entered the pipeline in 2001 z SANParks--landscape-based approach, inva- and is yet to report progress on implementation. A sive alien clearing and development of contrac- field visit showed that the project could positively tors, knowledge management, environmental contribute to the experience of co-management, education, park planning and development, which is relatively new in South Africa. The com- stakeholder engagement munities that are receiving these reserves (under z SANBI--bioregional planning approach land reclamation) will benefit from the project. z CapeNature--strategic priorities, capacity The community visited was ready to begin the building project. z Working on Fire Program--fire management The National Grasslands Biodiversity Program approaches has targeted the sustainable use of biodiversity and associated ecosystem services of the grasslands z Marine and Coastal Management--establish- biome for the benefit of current and future gen- ing new marine protected areas erations. Annex K presents the expected impact z CAPE partners--institutional collaboration and detailed objectives. As the project is still being and strategic alignment initiated, no impacts have resulted to report; how- ever, SANBI has internalized coordination capac- The CAPE strategy has influenced landscape and ity and recruited an urban coordinator within the bioregional planning in the Subtropical Thicket Gauteng provincial government. Ecosystem Project, Succulent Karoo Ecosystem Project, and National Grasslands Biodiversity Outcomes Program, as well as projects in the Eastern Afri- can Marine Ecoregion (Kenya, Tanzania, and Catalytic and Replication Effects Mozambique), Central Annamites (Vietnam), and Some of the catalytic and replication effects have Eastern Africa Coastal Forests, and the dryland already been outlined as key results of the proj- ecoregional programs of the World Wide Fund for ects, especially where these were planned results. Nature (WWF 2006). This section summarizes key achievements. The establishment approach to and financial suc- Although it is difficult to isolate specific projects cess of the Table Mountain National Park is seen as as the main catalysts for change owing to the clear a model for other parks in the country. Pioneered linkages among projects in design, the project through the GEF investment, these approaches that has had the most significant catalytic and have significantly influenced the development replication effect within the portfolio is the Cape of the Protected Areas Act and the norms and 60 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) standards applied to management of national the CAPE program are seen as international best parks in South Africa. The integrated environ- practice; the CAPE via SANBI has hosted interna- mental management system and allied geographic tional workshops on mainstreaming biodiversity information system­based environmental infor- and business. The grasslands program design has mation system developed for the Cape Peninsula refined the approach by embedding the project Biodiversity Conservation Project represents within production sectors to a greater degree. South African best practice and has served as a The CEPF investment managed by Conservation model for implementing environmental manage- International has worked in concert with CAPE ment systems throughout SANParks. Its estab- (and been the key investor for the Succulent lishment approach and financial success are now Karoo Environment Programme). The CEPF has used as a model for other parks in the country. focused its efforts on leveraging the activities and From the perspective of local replication effect, expertise of local conservation experts, as well as the influence of this project on the GEF-SANParks implementing pilots and models for replication. project design is also visible in the Namaqualand, For example, the project Partnerships, Coopera- Addo, and ABI projects. Each has in turn catalyzed tive Management, and Incentives to Secure Biodi- landscape or bioregional conservation initiatives versity Conservation in Priority Areas in the Cape beyond the boundaries of the national parks. Floristic Region (the Conservation Stewardship Pilot Project) implemented by the Botanical Soci- The Table Mountain Fund is seen as an impor- ety of South Africa informed the overall approach tant catalyst for biodiversity conservation in the to conservation of private land in other bioregional Cape Floristic Region and, in many cases, has programs (for example, the Maloti-Drakensberg been a small, "turnkey" investment, leveraging Transfrontier, ABI, Addo, and CAPE projects), as further funding or piloting approaches that can well as the national program for stewardship. The be embedded in mandated agencies. For example, CEPF is seen as having played a significant catalytic Table Mountain Fund funding supported capacity role within the GEF portfolio in South Africa, spe- building in communities so that more meaningful cifically in the arenas of piloting landscape initia- participation could take place during the consul- tives outside of protected areas in stewardship ini- tation process in the establishment of the marine tiatives and mainstreaming in production sectors. protected area for the Table Mountain National A critical role of the CEPF has been the approach Park. to community engagement in preparation for GEF Much of the funding allocated through the CAPE investments. Overall, the CEPF has proactively program has had a catalytic effect, serving to lever- developed synergies among GEF, private sector, age additional cofinancing and in-kind support and government, and nongovernment investments and commitment for activities. One of the challenges activities. is to record and document these effects. Not only It is unfortunate that the Richtersveld project has it been a key platform on which the SANBI bio- has not progressed to the point at which specific regional programs were built, it has informed the lessons can be extracted, as financially sustain- overall approach in the National Environmental able models for conservation of communal lands Biodiversity Act, the NBSAP, and the Protected remains a challenge in South Africa. Although the Areas Act. Furthermore, the approaches to main- contexts are very different, some elements of the streaming biodiversity in production landscapes in 5. Results of GEF Support to South Africa 61 project (such as sustainable financing) might have (policy, planning, and information systems) and been replicated within the Wild Coast project.6 individual levels (focus on training for project staff or poverty relief beneficiaries), whereas the orga- The catalytic and replication effects are possibly nizational capacity within mandated organizations the most important results of the portfolio of proj- has often not received sufficient attention in order ects in the biodiversity focal area, second only to to sustain the gains or maintain the momentum securing priority biodiversity. As noted by SANBI of the projects. This does not mean that the cata- (2006, p. 255), "There is no shortage of innovative lytic impact of GEF support has not resulted in or projects in the region. The challenge is for short- informed the improvements to institutional capac- term catalytic projects to develop exit strategies ity as a whole (see the above discussion of catalytic that institutionalise the innovations so that they effects). It is important to note for some of the can be sustained." research projects and conservation planning proj- ects that conservation planning outputs--the plans Institutional Sustainability and Capacity Development Outcomes themselves--were the intended basis for sustaining gains, within a strategy for integration within the A key challenge in the context of the biodiversity provincial plans. focal area in South Africa is the ability of institu- tions to sustain the gains made through the GEF Individual capacity development through GEF projects. In SANBI's most recent budget submis- projects has also resulted in South Africa devel- sion for the Medium-Term Expenditure Frame- oping world-renowned scientific and technical work, a specific request in its budget motivation is capacity in systematic conservation planning, to enable increased embedded capacity to ensure mainstreaming, ecological economics, and pay- that gains made through the GEF investment are ment for ecosystem services. The GEF projects sustained beyond the project life-span.7 This bud- have resulted in a level of technical exchanges get request could not immediately be met; how- among projects enabled through SANBI's various ever, it would be incorrect to assume that no con- national forums. Perhaps most important for indi- sideration has been given to embedding capacity vidual capacity has been the incentive to develop to sustain the gains. Many examples exist of such and grow to achieve the results that before the planning having taken place or been developed GEF investment were not seen as attainable. through the project and retained thereafter--for example, the development of the Bioregional Plan- Systemic capacity has been significantly strength- ning Directorate within SANBI, biodiversity geo- ened as a result of the GEF investment. Key policy, graphic information system positions based at the strategy, and legislation changes such as SANBI's SANBI, employment within SANBI of key coordi- expanded mandate, the NBSAP, the National Envi- nator positions for the bioregional programs for, ronmental Management Biodiversity Act, and the among others, the CAPE and grasslands programs. National Environmental Management: Protected Examples of embedded capacity can also be found Areas Act have been funded directly or catalyzed in biodiversity advisers appointed in provincial or informed by GEF investment and projects. For authorities. example, the norms and standards for bioregional plans drew from best practice in the bioregional From the project reviews, the major emphasis for programs supported by the GEF, notably the Cape capacity development is clearly at the systemic Peninsula Biodiversity Conservation Project, the 62 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) CAPE Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable for individuals and organizations to work coop- Development Project, and the CEPF. The CAPE eratively and in partnership beyond sometimes project has informed the institutional model of fiercely defended domains. This has been enabled "a managed network" adopted by SANBI. Signifi- through the project's cooperative governance cant effort has been made by the project in find- structures, such as the CAPE Implementation ing opportunities to share lessons; some of these Committee; and in the design of some projects, for forums have evolved to function at a national example, the joint extension service in ABI involv- level. ing CapeNature, SANParks, and the Department of Agriculture. The challenge will be to sustain the Overall, SANBI and SANParks appear to have partnership-making processes within these pro- responded best to increasing organizational- grams that enable joint planning, implementation, level capacity to sustain project gains. However, and accountability. key concerns relate to CapeNature as an impor- tant implementer of the CAPE project and to the Awareness Eastern Cape Parks Board and the Eastern Cape Significant effort has been invested in awareness Department of Economic Affairs and Environ- raising in many of the landscape-based biodiver- ment as key drivers for implementation of the sub- sity projects, partly because their success directly tropical thicket ecosystems planning outputs and depends on changing behaviors--for example, the support to conservation on private and com- uptake of stewardship arrangements by private munal land outside of formal protected areas. land owners. An issue that may affect institutional sustainabil- ity is the resolution of mandated conservation 5.2 Land Degradation and protected area management--specifically There are no national projects approved in this the proposed, but very slow, process of consider- focal area. The GEF introduced this area in 2002, ing the rationalization of provincial and national and funding became available in 2004. Views dif- conservation management organizations (SAN- fer on why no projects have been approved since Parks and provincial conservation agencies). The this window opened in GEF-3 and when about local government mandate for the conservation $6 million reportedly became available for South of biodiversity is a further concern, specifically in Africa. The TerrAfrica program for land degra- light of increasing devolution of responsibility for dation in Africa was established in GEF-4, which implementing bioregional plans. Another concern included an allocation for South Africa, but no relates to the legal force of bioregional plans as projects were proposed and the funding opportu- established through the National Environmental nity was missed. These issues are further explored Management Biodiversity Act: "Despite the legal in the section on relevance below. The South Afri- requirement concerning reconciliation of, and can components of regional projects, such as in alignment between, bioregional and other plans, the desert margins project and others, are likely the legal status of bioregional plans is limited as to have affected land degradation. However, these there is no positive obligation on authorities to regional projects do not fall within the scope of enforce a bioregional plan."8 this evaluation. The SGP has provided a small A significant effect of the GEF investment, spe- amount of money to land degradation, but none cifically in the bioregional programs, has been 5. Results of GEF Support to South Africa 63 of the four projects has been completed; nor were Impacts of Completed Projects progress reports available. The Development and Protection of the Coastal and Marine Environment in Sub-Saharan Africa-- 5.3 International Waters also known as the African Process project--was Five international waters projects were selected completed in 2002, enabling the assessment of for review in the CPE in terms of their contribu- the threat and causes of degradation in coastal tion to impacts and outcomes at a national level in and marine environments. The main achieve- South Africa. Four of the projects are regional and ments of this project were developing 11 country involve a range of regional partners; the fifth is a profiles that identified the main environmental global project. The global project was designed to problems and their impacts and root causes and enable six partner countries around the world to hotspots and sensitive areas in the coastal and pilot the project in one port per country to build marine environment. This provided the platform national and regional cooperation on the con- for 19 subregional project proposals related to trol and management of ballast water from ships coastal erosion, management of key habitats, sus- entering ports. tainable use of living resources, tourism, and pol- lution, plus one project that is part of the Global Three of the international waters projects targeted Ocean Observing System Africa program. During results on "political commitments to improved the Johannesburg WSSD in 2002, a program of multi-country cooperation supporting sustain- interventions was adopted and incorporated into able economic development opportunities, stabil- the NEPAD environmental program, indicative of ity, water-related security in transboundary water increased awareness of mainly African decision systems"; and two were designed to ensure that makers on the importance of coastal and marine "participating states demonstrate the necessary management. Overall, the project seems to have ability to reduce overexploitation of fish stocks, had a positive effect on the participating African reduce land-based coastal pollution, and balance nations supporting the objectives of the Abidjan competing water uses in basins & report subse- and Nairobi regional conventions. quent water-related improvements." The global ballast water control project has The Benguela Large Marine Ecosystem Pro- undoubtedly contributed to strengthening politi- gramme and ballast water projects relate to "restor- cal commitment to improved multicountry coop- ing and sustaining coastal and marine fish stocks eration on the control and management of ballast and associated biodiversity," while the remaining water. South Africa itself moved from low aware- two projects--Western Indian Ocean Highway, ness of the dangers of ballast water importing and Development and Protection of the Coastal invasive species and threatening economic activ- and Marine Environment in Sub-Saharan Africa-- ity to ratification of the International Convention target outcomes related to "reducing nutrient for the Control and Management of Ships Ballast overenrichment and oxygen depletion from land- Water and Sediments and agreement to comply based pollution of coastal waters in Large Marine with the specified standards and requirements Ecosystems consistent with the GPA." on ballast water. Although South Africa does not yet have the policy and regulatory frameworks in place to enforce compliance with this convention, it is close to putting these in place.9 The terminal 64 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) evaluation of the global ballast water project does The Distance Learning and Information Sharing not systematically assess the impacts of this proj- tool for the Benguela Coastal Areas (DList) proj- ect in each national or regional context, but rather ect is close to completion. Oriented to support and presents a generalized picture of achievement capacity building, the project has inevitable chal- across countries and regions. This is unfortunate, lenges related to specifying clear expectations and as it would have been valuable to document a com- achievement of impact. Reports indicate signifi- parative picture of specific impact at national and cant outputs, but do not report specific impacts in regional levels, as well as specific lessons learned terms of its objective "to improve global manage- that could inform future projects. Interviews con- ment of transboundary water systems by increas- ducted appear to indicate that the project has not ing capacity to replicate best practices and lessons fully affected all areas expected in South Africa learned in each of the GEF International Waters and, through South Africa, the region. More Operational Programs." The project's relation- detailed information on the results of the project ship to the BCLME project, to which DList's com- within South Africa is presented below, under cat- munication objectives were linked in the project alytic and replication effects. design, has been limited. Staff indicated that this is so because, at this point, the BCLME project is The terminal evaluation for the Benguela Current primarily a scientific research project. The scope of LME program was unfortunately not available the DList project has been South Africa, Namibia, at the time of analysis and report writing. How- and Angola, but its effective reach into Angola is ever, the key impact in terms of political commit- reportedly relatively limited, while it has an estab- ments is the establishment of the Benguela Cur- lished network in South Africa and Namibia. rent Commission, which, although advisory, will Project staff are currently working on establishing be responsible for the development and ongoing impact and outcome indicators that could be used implementation of transboundary agreements to track results rather than outputs. and treaties for the BCLME. Catalytic and Replication Effects Likely Impact of Ongoing Projects Some of the catalytic effects of the global ballast The Western Indian Ocean Highway project is too water project have been touched on above. The recent for any projection of likely impacts to be initial survey of the Saldanha port as part of the made. The project overlaps significantly with the pilot project led the South African Port Authority global ballast water project, and it will presum- to arrange a survey of four other ports. A ballast ably be able to build on the impacts, described water risk assessment that will enable monitoring above, at national and regional levels in terms of and management of compliance has been devel- improved political commitment, policy alignment, oped and will form part of policy. The project and cooperation of the eight countries (Comoros, has provided the impetus for an assessment of Kenya, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mozambique, Sey- changes required to ensure compliance with the chelles, South Africa, and Tanzania) regarding the International Maritime Organization convention, highway. Although the project document men- a commitment from South Africa to seek Inter- tions the global ballast water project, it contains national Standards Organization 14000 environ- no explicit analysis of results to date, challenges, mental certification for all port facilities, and the opportunities, or next steps. drafting of the necessary policy and regulatory 5. Results of GEF Support to South Africa 65 changes (currently in process). The project has Angola, South Africa, and Namibia has developed also improved regional cooperation by establish- strong cooperative research relationships in laying ing partnerships and relationships with regional the scientific basis for interventions in sustain- organizations and promoting regional strategic able management and utilization of transbound- action plans. Again, although policies and strate- ary marine resources, assessment of ecosystem gies are not yet fully aligned at the regional level, impacts and improvement in environmental vari- the project has created impetus and networks that ability, and effective pollution management. This are still active among the countries.10 South Africa was assisted significantly by the Benguela Fisher- established linkages to the Nairobi and Abidjan ies Interaction Training Programme, which was a conventions and representatives from port author- precursor and primer to the scientific collabora- ities, ministries, key stakeholders, and regional tion developed through the BCLME. Key to the participants from Africa. A key catalytic outcome sustainable development agenda is the high level of this project in South Africa is the development of cooperation reached by the fisheries institu- of an innovative, commercially viable mechanism tions of the three countries, as well as with the for testing and cleaning ballast water. It has been other ministries involved in the program (Mines designed to meet the standards and requirements and Energy, Environment, and Petroleum). The specified by the International Maritime Organiza- BCLME project has had a significant catalytic tion convention and awaits certification through effect in the countries moving toward an ecosys- the South African Bureau of Standards.11 tem-based approach to fisheries management. The DList project is also able to point to a num- Institutional Sustainability and Capacity ber of catalytic outcomes, which it views as its key Development Outcomes role. It has catalyzed a distance learning course in Although the global ballast water project has sustainable development in coastal areas and an clearly been relatively effectively institutionalized Environmental Resource Centre; these are now in the ports authority and in the National Depart- housed, fully funded, and run by the Cape Penin- ment of Transport, which has responsibility for sula University of Technology. It has also catalyzed port management, it is less clear that the project a number of electronic networks or "communi- has been sustainably institutionalized as part of an ties of practice,"12 which would be self-sustaining, integrated approach to invasive species. Sustain- according to interviews held. ability will require the integration of marine inva- The BCLME project has resulted in significant sive species into current strategies to combat ter- catalytic and potential replication outcomes restrial and freshwater invasive species. The Global informing other African LMEs, such as the Invasive Species Programme, which had provided Guinea, Canary, and Agulhas-Somali Currents much of the coordination and championing of LMEs. These outcomes will be enhanced through the global ballast water initiative, has been moved the confirmation of the NEPAD as the coordina- from Cape Town to Nairobi, and some of those tion focal point for African LMEs. Key to repli- interviewed feared this would negatively affect cation is the design of the project incorporating the institutional sustainability and momentum of an array of priority measures, as identified in the the project in South Africa. The project initiated transboundary diagnostic analysis and the strate- a workshop in Saldanha Bay a year before project gic action program. The scientific community in closure which included relevant ministries and 66 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) laid the basis for improved coordination by devel- Process outcomes also indicates a high degree of oping a practical management plan and clarifying awareness at a political level. roles and responsibilities. The plan is currently being updated to take account of the Convention Summary of International Waters Results and Ports Act, but is currently implemented in z GEF support has resulted in South Africa's several ports. In the same year, the project initi- involvement in agreements for coordinated ated a ballast water management course held in regional and international management of Cape Town and attended by representatives of the marine resources and has provided a robust sci- port authority and ministries, key stakeholders, entific platform and initial networks for coher- and regional participants from Africa. ent regional response and action. The sustainability of the DList project is some- z The international waters interventions have what uncertain as it is tied to the BCLME project, significantly improved the scientific basis for although some of the initiatives of the project have regional prioritization of cooperative interven- become self-sustaining. tions in managing marine resources and land- based activities affecting these resources. The Benguela Current Commission provides the institutional vehicle for ongoing implementation z No direct global benefits for freshwater of priority interventions in the BCLME; these resources have yet been recorded. can build on the significant training and capac- ity building undertaken in the three BCLME 5.4 Climate Change countries (mainly Angola and Namibia) through The spread of projects in the climate change focal various technical training workshops, short-term area predetermines what types of results can be specialized courses, postgraduate science courses, expected: and on-the-job training in laboratories and at sea. Capacity-building activities were designed z At the impact level, all projects are focused on within the projects, often accounting for 15 to 20 climate change mitigation by affecting GHG percent of project budgets. To sustain the gains emissions ("reduction or avoidance of GHG in being made in the BCLME project, concerted areas of renewable energy, energy efficiency, effort in capacity building will need to continue. and sustainable transport"). None have targeted Most of the monitoring for capacity development impact on capacity to adapt to climate change has been undertaken at the output level. More ("increase resilience to the adverse impacts of effort will be necessary to design indicators that climate change of sectors and communities"). adequately monitor the outcomes and impact of z At the outcome level, no projects are tar- these interventions. geted to improving energy efficiency.13 All are designed to achieve outcomes related to the Awareness growth of renewable energy markets, except The BCLME program interventions have resulted for the transport and enabling activity projects. in improved awareness of the LME and the need The renewable energy markets targeted cover for cooperation in sustainable management at the a wide spectrum of applications: solar cookers, highest political level, namely, the Bengela Cur- commercial and domestic solar water heaters, rent Commission. NEPAD adoption of the African 5. Results of GEF Support to South Africa 67 solar thermal electric technology, wind energy, The other two projects completed were both pilot and fuel cells. studies to test viability and feasibility of renewable energy options. Both the solar cooker and solar A key feature of the projects in this focal area is thermal electric technology projects are reported that only three of the eight are completed and one to have demonstrated such significant challenges of those is an enabling activity. Thus, the potential and limitations that both projects conclude that for achieving results is less than in the case of bio- the technology is not really viable, feasible, or rel- diversity, which has a number of projects already evant to the context and needs. The total emis- completed. However, the key potential contribu- sion reduction achieved by the cooker project was tion of most of the climate change projects out- reported as 5.1 kilotons of CO2 equivalent (about lined in annex K is not likely to be the quantity 2.5 percent of the target). These results do not of GHG emissions directly reduced, but their make these projects failures, however. They have contribution to the body of knowledge required been successful as pilots in demonstrating the to analyze policy and strategy options and to cata- characteristics, opportunities, and limitations of lyze change through demonstration, removing the technology so that an informed judgment can barriers, and/or influencing the establishment of be made about whether further investments are a more enabling environment. advisable and worthwhile. Reliable results that are able to inform decisions about technology options Impacts of Completed Projects based on actual impact assessments are rare and South Africa began to develop the INC under valuable. These results do raise questions about the UNFCCC in 1998 and submitted it to the the extent to which prefeasibility assessments were GEF COP in 2003. The actual impacts of the made and their adequacy. This is especially the INC are difficult to trace directly. Although the case with the solar cooker project, as a previous second national communication is not yet com- phase of the project designed to establish whether plete, impacts would likely be found in both cli- a pilot was worthwhile concluded that the tech- mate change mitigation and adaptation, where the nology had significant potential in South Africa, baseline studies, including the GHG inventories, while the pilot demonstrated conclusively that it have significantly strengthened the foundation for had very limited application and little potential to effective strategic decisions and action. It is not reduce GHG emissions. Although both refer to possible to link the INC directly to GHG emis- pilot studies of the technology in other contexts, sions reduced or to increased resilience of sectors little evidence exists that these were used to assess and communities to the adverse impacts of climate which renewable energy options have the best change. Although South Africa appears not to have potential and should therefore be prioritized for made much progress in reducing GHG emissions demonstration projects. The GEF could poten- yet, faces major challenges in doing so, and still tially make an important contribution by making has enormous vulnerabilities to climate change, the learning from its vast global portfolio available this project will undoubtedly have contributed to for national assessments in terms of its relevance what impact has been made or will be made over to the national context. time. The most relevant results for GEF enabling activities are likely to be their catalytic effects (see Furthermore, it might be valuable to revisit the following discussion). conclusions of the solar thermal electric technol- ogy project in the current context in South Africa, 68 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) as very significant changes have affected the extent transport project is also likely to benefit from the to which Eskom is able to provide low-cost base- urgent need to prepare for the 2010 World Cup. load power, and options that could increase peak Only one of the ongoing projects is near com- power supply would be welcomed. pletion, but none of the documents available Likely Impact of Ongoing Projects indicate the targeted impact and past or likely achievements either on GHG emissions reduced Annex K indicates that, for at least half the proj- by increasing use of renewable energy or on out- ects, it is too early to predict their likely impact comes in removing key barriers to the solar water or likely achievement of the impact expected. Two heater market. Key enabling achievements related of these are relatively new--the sustainable public to standards and codes of practice are likely to transport and Renewable Energy Market Trans- contribute substantially to the outcome targeted formation (REMT) projects; the other two--the and to the likelihood of reductions in GHG emis- fuel cells and wind energy projects--have been sions from fossil fuel­based energy. delayed for substantial periods, but have recently gotten under way. It is not clear why they have been Catalytic and Replication Effects so delayed but a number of government officials Given significant impending changes in the South and IA staff indicate that a major factor has been African energy sector, achieving catalytic effects the changing processes, procedures, and inclina- is even more important. As one climate change tions of the GEF itself, as well as staff turnover and specialist interviewed noted, "In terms of effec- lack of capacity in executing agencies. This delay is tiveness, GEF's ability to influence major changes regrettable at a time when South Africa needs reli- and actual amounts of GHG avoided in [the South able information to respond to the energy crisis. Africa] energy sector is quite limited; the real value Had these projects been able to demonstrate the is in what GEF brings in being a catalyst in inno- capabilities and requirements of the technology, vative ways of doing things, sharing knowledge, they might have been very influential. In this con- lessons, etc."14 The actual catalytic and replication text, however, all have a strong chance of receiving results achieved are therefore of central impor- active support and interest from a range of gov- tance to this evaluation. ernment and commercial stakeholders. South Africa's INC is likely to have had the most As stated above, because South Africa is at a com- far-reaching catalytic effect of the climate change paratively early stage in introducing renewable projects, even though no reports or evaluations of energy, the value of almost all the projects will outcomes resulted from the project, and attribu- be in their influence through testing and dem- tion is difficult in this area. No requirement exists onstrating technology; removing market barri- for reporting progress or conducting independent ers; and improving the enabling environment in terminal evaluations of GEF-funded enabling terms of the policy, regulatory, budgetary, and activities. These usually involve the development strategy frameworks needed to support technol- of situational analyses and strategy frameworks to ogy changes. Many are still at too early a stage to enable countries to implement the requirements be able to predict how successful they will be in of the relevant convention. These analyses and achieving these outcomes. The current shortage strategy documents are a mandatory part of com- of available power is, however, conducive. The pliance with the convention to ensure countries 5. Results of GEF Support to South Africa 69 have the relevant data to analyze requirements for Although the project has clearly had a catalytic fulfilling their obligations under the conventions effect, it has stopped short of a concrete and and institute the requisite plans and institutional specific strategy on climate change that is fully arrangements. Both the process and product of aligned with energy policy, practice, and needs in these projects have the potential for fundamen- South Africa. One reason may well be the project's tal and far-reaching catalytic effects on the policy, inability to complete the anticipated macroeco- strategy, and practice of countries in the areas cov- nomic analysis and modeling. This is unfortunate, ered by the conventions. In terms of process, these as it would have enabled South Africa to analyze projects have the potential to catalyze national options and make strategic and informed deci- discussion, debate, networks, and communities sions on how to achieve greater energy efficiency of interest and practice across a range of sectors and a more diverse energy mix without compro- and groups. In terms of the product, the projects mising the imperatives related to strengthening may potentially enable the collection, verifica- the economy and tackling poverty. This analy- tion, and analysis of data sets that may not exist or sis was deferred to a following phase, but was be adequate, and an analysis of the situation and essential if South Africa was to confidently make options that can inform decisions at all levels from decisions with socioeconomic implications, spe- national policy to the decisions of small business cifically in the energy field, given the very specific owners. dependence of the South African economy on fos- sil fuels. The macroeconomic modeling of options It is not possible to detail, nor has it been possible to is now under way and involves the most senior trace, all the catalytic effects of South Africa's INC political and administrative leadership, as detailed or the range of detailed country studies on which below. it was based. The INC was and continues to be an important contribution to South Africa's capacity The INC project undoubtedly contributed to gen- to develop policy and strategy regarding climate erating sufficient urgency and interest to provoke change. Even before the final report was submit- a large-scale National Climate Change Conference ted, it influenced the development of a range of in 2005. About 600 delegates from government, policy and strategy, including the Medium-Term business, academia, and civil society, including Priority Framework for South Africa to guide the a wide range of South African cabinet ministers, allocation of grants from the GEF, the National attended. The conference made resolutions on a Climate Change Response Strategy, Energy Effi- range of measures, most of which have been insti- ciency Strategy, and White Paper on Renewable tuted (Winkler and Marquard 2007): Energy. This project, building on other donor- z Increased cross-government coordination on funded studies, has ensured South Africa's ability climate change to develop policies and strategies based on reli- able information, including GHG inventories, and z Use of the 2004 Air Quality Act to regulate technical and situational analyses in a range of GHG emissions areas, including the potential of renewable energy z Establishment of a South African National and energy efficiency options and vulnerabilities Energy Research Institute arising from climate change, that were not in place before. z Development of a technology needs assess- ment 70 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) z Establishment of a National Energy Efficiency agreements using the Darling Wind Farm Dem- Agency onstration Project as a case study.16 z Compilation of sectoral plans to augment the The other project that has had clear and important national Climate Change Response Strategy catalytic and replication effects is the nearly com- z Inauguration of a long-term, scenario-building pleted solar water heater project. The 500 solar process to examine how South Africa can best water heaters installed during the life of the proj- meet GHG reduction targets and development ect will be expanded to 1 million to be installed goals at the same time through an Eskom project of R 2 billion that is targeting savings in fossil fuel­produced energy As the analysis of impact shows, the only two proj- use by high-end domestic users to maximize sav- ects completed have both concluded that replica- ings. Very extensive and significant lessons were tion is not advisable, particularly because of mar- learned and enabling conditions created in the ket conditions at the time they were completed. solar water heater project. These are being applied They also decided that this conclusion should in the Eskom program, such as the need to estab- probably be reviewed in the case of the solar ther- lish quality assurance mechanisms for installation mal electric technology project, given the signifi- and manufacture. Annex K lists the standards and cant changes in South Africa's energy situation codes of practice that were established and now that would make the potential "niche application support the growing industry. A subsidy of 35 per- as a peak power option" identified in the project cent on installation costs will be applied to incen- completion report more viable. A disjuncture tivize installation and reduce the market barrier apparently exists between the formal conclusions related to high cost. Eskom will sell carbon cred- of the project and Eskom's response. Despite the its to add to the subsidy it can give. More work is completion report's conclusions, the project has probably needed on the model, as the installation also catalyzed additional funding and technology industry is reportedly reluctant to sign up for the development. Eskom decided to continue with Eskom program and skeptical about its feasibil- phase 2 project development using its own fund- ity.17 Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Municipality ing, and has developed a large-scale solar thermal will fund solar water heaters for all houses, creat- project. Eskom believes that the initial project has ing a hot water utility that is totally off the grid had a significant catalytic effect as it "changed the and manage repayments of the R 7,000 installation way we thought about renewables" by demon- fee over 10 years, as well as maintaining the infra- strating the potential to overcome intermittency structure for residents. It may be assumed that this and enable storage.15 project's replication effects will increase sharply in the wake of the current power supply crisis. The wind energy project catalyzed a 20-year power purchase agreement with the city of Cape Town. All the projects in this focal area are designed to This was set as a precondition for the project and have catalytic and replication effects, but it is too forms part of an agreement by the city to purchase early to expect any results for the remaining proj- 20 percent of its energy needs from renewable ects; their potential has recently improved signifi- energy sources by 2020. The DME has produced cantly. This and the sustainability of the catalytic guidelines on how to assess and process inde- effects noted above will depend on their relevance pendent power producers and power purchase to the current and evolving policy and strategy 5. Results of GEF Support to South Africa 71 context in South Africa (discussed in more detail projects off the ground, this is a pertinent ques- in chapter 6). tion for stakeholder follow-up. Institutional Sustainability and Capacity Many of the projects report several outputs that Development Outcomes may well have contributed to improved organi- zational capacity. These include training courses; All the projects will have built the capacity of the presentations at various local and international individuals involved, although no specific data events; and booklets, handbooks, and guides. No exist to support this. Because much of this work significant organizational capacity development involved the active analysis and strategic assess- outcomes are reported, but the REMT and trans- ment of contexts and technologies, the learning port projects can be singled out as targeting orga- involved is likely to be substantial. Various project nizational and institutional capacity development documents and some of those interviewed note in a systematic way. The REMT specifically tar- the important capacity gaps in key institutions; gets the DME, the National Energy Regulator of systemic issues related to the fragmentation of South Africa, financial institutions, and industry mandates in relation to energy decision making; actors; the transport project strongly emphasizes and contradictory policy, practice, and incentives developing capacity for integrated transport plan- that highlight the importance of energy efficiency ning at the municipal level. Institutional capac- on the one hand, but incentivize energy-intense ity is clearly a critical issue for project effective- industry. Almost all the project documents for ness and sustainability, and improved results may renewable energy projects note the existence of require more systematic analysis and targeting of significant market barriers to renewable energy capacity needs. technology, of which cost is often the most impor- tant, and the absence of adequate enabling condi- The major focus of the wind energy project is "tech- tions and market incentives, such as clear, manda- nical assistance to the South African government tory feed-in tariffs and a voluntary green electricity in terms of the development of the most appropri- trading scheme. ate financial and policy instruments." The project document thoroughly analyzes the systemic and All the energy-related projects note that, in the market barriers preventing previous wind farms absence of specified improvements in capacity in from becoming operational, let alone effective. government and outside, improved policy coordi- Addressing these barriers would involve supply- nation and coherence, and removal of key market ing reliable information to potential independent barriers where relevant, little chance exists of sus- power producers, adapting the environmental taining, let alone replicating, project gains. How- impact assessment process to be more relevant ever, the actual mitigation of the risks involved to the specifics of wind farms to the necessity of and systematic targeting of the required capacity government regulation, and facilitating the energy development are not always built strongly enough sector in ways that take into account the real costs into project design or reporting. In a recent com- of fossil fuel­generated energy, remove market ment on the REMT project design, UNDP ques- barriers to commercial renewable energy, and tioned whether the design took adequate account enable access to the grid. This project has been of the reasons for the limited success of many of considerably delayed and thus has had little time the previous projects. Given the very significant to achieve these outcomes. It was first approved delays in getting many of the climate change 72 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) as a two-phase project in 2004, but reworked as a 5.5 Multifocal Area Projects single three-year project that was finally approved Multifocal projects vary widely in scope and in mid-2007, specifically redesigned to target focus, and only one has been completed: support improvements in the enabling environment that to enable the "greening" of South Africa's arrange- had undermined earlier wind energy demonstra- ments to host the WSSD. tion projects. The strongest example of systematic capacity- Impacts of Completed Projects building outcomes supporting renewable energy The WSSD support project has not clearly identi- is the solar water heater project, which tackled key fied the impact expected or analyzed the results market barriers and established enabling condi- for the impact achieved. It is not possible to iden- tions through the codes and standards developed, tify whether global benefits have been derived and as well as the institutional mechanisms to apply what they were, but benefits are likely to have been them. The project developed training accredited related more to catalytic effects than the project by the South African Qualifications Authority, itself, as the project started too late to influence which included the code of practice and was deliv- the actual arrangements for WSSD significantly. ered to installers in all provinces. This represents, The project focus shifted, and the WSSD project however, only one group of the market barriers undoubtedly contributed to documenting good analyzed and evident for commercial solar water environmental practice in a range of areas, raising heaters. awareness, and providing some useful infrastruc- ture for recycling. UNDP indicates that lessons Awareness learned are being transferred to the preparations As with capacity building, project reports do not for the 2010 World Cup in South Africa. generally target or report clear outcomes in this area. Changes in awareness at all levels and in all Likely Impact of Ongoing Projects spheres and sectors are vital to changes in adop- The National Capacity Self-Assessment for Global tion of alternative energy and improvements Environmental Management project was initiated in energy efficiency. It is safe to infer from the in 2004 and, although it has made some progress, reports, however, that many of these projects will it has not yet been completed. Therefore, the directly or indirectly contribute in many spheres project has not met its two-year target for agree- to extending awareness and a deeper understand- ing on capacity development needs and a strat- ing of the relation between energy and climate egy to meet them. This is unfortunate as the lack change. The solar water heater project is a good of a fully systematic and coordinated approach example of the deliberate targeting of key actors to capacity development needs and programs to build general awareness of alternative technolo- in terms of the requirements of the UNCBD, gies, but also practical understanding in a specific UNCCD, and UNFCCC has been identified as a market among consumers, suppliers, installers, key gap in ensuring the achievement of adequate, and government officials. sustainable, and effective impact in South Africa in terms of these conventions. It would also have provided a systematic base on which South Africa could drive and influence the GEF portfolio and 5. Results of GEF Support to South Africa 73 the design of projects to ensure they take adequate been operational in practice for three years; it account of the national context and needs. actually started operations in 2003 and lost a full year between the departure of one national As annex K highlights, a similar situation exists for coordinator and the appointment of another. It is the SGP: no concrete objectives, indicators, or tar- possible to infer negative impact on community gets were specified for this program at the national projects and potentially on communities based level, and the national strategy has not yet been on the extended period during which all effec- approved. Recent SGP documents have begun to tive management of the program and continued specify expected achievements in greater detail, disbursements to projects had ended. This find- and current plans link objectives and indicators ing is significant when, not only were results pos- to GEF program objectives and outline a basis for sibly not achieved in specific projects as a result improved monitoring and evaluation. The likely of the overall program management, but harm impact of SGP projects is also difficult to assess, as was also possibly done. This is very likely the main only one report was available, which covered 9 of reason for the small number of projects overall the 36 projects. (The SGP national office provided and the limited number completed. Other prob- an updated figure of 41 projects.) lems reportedly also contributed, including the It is possible to infer some positive impact at the following: community level from the spread of SGP proj- z The limited funds available in the operating ects. A very user-friendly Web site provides a budget for travel affect the extent to which useful overview of each project. The majority of community projects can receive the atten- projects target the four poorest provinces, identi- tion and support needed to conceptualize and fied as priorities for the SGP by the South African implement them effectively. Limited funds have government--North West, Limpopo, KwaZulu- also meant that full board meetings cannot be Natal, and the Eastern Cape--but some projects held, as the budget cannot cover the travel costs have been accepted in other provinces. The focus of the board members, who have volunteered of the projects identified was, at least initially, bio- their time. diversity, climate change, and international waters. In practice, as with the national portfolio, the SGP z There is high turnover of coordinators and focused early on the biodiversity focal area; climate difficulty in appointing and retaining staff for change has caught up in more recent allocations, the program, suggesting that the remuneration while the other focal areas have received far less. and conditions of service, such as the one-year The information on the number and status of SGP contract, should be reviewed for the extent to projects is inconsistent, but nevertheless shows which they are appropriate in the context of that relatively few projects have been undertaken South Africa. and between 5 and 14 have been completed. In the z The restriction on the period of support that nine projects for which some reports are available, projects can expect means that the SGP's sup- benefits related to improved habitat and species port often ends just as the project gets under preservation, as well as improved receptiveness way and really needs support. of renewable energy and capacity to adapt to the effects of climate change, are reported. As pointed out in the interviews, however, the SGP has only 74 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) Catalytic and Replication Effects Awareness A documented record of catalytic or replica- The WSSD project reports a wide range of out- tion effects in the case of the SGP is not avail- puts that presumably will have some outcomes in able. This is unfortunate, as this program has the increased awareness of contributing factors and potential to contribute substantially to improving measures available to reduce unsustainable nega- understanding and practice on community-based tive impacts on the environment. These range approaches. from sensitizing volunteers to developing a hand- book on applying sustainable development prin- The most significant potential of the WSSD initia- ciples when organizing events. tive lies in possible catalytic and replication effects. It "aimed to influence government, IGO [interna- Summary tional governmental organizations], NGO, and z The delay completing the NCSA may represent corporate policy by encouraging the hosting of a significant missed opportunity to put in place green events." The terminal evaluation mentions a framework that could be used to guide strate- the following outcomes relevant to this objective: gic decision making on capacity building in the z Some (unspecified) companies devised or GEF portfolio and other relevant donor agree- strengthened environmental management ments. plans. z The SGP is another opportunity in which z Responsible tourism campaign and water con- potential has not been fully used, specifically to servation audits encouraged hotels and confer- explore how best to build the links among envi- ence centers to reassess their environmental ronmental, social, and economic dimensions of management plans. More than 70 hotels signed sustainable development. a statement of intent, committing themselves to improving their environmental management 5.6 Other Focal Areas systems. No results exist in the other focal areas. South z Several (mostly unspecified) organizations, in Africa has only recently become eligible for GEF particular, the World Bank, set out to assess support in the ozone focal area, so the national the effect of their travel and devise solutions for portfolio has no projects in this area. South Africa offsetting their travel impact. earlier received special permission for a methyl bromide project, which was later removed from Institutional Sustainability and Capacity the portfolio. Development Outcomes One national project is ongoing in the POPs area The SGP has begun to draw community and civil (Enabling Activities for the Stockholm Conven- society organizations together to share lessons, tion on POPs National Implementation for South ideas, and resources. Two workshops attended by Africa). This activity has as its objective the devel- 48 organizations have been held. This is potentially opment of an NIP that will allow South Africa to a very valuable initiative. No additional outcomes meet its reporting obligations under the conven- have been reported beyond those mentioned in tion, prepare the groundwork for implementation relation to the catalytic effects. of the convention in South Africa, and strengthen 5. Results of GEF Support to South Africa 75 national capacity to manage POPs and chemicals gel indicate that the key reasons for the delays have management capacity generally. been weak capacity of the IA and pending legal issues relating to land reallocation and the nomi- This project, initiated in 2002, has made prog- nation for World Heritage site status. ress, but has not been completed. The likelihood 7. Interview with Brian Huntley, ex-CEO of SANBI. of it achieving the expected impact is difficult to 8. Quoted in the CAPE Biodiversity Conservation for assess, but DEAT officials indicated that consul- Sustainable Development project medium-term tants were appointed in 2007, the project is now evaluation (2007). relatively close to completion, and it has estab- 9. Interviews with Lynn Jackson, CEC, formerly of lished effective synergies with the African stock- DEAT and SANBI's Global Invasive Species Pro- piles project as well as DEAT's Hazardous Waste gramme, and Dr. Johann Augustyn, DEAT, Marine Management Strategy. The project is enabling the and Coastal Management. identification of contaminated sites, which will be 10. Interviews with Lynn Jackson and Dr. Johann a requirement of pending legislation on the man- Augustyn. agement of waste. 11. Interview with Bernard Jacobs, ReSource Ballast Technologies. Notes 12. Interview with Rean van der Merwe, Information 1. The increased number of hectares under pro- Technology and Communications, Eco Africa. tection in terrestrial and marine ecosystems or increased area under sustainable management has 13. A project intended to improve energy efficiency not been totaled because of inconsistent report- by setting standards and requiring appliance label- ing across projects and unverified time frame and ing was initiated in 2004 and removed with other data. pipelined projects at the end of GEF-3; it has not yet been registered on the official GEF Web page 2. Namaqua National Park, Namaqua Corridor, for South Africa within RAF-allocated projects, Namaqua Coastal Park, Richtersveld Transfrontier although it seems to be in the pipeline for the sec- Conservation Area, Goegab, and Knersvlakte. ond part of the RAF (after July 2008). 3. These components were measured across four 14. Interview with Prof. Anton Eberhard, Manage- sites in the Succulent Karoo, Albany Thicket, and ment Programme in Infrastructure Reform and Eastern Drakensberg, all identified as spatial pri- Regulation. orities, as well as the Nama Karoo. 15. Interview with Wendy Poulton, Eskom, general 4. Interview with Ingrid Nanni, SANBI. manager, Corporate Sustainability. 5. These amounts come from the CEPF global fund, 16. Interviews with Hermann Oelsner, vice president, which includes several donors; no information is World Wind Energy Association, and Andre Otto; available at this time on the GEF contribution to and from their comments on the draft report. the CEPF South Africa program. 17. Interviews with Kevin Davie, Mail & Guardian. 6. Comments on the draft report by the newly appointed World Bank task manager K. Feuerrie- 76 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) 6. Relevance of GEF Support to South Africa This chapter addresses the following evaluation context has changed fundamentally and in which questions: the GEF framework of focal areas covered, strat- egies, objectives, indicators, and requirements z Is GEF support relevant to South Africa's sus- have also changed substantially. Second, during tainable development agenda and environmen- the period under review, South Africa has not had tal priorities? an official sustainable development strategy or a z Is GEF support relevant to national develop- concrete program guiding its interaction with the ment needs and challenges? GEF as a whole. Although DEAT developed the South African GEF Medium-Term Policy Frame- z Is GEF support relevant to national environ- work, it did not have clear objectives and targets mental policies and frameworks? or prioritize across or within focal areas. Similarly, z Is the country supporting the GEF mandate South Africa's policy and strategy in some of the and focal area programs with its own resources focal areas is still evolving and, where clear pol- or support from other donors? icy exists, has not been in place for the duration z Is GEF support relevant to the achievement of of the GEF engagement. The enabling activities, the GEF mandate of maximizing global ben- designed to develop strategy and plans in each efits, principles (cost-effective, catalytic, sus- focal area, have only provided concrete plans and tainable, and replicable), and objectives of each targets for biodiversity. This is the only focal area GEF focal area's operational programs and in which clear judgments of relevance can be made strategies? of projects approved after the NBSAP. z Is GEF support relevant to the GEF Agencies' Every effort has been made to signal the timing strategies and frameworks? involved and any significant changes over time without belaboring the issue unnecessarily. In this z How relevant is the RAF index to country pri- context, some form of retrofitting of strategies orities? and frameworks is relatively inevitable to build It is particularly difficult to assess the relevance of up any picture of the relevance of the portfolio or the GEF portfolio in South Africa in terms of most the projects in each focal area, even in terms of of the questions above, for a number of reasons. a framework, policy, or strategy that has become First, the portfolio spans 13 years and 4 GEF phases, available since project initiation. Almost all rel- in which the South Africa policy and legislative evant policies and strategies were developed after 77 1994 when South Africa joined the GEF, but also of the "advantaged" minority, while ensuring when the first democratic elections were held access to rapid social and economic development post-apartheid. The approach used in this chapter for the majority, without following the same natu- is to explore the issue of relevance in terms of the ral resource­intensive development path typical policies and strategies that are in place now, not in the past. Relevant support to South Africa will to try to make absolute judgments on whether the need to align with this central strategic challenge portfolio, focal area projects, or individual proj- through initiatives such as those that improve effi- ects are or were relevant. This means looking at ciency in natural resource use, promote increased the picture that emerges on the relevance of the economic and social development through low portfolio at this point, set against the frameworks resource consumption and waste-production available now, fully acknowledging its retrospec- paths, and ensure a more equitable development tive nature and noting relevant issues on the align- trajectory by significantly increasing the availabil- ment of timing. ity of decent jobs and promoting sustainable liveli- hoods for all. The specific frameworks applied and the issues related to alignment over time in the South Africa, Environmental sustainability cannot ignore the GEF, and GEF Agency contexts have been clearly imperatives of social and economic development signaled in the text where relevant. in South Africa, and these imperatives cannot be sustainable if issues related to the environment 6.1 The GEF Portfolio and South and sustainable use of natural resources are not Africa's Sustainable Development factored into planning and practice at all levels, in Agenda and Environmental all spheres, and by all stakeholders. The draft SFSD notes that, although it may look as if this presents Priorities a hopeless prognosis for development and equity, This section assesses the relevance of the focus and the key will be to decouple social and economic allocation of the overall GEF portfolio in terms of development from the current trajectory of inten- South Africa's emerging SFSD and in terms of the sive natural resource use. MTPF developed by DEAT to guide the develop- ment of proposals for GEF support.1 Efforts to promote sustainable social and eco- nomic development will need to be supplemented The Portfolio and South Africa's Emerging by deliberate action to restore and protect from Sustainable Development Agenda further degradation and depletion those natural resources on which the poor most depend. This Chapter 3 and annex I present South Africa's draft makes measures for adaptation to the negative SFSD and the scope of the challenge in ensuring effects of climate change and specifically for halt- sustainability, while correcting the distortions in ing desertification, land degradation, and pollu- social and economic development that were the tion of central importance. legacy of apartheid. This challenge is central to an assessment of relevance. It is the poor who often experience the economic costs of ecosystem degradation most directly because The SFSD emphasizes that the core of South Afri- the majority of poor households depend on natural ca's sustainable development agenda and priori- resources and ecosystem services such as good soils ties will be to find ways of reducing the footprint and productive seas containing sufficient fish for 78 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) sustainable harvesting. Similarly, poor people often Although there is an obvious general relevance to pay the heaviest price in urban areas when it comes some of the critical pathways, the actual spread of to air pollution, expensive water, and long travel dis- projects across and within focal areas as well as tances (DEAT 2006a, p. 38). the focus and allocation of resources within the Although the draft SFSD does not provide a portfolio highlight that gaps exist. GEF support is detailed prioritized plan against which to assess only a small part of the overall resources available the relevance of the GEF portfolio, it is clear that to South Africa in all focal areas; nevertheless, the portfolio is generally relevant to the agenda some features of the portfolio of national projects and priorities outlined in the five "critical path- raise questions on the following: ways" for action that the document identifies. All z The resources have overwhelmingly been con- of the projects contribute to at least one of the centrated in the biodiversity focal area. critical pathways, and some to more than one. Table 6.1 broadly aligns the projects with the most z There are no projects related to land degrada- relevant pathway. tion or the depletion of the ozone layer. The provision for enabling activities is extremely z There is only one project related to POPs, and relevant in that the vast policy and strategy shifts this has not progressed at all. taking place after 1994 have required detailed base- z There has been little focus on improving the line information, technical and contextual analy- efficiency of resource use. ses, and research that did not exist previously. Table 6.1 Correlation of the GEF Portfolio with the Draft SFSD's Five Critical Pathways Pathway Comment enhancing systems for All enabling activities are designed to enable South Africa to conduct situational analyses integrated planning and and develop strategies and plans for meeting the requirements of the relevant conven- implementation tions. enabling activity allocations are in biodiversity, POPs, and climate change, as well as the general capacity self-assessment. Only biodiversity has resulted in a concrete national strategy and plan. Sustaining our ecosystems and y biodiversity and projects: $57 million or 69 percent of portfolio using resources sustainably y International waters: no information on national allocation in relation to overall allocation to regional projects y Land degradation: no projects y POPs: only an enabling activity (see above) not yet completed economic development No contribution via investing in sustainable infrastructure creating sustainable human the SGP allocated $1.5 million (half of active or completed projects are in biodiversity; most settlements not-yet-active projects are climate change) responding appropriately to the draft SFSD locates climate change initiatives here. climate change projects are all emerging human develop- focused on renewable energy (with the exception of the INc, transport, and WSSD projects); ment, economic, and environ- the current portfolio has no energy efficiency or adaptation projects: mental challenges y climate change: $24.9 million or 29 percent of the portfolio ($11.2 million, almost half of which is for the transport project) y Ozone: no ozone projects 6. Relevance of GEF Support to South Africa 79 z Only 20 percent of the funding allocated to environmental benefits, even at the global level, South Africa is for projects that have been com- has had serious implementation problems (col- pleted. lapsing for a year), has received limited resource allocations, and has completed relatively few z There is no focus on freshwater resources at all projects. within the existing portfolio, although a project on the Senqu-Orange River Basin has recently Some of the gaps can be partly attributed to the fact been approved. that the GEF has only recently offered support in z Although mention is made of the need to create some of the focal areas. The overall South Africa jobs or contribute to livelihoods in a number of portfolio largely reflects the global GEF frame- the project documents, this is often noted as an work, in which biodiversity and climate change added bonus, rather than in recognition of the predominate and are the oldest focal areas, and in absolute interdependence in South Africa of a which support to projects in the land degradation, specific set of social, economic, and environ- POPs, and ozone focal areas is relatively recent and mental factors. There appears to be insufficient relatively limited. Further explanations and issues attention given in the contextual analyses, con- related to the distribution and focus of projects ception, and design of most of the projects to are explored as far as possible below; this includes the imperatives for social and economic devel- whether the global GEF framework is fully aligned opment or recognition. This may be because with South Africa's priorities, why South Africa environmental sustainability is closely tied to did not propose projects in focal areas or thematic the success with which South Africa addresses areas within focal areas where this was possible, poverty and inequality on the one hand and and why implementation and results are stronger overconsumption on the other and because in some focal areas than in others. the zero-growth scenario relevant in developed In summary, general relevance to South Africa's countries is not relevant in South Africa. draft SFSD is clearly evident. However, questions z The portfolio probably has the greatest poten- remain on the relevance of the actual distribution tial impact, less in actual delivery of measurable of the resources. The projects undertaken draw results, than in supporting and assisting South significant additional national resources or other Africa to address the challenges of sustainable ODA, based on GEF requirements on cofinanc- development through projects with potential ing, apart from the time, energy, and attention for replication, catalyzing further action and that each project absorbs; this makes it impor- change or developing, sharing, or transferring tant to ensure a deliberate and strategic process important technical experience and knowl- of selection. This is necessary to ensure projects edge. The current portfolio and project design contribute optimally to the sustainable develop- suggests that this could be more relevantly ment agenda, but also to ensure that important designed in terms of South Africa's needs and and scarce resources, particularly human effort, context. are not diverted from priority areas, given the scale and scope of the needs. All of these issues z The South Africa SGP, with its significant are compelling arguments for a more proactive potential for identifying opportunities for cat- and specific South Africa­GEF strategy, as dis- alytic and replication effects in terms of pro- cussed below. moting sustainable livelihoods and generating 80 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) The Interim Priority Framework the broad set of issues outlined in the GEF MTPF The assessment above has used the emerging in 2001 and 2006 follow. framework for sustainable development to look Although the portfolio is inevitably broadly retrospectively at the relevance of the portfolio. aligned with the MTPF, the framework does not Although the South Africa portfolio was and con- provide a rationale for the heavily skewed pattern tinues to be shaped in the absence of an integrated of allocation and surprising gaps outlined above. sustainable development strategy, DEAT devel- The analysis across time (see chapter 4) shows that oped the GEF MTPF in 2001 to guide the develop- the balance has shifted in terms of the RAF alloca- ment of proposals for GEF support for three years. tions, in which climate change has a fractionally This document and the subsequent 2006 report larger allocation than biodiversity in terms of the clearly note the need to establish a programmatic Global Benefits Index on which the RAF is based. approach to GEF support and acknowledge that The MTPF does not prioritize the focal areas, but the framework represents an unprioritized list of provides an overview of the importance of each issues and needs. area and a list of important issues and needs. DEAT (2006e, p. 1) notes On the basis of the issues outlined in the MTPF, previously, GEF projects in South Africa, although the most surprising gap at the portfolio level is addressing the national priorities of South Africa, were land degradation and the results in terms of capac- rather fragmented and were initiated in a fairly ad hoc ity building. manner. Although these projects were contributing to the country's overall environmental goals, they were Land Degradation not conceived as part of a holistic programme for GEF investment. The omission of any projects in the land degra- dation focal area is a significant gap, given that The focal point indicates that plans to develop a South Africa overall is vulnerable to land degra- holistic program for GEF investment were aban- dation. Expansion of the GEF mandate only in doned when the RAF came into being, chang- 2002 to include land degradation and GEF's des- ing the whole process of how projects are iden- ignation as a UNCCD financial mechanism only tified. Alternatively, the RAF is seen by others as in 2003 funded through GEF-3 have played a key an opportunity for more strategically allocating role in this. South Africa's minister of Environ- GEF support on the basis of a more predictable mental Affairs and Tourism raised the issue of the allocation. relevance of the GEF allocation at the Third GEF Assembly in Cape Town in August 2006:2 It is difficult to assess the overall balance of the portfolio in terms of its focus and the allocation To take this forward we may want to ask how we cre- of resources in the absence of a concrete and pri- ate the political space to constructively discuss the oritized framework based on an integrated strat- long-term role and resourcing of the GEF, in light of escalating global challenges. This must be informed egy for sustainable development. The relevance of by a set of benchmarks set by the Conventions. There the specific focus of the projects within each focal appears to be a discontinuity in the current replenish- area is assessed in some detail below for biodiver- ment process where "benchmarks" are based on what sity and climate change, and briefly for the five donors are prepared to commit rather than a diligent regional international waters projects. General costing of the resource requirements of developing observations on the relevance of the portfolio to countries to implement the Conventions. For example, 6. Relevance of GEF Support to South Africa 81 the resources allocated for the land degradation focal and so on), but the potential catalytic and repli- areas under GEF 3, were not sufficient to fully address cation effects of projects and openings they cre- the basic requirements of the Convention to Combat ate for sharing of experience, technical expertise, Desertification, namely for developing countries to and other learning from a global portfolio. In prepare National Action Plans, let alone providing resources for those countries to implement the plans. fact, South Africa's policy on ODA emphasizes these effects as a primary objective (South Africa In June 2007 the TerrAfrica partnership (includ- 2007c). This is the heart of the enabling activities, ing UNDP, UNEP, the Food and Agriculture Orga- and potential catalytic effects on increasing local nization of the United Nations, the World Bank, capacity should be maximized in the orientation the African Development Bank, the International of all the projects. The picture of deliberate tar- Fund for Agricultural Development, among oth- geting and achievement of results in this area is ers) concluded a Strategic Investment Programme mixed. In terms of the focal areas, some important for Sustainable Land Management in Sub-Saharan catalytic and replication effects have taken place, Africa and $150 million was endorsed by NEPAD but largely in biodiversity. Although some strong and approved by the GEF Council. Although a or potentially very strong replication effects exist coordinated partnership for sustainable land man- in climate change, overall project design and agement is appropriate, the financing model con- selection do not appear strategically or coherently sists of blended projects that include both grant targeted enough and today have recently--by and loan funding. This runs counter to South force of circumstance, not design--become more Africa's policy, because of the potential for bor- relevant because of the national energy crisis. The rowing to create further dependencies and reduce progress and evaluation reports in all focal areas the country drivenness of programs. Some stake- often devote limited attention to this area. holders interviewed also perceived TerrAfrica as benefiting the World Bank's lending targets more A further dimension of capacity building and a than would seriously addressing land degradation. challenge facing all donors is ensuring strength- The picture is somewhat unclear, as South Africa ening of institutions and organizations to under- is one of four countries serving on the Executive take their mandate as a result of the engagement, Committee for TerrAfrica and, as indicated in the rather than trying to get results despite weak insti- results above, $6 million was designated in GEF-3 tutional capacity by bypassing or building a paral- for South Africa within the land degradation focal lel program or project capacity. The project docu- area, but projects did not garner sufficient local ments all analyze the capacity issues and needs of support. the institutions in their focal area, but few take full account of this picture in project design. The full Capacity Building potential of opportunities to strengthen key insti- tutions in the biodiversity and climate change focal Capacity building, understood broadly, also has areas through engagement of the GEF appear to potential in strengthening the relevance of the have been missed, and significant ongoing capac- portfolio. A key potential contribution from the ity gaps pose real challenges for sustainability. GEF, given the relatively small grant amounts, is However, the biodiversity focal area has affected not so much the actual ratio of grants to quantities building of capacity through catalytic effects the of global benefits directly produced (GHG emis- most. This need, recognized in 2001 in the MTPF, sions reduced, hectares of biodiversity secured, 82 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) has not adequately informed the design of the GHGs. The INC did not progress to a concrete portfolio: strategy and action plan, however, because of the deferral of the economic modeling necessary for The sustainability of projects advanced in the medium term, and later through the programmatic approach strategic decisions, specifically on energy. Limited will in large part be predicated on the progressive progress with the NCSA is at odds with the stress strengthening of institutional and human capacities for on its importance in the MTPF and indirectly in initiating, managing and replicating activities to gen- every project document. The enabling activity to erate global environmental benefits. While SA [South develop a NIP is the only project related to POPs. Africa] has accumulated considerable know-how and It was designed to assist South Africa to meet the experience in many areas of environmental manage- requirements of the Stockholm Convention by ment, capacities are unevenly distributed across insti- tutions and geographic areas, and significant unmet first undertaking a baseline study, developing a capacity strengthening needs remain, particularly strategy for mitigating emissions, and preparing an at the local level. These needs must be addressed to accompanying implementation framework. This enhance the absorptive capacity for environmental NIP would have served as the basis for the design management, and to sustain and replicate strategies, of POPs projects relevant to South Africa's needs. programmes and activities that generate global envi- Many stakeholders working in areas relevant to ronmental benefits (DEAT 2001, p. 17). POPs expressed frustration that the baseline stud- Another area of capacity building is designed to ies that would at least inform South Africa of the assist countries in ensuring the relevance of the scale, scope, and severity of the problem have not GEF portfolio. Design of enabling activities sup- yet been done. DEAT indicated, however, that ports informed decisions by countries on how to consultants were appointed in 2007, and the NIP tackle national and global environmental issues should be completed relatively soon. related to the relevant conventions and to use the It is tempting to conclude that biodiversity domi- resulting strategies and action plans to identify and nates the portfolio because only this focal area had select projects. The enabling activities are obvi- a concrete and effective strategy and action plan. ously very relevant in the context of South Africa. Evidence from the land degradation focal area The MTPF notes that South Africa lacks reliable appears to contradict this conclusion. Although baseline information in many key areas and high- a very useful analysis of land degradation and lights the need for support to research, policy and desertification and a national action plan have planning, and transfer of technical knowledge, in been completed (without support from the GEF), addition to more conventional capacity building. no projects have been accepted for GEF support The alignment among the MTPF, enabling activi- in this area. Land degradation was added late, ties and action plans, and GEF-supported projects as noted above, with only a very small allocation is not strong. Three of the enabling activities have in the GEF global framework. Once the impor- been completed, but only in biodiversity has the tance of this focal area had been accepted, the process progressed to development of a concrete GEF adopted the programmatic approach, which strategy and action plan. means countries may only access land degradation The INC provided a very valuable baseline in a support through the TerraAfrica program. This range of areas, including GHG emissions and an has been a key gap in GEF's overall relevance. excellent analysis of the issues and options in terms of South Africa's vulnerability and contribution to 6. Relevance of GEF Support to South Africa 83 However, South Africa has apparently missed cooperative governance where, for example, agri- opportunities in the enabling activities. Comple- culture may not see itself as directly responsible tion of a more concrete, specific climate change for biodiversity outcomes, especially if the GEF strategy and action plan would undoubtedly strategy or project does not sufficiently empha- have provided the basis for greater relevance and size direct outcomes for the agriculture mandate. coherence in that focal area. The completion of Although "silo" or compartmentalized responses the NCSA would also have provided the basis for may also be a systemic issue in terms of the inter- more strategic coherence and relevance in the pretation of mandates of government depart- design of all projects to ensure that maximum ments, the potential may exist for piloting and capacity development benefits resulted and, at improving integrated natural resource manage- least, establishment of adequate capacity to sus- ment in ways that ensure alignment and embed tain the gains. institutional capacities more effectively--and thus affect sustainable development and global envi- At least one of the specialists interviewed noted ronmental benefits more significantly. that South Africa should not need assistance with the enabling activities, as it has both the funding Country Ownership and Cofinancing and expertise required to do them. Others have noted that GEF enabling activities have functioned Country Ownership and Commitment as an important catalyst in the areas of biodiver- One of the reasons that projects and enabling sity and climate change, galvanizing expertise and activities are not progressing as they should or the resources for conducting the baseline studies and ongoing sustainability of the gains is becoming an analyses needed to support effective policy and issue could well be linked to the complex issue of strategy. Officials have indicated that the sheer country ownership. Again, this may oversimplify scale and scope of the issues and challenges that the issues, given the overwhelming nature and arose after 1994 have resulted in inevitable delays number of the challenges; this may be at least one in a range of processes. explanation for why some things "fall off the table" or why not enough capacity exists to sustain gains. Compartmentalization into Focal Areas as But it is assumed that country ownership may be a a Barrier to Relevance factor in the effectiveness, let alone sustainability, Given the extent to which the objectives of bio- of projects. diversity, land degradation, international waters, The concept of country ownership means differ- climate change, and POPs are codependent or ent things to different people and needs clearer directly linked, the requirement to conform to the definition. One view of country ownership, out- strategies within one funding window may result lined in many of the interviews and documents, in missed opportunities to enhance global and is the conception or at least promotion of the local benefits and sustainable development. For project by a South African. This often means that example, the outcomes for biodiversity, land deg- one of the IAs did not initiate the project based radation, water resources, and adaptation strate- on its own agenda and needs. Interviews and proj- gies could be significantly multiplied if viewed ect documents suggest that, although enthusias- as an integrated natural resource management tic IA staff have conceived some projects, South landscape intervention. Furthermore, a focal area Africans have conceptualized the vast majority response may have the effect of undermining 84 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) and the focal point signed off on all of them. This regard these projects as priorities, nor were they version of country ownership is, however, too lim- embedded in strategies and budgets. This is why ited to greatly influence a project's effectiveness or GEF support has been so crucial: it has resulted in sustainability. strategies and action plans, leveraged significant cofunding from government, and ensured that A wider view of country ownership is applied in far-reaching policy to secure global environmen- most project documents that assess the capacity tal values has become entrenched. of the national executing agency. Here, the con- cern is to ensure that a competent agency can Other stakeholders see a problem in the lack of manage the project. An even wider view is taken automatic alignment between global environmen- by those who argue that country ownership is only tal values and national priorities. They point to established if (1) the national entity with the pub- limited allocation in the GEF framework for land lic mandate and capacity to sustain the project is degradation, the focus on climate change mitiga- central to its design, implementation, monitoring, tion rather than adaptation, and other issues as and evaluation; (2) the project is nested within an examples of the need to ensure that the one-third existing funded program; (3) the grant is embed- of GEF grants do not leverage two-thirds of devel- ded within the medium-term budget; and (4) the oping country resources for priorities established project embodies a commitment to establish the by the developed countries. One issue is that the capacity necessary to sustain it. Very few GEF GEF only received the mandate for land degra- projects would have met these criteria at initia- dation in 2002, and the UNFCCC has not given tion, although the situation has improved over specific guidance on adaptation. But in other time. Initially, no framework existed at all, and a focal areas, the GEF has developed its framework small group of people inside and outside govern- to ensure relevance, even when no specific guid- ment decided on and implemented early projects. ance existed. For example, the UNCBD did not The MTPF provided a framework and greater give guidance to the GEF on protected areas until transparency. However, some stakeholders indi- the COP 7, but the GEF has supported protected cated that it is still luck if the selected GEF projects areas since the beginning. Others believe the address the right areas, not because DEAT as the effectiveness and sustainability of specific projects focal point is driving the process in terms of any have limitations because they are not embedded clear program, but because the individuals who in policy-capable institutions and supported by lobby for projects have responded to signals from adequate budgets in the long term. the international conventions, generally ensuring This report cannot do justice to what is a complex some relevance. discussion. But a recommendation will be made Others have indicated that the results were secured that both South Africa and the GEF strengthen because of the lack of a tight vetting system based the processes and mechanisms for ensuring estab- on perceived relevance. They noted that the early lishment of a coherent, relevant program in South projects were almost exclusively in the biodiver- Africa that is targeted at recognized priorities, and sity focal area and resulted from the enthusiasm embedded in strategies, plans, and budgets that of individuals, rather than emerging from coher- are in line with the Paris Declaration. The pro- ent national strategies and plans regarding the cesses and mechanisms should also improve the GEF. They emphasized that government did not extent to which those with new, challenging, or 6. Relevance of GEF Support to South Africa 85 creative ideas are able to access and have a chance almost $8 for every $1 from the GEF, a rather large of influencing the decision-making process. This ratio compared with most cases around the world. will require the operational and technical focal (The GEF Evaluation Office has estimated global points to take different and more proactive roles. cofinancing ratios of $4 to every $1 for completed In addition, measures should be taken by both the projects.) The high levels of cofinancing, particu- GEF and South Africa to ensure that the conven- larly from national institutions, would indicate a tions' guidance to the GEF is more aligned with high level of government commitment to the GEF the needs of developing countries. objectives; it may instead suggest that the GEF is cofinancing government activities. Cofinancing A closer look at the cofinancing figures indicates Cofinancing in GEF terms is funding that is addi- that one of the newest projects--the sustainable tional to the GEF grant and needed to imple- transport project--provides about half of this ment project activities and achieve project objec- cofinancing: about $320 million, a ratio almost 30 tives. The GEF sets no specific requirements, but times the GEF funding. When this large project is cofinancing is expected to be part of any GEF- not included, the overall GEF ratio decreases to supported project. In particular, countries such $2.60 for every GEF dollar, which still represents as South Africa that have more developed econo- a large national contribution. The completed mies are usually expected to provide higher levels Cape Peninsula Biodiversity Conservation Proj- of cofinancing than less developed countries. ect had the second largest cofinancing ratio of The GEF-supported portfolio in South Africa has $6 in cofinancing for every GEF dollar, or almost a substantial level of cofinancing, most coming $80 million in cofinancing. In about two-thirds of from government agencies (see figure 6.1). For the all national projects in South Africa, cofinancing $79.32 million of GEF support for national proj- is greater than GEF support. ects (excluding the CEPF and the SGP), cofinanc- Cofinancing ratios were relatively constant ing amounts to $603.13 million. This is a ratio of between GEF-1 and GEF-3; in GEF-4, the average ratio of cofinancing to GEF support has increased Figure 6.1 to almost $17 for every $1. This is influenced by Cofinancing of GEF Projects in South Africa by large cofinancing of both the transport project and Focal Area and Source, 1994­2007 the grasslands project. As expected, FSPs have a larger cofinancing ratio than MSPs and enabling Percent Gov't 100 activities (6.2, 3.2, and 0.8, respectively). Also, Other GEF as is the case globally, climate change projects 80 have a larger ratio than all other focal areas (see 60 table 6.2). Only some of the earlier enabling activi- ties have not received cofinancing. Furthermore, 40 cofinancing ratios between projects implemented 20 by the World Bank and UNDP do not differ much: in both cases, almost $3 to every $1. 0 Bio- Climate POPs Multi- Total diversity change focal 86 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) Table 6.2 for environment, because the National Treasury Cofinancing Ratios by Modality, Focal Area, and does not keep records based on sectors, but by GEF Replenishment Period departments. However, the primary relevance of Factor Ratio the GEF is not the amount of the grants or how Modality they compare in size with other ODA. South enabling activity 0.8 Africa has a budget surplus, and ODA makes up MSP 3.2 a very small percentage of the overall South Afri- FSP 6.2 can government budget. ODA to the country cur- Focal area rently amounts to between 1.0 and 1.5 percent of biodiversity 3.0 its annual budget.4 The GEF's relevance is funda- climate change 5.8 mentally tied to its capacity to draw on its vast POPs 0.2 global portfolio of projects to share the experience Multifocal 1.4 gained, lessons learned, and technical expertise replenishment period developed and use these resources to catalyze GeF-1 2.2 sustainable local programs and initiatives.5 The GeF-2 3.0 ongoing relevance of the GEF in South Africa will GeF-3 2.0 depend, as noted above, on the ability of the IAs GeF-4 16.6 and the South African focal point mechanism to leverage these resources in ways that are relevant to the priority sustainable development challenges The GEF and Other ODA facing South Africa. The relevance of the additional financial contri- bution from GEF grants changes according to the 6.2 Relevance of GEF Allocations frame of reference. If one is in national govern- by Focal Area to Environmental ment, allocations from the GEF may look, as one stakeholder noted, "like a drop in a bucket." From Priorities and Frameworks DEAT's point of view, the $52 million in GEF sup- Biodiversity port to biodiversity makes the GEF one of DEAT's The biodiversity focal area is somewhat different biggest donors. DEAT's dependence on ODA, from the rest of the portfolio: from early on, the however, is not large; it was less than 4.5 percent policies, legislation, strategies, plans, and embed- of its annual budget in 2004­05, having declined ded capacity and expertise were better devel- from 20 percent in 1999­2000, and is projected oped to inform project interventions in the GEF to decline even further. However, for entities like investment. The White Paper on the Conservation SANBI or programs like CAPE, GEF support is and Sustainable Use of South Africa's Biological regarded as very important, amounting to half the Diversity (1997) followed South Africa becom- CAPE budget: "without it we would be half the ing a party to the UNCBD in 1994. This, together size and half as capable."3 with the White Paper on Environmental Man- This report presents a comparative analysis of the agement Policy (1998), emphasized that sustain- GEF grant in relation to ODA to South Africa as a able resource use depends on the conservation of whole (see chapter 4), but it is not possible to ana- biodiversity and the principles of environmental lyze the GEF grant in relation to the overall ODA justice and equitable access to benefits; these were 6. Relevance of GEF Support to South Africa 87 further enshrined in the National Environmen- for example, that the emphasis on UNCBD access tal Management Act (1998). The GEF supported and benefit sharing of genetic resources over the South Africa's first report to the UNCBD (for the contribution of biodiversity conservation to direct COP 4) in 1998, which provided a basis for priori- social and economic benefits is inappropriate tization of interventions. However, only in 2005 within the South African context. did the NBSAP (an enabling activity also funded Notwithstanding the above observations, the GEF by the GEF) provide the first comprehensive basis portfolio in biodiversity has addressed and directly for assessment of relevance of the proposed GEF advanced the strategic priorities expressed by the investments (see box 6.1). The MTPF served as a NBSAP. Overall, the project investments have basis for GEF programming; however, the basis focused mostly on expanding conservation areas for prioritization of the proposed engagements (terrestrial and marine), addressing threats to bio- has not been apparent. diversity (invasive alien species, and land transfor- A key issue that pervades the biodiversity agenda mation), and improving capacity at the systemic is the extent to which the UNCBD drove South and individual levels. Africa's own policy agenda, as well as the overall Adding further to the relevance of the UNCBD relevance of the UNCBD to South Africa's sus- agenda in South Africa is the extent to which social tainable development agenda. Some have said, and economic imperatives are addressed within the biodiversity portfolio. Evidence exists that almost all projects have an analysis for potential Box 6.1 direct social and economic benefits; however, the NBSAP: Overarching Strategy extent to which this analysis is applied in design- Goal: conserve and manage terrestrial and aquatic ing projects is more uneven. The projects view biodiversity to ensure sustainable and equitable ben- social and economic imperatives, at one extreme, efits to the people of South Africa, now and in the as threats to be considered in the strategy and, at future. the other, as an integral part of project outcomes. Strategic objectives: Even within the latter view, the projects address z An enabling policy and legislative framework inte- this effectively to varying degrees. In some of grates biodiversity management objectives into the early projects, interventions are limited to the economy. transient work opportunities associated with the z enhanced institutional effectiveness and efficiency ensures good governance in the biodiversity Extended Public Works Programme intended to sector. provide short-term unskilled jobs (for example, z Integrated terrestrial and aquatic management many of the SANParks protected area projects); minimizes the impacts of threatening processes in others (for example, the Wild Coast and ABI on biodiversity, enhances ecosystem services, and projects), the project directly attempts to develop improves social and economic security. biodiversity-based businesses. z Human development and well-being are enhanced through sustainable use of biological resources and These views must be seen within the context of equitable sharing of the benefits. the limits on project-based interventions address- A network of conservation areas conserves a represen- ing such fundamental and challenging outcomes. tative sample of biodiversity and maintains key eco- logical processes across the landscape and seascape. 88 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) International Waters The INC itself was extremely relevant and impor- GEF support has made a relevant contribution tant, providing the first reliable baseline informa- to addressing South Africa's most significant tion in a range of areas, but specifically regarding challenges in the marine environment: fisheries GHG emissions and the relative contributions of impacts and management, pollution (land-based the components of the energy sector. The coun- and offshore), mining (coastal and offshore), try studies on which the INC is based provide the impacts of coastal developments, and climate first systematic analysis of the nature and scope of change. Furthermore, the investment for the South Africa's vulnerability to climate change in South African component of international waters a variety of areas. Although these are important projects has enabled the country to strengthen advances, the INC stopped short at the point at partnerships with its neighbors, after democratic which it could have made the most relevant con- elections were held post-apartheid, in transbound- tribution. It deferred the macroeconomic mod- ary marine resource management, specifically in eling that would have enabled South Africa to marine research. make strategic choices fundamentally reorient- ing the energy system in South Africa, but also Climate Change on South Africa's response to climate change. In the absence of this modeling, it was not possible Strategy and Priorities Still Evolving to identify how to make South Africa's energy sys- As noted earlier, South Africa does not yet have tem more sustainable without harming the capac- a concrete strategy and action plan on climate ity of the economy to support the ongoing battle change. Although South Africa's INC provided to eradicate poverty. The current processes to useful baseline information, situational analyses, complete the macroeconomic modeling and make a broad assessment of South Africa's vulnerability strategic decisions, as well as work on a second and possible response measures, and an analysis of national communication, including updating the mitigation options, it does not progress to actual GHG inventory, will undoubtedly provide a stron- decisions on strategy and action plans. The same ger platform for ensuring the relevance of proj- applies to South Africa's National Climate Change ects in this area, quite apart from their broader Response Strategy which is based on the INC. The significance. INC notes the additional processes needed before a concrete strategy is decided: Many theories exist on how South Africa has ended up in the present energy crisis, which had The preliminary investigation into potential mitigation been predicted in the DME white paper on energy options needs to be extended to include more specific in 1998. In any event, the absence of a strategy and macro-economic modelling to evaluate the impact of different measures on the economy. In this regard, action plan is evident in the fragmentation and approaches to the evaluation of measures need to be lack of coherence or strategic focus of the proj- developed and implemented. The promotion of cli- ects in the GEF climate change focal area. In addi- mate friendly and energy-efficient technologies needs tion, the opportunity to influence and support the to be further incorporated into government's cleaner way in which South Africa's energy future devel- technology initiatives. In addition appropriate tools to ops, based on reliable information and aligned model impacts and consequences of climate change need to be developed (DEAT 2003a, p. 94). with South Africa's development needs, has been limited. Most of the projects have contributed in some way to the body of knowledge necessary to 6. Relevance of GEF Support to South Africa 89 reshape the energy system, but only in limited and connections that systemically link all focal areas fragmented ways, as discussed below. and their subdivisions. In the absence of a clear policy against which to Mitigation through Energy Efficiency or Renewable assess the relevance of the focus and allocation of Energy resources within the climate change area, several All the climate change projects are focused on general observations and comments can be made, mitigation through energy in various forms, which fully acknowledge the complexity of the except for the sustainable transport and WSSD issues involved and the difficulty of doing them projects. The focus on energy is highly relevant: justice. South Africa is by far the largest emitter of GHGs in Africa and one of the most carbon emission­ Mitigation or Adaptation intensive countries in the world. It annually emits Two broad options for support from the GEF some seven tons of CO2 per capita, owing to its exist in the climate change focal area: mitigation energy-intensive economy and high dependence or adaptation initiatives. No GEF-supported proj- on coal for primary energy (DME 2004). As already ects are intended to affect the increased resilience established, making changes to an economy of communities to the effects of climate change, dependent on cheap coal-based energy is difficult given that the GEF had no full mandate to do so while expanding the economy and its capacity to until recently and a new adaptation fund is not yet support those currently excluded from sustainable operating. A gap exists, therefore, given the clear livelihoods. Nevertheless, South African industry scale and scope of South Africa's vulnerability in has committed to a voluntary emissions reduc- the range of areas outlined in the INC and sum- tion of 4,000 megatons of carbon within 20 years, marized in chapter 3: a 12 percent reduction by 2015 from the current annual emissions of 440 megatons. z Threats to health z Negative impacts on maize production Despite the relevance of a focus on mitigation, here again, the projects are clustered in ways that z Threats to plant and animal biodiversity do not fully align with the broad policy and strat- z Diminishing water resources and negative egy framework for energy. The options for mitiga- impacts on rangelands tion are The main reason for this gap appears to lie in z improving energy efficiency and managing the overwhelming orientation of the GEF's over- demand for electricity; all emphasis to supporting mitigation initiatives, z changing the energy mix, and specifically rather than adaptation. Ongoing relevance to increasing the contribution of renewable South Africa's priorities and probably those of energy; most of the developing countries would require review of this emphasis. Although mitigation ini- z making structural changes to the economy. tiatives appear to restrict direct global benefits All the energy-focused projects target renewable and adaptation initiatives to national benefits, this energy. Although a standards and labeling project undoubtedly oversimplifies the network of inter- has been proposed since 2004, none of the existing national projects target energy efficiency, despite 90 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) South Africa's stated commitment to improving Renewable Energy Options energy efficiency and a target for improved energy In 1998 the DME's white paper on energy policy efficiency of 12 percent by 2015 (DME 2005).6 "It had also recognized the significant medium- and is estimated that demand side management could long-term potential of renewable energy, indicat- reduce greenhouse gas emissions by a total of ing that government policy on renewable energy 265,000 [gigagrams] of carbon dioxide during the would be concerned with meeting the following period 2001 to 2025" (DEAT 2003a, p. xii). This challenges: is identified as the quickest, most cost-effective option that carries the most potential for realizing z Ensuring that economically feasible technolo- global environmental benefits in GHGs reduced. gies and applications are implemented through The big advantages of this option are that the the development and implementation of an values can be realized with very little cost and in appropriate program of action ways that provide a "win-win" situation in which z Ensuring that an equitable level of national the consumer potentially ends up with reduced resources is invested in renewable technolo- energy costs. An energy specialist estimated, for gies, given their potential and compared with example, that South Africa could save 4,000 mega- investments in other energy supply options tons of CO2 within 48 years just through a few lim- z Addressing constraints on the development of ited adjustments to energy efficiency in industrial the renewable energy industry buildings.7 A focus on renewable energy is relevant in this One energy efficiency project has been strug- context and in terms of South Africa's estab- gling for approval for a number of years: appli- lished target of a 10,000-gigawatt-hour renewable ance labelling. In 1998, the DME had identified energy contribution to total energy consumption this mechanism as a key first step in energy effi- by 2013, which is about 4 percent or 1,667 mega- ciency: "A domestic appliance-labeling program watts of the projected electricity demand for 2013 will be introduced and publicity campaigns will of 41,539 megawatts (DME 2003). The relevance be undertaken to ensure that appliance purchas- of the actual renewable energy projects is difficult ers are aware of the purpose of the labels. Targets to assess in the absence of clearer information and for industrial and commercial energy efficiency more concrete policy choices made. However, the improvements will be set and monitored" (DME Renewable Energy Market Transformation proj- 2005, p. 8). Interviewees for this evaluation also ect document notes that, without significantly identified this project as a potential catalyst of increased investment and changes to market improved energy efficiency, market transforma- conditions, South Africa will struggle to meet tion, and behavior change through public aware- its "modest" target and that results from existing ness of the relative energy efficiency rating of projects are unlikely to assist adequately. different appliances. The focal point indicated that this project has been approved as part of the Although it is crucial for South Africa to be able RAF second-cycle allocation, although contradic- to explore the potential and viability of differ- tory information exists on this, and the GEF Web ent possible sources and technologies, the selec- site does not show this project among all other tion and design of this group of projects reflects approved projects. an ad hoc, rather than systematic, approach and does not align with the broad analyses of potential 6. Relevance of GEF Support to South Africa 91 renewable energy sources in the INC, the National to the grid based on cost-based tariffs, making Climate Change Response Strategy, or the White it extremely unlikely to succeed in competition Paper on Renewable Energy. However, the rele- with Eskom. vance of the selection and design does, over time, A variety of reasons seem to exist for the slow improve a focus on sources of renewable energy progress and apparent lack of urgency in some with greater potential and viability in later proj- of these projects; most of those interviewed cite ects, as well as project setup, in ways that are more the "changing processes, procedures, and incli- likely to provide the most relevant and reliable nations" of the GEF itself and staff turnover and information and results. Initial projects included lack of capacity in the executing agencies. The a solar cooker project with only limited potential overall challenge faced by South Africa in balanc- both in rural areas where the electricity grid will ing social, economic, and environmental concerns not reach and in making any significant overall presumably has played a role in delaying the devel- impact on South Africa's energy mix and CO2 opment of clear policy on climate change, creation emissions. Renewable energy options in the port- of enabling conditions for energy efficiency and folio include the following: renewable energy, and progress of these projects. z Solar thermal electric technology. This was A leading energy specialist points out that assess- found to be unsustainable from a cost point ment of relevance in renewable energy is most of view after significant investment. Eskom usefully based on the extent to which the key mar- regarded it as a potentially important option.8 ket barriers are effectively targeted and the extent z Domestic solar water heaters. These are to which the technologies selected are sufficiently regarded as an important potential option for close to being marketable to become viable with a reducing the amount of coal-based energy used limited intervention.10 In general, this has been a by high-end users in the INC and in South weak area in the selection, conceptualization, and African policy on renewable energy and energy design of the renewable energy projects. Many of efficiency. South Africa's Energy Efficiency the project designs did not engage the full range Strategy notes that significant market barriers of market barriers, leaving the sustainability and call into question the feasibility of the industry, viability of the projects in doubt. The situation has given the high costs involved. The equation is recently changed fairly dramatically and the rising changing, however, as the price of electricity cost of coal-based energy may change the picture is set to rise sharply. Eskom has recently initi- relative to market barriers, increasing the poten- ated major programs for rolling out solar water tial and viability of renewable energy. However, the heaters based on a subsidy and financing mech- crisis of supply may also mean that South Africa's anism.9 available resources are directed at implementing z Commercial solar water heaters. These are the new coal-fired power stations that have been regarded in energy-related policy and strat- targeted, which makes renewable energy look even egy as having strong potential viability in the more peripheral. Experts warn that further delays market, given the economies of scale that are in increasing the energy mix could be disastrous, achievable. given the long lead time needed for these technol- ogies and the long lag time in which the effects of z Wind energy. This clearly potentially impor- carbon emissions produced now will be felt. tant source does not provide equitable access 92 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) The GEF-4 Framework and South Africa's Priorities fuel use characteristics of new vehicles. Energy con- sumption information should be included in all adver- GEF strategies have changed in this focal area tising, vehicle test reports and vehicle specifications over time, raising issues on the relevance within (DME 1998, p. 37). the South African context of specific aspects of GEF-4. One area not included under GEF-4 The DME Energy Efficiency Strategy highlights is clearly important: off-grid energy produc- transport as one of the three largest users of energy, tion. This means that the one renewable energy accounting for 27 percent of all energy demand area that is taking off--solar water heaters--is in 2000, a figure that has steadily increased. The not available for support. The recently approved INC also identified transport as an important (mid-2007) REMT project, which has provided area for potentially significant reduction in GHG one of the more thorough and systematic analyses emissions, pointing to existing transport policy. of the South African context and needs, has con- Specific proposals made include implementing cluded that solar water heaters are one of the most integrated development planning and promoting relevant and cost-effective options for reducing public transport use (DEAT 2003a, p. 76). coal-based energy consumption. The sustainable transport project is clearly relevant The second area to be excluded is improving the when improvements can also have a significant efficiency and performance of existing power positive impact on social and economic develop- plants. Given South Africa's dependence on ment objectives by improving public transport. An electricity generated by low-grade coal and the area for action as a critical pathway to sustainable likelihood that fossil fuel will continue to be the human settlements and safe and efficient public primary source of energy--even increasing in transport, as identified in the SFSD, will the medium term--this exclusion may cut out a significantly increase investments in public transpor- potentially large source of global environmental tation, including freight by rail and passenger trans- values through the cleaner coal initiatives or other portation via rail, bus and mini-bus. Provision of new means of improving efficiency and reducing emis- services, upgrading of existing services & gradual sions of the generation process. In the current conversion to biofuels should be top priorities (DEAT energy supply crisis, relevant support to South 2006a, p. 25). Africa will entail helping to increase power sup- The length of time it took for a transport-related ply, while keeping resulting carbon emissions as project to be put forward must be noted in dis- low as possible. cussing the relevance of including the transport project. As with energy efficiency, this is an area Transport that was identified as a priority for action in 1998. South African policy and strategy frameworks regard transport as extremely relevant to the issue Policy Coherence and the Climate Change Focal of climate change. Transport was highlighted as a Area priority as early as 1998 and a set of priorities were One of the most striking features of the climate identified. change focal area concerns the delays and limi- Vehicle purchasers do not generally consider the vehi- tations experienced by the projects in the port- cle's fuel consumption as a major criterion. This is due folio, given the importance of the issue and their in part to a lack of accurate information on vehicle fuel recognition as priorities by the South African efficiency. The DME will provide information on the 6. Relevance of GEF Support to South Africa 93 government since 1998. The enormously complex z perform technology needs analysis for South and challenging situation that South Africa faces Africa that builds on and integrates existing in tackling the energy intensity of its economy has knowledge through the Department of Science already been noted, as has the extreme complexity and Technology; of the institutional arrangements, the fragmenta- z access appropriate funds for implementation tion of responsibility and policy making in relation of a climate change program, in particular for to energy, and ultimately the contradictions in pol- adaptation purposes; icy and practice in this area (see chapter 3). Con- flicts among policies are typified in South Africa z accelerate the process of education, train- incentivizing energy-intensive industries through ing, and awareness of climate change and its the Developmental Electricity Pricing Programme impacts; introduced by the Department of Trade and z ensure cooperation and buy-in of all stakehold- Industry. Under this program, South Africa nego- ers to climate change response and facilitate a tiates below-price electricity tariffs with potential coordinated national program; international investors in new energy-intensive z harness efforts of all stakeholders to achieve projects, despite official recognition of the need objectives of the White Paper on Renewable for significant improvements in energy efficiency Energy and the Energy Efficiency Strategy, pro- since the DME 1998 white paper. moting a sustainable development path through The delays and limitations of the projects and their coordinated government policy; results are linked to this context and to the lack of z implement sustainable industrial development a concrete and coherent strategy and action plan through coordinated policies, strategies, and embedded in a strategy for sustainable develop- incentives through the Department of Trade ment, although likely to be in place by the end of and Industry and the various industry sectors; 2008. The DME 2003 White Paper on Renewable Energy recognized that South Africa was not likely z accelerate water resource management and to achieve even the limited target for renewable contingency planning through the Department energy or energy efficiency if a number of finan- of Water Affairs and Forestry; cial, fiscal, and legal instruments--as well as sys- z adapt agricultural, rangeland, and forestry prac- tematic processes for technology development tices appropriately through the Department and awareness raising, capacity building, and edu- of Agriculture and the Department of Water cation--were not put in place. Affairs and Forestry; Although the INC and the National Climate z set a time frame for action, with specific mile- Change Response Strategy note these issues and stones and responsibilities to formulate appro- list the key actions needed to put a concrete strat- priate national policies and measures for cli- egy in place, the identification and conceptual- mate change action and develop a practicable ization of projects has not apparently taken this plan of implementation. context into account. For example, some of the The climate change portfolio overall and the con- immediate challenges and needs listed in the cli- ceptualization of most projects did not adequately mate change response strategy and picked up in take these factors and the challenges they entail the SFSD are to into account, despite being clearly and explicitly 94 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) stated in the National Climate Change Response activities and will eventually be anchored in a Strategy: sustainable development strategy and action plan, including a climate change strategy and The South African Government's national priorities include, inter alia, the creation of employment, the action plan when they are available. alleviation of poverty and the provision of housing, z Selection criteria for renewable energy proj- which implies a commitment to the process of sus- ects should include the extent to which they are tainable development and advancement. Thus, South market ready and the project is able to affect Africa's position is to view climate change response as an opportunity for achieving these aims. the key market barriers. z The GEF should review its frameworks, specifi- But, cally in terms of including off-grid energy and Officials in other departments, within all spheres of energy-generation initiatives, as well as signifi- government, often do not see climate change as a pri- cantly increasing support for climate change ority and some even see it as working against national adaptation measures. development priorities. They are concerned that South Africa has a huge backlog of service delivery where the performance of each department is measured by how 6.3 Relevance to the GEF Mandate effective and efficient it is on service delivery (DEAT 2004a, p. 8). Relevance to Maximizing Global Environmental Benefits Suggestions for improving relevance and submit- Biodiversity ted for further discussion include the following: The overall spatial focus and impact of the biodi- z The second national communication should be versity interventions have enabled the biodiversity prioritized so that trends can be reviewed and portfolio to maximize the achievement of global concrete, informed decisions on strategy and benefits. To a large extent these have mirrored action plans made on the basis of macroeco- South Africa's priority biodiversity hotspots, nomic modeling. including the Cape Floristic Region, Succu- z The NCSA should also be prioritized and used lent Karoo (through CEPF investment), and the to identify the institutional and capacity barri- Maputaland-Pondoland-Albany center of ende- ers to implementing a climate change strategy mism, which is also being prioritized for further effectively, and action plans should be agreed investment by the CEPF. Most of the landscape- on for dealing with them. based initiatives have addressed the full range of intended GEF biodiversity impacts, with the z A technical focal point should select projects exception of access to benefit sharing of genetic in the climate change focal area based on the resources. Therefore, the selection of biodiversity climate change strategy and action plans, or in projects in South Africa is relevant to the GEF the interim, agreements should be negotiated mandate. with key stakeholders on the most strategic value that the GEF allocation could bring. Spe- Climate Change cific attention should be placed on drawing on The most significant opportunities were lost in the experience, lessons, and technical expertise this focal area. The overall targeting of the GEF emerging from the global portfolio. This pro- climate change portfolio on energy is entirely cess could be used to support the two enabling 6. Relevance of GEF Support to South Africa 95 relevant to maximizing potential global benefits of people benefit from access to the economy and in general terms. The analysis of potential global sustainable livelihoods as much as South Africa benefits in chapter 3 has shown that energy is conserves and restores its natural resources and by far the greatest source of GHG emissions reduces waste and harmful emissions. The truism and that South Africa produces a disproportion- that the ultimate goal is sustainable development, ate amount of GHGs. This analysis and analysis rather than reduction of GHGs, is sharpened and of results in chapter 5 of relevance to the South its implications are more complex in South Africa African environmental frameworks have revealed than in many other contexts, given entrenched areas in which GEF support to South Africa could and extreme inequality. The GEF must be flexible potentially achieve significant global benefits that in responding to the South African context so that are currently excluded from the GEF-4 frame- it effectively supports the country's efforts enough work. These include off-grid energy generation to contribute to climate change mitigation strate- and potential improvements in the efficiency and gies, thereby maximizing potential global values. performance of existing power plants, as these are likely to feature significantly in existing and Gaps expanded energy supply in South Africa. The significance of the absence of projects designed to affect the POPs focal area can only be Energy efficiency is a key area for potential global understood after development of the strategies and benefits and, although the standards and labeling action plans required. This will enable assessment project is in the offing, also currently represents of the potential global environmental benefits, as a significant gap in the portfolio. Such projects well as the urgency of national level action in this could target existing energy-intensive sectors and area. However, the outcome of the regional Africa groups and reduce overall demand, while avoiding stockpiles project suggests the likely significance negative impact on social and economic develop- of omission. The project, which was intended to ment. The three most energy-intensive sectors are safely destroy dangerous stockpiles of pesticides, industry (41 percent), transport (28 percent), and found 10 times more obsolete pesticides in one of residential (17 percent). This suggests that more South Africa's nine provinces than estimated in attention in terms of energy efficiency and diver- the whole of South Africa. DEAT indicates that sifying energy sources could be given to the indus- completion of the NIP is likely to be soon. trial and transport sectors than before. In the long term, major structural and systemic adjustments Relevance to GEF Objectives and are necessary, according to the Energy Research Strategies Centre. Biodiversity South Africa will not be able to tackle poverty Overall, the sustainability of the GEF biodiver- effectively without an inevitable increase in sity interventions--that is, how long the gains energy generation. This means that relevant sup- of major investments such as CAPE will be sus- port from the GEF will require the understand- tained by embedding the required capacity within ing that the maximum global benefits possible do mandated institutions--is yet to be determined. not align neatly with national needs and priori- However, good examples exist, including achieve- ties. Sustainable development in the South Afri- ment of the financial and institutional sustain- can context will require that increased numbers ability of gains from the project establishing the 96 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) Table Mountain National Park. The key national project are quite likely to be catalytic, although the executing agencies within the largest investments, continued existence of significant market barriers that is, SANBI and SANParks, have made the qualifies this prediction. The design of the REMT, greatest effort to enable institutional and financial wind energy, and sustainable transport projects sustainability. includes strong catalytic intent, but again, the ade- quacy of targeting of key market barriers is a cause The overall relevance of the portfolio to address- for concern. A relatively general finding is that the ing systemic and individual capacity development projects are not adequately conceived or designed has enhanced the significant catalytic effects of with catalytic and replication outcomes in mind. the biodiversity portfolio. Because the replication Project design must entail far more deliberate tar- effects in the portfolio have been significant, the geting of these outcomes, which are now treated investment in enabling good practice in conser- as spinoffs rather than core objectives. This would vation planning, park management systems, and also require a far more systematic analysis of the financial models has been cost-effective and led to kind of project that would be able to achieve these the institutionalization of these approaches. effects in the specific context. Climate Change A similar finding on sustainability emerges from Annex K clearly demonstrates the alignment of the results presented in chapter 5. The complex- GEF climate change projects with GEF objec- ity, scope, and scale of the challenges facing South tives and strategies. Although the statements of Africa, including capacity gaps and institutional expected impact and outcome are drawn from weaknesses, make it difficult for project docu- GEF-4, their formulation broadly aligns them with ments to provide a thorough analysis of the con- the strategic objectives and operational programs text and risks related to sustainability without of previous GEF phases. The concentration of proj- producing an unwieldy tome. However, the NCSA ects in the area of renewable energy has already would provide a consistent base document for been explored. The overview of the potential and use in analyzing needs and sustainability risks, as actual impact of the GEF climate change projects well as ensuring a more coherent approach across indicates that the South Africa climate change projects to capacity building, understood broadly. portfolio has not yet had a significant impact. The Little coherence and consistency now exists across solar projects and specifically the REMT project projects in one focal area, let alone the portfolio; that is just beginning would not align with the as a result, capacity-building activities are frag- GEF-4 strategic programs that explicitly exclude mented and too limited to have adequate impact. support to off-grid energy. As noted earlier, no reports are required for the Relevance to GEF Principles enabling activities. This assumes that the project's existence is all that is important. It is strongly rec- The catalytic potential and replicability outcomes ommended that project documents for enabling of the climate change focal area have been fairly activities identify the intended catalytic and limited, although it is too early to judge in most capacity-building results and that the reports and cases. As argued in chapter 5, the most signifi- outcomes are evaluated. cant contribution the projects in this focal area can probably make is to catalyze change in a range The midterm reports and evaluations could pro- of areas. The outcomes of the solar water heater vide a more useful assessment of experience and 6. Relevance of GEF Support to South Africa 97 outcomes. In line with the key principles of the based on the GEF Performance Index and GEF benefit GEF and South Africa's own policies on the key index, is resulting in 25% of the countries receiving 75% of the resources. In practice this means that 90% outcomes of ODA, one of the most relevant and of African countries find themselves with a minimal useful potential outcomes of GEF projects is their group allocation of between USD 1 - USD 3 million contribution to improved understanding and the over four years. The situation is exacerbated by the fact body of knowledge that should be accumulating that countries are limited to access of only 50% of the in all focal areas. total allocation in the first two years. In this regard, it is vital that the COPs should also be active participants in the RAF review process in two years time. It is critical 6.4 Relevance of the RAF Index to that GEF base its resource allocation on the needs and Country Priorities priorities of countries rather than utilising an ex-ante allocation based on an inequitably skewed formula. In All those interviewed were unanimous in their order to address both the adequacy and the allocation concern about the relevance of the RAF indexes of resources, an independent review of the contribu- to country priorities and indeed to the Southern tion of the GEF as a financial mechanism, to the imple- African region's priorities. These judgments are mentation of the Conventions is urgently needed. largely based on an assessment of the results of the RAF allocation and the focus and distribution Those interviewed commenting on the index of resources that emerged, rather than examina- itself noted that a key distortion is the use of gross tion of the actual indexes themselves. The reason national product or a similar measure as part of the for this is a unanimous agreement on the lack index. This will inevitably skew resources toward of transparency of the actual index and ranking those countries with developed economies and process. least in need of assistance but that may not have the greatest potential for securing global environ- South Africa has raised concerns about the fact mental benefits. These interviewees also raised that the GEF budget is determined by what the questions on the criteria used to assess governance donor countries are willing to give, rather than arrangements and the extent of their relevance to a costing of what will achieve the set of agreed developing country contexts. Nevertheless, based essential global values. The mechanism itself, on the RAF indexes, South Africa is receiving one in the view of the South African government, is of the highest allocations per country, and it is one out of line with its purposes.11 The South African of the few countries in the world with allocations minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism in both focal areas. This is in response to South has indicated that the RAF has intensified these Africa's high biodiversity endowment, high levels concerns. Rather than basing the decision-making of GHG emissions, and high performance. process on needs and allocations to address them, it has become even more obscure; instead of sup- A potential future effect on the relevance of the porting the developing countries, it is reproducing GEF investment by the RAF may be the reduction inequality. In the minister's words:12 of the regional projects portfolio. In the future, regional projects will need funding from RAF In addition to addressing the adequacy of resources, country allocations. South Africa's experience South Africa must strongly raise concerns about the and large RAF allocation (relative to its regional implications of the Resource Allocation Framework (RAF) in limiting the allocation of resources to devel- partners) indicates a likely falloff in regional ini- oping countries, especially in Africa. The RAF system, 98 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) tiatives for environmental priorities that are best Notes addressed through regional projects. 1. This section uses the draft SFSD (DEAT 2006a) to develop a retrospective picture of the portfolio's 6.5 Relevance to GEF Agency alignment with emerging thinking on sustain- able development in South Africa; the MTPF for Strategies and Frameworks 2001­03 has also been applied in order to look at The GEF portfolio has clear, general relevance to the portfolio as a whole to assess the level of align- ment, despite the fact that many of the projects were the strategies and frameworks of the three GEF initiated before and after the period specified. IAs, rather than direct correlation, as the projects are shaped by the conventions, rather than by a 2. Marthinus van Schalkwyk, Minister of Environ- mental Affairs and Tourism. Opening speech to specified IA country strategy. The country strat- the Third GEF Assembly, August 29, 2006, Cape egy or equivalent documents, as well as inter- Town, South Africa. views held with regional and country-based staff 3. Interview with Trevor Sandwith, until recently, of UNDP and the World Bank, support this broad CAPE coordinator. alignment. Note that the UNDP country strategy does not make specific reference to either the GEF 4. See www.dcis.gov.za/. or the environment. 5. An insight owed to an interview with Prof. Anton Eberhard, Management Programme in Infrastruc- The World Bank's country partnership strategy's ture Reform and Regulation. emphasis on energy efficiency is at odds with the 6. The proposed standards and labeling project was complete absence of energy efficiency projects in initiated in 2004 and removed with other pipelined the current portfolio. World Bank staff note some projects at the end of GEF-3, and has not yet been frustration that the GEF portfolio is their only real registered on the official GEF Web page for South window into South Africa, and thus provides an Africa within the RAF-allocated projects, although it seems to be in the pipeline for the second part of important entry into the region. the RAF (after July 2008). The project fee received by each IA from the 7. Interview with Harald Winkler, project leader, GEF--in the past, 9 percent, and in GEF-4, 10 Energy, Environment and Climate Change, Energy percent of the GEF grant--provides a relatively Research Centre, University of Cape Town. significant contribution to country office budgets. 8. Interview with Wendy Poulton, Eskom, general Some stakeholders have noted that this could be a manager, Corporate Sustainability. perverse incentive in many ways. It may encour- 9. Interview with Wendy Poulton. age competition, rather than cooperation, among Agencies. It may also encourage IAs to push proj- 10. Interview with Prof Anton Eberhard. ects that have a good chance of being accepted 11. It should be noted that attempts by the UNCBD smoothly and that have a strong chance of success, Secretariat to estimate the actual cost of imple- rather than risking the long process necessary to menting the convention were rejected by the COPs, indicating that the GEF should not be responsible chart new ground, refine a new concept, or nurse for fully covering the cost of achieving global a complex project. This effect may not only dis- benefits, because the countries (both donors and tort alignment with Agencies' own strategies and recipients) have responsibilities as stipulated in the frameworks, but could limit the effectiveness with conventions. which they function as IAs on behalf of the GEF. 12. Marthinus van Schalkwyk, opening speech to the Third GEF Assembly. 6. Relevance of GEF Support to South Africa 99 7. Efficiency of GEF-Supported Activities in South Africa This chapter addresses the following issues: of full information. The GEF keeps information on payments made, directly or indirectly, to the z How much time, effort, and financial resources GEF Agencies, but does not have information on does it take to develop and implement projects? the investment that project proponents or imple- z Who initiates, designs, and implements GEF menters make in the preparation process, particu- projects? larly government and civil society organizations. Dates are not always available. z How clear are the roles and responsibilities? z How successful is the dissemination of GEF Preparation Costs project lessons and results? Calculating the cost of preparing a GEF project z What are the synergies achieved in GEF project is not easy. The GEF Agencies, other donors, and programming and implementation, national project proponents do not fully disclose informa- institutions, GEF projects, and other projects? tion. An approximate measure is calculated by taking into account the cost of a PDF, which is not z How does the national focal point mechanism necessarily independently determined, because function? there are maximum amounts allowed in requests. z How has the RAF affected GEF operations? Table 7.1 lists the projects that have requested z What is the sustainability of GEF support? PDFs for project preparation, expressed as a per- centage of the GEF grant (cofinancing means that 7.1 Time, Effort, and Financial other preparation funds may have been used, but Resources Required for Project are not recorded by the GEF). On average, the Processing PDFs have been less than 5 percent of the GEF This section reviews the efficiency of GEF-sup- grant. If this is the only preparation cost, it does ported activities in South Africa, measured by not seem high, because an investment of $1 in the time and money it takes to process a project preparation could generate a grant of up to $25. through the GEF Activity Cycle (relevant to the Agency Fees and Proportion of Budget Going to project preparation and implementation period, Management Costs not the new project cycle approved by the GEF A similar problem to the one presented above in Council in June 2007). Estimating these figures calculating project preparation cost occurs when raises several problems, mostly related to the lack trying to calculate project management cost. The 100 Table 7.1 Project Preparation Costs as Percentage of GEF Grant GEF PDF Total GEF Preparation Project amount amount amount cost (% Project title Modality status Agency Million $ total cost) cape Peninsula biodiversity FSP completed Wb 12.3 0.09 12.39 0.09 conservation Project Agulhas biodiversity Initiative FSP ceO UNDP 3.1 0.08 3.23 0.67 endorsed conservation and Sustainable FSP ceO UNDP 6.5 0.34 6.84 1.09 Use of biodiversity on the South endorsed African Wild coast Greater Addo elephant National FSP ceO Wb 5.5 0.34 5.84 0.84 Park Project endorsed cAPe biodiversity conservation FSP ceO Wb­ 11.0 0.32 11.32 0.57 and Sustainable Development endorsed UNDP Project Adapting ecosystem Manage- MSP rejected UNDP 0.9 0.02 0.95 0.79 ment to conserve Invertebrate Diversity in South Africa's Savanna and Grassland biomes richtersveld community biodi- MSP Approved Wb 0.9 0.03 0.90 1.21 versity conservation Project National Grasslands biodiversity FSP ceO UNDP 8.3 0.35 8.65 0.76 Program endorsed South Africa Wind energy Pro- FSP ceO UNDP 2.0 0.30 2.30 2.72 gramme (SAWeP), Phase I endorsed Sustainable Public transport FSP ceO UNDP 0.0 0.20 11.20 0.06 and Sport: A 2010 Opportunity endorsed National Sector Phaseout Strat- FSP Not Wb­ 13.5 0.35 13.85 2.53 egy for Methyl bromide repipelined UNeP Total 64.0 2.42 77.47 1.03 Note: Wb = World bank. GEF only has information on the amount of money is sometimes negotiated). The agency fee intro- that it provides to the GEF Agencies to manage the duced for projects approved from 2000 was a flat projects (agency fee). In addition, each project has fee of 9 percent of the GEF grant; this was raised a management cost that is covered by the actual to 10 percent in GEF-4. grant, but unless one reviews the budgets of each Table 7.2 presents information on the fees that the of the projects, it is not possible to determine this GEF provides to the Agencies to manage projects. number (and even then, many of the projects do This is applicable to projects approved by the GEF not provide this information clearly or fully). One Council from 2000, when the Agencies began approximation is the agency fee (another standard receiving these fees. Earlier, the Agencies covered fee--8 percent--is charged on projects imple- the cost of managing projects from the actual mented by the United Nations Office for Project grant and from a corporate budget provided by Services, which comes from the project grant, but 4. The GEF Portfolio in South Africa 101 Table 7.2 National Project Fee by Agency and Project, for Projects Approved Since 2000 Agency fee GEF grant Agency fee as % of GEF Implementing Agency Modality (million $) (million $) grant World Bank concentrating Solar Power for Africa MSP 0.23 0.15 65.217391 conservation of Globally Significant biodiversity in Agricultural MSP 0.75 0.15 20 Landscapes through conservation Farming conservation Planning for biodiversity in the thicket biome MSP 0.739 0.15 20.2977 Greater Addo elephant National Park Project FSP 5.84 0.85 14.554795 renewable energy Market transformation FSP 6 0.54 9 richtersveld community biodiversity conservation Project MSP 0.9 0.15 16.666667 Average 24.289425 UNDP Agulhas biodiversity Initiative FSP 3.23 0.38 11.764706 best environmental Practice in the Hosting of the World Summit MSP 1 0.15 15 on Sustainable Development clearing House Mechanism enabling Activity eA 0.0135 -- -- conservation and Sustainable Use of biodiversity on the South FSP 6.84 0.62 9.0643275 African Wild coast Development and Implementation of National biodiversity Strat- eA 0.41 0.05 12.195122 egy and Action Plan First National report to the cbD eA 0.25 -- -- National capacity Self-Assessment for Global environmental eA 0.2 0.03 15 Managementa National Grassland biodiversity Program FSP 8.65 0.78 9.017341 Pilot Production and commercial Dissemination of Solar cookers MSP 0.8 0.15 18.75 Solar Water Heaters for Low Income Housing in Peri-Urban Areas MSP 0.73 0.15 20.547945 South Africa Wind energy Programme, Phase 1 FSP 2.295 0.38 16.557734 Sustainable Public transport and Sport: A 2010 Opportunity FSP 11.2 1.01 9.0178571 Average 13.691503 UNEP enabling Activities for the Preparation of Initial National com- eA 0.32 -- -- munication related to UNFccc POPs enabling Activities for the Stockholm convention on POPs eA 0.5 0.05 10 National Implementation for South Africaa Average 10 World Bank­UNDP cAPe biodiversity conservation and Sustainable Development FSP 11.3 1.29 11.4 Project Note: -- = not available or not reliable; cbD: UN convention on biological Diversity; eA: enabling activity. a. Project for which IA has received its fee. 102 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) the GEF. The table does not include the internal information in this area may affect the analysis). project management costs required to implement Although regional and global projects go through the project, as these data were not available. The the same steps in the GEF Activity Cycle, they are table presents the cost as a percentage of the GEF not included in this discussion; they have differ- grant only; no information is available on the cost ent requirements, such as extensive international of managing the cofinancing part of the project. consultations. Table 7.2 shows that the World Bank has a higher On average, it took FSPs 3.3 years or 40 months average at 24.3 percent than UNDP at 13.7 per- from pipeline entry to CEO approval. Total time cent. The only UNEP project with data available from pipeline entry to project start-up took an indicates 10 percent of total cost. The joint World average of 3.7 years (1,344 days). This is higher Bank­UNDP slice is 11.4 percent of the total cost. than for Costa Rica and the Philippines, for which The average processing fee for FSPs was 11.3 per- the average for FSPs from stage A to E was, respec- cent, compared with 25.2 percent for MSPs. This tively, 2.9 years (1,056 days) and 2.8 years (992 picture is noteworthy, given that the percentage of days). MSPs in South Africa take a shorter time, the grant sanctioned by the GEF as an Agency fee as expected--1.8 years (664 days) from pipeline was 9 percent in the past and is now 10 percent. entry to project start-up. The full process (A­E) It is also noteworthy that the IAs have received for MSPs in Philippines could take up to three their fee for two projects that have had little or no years. Lack of availability of data prevented reli- progress. able calculations for each IA. Average Time Taken to Achieve Each Milestone in These findings agree with those on the issue of Project Cycle the GEF Activity Cycle from other evaluations Figure 7.1 presents the GEF Activity Cycle before conducted by the GEF Evaluation Office. Prob- the recent reformulation in 2007, because all of lems noted in previous evaluations related to the projects discussed here were approved under length of the project cycle will not be repeated the earlier cycle. Tables 7.3 and 7.4 show that the here, other than to say that stakeholders cited the length of time a project takes to move from one 2.0- or 2.5-year period between the PDF block B phase to another varies considerably, even when and the actual project as time when the energy FSPs and MSPs are analyzed separately (missing and interest mobilized during project design drifts away and that it is harder to regenerate later. This Figure 7.1 GEF Activity Cycle B D 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Predesign/ Approval by Design/ Council/work Approval by IAs/ concept executing Implementation Completion development preparation program inclusion agencies A C E Entry into GEF GEF CEO Project start-up pipeline endorsement 7. Efficiency of GEF-Supported Activities in South Africa 103 Table 7.3 Duration of Activity Cycle for GEF-Supported FSPs in South Africa Days Project AB BC CD DE BE AC AE Agulhas biodiversity Initiative 683.0 75.0 30.0 12.0 117.0 758 800.0 cAPe biodiversity conservation and Sustain- 443.0 350.0 18.0 69.0 437.0 793 880.0 able Development Project cape Peninsula biodiversity conservation 365.0 75.0 33.0 104.0 212.0 440 577.0 Project conservation and Sustainable Use of biodiver- 1,486.0 210.0 56.0 245.0 511.0 1,696 1,997.0 sity on the South African Wild coast Greater Addo elephant National Park Project 784.0 621.0 27.0 125.0 773.0 1,405 1,557.0 National Grassland biodiversity Program 905.0 181.0 n.a. n.a. n.a. 1,086 n.a. renewable energy Market transformation 653.0 792.0 21.0 n.a. n.a. 1,445 n.a. South Africa Wind energy Programme, Phase 1 1,206.0 922.0 42.0 82.0 1,046.0 2,128 2,252.0 Subproject 1st Group­Plug Power: under the 599.0 754.0 1.0 -- -- 1,353 -- Global Fuel cells Financing Initiative for Dis- tributed Generation Applications (Phase 1)* Sustainable Public transport and Sport: A 2010 884.0 202.0 n.a. n.a. n.a. 1,086 n.a. Opportunity Average (days) 800.8 418.2 28.5 106.2 516.0 1,219 1,343.8 Average (years) 2.2 1.1 0.1 0.3 1.4 3.3 3.7 Notes: -- = unavailable or unreliable data; n.a. = not applicable. except for entries indicated with an asterisk, data are based on the received date in the GeF database, not the pipeline entry date. See figure 7.1 for stages of GeF Activity cycle (A­e). Table 7.4 Duration of Activity Cycle for GEF-Supported MSPs in South Africa Days Project CD DE AE best environmental Practice in the Hosting of the World Summit on Sustainable -- -- 152 Development* concentrating Solar Power for Africa 317.0 41.0 610 conservation of Globally Significant biodiversity in Agricultural Landscapes through con- 147.0 60.0 456 servation Farming conservation Planning for biodiversity in the thicket biome 315.0 14.0 405 Pilot Production and commercial Dissemination of Solar cookers* 315.0 176.0 571 richtersveld community biodiversity conservation Project* 598.0 361.0 1,022 Solar Water Heaters for Low Income Housing in Peri Urban Areas* 67.0 1,360.0 1,534 Sustainable Protected Area Development in Namaqualand* 429.0 67.0 564 Average (days) 312.6 297.0 664.3 Average (years) 0.9 0.8 1.8 Notes: -- = unavailable or unreliable data; n.a. = not applicable. except for entries indicated with an asterisk, data are based on the received date in the GeF database, not the pipeline entry date. See figure 7.1 for stages of GeF Activity cycle (A­e). 104 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) negatively affects the extent to which the eventual The average planned length of implementation project is country driven or driven by contracted for the MSPs was 18 months; however, all but two consultants. Stakeholders expressed major frustra- MSPs required extensions from about a year to tion on often having to comply with the provisions more than three years. On average, the implemen- of three separate entities: the national agency, the tation period of MSPs was about 30 months. In GEF Agency, and the GEF. This not only slows the comparison, the average planned implementation process, but is considered a waste of time, as it period for MSPs in the Philippines was 51 months, adds nothing of value to the process and results. which in reality becomes 54.5 months with the extensions. No analysis was done for enabling Expected and Actual Completion Dates activities, because of the unavailability of data. Table 7.5 compares the start-up and actual closing This may well point to the need for a more realistic dates as reported in the completion reports. Most time frame, accepting that most effectively insti- of the projects are still under implementation, and tutionalized projects take a long time at start-up if only one FSP is complete (most of the FSPs were they are to be able to accelerate to full capacity and approved in GEF-3). potential later. It would seem that many projects Table 7.5 Planned and Actual Durations of FSPs, MSPs, and Enabling Activities in South Africa Target Actual Extension Planned duration Project completion date completion date (months) (months) FSPs cape Peninsula biodiversity conservation Project 06/30/2004 06/30/2005 12 72 MSPs best environmental Practice in the Hosting of the 12/31/02 12/31/02 0.00 12 World Summit on Sustainable Development concentrating Solar Power for Africa 05/30/01 05/30/01 0.00 12 conservation of Globally Significant biodiversity 03/31/03 03/05/04 11.33 36 in Agricultural Landscapes through conservation Farming conservation Planning for biodiversity in the 06/30/03 06/30/04 12.20 36 thicket biome Pilot Production and commercial Dissemination of 06/24/02 09/01/06 51.00 20 Solar cookers richtersveld community biodiversity conservation 03/24/08 n.a. n.a. 36 Project Solar Water Heaters for Low Income Housing in Peri 04/01/06 n.a. n.a. 30 Urban Areas Sustainable Protected Area Development in 06/30/03 12/31/05 30.50 60 Namaqualand Average difference 17.51 30.25 Enabling activities enabling Activities for the Preparation of Initial 01/06/00 12/11/03 47.83 -- National communication related to UNFccc Note: -- = unavailable or unreliable data; n.a. = not applicable (project still under implementation). 7. Efficiency of GEF-Supported Activities in South Africa 105 set unrealistic end dates; this may negatively affect a single language for effective project proposals; the extent to which they are institutionalized. the IA "translators" can function more as sup- porters of and assistants to local project design- 7.2 Roles and Relationships ers. Almost all the officials with direct experience of the project process noted that UNDP was easier Who Initiates, Designs, and Implements to work with than the World Bank. GEF Projects? The national executing agencies responsible for In the early phases of the GEF, projects were often managing implementation are generally govern- initiated, designed, and even implemented by indi- ment entities. SANParks and SANBI have received viduals without their necessarily being embedded almost half of GEF support to South Africa. The within a government department or other rele- DME, DEAT, and the National Department of vant entity with the mandate to sustain the project Transport all have significant project budgets to results. This was particularly problematic for proj- manage, but these are less than half of those of ects requiring government commitment to sus- SANParks and SANBI. tain the gains made. The situation improved with application of the MTPF by the focal point, but it How Clear Are Roles and Responsibilities? is still the case that many projects arise through individual enthusiasm rather than through proac- Those interviewed did not mention a lack of clar- tive initiation based on the MTPF or through the ity of roles and responsibilities as an issue in any normal planning cycles of the relevant units in of the documents, except for the project intended government. to demonstrate best environmental practice in the hosting of the WSSD. The problems in this The IAs play the dominant role in project design, case are specific to the project and to difficulties making projects "GEF-able." Many stakeholders influencing an existing project management team indicate that the process is still so complex, the under a very tight deadline. criteria and requirements so obscure, opaque, and changeable, that it is almost impossible for an Some interviewees indicated that the support official to develop a project proposal. Pragmatism role of the IA needs clarification and specificity in and efficiency dictate that design is, in practice, terms of what national executing agencies and the dominated by the IAs, which need to take the focal point should be able to expect in return for input or discussion of stakeholders and translate the 10 percent received from each project grant.1 it into a GEF-able proposal. Country ownership and needs may be modified in translation. This is Coordination and Synergy largely inevitable, unless the onerous nature of the No real management of the portfolio takes place at requirements can be reduced; the requirements the portfolio level. Once each project is endorsed themselves made clearer, more transparent, and by the focal point and then approved by the GEF more stable; and wider local capacity built to do system, it begins implementation. Synergies occur effective project design. A uniform approach and when projects are implemented by the same exe- standard requirements across all IAs based on cuting agency and, to a certain extent, within the existing country-based approaches and ideally IAs (particularly when they are in the same focal similar to those of other major donors are further area). This has been more successful in the bio- essential ingredients to, as far as possible, establish diversity than the climate change focal area. For 106 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) example, in biodiversity, government (SANBI) used is outdated; the project logic and framework has played a significant role in coordinating bio- of expected results are not clearly elaborated; con- regional programs. cepts are not used accurately or consistently. Con- sequently, outputs are often confused with out- Overall, synergies in the biodiversity projects are comes or outcomes are substituted for impacts; due to the nature of the projects that lend them- and the indicators are often not fully relevant, use- selves to exchange and necessitate bioregional- ful, or feasible. Neither the IAs nor government level coordination among government partners, entities present learning or new knowledge aris- stakeholders, and other donors. In the climate ing from projects on their Web sites, for example. change area, many stakeholders noted that the lack of cooperation and tense relationships among Although a few projects have been effectively key players--the DME and Eskom in particular-- planned and designed to promote learning, test became a barrier to achievement, as significant or pilot, and catalyze or replicate, this should be levels of cooperation and coordination were nec- a uniform requirement of GEF projects. Few proj- essary to ensure maximum impact and outcomes ect reports or evaluations (except the indepen- from the projects. dent evaluations) identify and analyze problems, weaknesses, failures, or areas for improvement in Complementarity of GEF Support any detail. Stakeholders suggested that the conse- The discussion of relevance and country owner- quences for the IAs of having projects rated unsuc- ship in chapter 6 indicates that, in general, the ad cessful or marginally successful are so potentially hoc nature of the process of selection of the GEF damaging that this is avoided at all costs. If there projects, specifically in the climate change focal is truth in this--and it is difficult for GEF Agen- area, has not only meant that opportunities for cies to admit to problems--this will obviously improved effectiveness through greater coher- have a significant impact on the effectiveness of ence have been lost, but also complementarity has the GEF and GEF projects. Many project reports been jeopardized. One stakeholder who has long give the impression that their primary purpose is experience with the GEF portfolio said that align- compliance and the fulfillment of accountability ment of priorities, roles, and responsibilities was a requirements, rather than reflecting and record- matter of sheer luck; however, significant comple- ing discussion and decisions on how to improve mentarity existed in the biodiversity focal area. achievement levels, as well as lessons learned, from what worked and did not work very well. 7.3 Learning Two projects in the climate change focal area (solar cookers and the solar thermal electric proj- Have Projects Been Designed to Promote ects) deserve mention as pilots that successfully Learning? demonstrated the lack of viability of the technol- As already noted, the ability to promote effective ogy involved in clear terms, enabling analysis and learning and sharing of experience goes to the review if and when objective conditions change. heart of the GEF's role, but practice in this area These projects stand out owing to the care taken is weak. Project documents often do not provide to ensure that the problems and their implica- an adequately clear basis for assessing results and tions were accurately identified. This potentially learning about what did or did not work. Baselines prevented the waste of resources that would have are not clearly established, or baseline information 7. Efficiency of GEF-Supported Activities in South Africa 107 been inevitable had this technology been rolled conservation planning. These linkages are often out on the basis of a weak pilot study or a public made within the project documents. relations­oriented project report. It would obvi- Lack of evidence of this interchange in all project ously have been preferable to do a more thorough documents does not mean that it is not happen- prepilot feasibility analysis, if this would have pro- ing. But, as noted in chapter 6, one of the most vided warnings on feasibility, as it probably should important potential roles of the GEF is to mine have in the case of one of these projects. the vast experience accumulating in the global The different IAs use different formats and ter- portfolio of projects for valuable ideas, lessons, minology for project planning documents, as well and technical expertise. The GEF can then link as for reports and evaluations. As noted above, it with other projects where it can be evaluated it would be much clearer, easier, and more effec- and used as a platform for further progress and tive for executing agencies if all the GEF project development of the body of knowledge in each IAs applied the same set of criteria, requirements, focal area and among them on sustainable devel- formats, and terminology. In some cases, proj- opment. Little or no direct evidence of the IAs or ect managers face such a multitude of duplicated other GEF mechanisms deliberately establishing reporting requirements (for example, to the IA these linkages or transferring learning, however, in the IA format, to the GEF, to their own entity) came to light. that the learning is drowned out under the sheer weight of compliance demands. UNDP has indi- What Evidence Exists That Learning from cated that it has aligned its processes and docu- the GEF Projects Has Been Effectively mentation formats to simplify the GEF project Disseminated? process for project executants. Overall, stakehold- Many of the projects have made deliberate plans ers find working with UNDP easier than working to disseminate learning by developing training; with the World Bank, partly because of the align- writing guides, handbooks, and pamphlets; deliv- ment issues, but specifically because the World ering presentations; and so on. A brief impact Bank requires the negotiation of separate grant assessment of some of these after a time would agreements for each project. They view this as probably be a valuable exercise to establish how very onerous, as it requires signoff by the National much learning has been disseminated and to Treasury and the presidency. whom, and how it was being used. Again, if this is a key role for the GEF, it might be worth trying Has the Experience of Other Projects to identify what is working, how well, and how it Been Used to Enrich Project Design and may be improved in this area. Although many of Implementation? the projects include plans for dissemination, little In general, an improvement in design is attribut- information exists on the extent to which the GEF able to an evident interchange among the biodi- mechanism itself and the IAs are able to promote versity focal area projects. For example, the SAN- dissemination. Parks protected area projects have all built on the learning of the Cape Peninsula Biodiversity 7.4 GEF Focal Point Mechanism Conservation Project. Generally, the bioregional As already noted, the operational focal point, planning initiatives have improved methodologies located in DEAT, is responsible for ensuring applied in stakeholder engagement processes and 108 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) effective engagement and coordination at the to decision making. South Africa's policy context country level. The focal point is also responsible is changing dramatically and fundamentally, and for all other ODA and must manage a number of the focal point has not had a stable policy anchor bilateral agreements, as well as South Africa's sub- that could be used as the basic platform on which stantial involvement in international governance to facilitate decisions on a strategically coher- in the environment. Appointment of technical ent country program. South Africa after 1994 focal points for all focal areas supplements the has reviewed and fundamentally transformed all operational focal point. major policies and strategies. Changes across the broad environmental sector have been extensive Role of the GEF Focal Point in South Africa and continue at a rapid pace. The country is still The MTPF delineates the anticipated role of the in the process of developing an integrated sustain- focal point and related mechanisms as follows: able development strategy and plan--a complex undertaking given the distortions and scale of Presently all GEF projects requiring the endorsement challenges bequeathed by the apartheid state. This of the Operational Focal Point are subjected to a gov- ernmental screening process through the Committee integrated strategy is necessary to ensuring that for Environmental Co-ordination (CEC). The CEC is environmental policy and priorities are coherently an interdepartmental mechanism, responsible for pro- and sustainably aligned with social and economic moting the integration and coordination of environ- policy and priorities. For example, no clear strat- mental functions by the relevant organs of State and egy on renewable energy has yet been adopted comprises of the Director-Generals of National Gov- and concrete decisions on the strategy for achiev- ernment Departments, Provincial Heads of Depart- ing energy efficiency are still emerging. Significant ment (Environment) and representatives of local gov- ernments. The process of channelling all GEF projects tensions exist between Department of Trade and through the CEC enables broad based governmental Industry policy on developmental energy pricing opinions to be canvassed, particularly from the Pro- to incentivize energy-intensive industries and the vincial, municipal and local council levels, and deci- DME's mandate to promote energy efficiency. The sions made in a participatory and transparent man- urgency of focusing attention on extending access ner. This in turn ensures that global environmental to services exists alongside the need to give time management objectives are nested properly within the national sustainable development agenda, to enhance to "decouple" development from existing high the basis of national ownership, and the impacts and resource-use and waste-producing paths. sustainability of interventions. Furthermore it affords the Focal Point an opportunity to identify synergies In this context, input from stakeholders is vital with existing initiatives as well as obtain inputs from and, as the MTPF intends, helps balance contrary various quarters that may add value to projects. This demands with ensuring that a range of dimensions process is clearly important to enhance project sus- are considered in decisions taken in "a participatory tainability and impact and will be continued and and transparent manner." However, the number of gradually strengthened as projects within the various stakeholders involved is staggering. The fragmen- programmes are pipelined (DEAT 2001, p. 18). tation of the mandates relevant to the GEF focal areas is enormous, and almost all national depart- Role in Facilitating Strategic Coherence ments and a majority of provincial departments, and Access to Decision Making let alone local government, have a potential stake The focal point functions within a difficult con- in the GEF projects. The other layers of stakehold- text to facilitate strategic coherence and access ers outside government are numerous and also 7. Efficiency of GEF-Supported Activities in South Africa 109 operate in a range of spheres, from the very local provides a potentially improved basis for more to national, and include academics, researchers, proactively facilitating selection, but the focal NGOs, community-based organizations, the pri- point acknowledges in its own self-assessment vate sector, development agencies, and numer- progress report that the projects continue to be ous other groups. The stakeholder analysis done selected on an ad hoc basis: by the evaluation team to guide the selection of However, previously, GEF projects in South Africa, interviews resulted in a daunting list several pages although addressing the national priorities of South long of key stakeholders. Africa, were rather fragmented and were initiated in a fairly ad hoc manner. Although these projects were In this context, it is hardly surprising that the focal contributing to the country's overall environmental point and most of those interviewed thought that goals, they were not conceived as part of a holistic the actual achievement of strategic coherence programme for GEF investment. Clearly such a pro- and effective access to decision making has been gramme is desirable to ensure that GEF initiatives are somewhat limited, but has changed over time. fully nested within national development agendas, enhance the GEF's financial leveraging capacities, and The MTPF represents a significant improvement improve prospects for replicating and sustaining inter- by formulating a transparent outline of the issues ventions. The Department of Environmental Affairs and their alignment with the concerns of the rel- and Tourism together with the GEF Secretariat and evant conventions. Projects were put before the its Implementing Agencies have initiated a process Committee for Environmental Coordination. But, to move towards a more programmatic approach for in practice, the committee's agenda was so full South Africa. South Africa intends developing and and the process through which projects arose so executing a comprehensive long-term country-driven programmatic approach to address global environmen- obscure to the members that the committee did tal concerns that will be advanced simultaneously with not succeed in strategically directing the portfolio. efforts to attain national sustainable development prior- The cycles and timing of the GEF approval pro- ities. The development of a programmatic approach for cess also made it impossible to delay project selec- South Africa is however a process that would require a tion until the next quarterly committee meeting. reasonable time prior to even a draft discussion docu- It appears from interviews that, in practice, the ments being tabled (DEAT 2006e, p. 2). committee process has become more of a rubber Many of those interviewed indicate that the focal stamp and possible safety net; project proposals point has made efforts to facilitate coherence and are circulated via email to committee members enable access to decision making. Workshops and technical focal points with a two-week period were held with a variety of government stakehold- for comments or objections, beyond which silence ers and with the IAs to begin to work out a clear is interpreted as consent. prioritized framework. New changes at the GEF Although the MTPF acknowledges that project and specifically the RAF have overtaken this ini- selection has been too ad hoc and indicates that tiative. The focal point indicates that there is little a prioritized country program will be agreed on, point in developing a strategic framework in the it has not materialized and, in practice, no really context of the RAF. In practice, projects that have proactive process of selection has been instituted. been accepted by the Committee for Environmen- The perception also exists that, in GEF-4, given tal Coordination process and are awaiting entry to the RAF, choices for selecting projects are limited, the pipeline already account for the full four-year so why bother with a strategy? The MTPF clearly RAF allocation for biodiversity and climate change 110 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) (although this would not apply to the other focal shaping or reviewing the portfolio, even in their areas). The focal point has simply put these for- own area of technical competence. ward for acceptance into the GEF portfolio. Sharing Information and Disseminating It seems that many actors are not sure whether Learning there is still scope for projects that fall in focal areas The focal point and many stakeholders inter- outside the RAF and whether the GEF would still viewed indicated that the role of sharing infor- accept them. It is not fully clear why South Africa mation and disseminating learning had been par- has not forwarded any. Key stakeholders work- ticularly weak. A shortage of staff and relegation ing in all focal areas indicated that the process of of the focal point largely to a clearinghouse role project selection was arbitrary, nontransparent, have led to a limited role for the focal point in this and very difficult to access or influence. Lack of area. Key stakeholders and technical focal points information on how projects are selected and the indicated that they rarely are consulted before the general process of the GEF in South Africa appear focal point attends GEF meetings or provided with to have created an uneasy feeling among differ- reports afterward. The responsible people in the ent stakeholders, particularly outside the DEAT executing agencies have reported a similar sense system. Rejection or delays in particular projects of exclusion and lack of access to information. have increased the feeling of arbitrariness and lack of transparency in the project selection process. A significant barrier to the focal point playing this role effectively has been the fact that projects and One major missed opportunity that could have IAs do not routinely include the focal point in the significantly assisted the focal point in bring- circulation of narrative and financial reports or ing greater strategic coherence and access to the evaluations. It is strongly recommended that the process of shaping the portfolio is the enabling focal point and technical focal point be included activities. The provision made for development in the circulation and review of these reports. of concrete strategy and plans in each focal area The focal point has recently instituted regular and in terms of an analysis of institutional capac- meetings at least with UNDP to review project ity needed to implement them has not been effec- progress, identify issues requiring attention and tively used, but could have provided a very strong troubleshooting, and strengthen cooperation and anchor for the GEF program in South Africa. Of coordination. The focal point will also undertake course, the NBSAP had a great influence in devel- field visits to projects to assess progress, and a oping the portfolio. The climate change strategy schedule has been prepared that would enable all stopped short of clear decisions on pathways and projects to be visited within a cycle over a number priorities in the areas of adaptation, as well as of years. mitigation. The POPs strategy and plan and the NCSA are making progress. An additional problem has been the cancellation of all projects in the pipeline and the enormous irri- A second area of potential--appointment of tech- tation this has caused. Many stakeholders blame nical focal points in each focal area--does not the focal point for this action, which was regarded appear to have been fully used. Those reached by as arbitrary, lacking in respect for the time and the evaluation indicate that they do not feel con- effort invested, and a symptom of a heavy-handed sistently or effectively included in the process of approach. A recent increase in staffing levels 7. Efficiency of GEF-Supported Activities in South Africa 111 available to the focal point has enabled plans for Likely Impacts on the SGP and Regional a newsletter, which will be used to communicate Projects GEF policies and procedures, opportunities avail- The impact of the RAF on the SGP is likely to be able, as well as key lessons and issues arising from significantly negative. The SGP in South Africa projects. This will enable significant improve- has never been able to realize its enormous poten- ment in communications and dissemination of tial. Many stakeholders note the absence of capac- learning. ity to promote and institutionalize environmental awareness and action at the community level and 7.5 Emerging Issues Concerning the importance of this in the South African con- the RAF text. Others note that a more systematic process of project selection at the focal point level will Clarity of Process, Procedure, and Roles close an important window for new initiatives South Africa has voiced concerns about the RAF that may not yet be seen as government priorities, from the early drafts and continues to regard it as a but can prove their value if given a jump start. The barrier to achieving global environmental benefits requirement that SGP funding be allocated from through support to developing countries. Most of country RAF allocations undermines the basic those interviewed indicated that, instead of ensur- purpose of the SGP, which is to keep a window ing a more transparent and strategic basis for allo- open to nongovernmental stakeholders, activists, cating resources, the RAF has made the process and communities to access funding for projects. more obscure and less likely to have the required As one stakeholder noted, "He who pays the piper, impact. All noted that the indexes and processes calls the tune" and government will be paying the are opaque and that the process lacks clarity and piper. It is strongly recommended that this be transparency. revisited and that the SGP be strengthened, rather than weakened, for it to play its role effectively. Changes in Role of the Focal Point The RAF may also negatively affect the future The role of the focal point will change signifi- development of regional projects, as these will cantly, because there will only be two points in the have to be funded from the country RAF alloca- year when projects can be pipelined. This offers tion. Members of the international waters projects an opportunity to adjust the focal point and its have indicated the importance of regional projects role to enable it to better facilitate strategic coher- in addressing key environmental concerns that ence and synergy in the portfolio. It is suggested cannot be addressed at the national level. that the technical focal points play a more direct role in proactively shaping the portfolio in each focal area, but also in jointly ensuring coherence Note and synergies across the portfolio. 1. The GEF Secretariat is presently conducting an assessment of the administrative fees provided to the GEF Agencies for each project. This document should be presented to the GEF Council at its April 2008 meeting. 112 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) Annex A. Terms of Reference A.1 Background and Introduction selected because of the country's historically large and diverse portfolio, including projects in all GEF The GEF Council has requested that the GEF focal areas, implemented by all relevant GEF Agen- Evaluation Office conduct evaluations of the GEF cies and including at least four completed projects portfolio at the country level: GEF country port- that potentially have important results; because it folio evaluations. The overall purpose of these will receive a large allocation in the RAF based on evaluations, as requested by the Council, is two- its important global biodiversity and dependency fold: (1) to evaluate how GEF-supported activi- on fossil fuels; and because the government has ties fit into the national strategies and priorities as developed a medium-term priority framework for well as within the global environmental mandate the GEF. of the GEF, and (2) to provide the Council with additional information on the results of the GEF- In 1994 South Africa held its first democratic elec- supported activities and how these activities are tions. It was also the year in which South Africa implemented. first became a participant of the GEF. This pro- vides some insight into the relative level of impor- Countries are selected for portfolio evaluations tance that has been in place on the environment among 160 GEF-eligible countries, based on a by the new democratic government, despite the stratified randomized selection and a set of stra- massive and complex socioeconomic challenges tegic criteria. So far the Evaluation Office has con- left in the wake of the apartheid policy. The right ducted three CPEs: Costa Rica (pilot case in 2006) to a healthy environment is entrenched as a con- and the Philippines and Samoa (in 2007). Docu- stitutional right in South Africa's new Constitu- ments for each of these evaluations are available tion. The extensive and far-reaching development in the GEF Evaluation Office Web site. In 2007 after 1994 of South Africa's policy and legal frame- the Evaluation Office will undertake four CPEs in work designed to protect and secure the environ- Africa: Madagascar, Benin, Cameroon and South ment is evidence of the recognition that a healthy Africa. The evaluations, findings, and recommen- environment is a necessary condition for a robust dations from the four CPEs will be synthesized in society and sustained economy. After years of iso- a single report and presented to the Council at its lation as a violator of human rights were ended, April 2008 meeting. The synthesis report will allow the new democratic South Africa joined with the Office to assess and report on experiences and other nations of the world in making a contribu- common issues across different types of countries. tion to international environmental governance Among several considerations, South Africa was 113 and commitments to the international environ- and indicates that it "will continue to champion mental conventions. For the past 15 years, South a national sustainable development agenda and is Africa has approved and put into implementation putting in place programs, strategies, policies and laws and policies in all aspects of environmental legislation to respond to emerging global, regional management, from the National Environmental and national environmental challenges, and in so Management Act (1998), National Environmental doing, support economic growth, poverty eradi- Management: Biodiversity Act (2004), Protected cation and human well-being." Areas Act (2003), Air Quality Act (2004), and Cli- Regarding South Africa's response to the GEF mate Change Response (2004) policies. In 2002 mandate, in 2001 the government prepared a GEF South Africa hosted the World Summit on Sus- medium-term priority framework, which pro- tainable Development and in 2005 South Africa vides a very good overview of how South Africa was presented with the Champion of the Earth prioritized GEF support. In addition, this docu- Award, in recognition of outstanding achieve- ment provides a very good presentation of the ments in the field of environment. main issues in each focal area. The following para- Despite these significant achievements and clear graphs are based on this document. recognition of the need to manage the country's z Biodiversity. South Africa is considered the resources better, the latest assessment of the state third most biologically diverse country in the of South Africa's environment shows that, in gen- world (one of the megadiversity countries). eral, the condition of the environment is deterio- For example, South Africa is the only country rating. Detailed assessments provided in a compre- in the world to include an entire floristic king- hensive and incisive environmental outlook report dom within its boundaries--the Cape Floristic from the Department of Environmental Affairs Kingdom--one of six worldwide. In addition, and Tourism show that South Africa is using up its the country contains an estimated 6 percent of natural capital. The ecological footprint per per- the world's mammal species, 8 percent of the son in South Africa is higher than the global aver- avifauna, 5 percent of the reptile species, 16 age and increasing, as South Africa struggles to percent of the estimated number of marine fish meet its huge socioeconomic challenges. In other species, and about 6 percent of the described middle- and low-income countries, the ecological insect species. All of these important species, footprint per person is declining. South Africa's many of them endemic to South Africa, are rating on the Global Sustainability Index is declin- under anthropogenic pressure, particularly ing; South Africa achieved an overall rank of 93 of mining, forestry, urban development and agri- 146 countries in 2005. cultural expansion, and alien invasive plants South Africa is currently developing a National and animals. Between 14 and 37 percent of the Framework for Sustainable Development in its country's fauna and flora are considered under ongoing efforts to respond to the legacies of threat. About 6 percent of the country's land apartheid and secure sustainable development was protected to maintain biodiversity in 2003 for all. The South African Department of Envi- (South Africa 2007a). ronmental Affairs and Tourism, in its response z Climate change. South Africa accounts for to its latest Environment Outlook report, reiter- about 1 percent of anthropogenic greenhouse ates the South African government's commitment gases emissions, (20th in the world), because 114 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) of its energy production's high dependency on focal areas and GEF Agencies (Annex 1 has a list coal (based on 1990 data; a new inventory of of projects). GHG is under preparation under the second National Communication to UNFCCC, that Table A.1 is not yet available). On the other hand, South GEF Support to National Projects by Focal Area and Africa is highly vulnerable to the impacts of Agency climate change. Changes in precipitation will Million $ probably cause the main impacts regarding WB- water supply and demand. Focal area UNDP UNEP WB UNDP SGP biodiversity 19.19 0.60 21.67 11.32 z International waters. The currents of Ben- climate change 15.02 0.32 9.51 guela and Agulhas along the coastline of South POPs 0.50 Africa make these oceanic waters very rich and Multifocal 1.20 productive in marine life. In addition, South Total 35.41 1.44 31.18 11.32 1.92 Africa shares a number of important freshwa- Note: Wb = World bank. ter resources with neighboring countries, such as Incomati, Limpopo, Orange, and Ravuma. These water resources are overexploited and This portfolio of projects will be the main focus suffer from pollution, other human induced of the evaluation. In biodiversity, GEF support pressures and invasion of alien species. has concentrated on conservation in protected areas, as well as in agricultural landscapes, while z Persistent organic pollutants. The release of in climate change, on renewable energy, particu- POPs, including some pesticides and indus- larly solar and wind. UNDP and the World Bank trial chemicals, is a serious problem in South have been the main channels for GEF support to Africa. South Africa (furthermore, for both institutions, z Land degradation. Some 25 percent of South the GEF is the main source of funding to the coun- Africa's lands are classified as severely degraded; try). South Africa has also received GEF support 90 percent of the country is dominated by arid through the SGP. Although this program has been and semiarid lands, with a high desertification in existence since 2000, there have been breaks risk. The main causes of land degradation are that have caused delays in its implementation (as population growth; overexploitation of range- of July 2007, the SGP has approved 36 projects lands; expansion of agriculture into marginal and has been allocated $1.92 million). GEF sup- areas; excessive demand for fuelwood; bush port includes a series of enabling activities for fires; and unregulated and excessive water all the focal areas, as requested and required by demand and abstraction. the international conventions for which the GEF serves as financial mechanism. In addition, South The GEF has invested about $81.27 million (with Africa has participated in 29 initiatives financially about $603 million in cofinancing) through supported by the GEF with a regional or global 24 national projects (13 biodiversity, 8 climate scope (area of intervention beyond the national change, 1 multifocal, and 2 POPs, including the borders of South Africa). Table A.2 breaks down Small Grants Programme and support to South these projects.1 Africa through the global program of the CEPF). Table A.1 breaks down GEF support according to Annex A. Terms of Reference 115 Table A.2 z Provide additional evaluative evidence to other Number of GEF Regional and Global Projects in evaluations conducted or sponsored by the which South Africa Participates by Focal Area and GEF Evaluation Office. Agency z Provide feedback and knowledge sharing to (1) Focal Multi- area UNDP UNEP WB Agency Total the GEF Council in its decision-making process bD 3 4 2 1 10 to allocate resources and to develop policies cc 0 0 2 0 2 and strategies, (2) the country on its participa- IW 7 2 2 0 11 tion in the GEF, and (3) the different agencies LD 0 2 0 1 3 and organizations involved in the preparation POPs 0 0 1 0 1 and implementation of GEF support. MF 0 0 2 0 2 The CPE will also be used to provide information Total 10 8 9 2 29 and evidence to other evaluations conducted by Note: bD = biodiversity; cc = climate change; IW = international waters; LD = land degradation; MF = multifocal; Wb = World bank. the GEF Evaluation Office, specifically the overall midterm evaluation of the RAF,4 evaluation of the catalytic role of the GEF, and evaluation of part- South Africa has been allocated a substantial nerships and umbrella projects. The evaluation amount of resources for GEF-4 (2006­10), partic- will address the performance of the GEF portfolio ularly through the RAF, given South Africa's rich in terms of relevance, efficiency, and effectiveness endowment in biodiversity and also large genera- as well as contributing factors to this performance. tion of GHGs ($22.5 for biodiversity and $23.9 for The CPEs do not have an objective of evaluating climate change, about 2 percent of GEF-4 RAF or rating the performance of the GEF Agencies, resources). South Africa is one of the few coun- partners, or national governments. The evalu- tries in the GEF that has received individual allo- ation will analyze the performance of individual cations for both focal areas. projects as part of the overall GEF portfolio, but without rating such projects. A.2 Objectives of the Evaluation Based on the overall purpose (above) of the GEF A.3 Key Evaluation Questions CPEs, the evaluation for South Africa will have The GEF country portfolio evaluation will be the following specific objectives: guided by the following key questions: z Independently evaluate the relevance and effi- z Relevance of GEF support ciency of GEF support in a country from several ­ Is GEF support relevant to the South African points of view:2 national environmental frame- sustainable development agenda and national works and decision-making processes, the GEF development needs and challenges? mandate and achievement of global environmen- tal benefits, and GEF policies and procedures. ­ Is GEF support relevant to national environ- mental priorities and frameworks (including z Assess the effectiveness and results of com- action plans directly supported by the GEF pleted and ongoing projects in each relevant within each GEF's national focal areas)? focal area.3 ­ Is the country supporting the GEF mandate and focal area programs and strategies with 116 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) its own resources and/or support from other ­ What are the aggregated results at the focal donors? area and country levels? ­ Is GEF support relevant to the achievement ­ What is the likelihood that objectives will of the GEF mandate (maximizing global be achieved for those projects that are still environmental benefits), principles (incre- under implementation? What is the sustain- mentality, cost-effectiveness, sustainability, ability of GEF support?6 and so on), and objectives of each GEF focal Each question is supported by a preliminary eval- area's operational programs and strategies? uation matrix in annex B. The matrix contains a ­ Is GEF support relevant to GEF Agency tentative list of indicators or basic data, potential strategies and frameworks? sources of information, and methodology compo- ­ How relevant are the RAF indexes to coun- nents and will be validated or further developed try priorities? by the evaluation team once the evaluation work starts. The evaluation will use as a basis the indi- z Efficiency of GEF support cators in the GEF project documents, indicators ­ How much time, effort, and money are of each of the focal areas and the RAF, as well as needed to develop and implement projects, any appropriate national sustainable development by GEF support modality? and environmental indicator. Past evaluations ­ What are the roles, types of engagement, and have mentioned weaknesses in monitoring and coordination mechanisms among different evaluation at the project and GEF program levels stakeholders in project implementation? In and may pose challenges to the assessment. Not particular, what is the national mechanism all the information is quantitative. for GEF implementation? ­ How successful is dissemination of GEF A.4 Scope and Limitations project lessons and results? The CPEs will cover all types of GEF-supported ­ What synergies exist between GEF project activities in the country at all stages of the proj- programming/implementation and GEF ect cycle (pipeline, ongoing, and completed) Agencies, national institutions, GEF proj- and implemented by all the GEF Agencies in all ects, and the projects and activities of other focal areas, including applicable GEF corporate donors? activities, such as the Small Grants Programme. ­ To what extent have GEF operations changed The main focus of the evaluation will be projects after the introduction of the RAF? implemented within the boundaries of South Africa, that is, national projects. z Results and effectiveness ­ What are the results (outcomes and impacts) In addition, all regional and global projects in of completed (and if appropriate, ongoing) which South Africa participates will be reviewed. projects , according to focal area frameworks The objective of this part of the evaluation will be and cross-cutting issues (that is, capacity to present overall GEF support to South Africa building, catalytic effect and achievements, through this type of project, reported results improvements in the enabling environment, within South Africa, and a description of the ways and increased awareness)? in which South Africa participates in them (for Annex A. Terms of Reference 117 example, who are the partners in these projects will be also considered as a relevant framework for and how South Africa participates). There will be GEF support. no attempt at conducting a full assessment of their GEF support is provided through partnerships aggregate relevance, results, and efficiency. Nev- with many institutions, so it is challenging to con- ertheless, a selection of international waters proj- sider GEF support separately. The CPE will not ects will be considered for a more in-depth review attempt to provide a direct attribution of develop- (similar to the review to be conducted for national ment results to the GEF, but address the contribu- projects) in which South Africa participates tion of GEF support to the overall achievements, (approved by the Council or CEO as of June 30, that is, to establish a credible link between what 2007), because there are no international waters GEF supported and its implications. The evalua- projects in the national projects cohort. The GEF tion will address how GEF support has functioned portfolio to be assessed in this evaluation is the in partnership with others through questions on aggregate of the national projects plus the selected roles and coordination, synergies and comple- regional/global projects. mentarities, and knowledge sharing. The stage of the project will determine the Of the 25 national projects approved by the Coun- expected focus (table A.3). cil for South Africa, 10 have been completed and the other 15 are still ongoing. Only one full-size Table A.3 project has been completed (Cape Peninsula Focus of Evaluation by Project Status Biodiversity Project, implemented through the Project Rele- Effective- status vance Efficiency ness Results World Bank). Two enabling activities generating completed Full Full Full Full reports to the CBD (including the NBSAP) and Ongoing Full Partially Likelihood Likelihood the first national communication have been com- In pipeline expected Processes n.a. n.a. pleted. The other three enabling activities (second SGP expected Processes Likelihood Likelihood communication to UNFCCC, NIP for persistent Note: n.a. = not applicable. the main focus of the evaluation will be organic pollutants, and the clearinghouse mecha- relevance and efficiency; it will explore possible methodologies on nism for CBD) are still active. As indicated above, how to evaluate project effectiveness and results. the SGP is still active in South Africa, although it has had several breaks in its implementation with Although the GEF does not require GEF coun- a resulting portfolio of only 26 projects. try programs, South Africa developed one for 2001­03. This GEF medium-term priority frame- In addition, the context in which these projects work will be used as a possible framework for were developed and approved and are being imple- assessing achievements and experiences of proj- mented constitutes a focus of the evaluation. In ects approved during that period. All other proj- particular, the GEF strategy developed for South ects will be assessed against nationally (and when Africa in 2001 will be an essential framework and applicable, regionally) relevant strategies and context for the evaluation. In addition, the context frameworks. The country programs of the GEF will include a historical assessment of the national Implementing Agencies, as agreed on with the sustainable development and environmental government of South Africa and the South Africa's policies, strategies and priorities, legal environ- national strategies and mid- and long-term goals, ment in which these policies are implemented and enforced, GEF Agency country strategies and 118 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) programs, and GEF policies, principles, programs, z Interviews with GEF stakeholders, in addition to and strategies. It would include consideration of the DEAT as the focal point, all other relevant baselines, absorptive capacity, and institutional government departments (for example, trans- development. port, agriculture, and minerals and energy), other bilaterals and multilaterals, NGOs (both A.5 Methodology local and international with a presence in South The methodology includes a series of components Africa); the GEF Agencies; SGP; and all national using a combination of qualitative and quantita- convention focal points tive methods and tools. The qualitative aspects of z Interviews with GEF beneficiaries and sup- the evaluation include a desk review of existing ported institutions--including SANBI, SAN- documentation. The expected sources of informa- Parks, Central Energy Fund, CAPE, municipal tion include the following: governments and associations, and local com- munities and authorities z At the project level, project documents, project implementation reports, terminal evaluations, z Field visits to project sites reports from monitoring visits, documents z Information from national consultation work- produced by projects shops z At the country level, national sustainable devel- The quantitative analysis will use indicators to opment agendas, environmental priorities and assess the relevance and efficiency of GEF support strategies, GEF-wide focal area strategies and using projects as the unit of analysis (that is, link- action plans, GEF-supported national capacity ages with national priorities, time and cost of pre- self-assessment, and global and national envi- paring and implementing projects, and so forth) ronmental indicators and to measure GEF results (that is, progress z At the Agency level, country assistance strate- toward achieving global environmental impacts) gies and frameworks and their evaluations and and performance of projects (such as implemen- reviews, specifically from the World Bank, tation and completion ratings). UNDP, Food and Agriculture Organization The evaluation team will use standard tools and of the United Nations, International Fund for protocols for the CPEs and adapt these to the Agricultural Development, United Nations South African context. These tools include a proj- Industrial Development Organization, and ect review protocol to conduct the desk and field African Development Bank reviews of GEF projects and questionnaires to z Evaluative evidence at the country level com- conduct interviews with different stakeholders. ing from GEF Evaluation Office evaluations, Two project review protocols will be developed: such as the Joint Evaluation of the GEF Activ- one for nationally implemented projects and ity Cycle and Modalities and the overall per- another one for regional/global projects. formance studies, or from national evaluation organizations A selection of projects will be visited. The crite- ria for selecting them will be finalized during the z Statistics and scientific sources, especially for implementation of the evaluation, but emphasis national environmental indicators will be placed on completed projects and those clustered within a particular geographic area, Annex A. Terms of Reference 119 given time and financial resources limitations. For z Country environmental framework, which example, the Northern Cape Province could be a provides the context in which GEF projects good candidate because several projects in several have been developed and implemented focal areas are implemented (or have components (this framework may already be available, there). The evaluation team will decide on specific prepared by GEF Agencies or national gov- sites to visit, based on the initial review of docu- ernments). This document will be based on mentation and balancing the needs of representa- information on environmental legislation, tion and cost-effectiveness of conducting the field environmental policies of each govern- visits. In addition, several projects in South Africa ment administration (plans, strategies, and have been extensively evaluated by independent so on), and the international agreements reviewers (for example, the CAPE project), pro- signed by the country presented and ana- viding a strong rationale to focus the GEF evalua- lyzed through time so as to be able to con- tion team's efforts on other projects. nect with particular GEF support. The South Africa CPE will be conducted in coor- z Global environmental benefits assessment, dination, as much as possible, with two other which provides an assessment of the coun- evaluations underway at this point: the evaluation try's contribution to the GEF mandate and of the U.N. Development Action Framework (led its focal areas based on appropriate indica- by the U.N. Evaluation Group) and the assessment tors, such as those used in the RAF (for bio- of the Cape Peninsula Biodiversity project by the diversity and climate change) and others in Independent Evaluation Group of the World Bank. project documents. 3. The evaluation team conducts the evaluation, A.6 Process and Outputs including at least one visit by GEF Evaluation Office representatives. Based on an initial GEF Evaluation Office visit to South Africa in September 2007, these country- 4. The GEF Evaluation Office conducts a visit specific terms of reference have been prepared. to present the draft report at a consultation The evaluation team will complete the following workshop with major stakeholders. tasks: 5. Prepare final report, which incorporates com- 1. Collect information and conduct literature ments and is then presented to the GEF Coun- review to extract existing reliable evaluative cil and the recipient government. evidence. As indicated above, the GEF focal point will be an 2. Prepare specific inputs to the evaluation: 7 intrinsic and essential partner in this evaluation. The DEAT has been requested to provide support z GEF portfolio database, which describes all to the evaluation, such as identifying key people to GEF-supported activities within the coun- be interviewed; communicating with relevant gov- try, basic information (GEF Agencies, focal ernment departments; supporting organization of areas), implementation status, project cycle interviews, field visits, and meetings; and iden- information, GEF and cofinancing financial tifying main documents. The GEF Agencies will information, major objectives and expected be requested to provide support to the evaluation (or actual) results, key partners per project, on their specific projects or activities supported and so on. 120 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) by the GEF, including identification of key project 2. Relevance: the extent to which the objectives of and Agency staff to be interviewed, participation the GEF activity are consistent with beneficiaries' requirements, country needs, global priorities, and in interviews, arrangement of field visits to proj- partner and donor policies, including changes with ects, and provision of project documentation and time; efficiency: the extent to which results have data. been delivered with the least costly resources pos- sible (funds, expertise, time, and so on). Efficiency The main output of the evaluation will be an eval- is also called cost-effectiveness or efficacy. uation report. The GEF Evaluation Office will bear 3. Results: the output, outcome, or impact (intended full responsibility for the content of the report. or unintended, positive and/or negative) of a GEF The draft report will be presented in a stakeholder activity; effectiveness: the extent to which the GEF workshop in South Africa for the South African activity's objectives were achieved or are expected government and national stakeholders, includ- to be achieved, taking into account their relative importance. ing project staff, donors, and GEF Agencies, on or about February 28, 2007. Comments will be 4. These inputs are working documents and are not requested from them on factual issues. The final expected to be published as separate documents. report will be synthesized together with the other 5. Given the early stage of implementation of the three country evaluations and presented to the RAF and following the approval of the terms of Council at its April 2008 meeting. reference for the midterm review of the RAF by the GEF Council in November 2007, questions are The evaluation will be conducted between Octo- expected to focus on the design and early imple- mentation of the RAF. ber 2007 and March 2008. Table A.4 presents the key milestones of the evaluation. 6. Sustainability: the likely ability of an intervention to continue to deliver benefits for an extended period of time after completion. The CPE will address Notes four dimensions of sustainability: financial, insti- tutional, sociopolitical, and environmental. 1. At this point, it is not possible to quantify the GEF support directly to South Africa through these 7. These inputs are working documents and are not regional and global projects. expected to be published as separate documents. Annex A. Terms of Reference 121 Table A.4 Evaluation's Key Milestones Milestone Deadline 1. request for interest from consultants August 1­17, 2007, 2007 2. GeF evaluation Office first visit to South Africa to launch evaluation and discuss draft September 25­October 3, terms of reference with key GeF stakeholders 2007 3. contract consultants based in South Africa October 1, 2007 4. country-specific terms of reference October 31, 2007 5. Project review protocol and questionnaires October 31, 2007 6. Desk review of 25 national and 5 international waters projects December 15, 2007 7. Global environmental benefits assessments and environmental framework for South December 31, 2007 Africa 8. Field visits to be decided 9. Interviews with stakeholders October 1 - January 31, 2008 10. Second GeF evaluation Office visit to complete interviews, conduct additional field visits, January 16­23, 2008 and begin drafting report 11. Draft report January 15­February 20, 2008 12. Draft report to key stakeholders February 20, 2008 13. National consultation workshop to present draft February 28, 2008 14. Final cPe South Africa March 10, 2008 15. Synthesis cPe Africa to stakeholders March 14, 2008 16. Synthesis cPe Africa upload for the council March 25, 2008 17. Presentation to GeF council April 25, 2008 122 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) Annex B. Evaluation Matrix Item Information Source 1. Context of the evaluation 1.1 General y Human development profile y National Framework for Sustainable Development, Septem- description y Social and political context of environmental issues ber 2006 y Status of each focus area in South Africa y South Africa environment Outlook for 2006 y capacity y Development Indicators Mid-term review, South Africa (2007) 1.2 brief Potential global benefits: y reports: South Africa environment Outlook, National description of y biodiversity potential and actual status Framework for Sustainable Development, State of the Parks environmental (SANParks), Western cape State of biodiversity report, y climate potential and actual status resources in capeNature, 2007, National Action Plan to combat Land key GeF sup- y Land degradation and desertification Degradation and Alleviate rural Poverty, 2004, Study on port areas y POPs potential and actual status protected area financial cost ; DeAt-GeF MtPF status report (what is y International waters: potential and actual status and 2006; c. Volante's SANParks Interview; regional biodiversity potential regional significance; which transboundary features (fresh report; business case for the SANbI global and marine) are relevant in the regional context (rivers and y Frameworks and action plans: rAF, NbSAP, First National benefit?) LMes)? communication, National Action Plan, NIP, NcSA y Ozone y Specialists and key informants y Overall alignment 1.3 the y Outline legal and policy framework and ratification of y DeAt GeF MtPF status report 2006 environmen- protocols y National Framework for Sustainable Development tal legal and y Adequacy, ownership and embeddedness, and alignment y State of environment report policy frame- y Development and environment strategy, plans including y South Africa environment Outlook work in [name targets and budgets, and future trajectory: sustainability, of country] commitment, and coherence 1.4 the GeF: y brief overview of GeF-1 to GeF-4 and IA involvement y Other cPe documents general y GeF-4 and rAF and South African allocations y DeAt GeF MtPF status report (2001 and 2006) with respect to rAF description y GeF focal area strategy y IA interviews with UNDP, World bank, and SGP 2. Activities funded by the GEF 2.1 Activities y Agreed national and regional projects y evaluation Office database and completed project protocols considered in y IA records the evaluation 2.2 Activities y Activities over time and by IA and by modality; activities y evaluation Office database and completed project protocols over time by focal area breakdown by number and budget and y IA records modality; activities by exAs; activities by GeF phase; SGP 2.3 evolu- y For different GeF phases by IA, focal area, and modality y DeAt: South African GeF MtPF (2001) and MtPF status tion of GeF y Other ODA and cofinancing and South Africa's contribu- report (2006) funding to the tion to replenishment fund for each GeF phase y evaluation Office database and completed project protocols country y History of focal point y IA records y IA interviews 123 Key question Indicators/basic data Sources of information Methodology 3. Relevance of GEF support 3.1 Is GeF support y GeF support is within the country's sustain- y Documents: State of environment report; y Document relevant to South able development agenda and environmen- South Africa environment Outlook; National review and Africa's sustain- tal priorities (National environmental Act and Framework for Sustainable Development; analysis of able development subsequent acts) State of the Parks (SANParks); Western cape relevant agenda and environ- y evidence of deliberate pro-poor or devel- State of biodiversity report, capeNature, country-level mental priorities? opmental orientation in project planning, 2007; National Action Plan to combat Land information implementation, and evaluation Degradation and Alleviate rural Poverty, and documents 2004; Study on protected area financial and legal y beneficiaries and benefits identified cost; DeAt-GeF MtPF status report (2006); framework y GeF support has South African owner- Development Indicators Mid-term review, ship, evident in project origin, design, and y Analysis of South Africa (2007a); c. Volante's SANParks projects and implementation interview; regional biodiversity report; portfolio y relative weight of different focal areas and Articles on Millennium Development Goals alignment with South Africa's GeF Strategy y Interviews and climate (including and environmental policy and plans y Historical record: DeAt MtPF and environ- project issues y Level of GeF funding relative to other ODA in ment committee records where relevant) the environment sector y Analysis of project design information and y National results using project protocols consultation y Government officials, NGOs, and academ- workshops ics: climate: A. eberhard; H. Winkler, central energy Fund, National committee on climate change, energy research centre; biodiversity: in government, Dept. of Land Affairs, DeAt (incl. Marine and coastal Mgmt.), Dept. of Water Affairs and Forestry, and others?; POPs, international waters, and land degradation? NGOs: Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies, and Khanya; UN Office of Project Services (bcLMe local office) 3.2 Is GeF support y Priority development needs are supported y National Framework for Sustainable y Document relevant to national (capacity building and income generating) Development review and development needs and challenges reduced. y South Africa environment Outlook analysis of and challenges? y Different types of GeF modalities and compo- relevant y Development Indicators Mid-term review, nents (enabling activities, MSPs, FSPs, SGP, PDF, country-level South Africa (2007a) GeF Agencies, or technical support) align with information y regional biodiversity report the country's needs and challenges. y Document y World bank Independent evaluation Group review regional y GeF provided support for the country's assessment of South African government's reconstruction. document monitoring and evaluation system y GeF support plays a role in South African strat- y Document y capacity ­ NcSA? DeAt GeF MtPF review of IA egy for the Southern Africa region and NePAD. y reconstruction and Development Pro- documents y GeF approaches are adapted to country politi- gramme, NcSA , cal realities. y Interviews y NePAD, SADc y Portfolio y GeF Agency strategies analysis y Interviews with government officials, y National local communities, and authorities and consultation beneficiaries workshops y Analysis of project objectives and results based on protocols y Information and data on efficiency (project cycle, modalities, and so on) 124 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) Key question Indicators/basic data Sources of information Methodology 3.3 Is GeF support y Alignment with identified MtPF, National y record of initial meetings y Document relevant to national environmental Management Act, and other y National Framework for Sustainable review and environmental relevant policies Development analysis of priorities? y Alignment with specific action plans: country level y South Africa environment Outlook information ­ NbSAP y Development Indicators Mid-term review, ­ NIP (POPs) South Africa (2007a) y Desk review of country strate- ­ NAP (Land Degradation) y DeAt GeF MtPF gies and plans ­ First (and second) national communications y business case for the SANbI y review IA coun- on climate change y National action plans in each focal area and try strategies ­ NcSA GeF- supported enabling activities y Portfolio ­ National Adaptation Plan to climate y SGP country strategy analysis change y Analysis of project objectives and results y Interviews ­ climate change policy and strategy based on project protocol ­ energy policy and strategy, and energy y Government officials, NGOs, and Agencies efficiency strategy, but not adopted by y Project reviews parliament 3.4 Is the country y Amount and percent of cofinancing by y "Green budget" initiative y Document supporting the GeF source and by focal area y Project protocol and analysis of cofinancing review of mandate and focal relevant y Database of projects areas programs and country-level strategies with its y Analysis of relevant departmental plans and information own resources and/ budgets y Analysis of or support from y DeAt interviews project info. other donors? and database on cofinancing y Interviews 3.5 Is GeF support y evidence that GeF support is maximizing y Project documents, analysis of project objec- y GeF portfolio relevant to achieving potential global benefits based on analysis tives and results in each focal area and pipeline the GeF mandate of alignment between aggregated project y Documents: GeF focal area strategies, GeF-1 analysis using (that is, maximizing outcomes and impacts in each focal area by to GeF-4 documents on programs and moni- protocol global environ- modality, and the outcome and impact indica- toring and evaluation frameworks; South y Document mental benefits), tors identified for each focal area African commitments based on international review of principles (that y relation of GeF support and aggregated conventions; South African environment country-level is, incrementality, project outcomes and impacts to the relevant documents; DeAt reports to cabinet on info and legal cost-effectiveness, national commitments to conventions, focal achievement to conventions; business case framework: sustainability, cata- area strategy outcomes, and impacts and for the SANbI Global environ- lytic in nature, and so related targets mental benefits y Interviews with GeF Secretariat staff, techni- on), and objectives Assessment y evidence of alignment between GeF portfolio cal staff from GeF IAs, SGP staff of each GeF focal in South Africa and GeF principles of incre- y evaluations, phase evaluations y Document area's operational mentality, cost-effectiveness, sustainability, review conven- programs and y Data from rAF Global benefit Index (for and catalytic orientation tions and strategies? biodiversity and climate change) and to other GeF results global indicators for persistent organic pol- frameworks lutants, land degradation, and international waters y Interviews 3.6 Is GeF support y relevance to strategies and frameworks of y Analysis of project objectives and results y Analysis of relevant to GeF GeF Agencies (UNDP, World bank, UNeP) y GeF Agency strategies portfolio Agency strategies y reasons given by others (AfDb, UNIDO, y Desk review y Key staff of IAs: UNDP, World bank, and UNeP and frameworks? and FAO) for noninvolvement or limited of GeF involvement Agency­level information y Interviews 3.7 How relevant y Alignment of rAF indexes with South African y Interviews: national experts on rAF indexes y Interviews is the rAF index to GeF MtPF (2001) and MtPF status report and assessment; South Africa environment y Desk review of country priorities? 2006 Outlook available data y Alignment with locally based data and y Analysis of objectives of pipeline projects y Analysis of indexes pipeline Annex B. Evaluation Matrix 125 Key question Indicators/basic data Sources of information Methodology 4. Efficiency of GEF support 4.1 How much time, y Preparation costs (any PDF or PPG?) y Analysis of info. in project protocols, includ- y collation and effort, and financial y GeF Agency project fee ing project budgets and staff, monitoring and analysis of resources does it evaluation budgets, and activities and rAF data in project y How much of project budget is for manage- take to develop and pipeline protocols ment and implementation cost? implement projects, y external evaluation documents of closed y review of by GeF support y Is economy and efficiency evident from com- projects project evalu- modality? paring inputs to outputs and rate? y Interviews with GeF Secretariat, Agencies, ations and GeF y to what extent has the project identified and project cycle and government operationalized the "win-win" outcomes? documents y to what extent has the project assessed and y Joint evaluation of the GeF Activity cycle y Field visits y Interviews incorporated the trade-offs between environ- ment and development issues? y Project field visits y What is the average time taken to achieve each milestone in the project cycle by modal- ity and focus area and by GeF phase and IA? y Projects not progressing past PDF, cancellations 4.2 What are the y Level of participation of actors and stake- y Analysis of info. in project protocols y collation and roles, types of holders in key phases of the project cycle y external evaluation documents of closed analysis of engagement, and y beneficiaries identified, analyzed, and appro- projects data in project coordination among priate engagement strategy implemented protocols y Interviews with project staff, beneficiaries, different stake- y review of proj- y Actors' roles and responsibilities and their and other actors holders in project ect evaluations clarity y Interviews with GeF Agencies implementation? y coordination among projects planned and y Field visits and implemented interviews y complementarity of GeF support (to national y Interviews and roles and responsibilities?) workshops 4.3 How good is the y Deliberate and effective anticipation at proj- y Analysis of info. in project protocols y collation and dissemination of GeF ect design to ensure reliable learning and a y external evaluations of projects analysis of project lessons and sound basis for assessing replicability, as well Interviews with project staff data in project results? as provision for dissemination of learning protocols y Interviews with GeF Agencies y Lessons from previous projects within and y Multidonor secretariat, ceLcO y Document outside the GeF incorporated in project review design, preparation, and implementation y Interviews and workshops y Field visits 4.4 What are the syn- y Awareness and acknowledgement among y Documents: country environmental Frame- y Document ergies in GeF project GeF agencies of each other's projects work Analysis and Global environmental review programming and y communication among IAs benefits Assessment y Interviews and implementation with y Interviews with GeF Agency staff workshops y technical support among IAs GeF Agencies? y Interviews with government officials, aca- y Field visits What are the syner- demics, and project staff y Analysis of GeF gies between GeF y Project protocols portfolio stakeholders and projects? 4.5 What are the syn- y Awareness and acknowledgement among y Documents: country environmental Frame- y Document ergies in GeF project institutions of each other's projects work Analysis and Global environmental review programming and y communication among institutions benefits Assessment y Interviews and implementation with y Interviews with government officials and workshops y technical support among institutions national institutions? exAs y Field visits y Interviews with IA staff, academics, and y GeF portfolio project staff analysis y National environmental policy and plans y Project protocols 126 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) Key question Indicators/basic data Sources of information Methodology 4.6 What are the syn- y explicit statements or evidence of deliber- y Documents: donor evaluations and country y Document ergies in GeF project ate efforts to maximize synergy in project environmental Framework Analysis and review programming and documents Global environmental benefits Assessment y Interviews and implementation y coordination among projects y Interviews with GeF Agency staff workshops with GeF projects y Alignment and levels of integration required y Interviews with government officials, y Field visits and other donor- for coherence in focal area or landscape academics, project staff, NGOs, and bilateral y GeF portfolio supported projects achieved donors analysis and activities? y complementarity of GeF support y Donor evaluations y relevant government plans integrate y Project protocols funding 4.7 What is the y Development of country strategy, approach, y Documents: DeAt GeF MtPF, database, y Document national mechanism or priorities reports review for GeF implementa- y Quality and adequacy of information on y Interviews with the DeAt, National envi- y Interviews tion (such as the projects available and used ronment committee, and other key GeF y Analysis of GeF focal point stakeholders y role in ensuring alignment and coordination GeF portfolio mechanism in the y contribution to dissemination of learning y Project protocols and evaluations and project country)? documents y changes in the DeAt's capacity to support project design, implementation, and moni- toring and evaluation y changes in time taken to process documents y Achievement of commitments and responsi- bilities related to focal point role y clear communication with national stake- holders on GeF policies and procedures y clear communication to GeF and its Agencies 4.8 to what extent y Difference in average time taken in key y Project protocols y Analysis of GeF have GeF operations phases of the project cycle pre- and post-rAF y Analysis of relevance of project portfolio over portfolio over changed after the y Improved level of alignment between port- time time introduction of the folio of projects approved based on the rAF y Analysis of y GeF evaluation Office evaluations, such as rAF? and South Africa's potential global benefits, relevance Joint evaluation of Project cycle the GeF mandate, and South Africa's country y review of GeF y Interviews with DeAt and GeF Agencies priorities documents on y Impact on allocations to the SGP rAF and project y Impact on allocations for the PDF cycle y Interviews 4.9 What is the y Project documents adequately anticipate y reports: State of the Parks (SANParks review); y Document sustainability of GeF institutional, environmental, sociopolitical, Western cape State of biodiversity report, review support? economic, and financial risks and include capeNature, 2007; Study on protected area y Analysis of adequate plans to manage, mitigate, or influ- financial cost; State of environment report protocol data ence risks related to sustainability in the short, y Project protocols and project evaluation and project medium, and long term of gains made. reports documents y Level to which gains of projects completed y Officials and staff related to completed y Field visits and more than a year before the evaluation projects interviews sustained and evidence of future capacity to y Interviews with officials and exAs y Interviews and sustain available y Interviews with NGOs and bilateral donors, workshops y Likelihood of financial and other resources and local communities and authorities y country required to sustain gains being available environmental y Institutional commitment to maintaining the Framework required capacity and resources to sustain gains Analysis y Level of stakeholder commitment, awareness, and ownership evident in relation to that required y Legal frameworks, policies, governance structures, and capacity to enforce compliance in place y Systems of accountability and technical capac- ity in place Annex B. Evaluation Matrix 127 Key question Indicators/basic data Sources of information Methodology 5. Effectiveness of GEF support 5.1 What are the y Aggregated indicators from above y Project data in protocols and project y Analysis of aggregated results y Overall catalytic and replication effect documents project data by focal area? y reports: State of environment report; State and portfolio in y contribution by the GeF of the Parks (SANParks review); Western cape terms of project 5.2 What are the y Aggregated indicators from above State of biodiversity report, capeNature protocol aggregated results at y Overall outcomes and impacts of GeF (2007); Study on protected area financial cost y Document country level? support ; records of initial meetings review y Overall catalytic and replication effect y exAs, government officials, project staff and y Interviews, by 5.3 What are the y Potential catalytic and replication effects other key stakeholders where necessary phone if pos- cross-cutting results of projects identified in project design and y Key informant: barry bredenkamp on solar sible to supple- in terms of catalytic realized water heating ment project and replication documents, if effects? necessary y Global environ- 5.4 What are the y capacity needs assessment conducted mental benefits cross-cutting results with institution(s) with the mandate and Assessment in terms of individual addressed in project design and results and organizational y Field visits capacity building? 5.5 What are the y Set of required enabling factors, including cross-cutting strong partnerships, policy, strategy, and results in terms monitoring and evaluation frameworks, of improvements assessed and addressed in project design and in the enabling in results environment? 5.6 What are the y evidence of improved awareness as a result cross-cutting results of project activities in terms of increased y evidence of changed behavior attributable to awareness? project activities 5.7 What is the likeli- y ratings of relevant ongoing projects in hood that objectives terms of likely, moderately likely, moderately will be achieved unlikely, and unlikely for those projects that are still under implementation? 128 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) Annex C. Interviewees Barry Bredenkamp, Central Energy Fund, Head, Judy Beaumont, DEAT, Policy Advisor National Energy Efficiency Agency Brian Huntley, DEAT, Senior Policy Advisor Nadia Hamid, Central Energy Fund, Project Manager Merlyn van Voore, DEAT, Senior Policy Advisor, (solar water heaters) International Governance James Jackelman, Consultant Olga Chauke, DME, Deputy Director, Clean Develop- Mandy Cadman, Consultant ment Mechanism Lynn Jackson, Consultant, Coastal and Environmental Sello Modise, DME, Deputy Director, Finance and Consulting Subsidy Eugene Cairncross, Cape Peninsula University of Nomawethu Qase, DME, Director, New and Renew- Technology (chemical engineering) able Energy Peter Lukey, DEAT, Air Quality Management and Maphuti Legodi, DME, Energy Officer, Energy Appli- Climate Change ance Labeling Sam Manikela, DEAT, Air Quality Management Andre Otto, DME, Project Coordinator, South Africa Directorate Wind Energy Programme Margot Richardson, DEAT, Atmospheric Studies, Silas Malaudzi, DME, Renewable Energy Climate Change Naomi Mdzeke, Eastern Cape Parks, Wild Coast Proj- Leseho Sello, DEAT, Chief Director, Biodiversity and ect Coordinator Heritage Nokulunga Maswana, Eastern Cape Parks Board, Johann Augustyn, DEAT, Chief Director for Research, Chief Executive Officer Antarctica and Islands Reuben Ngwenya, Eastern Cape Parks, Executive Joanne Yawitch, DEAT, Deputy Director General, Director, Conservation Environmental Quality and Protection Wendy Poulton, Eskom Nolothando Vithi, DEAT, Deputy Director, Interna- Funke Oyewole, GEF Secretariat, Senior Operations tional Governance Officer Pamela Yako, DEAT, Director-General Jamie Cavelier, GEF Secretariat, Senior Biodiversity Muleso Kharika, DEAT, Director, Resource Use (land Specialist management) Mbekeni Chris Dhlamini, GEF South Africa SGP Thomas Mathiba, DEAT, Education and Awareness Vuyisile Zenani, GEF South Africa SGP, National Directorate Coordinator Joe Mosima, DEAT, International Governance and Stacy A. Swann, International Finance Corporation Relations 129 Holly Dublin, International Union for the Conserva- Ademola Salau, UNDP­South Africa, Regional Team tion of Nature and Natural Resources, Biodiversity Leader and Coordinator for Climate Change Specialist Nik Sekhran, UNDP­South Africa, Regional Techni- Kurt J Morais, National Treasury, Director, Interna- cal Advisor, Biodiversity and International Waters tional Economic Relations Estherine Lisinge Fotabong, UNEP, Country Coordi- Hermann F.W. Oelsner, NGO: World Wind Energy nator, Division of GEF Coordination, South Africa Association Anton Eberhard, University of Cape Town, Climate Onno Huyser, NGO: Table Mountain Fund, World Change Specialist Wide Fund for Nature-South Africa Harald Winkler, University of Cape Town, Energy Rean Van der Merwe, NGO: Eco Africa, Information Research Centre Technology and Communications Aqiel Dalvie, University of Cape Town, School of Steve Thorne, NGO: SouthSouthNorth Public Health and Family Medicine, Occupational and Environmental Health Research Unit Steven Law, NGO: Environmental Monitoring Group Leslie London, University of Cape Town, School of Kristal Maze, SANBI, Chief Director, Biodiversity Public Health and Family Medicine, Occupational and Policy and Planning Environmental Health Research Unit Tanya Abrahamse, SANBI, Chief Executive Officer Andrea Rother, University of Cape Town, School of Ingrid Nanni, SANBI, Conservation Science Public Health and Family Medicine, Occupational and Environmental Health Research Unit Trevor Sandwith, SANBI, CAPE Coordinator Aziz Bouzaher, World Bank, Lead Environmental Anthea Stephens, SANBI, Grasslands Programme Specialist Manager Christopher James Warner, World Bank, Senior Tech- Hector Magome, SANParks, Executive Director, Con- nical Specialist servation Services Eugenia Marinova, World Bank­Pretoria, Country Leticia Greyling, South African Ports Authority Officer Mohamed Abdisalam, UNDP­South Africa Karsten Feuerriegel, World Bank­Pretoria, Natural Dirk Roos, UNDP­South Africa, Biodiversity and Resource Management Specialist Climate Change Thandi Gxaba, World Bank­Pretoria, Senior Environ- Eddy Russell, UNDP­South Africa, Monitoring and mental Specialist Evaluation Officer 130 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) Annex D. Sites Visited South African Wind Energy Project, Darling, West- Eastern Cape Parks Board site visit to Mkweati ern Cape Province: Andre Otto, Project Coordinator, Reserve with Wild Coast project staff: Nokulanga DME 24 January 2008 Moswana (CEO of board), Naomi Mdzeke (Project Coordinator), Dolly Ganasue (Community Liaison Removal of Barriers to the Effective Implementation officer), Dali Dyonase (Financial Manager), Reuben of Ballast Water Control and Management Measures Ngwenya (Executive Director, Conservation), Zwai in Developing Countries: Leticia Greyling, South Afri- Kostauli (Regional Manager), and Sipholozi Msindo can Ports Authority, Cape Town Harbour 22 January (Project Administrator) 18 January 2008 2008 131 Annex E. Workshop Participants The following people participated in the consultation Daniel Modise, DME workshop held March 5, 2008. Maria Modise, DME Claudio Volonte, GEF Evaluation Office Ramakgwale Mampholo, Department of Agriculture Gemma Paine-Cronin, Evaluation Team Nokulunga Maswana, Eastern Cape Parks Board Marlene Laros, Evaluation Team Naomi Mdzeke, Eastern Cape Parks Board (Wild Coast Project Coordinator) Zaheer Fakir, DEAT Reuben Ngwenya, Eastern Cape Parks Board Moleso Kharika, DEAT Ian Jameson, Eskom Wilma Lutsch, DEAT Chris Dhlamini, GEF-SGP Phillemon Mosena, DEAT Anthea Stephens, SANBI Tlou Ramaru, DEAT Andrew Otto, South Africa Wind Energy Programme Deborah Ramalope, DEAT Nik Sekhran, UNDP-GEF Margot Richardson, DEAT Ademola Salau, UNDP-GEF Merlyn van Voore, DEAT Estherine Fotabong, UNEP-GEF Noluthando Vithi, DEAT Karsten Feuerriegel, World Bank Brian Huntley, DEAT-SANBI Thandi Gxaba, World Bank Klaas Kellner, DME, Coordinator South Africa 132 Annex F. GEF Portfolio in South Africa, 1994­2008 PDF/ GEF Co- PPG grant financing GEF Focal Modal- Executing ID Country/region Project name area ity IA agency Million $ Completed 17 South Africa conservation of Globally bD MSP Wb SANbI 0.000 0.750 0.965 Significant biodiversity in Agricultural Landscapes through conservation Farming 19 South Africa concentrating Solar cc MSP Wb eskom 0.000 0.23 0.18 Power for Africa 20 South Africa conservation Planning bD MSP Wb Universi- 0.000 0.739 0.123 for biodiversity in the ties of Port thicket biome elizabeth and cape town 24 regional (botswana, Africa community bD MSP Wb Zimbabwe -- 0.75 0.19 Malawi, Mozambique, Outreach Programme for trust Namibia, South Africa, conservation and Sus- Zambia, Zimbabwe) tainable Use of biological resources 134 South Africa cape Peninsula biodiver- bD FSP Wb SANParks­ 0.085 12.385 78.900 sity conservation Project table Mountain trust Fund 246 South Africa First National report to bD eA UNDP DeAt 0.000 0.025 0.000 the cbD 406 regional (burkina Faso, African NGO-Government bD FSP UNDP UNOPS -- 4.54 7.12 cameroon, ethiopia, Partnership for Sustain- Ghana, Kenya, Sierra able biodiversity Action Leone, South Africa, tanzania, tunisia, Uganda) 407 regional (Angola, Inventory, evaluation, and bD FSP UNDP National -- 4.73 4.69 botswana, Lesotho, Monitoring of botanical botanical Malawi, Mozambique, Diversity in Southern Institute Namibia, Swaziland, Africa: A regional capac- South Africa, Zambia, ity and Institution build- Zimbabwe) ing Network 133 PDF/ GEF Co- PPG grant financing GEF Focal Modal- Executing ID Country/region Project name area ity IA agency Million $ 465 Global (côte d'Ivoire, Development of best bD MSP UNeP ScOPe -- 0.75 3.23 czech republic, Kenya, Practices and Dissemina- Malawi, Mauritius, New tion of Lessons Learned Zealand, Poland, South for Dealing with the Africa) Global Problem of Alien Species that threaten biological Diversity 487 South Africa enabling Activities for cc eA UNeP DeAt 0.000 0.321 0.075 the Preparation of Initial National communication related to UNFccc 519 Global (Argentina, Peru, efficient Lighting Initia- cc FSP Wb-IFc IFc -- 9.58 35.00 South Africa) tive (tranche I) 610 Global (brazil, South removal of barriers to IW FSP UNDP IMO -- 7.39 3.83 Africa, china, India, Iran, the effective Implemen- Ukraine) tation of ballast Water control and Management Measures in Developing countries 659 South Africa Sustainable Protected bD MSP Wb SANParks 0.000 0.748 4.630 Area Development in Namaqualand 789 regional (Angola, Implementation of the IW FSP UNDP UNOPS -- 15.46 23.45 Namibia, South Africa) Strategic Action Pro- gramme toward Achieve- ment of the Integrated Management of the benguela current Large Marine ecosystem 836 South Africa critical Partnership bD FSP Wb cI -- -- -- ecosystem Fund I (South Africa component) 849 regional (côte d'Ivoire, Development and Protec- IW MSP UNeP Advisory -- 0.75 0.98 Ghana, Kenya, Mozam- tion of the coastal and commit- bique, Nigeria, Sey- Marine environment in tee for the chelles, South Africa) Sub-Saharan Africa Protection of the Sea 1242 regional (burkina Desert Margins Pro- bD FSP UNeP- IcrISAt -- 5.35 10.23 Faso, botswana, Kenya, gramme, Phase 1 UNDP Mali, Namibia, Niger, Senegal, South Africa, Zimbabwe) 1311 South Africa Pilot Production and cc MSP UNDP DMe 0.000 0.800 2.850 commercial Dissemina- tion of Solar cookers 1376 South Africa Development and Imple- bD eA UNDP DeAt 0.000 0.409 1.610 mentation of the National biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan in South Africa 134 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) PDF/ GEF Co- PPG grant financing GEF Focal Modal- Executing ID Country/region Project name area ity IA agency Million $ 1394 regional (burkina Faso, climate, Water, and MF MSP Wb Govern- -- 0.70 0.54 cameroon, egypt, Agriculture: Impacts ments, ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, on and Adaptation of research Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Agro-ecological Systems institutions, South Africa, Zambia, in Africa NGOs Zimbabwe) 1472 South Africa best environmental MF MSP UNDP Gauteng -- 1.000 2.728 Practice in the Hosting Province of the World Summit on Sustainable Development 2098 regional (comoros, Western Indian Ocean IW FSP Wb tbD -- 11.70 14.50 Kenya, Madagascar, Marine Highway Devel- Mauritius, Mozam- opment and coastal and bique, Seychelles, Marine contamination South Africa, tanzania) Prevention Project 2344 regional (botswana, Desert Margins Pro- bD FSP UNeP IcrISAt -- 5.62 12.25 burkina Faso, Kenya, gramme, tranche 2 Mali, Namibia, Niger, Senegal, South Africa, Zimbabwe) 2571 regional (Angola, Distance Learning and IW MSP UNDP UNOPS -- 0.77 0.80 Namibia, South Africa) Information Sharing tool for the benguela coastal Areas Under implementation Global Small Grants Programme MF FSP UNDP- SGP -- 1.920 UNOPS 260 regional (Angola, Southern Africa biodiver- bD FSP UNDP SADc -- 4.50 4.84 botswana, Lesotho, sity Support Programme Forestry Malawi, Mozambique, Sector Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, Zambia, Zimbabwe) 564 South Africa clearing House Mecha- bD eA UNDP DeAt 0.000 0.014 0.000 nism enabling Activity 762 regional (Lesotho, Maloti-Drakensberg con- bD FSP Wb Ministry of -- 15.55 17.70 South Africa) servation and Develop- environ- ment Project ment Gender and Youth Affairs 299 Global climate change training cc eA UNDP UNItAr -- 2.7 0.5 Phase II ­ training Pro- gramme to Support the Implementation of the UNFccc 805 South Africa Solar Water Heaters for cc MSP UNDP DMe 0.000 0.728 4.703 Low-income Housing in Peri-Urban Areas Annex F. GEF Portfolio in South Africa, 1994­2008 135 PDF/ GEF Co- PPG grant financing GEF Focal Modal- Executing ID Country/region Project name area ity IA agency Million $ 970 regional (botswana, Groundwater and IW FSP Wb SADc- -- 7.35 6.90 South Africa, Mozam- Drought Management Secretariat, bique, Zimbabwe) in SADc through the SADc Water Division 1055 South Africa Agulhas biodiversity bD FSP UNDP SANParks 0.079 3.226 8.599 Initiative 1056 South Africa conservation and Sus- bD FSP UNDP DeAt­east- 0.339 6.839 24.318 tainable Use of biodiver- ern cape sity on the South African Parks Wild coast 1082 regional (comoros, Southwest Indian Ocean MF FSP Wb Ministries -- 12.73 22.95 Kenya, Mauritius, Fisheries Project of forestry Mozambique, Sey- and fisher- chelles, South Africa, ies from tanzania) participat- ing coun- tries; UNDP (WIOMeP); UNeP (WIO-LAb) 1167 South Africa Greater Addo elephant bD MSP Wb SANParks 0.039 5.839 34.442 National Park Project 1247 regional (comoros, Addressing Land-based IW FSP UNeP UNOPS­ -- 4.51 6.90 Kenya, Madagascar, Activities in the Western Nairobi Mauritius, Mozam- Indian Ocean convention bique, Seychelles, Secretariat South Africa, tanzania) 1258 Global (estonia, Hun- enhancing conservation bD FSP UNeP UNOPS -- 6.35 6.20 gary, Lithuania, Mau- of the critical Network ritania, Niger, Nigeria, of Sites of Wetlands Senegal, Gambia, South required by Migratory Africa, tanzania, Yemen, Waterbirds on the Afri- turkey) can/eurasian Flyways 1338 South Africa South Africa Wind energy cc FSP UNDP DMe 0.295 2.295 10.339 Programme, Phase I 1348 regional (botswana, Africa Stockpiles Program, POPs FSP Wb-FAO tbD -- 25.70 35.00 cameroon, côte Phase 1 d'Ivoire, ethiopia, Lesotho, Mali, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, South Africa, Swaziland, tanzania, tunisia) 1462 regional (comoros, Programme for the Agul- IW FSP UNDP UNOPS -- 12.92 18.26 Kenya, Madagascar, has and Somali current Mauritius, Mozam- Large Marine ecosystems: bique, Seychelles, Agulhas and Somali South Africa, tanzania) current Large Marine ecosystems Project 1516 South Africa cAPe biodiversity con- bD FSP Wb- SANbI 0.320 11.320 44.450 servation and Sustainable UNDP Development Project 136 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) PDF/ GEF Co- PPG grant financing GEF Focal Modal- Executing ID Country/region Project name area ity IA agency Million $ 1685 Global (brazil, chile, Fuel cells Financing cc FSP Wb-IFc IFc -- 6.58 9.00 Mexico, trinidad and Initiative for Distributed tobago, Philippines, Generation Applications India, bangladesh, (Phase 1) egypt, South Africa) 1782 South Africa richtersveld community bD MSP Wb rich- 0.025 0.902 1.166 biodiversity conservation tersveld Project Municipal- ity 1785 South Africa POPs enabling Activi- POPs eA UNeP DeAt 0.000 0.499 0.100 ties for the Stockholm convention on Persis- tent Organic Pollutants National Implementation Plan for South Africa 1894 South Africa renewable energy Mar- cc FSP Wb DMe 0.000 6.000 11.300 ket transformation 2052 regional (Lesotho, Sustainable Management LD MSP UNeP IWMI, IUcN -- 1.00 1.21 Malawi, Mozambique, of Inland Wetlands in rOSA, and South Africa, Swaziland, Southern Africa: A Liveli- FAO tanzania, Zambia, hoods and ecosystem Zimbabwe) Approach 2123 Global (Ghana, Kenya, conservation and Man- bD FSP UNeP FAO -- 8.51 18.65 South Africa, India, agement of Pollinators for Nepal, Pakistan, brazil) Sustainable Agriculture through an ecosystem Approach 2173 regional (South Sustainable Land Use LD MSP UNeP United -- 1.00 1.83 Africa, Mozambique, Planning for Integrated Nations­ Zimbabwe) Land and Water Man- Habitat agement for Disaster Preparedness and Vulner- ability reduction in the Lower Limpopo basin 2261 Global (Algeria, Angola, building Partnerships IW FSP UNDP IMO -- 6.34 17.70 Argentina, brazil, chile, to Assist Developing china, costa rica, countries to reduce côte d'Ivoire, croatia, the transfer of Harmful ecuador, egypt, Ghana, Aquatic Organisms in Guatemala, India, Iran, Ships' ballast Water Jordan, Libya, Mexico, Morocco, Panama, Peru, South Africa, Sudan, trinidad and tobago, turkey, Ukraine, Ven- ezuela, Yemen) 2479 South Africa National capacity MF eA UNDP DeAt 0.000 0.200 0.035 Self-Assessment for Global environmental Management 2604 South Africa Sustainable Public trans- cc FSP UNDP NDOt 0.197 11.197 323.942 port and Sport: a 2010 Opportunity Annex F. GEF Portfolio in South Africa, 1994­2008 137 PDF/ GEF Co- PPG grant financing GEF Focal Modal- Executing ID Country/region Project name area ity IA agency Million $ 2615 South Africa National Grasslands bD FSP UNDP SANbI 0.350 8.650 37.262 biodiversity Program 2757 regional (benin, Strategic Investment LD FSP Wb, -- -- 134.36 978.43 botswana, burkina Program for Sustainable UNDP, Faso, burundi, eritrea, Land Management in UNeP, ethiopia, Gambia, Sub-Saharan Africa AfDb, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, IFAD, Madagascar, Malawi, FAO Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, rwanda, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, tanzania, togo, Uganda, Zambia) 3022 South Africa Subproject 1st Group: cc FSP Wb-IFc -- -- 3.275 -- Plug Power under the Global Fuel cells Financing Initiative for Distributed Generation Applications (Phase 1) Pipeline 2701 regional (botswana, Development and IW PDF UNDP UNOPS -- 7.06 33.00 Lesotho, Namibia, Implementation of the South Africa) Strategic Action Program for the Orange-Senqu river basin 2924 South Africa Development, empower- bD PPG Wb St. Lucia 0.310 -- -- ment, and conservation Wetland in the Greater St. Lucia Park Wetland Park and Sur- Authority rounding region 3118 South Africa building the Institutional bD PDF UNDP SANbI 0.025 -- -- effectiveness and efficien- block A cies of Local Munici- palities in Protected Area Management 3305 regional (Angola, Implementation of IW PDF UNDP UNOPS -- 5.14 18.22 Namibia, South Africa) the benguela current LMe Action Program for restoring Depleted Fisheries and reduc- ing coastal resources Degradation Note: -- = not available or unknown; bD = biodiversity; cc = climate change; IW = international waters; LD = land degradation: MF = multifocal; tbD = to be determined. 138 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) Annex G. Framework for Analysis of Results Focal area Expected impacts Expected Outcomes biodiversity biodiversity resources are conserved or sustainably y On-site and sustainable biodiversity conservation used, or genetic resources are shared in protected areas (catalyzing sustainability of systems) y On-site and sustainable biodiversity conserva- tion in production landscapes (and seascapes): mainstreaming y Implementation of cartagena Protocol on biosafety and improved invasive alien species management y Knowledge generation, dissemination, and good practices climate y reduction or avoidance of GHGs in renewable y energy efficiency (residential and commercial change energy, energy efficiency, and sustainable transport buildings and industry sector) through market y Increased resilience to the adverse impacts of cli- penetration and technologies mate change of sectors and communities y Growth in renewable energy markets y Innovative sustainable public transport systems promoted, created, and adopted y Sustainable energy production of biomass International y Political commitments to improved multicountry y restoring and sustaining coastal and marine fish watersa cooperation supporting sustainable economic stocks and associated biodiversity development opportunities, stability, and water- y reducing nutrient overenrichment and oxygen related security in transboundary water systems depletion from land-based pollution of coastal y the necessary ability by participating states to waters in LMes consistent with the Global Pro- reduce overexploitation of fish stocks, reduce land- gramme of Action based coastal pollution, and balance competing y balancing overuse and conflicting uses of water water uses in basins and report subsequent water- resources in surface and groundwater basins that related improvements demonstrated are transboundary in nature y reducing persistent toxic substances and testing adaptive management of waters with melting ice POPs y reduce and eliminate production, use, and release y Strengthening capacity for NIP development and of POPs implementation Multifocal Framework based on each project's own objectives a. results based on five regional and national projects. 139 Annex H. Country Response The following pages present the country response and Tourism to the GEF Evaluation Office coun- from South Africa's Department of Environment try portfolio evaluation. 140 Annex H. Country Response 141 142 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) Annex H. Country Response 143 Bibliography GEF Evaluation Office documents can be found on the DEAT (Department of Environmental Affairs and GEF Evaluation Office Web site, www.gefeo.org, under Tourism). 2000. White Paper on Integrated Pol- Publications. lution and Waste Management for South Africa. Pretoria. Banks, D., and J. Schäffler. 2005. The Potential Con- --. 2001. GEF Medium-Term Priority Framework. tribution of Renewable Energy in South Africa. Pretoria. Commissioned by Sustainable Energy and Climate Change Project (SECCP), a project of Earthlife --. 2003a. Initial National Communication under Africa, Johannesburg. the United Nations Framework Convention on Cli- mate Change. Pretoria. Batterman S., S. Chernyak, Y. Gounden, and M. Matooane. 2006. Concentrations of Persistent --. 2003b. South African Country Study on Climate Organic Pollutants in Ambient Air in Durban, Change Synthesis Report for the Vulnerability and South Africa. Environmental Health Sciences, Uni- Adaptation Assessment Section. Pretoria. versity of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann --. 2003c. Strategic Plan, 1 April 2003 to 31 March Arbor, Mich., and the Centre for Occupational and 2006. Pretoria. Environmental Health, University of KwaZulu- Natal, Durban, South Africa. --. 2004a. A National Climate Change Response Strategy for South Africa. Pretoria. BCLME Programme. 2008. "Country Profiles: South Africa." Windhoek, Namibia. www.bclme.org/. --. 2004b. Strategic Plan, 1 April 2004­31 March 2007. Pretoria. Commonwealth Secretariat. 2007. Climate Change: Implications for Finance Ministers. Statement --. 2005a. 10 Year Review 1994­2004. Pretoria. for the Commonwealth Finance Ministers Meet- --. 2005b. National Environmental Management: ing, Georgetown, Guyana, 15-17 October 2007. Air Quality Management Act. Pretoria. London. --. 2005c. South Africa Country Study: Situational Crane, W. 2007. Local Economic Development and the Assessment Undertaken to Inform South Africa's Biodiversity Economy, Who Benefits Most? Briefing National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan no. 7. Khanya-African Institute for Community- (NBSAP). Pretoria. Driven Development, Bloemfontein, South Africa. --. 2005d. South Africa's National Biodiversity Davidson O., L. Tyani, and Y. Afranae-Odessey. 2002. Strategy and Action Plan. Pretoria. Climate Change, Sustainable Development and Energy: Future Perspectives for South Africa. --. 2005e. Strategic Plan for the Period 1 April OECD-sponsored discussion paper. Energy and 2005­31 March 2010, revised in 2007­2008. Development Research Centre, University of Cape Pretoria. Town, South Africa. --. 2006a. People-Planet-Prosperity: A Strategic Framework for Sustainable Development in South Africa, a Draft for Public Discussion. Pretoria. 144 --. 2006b. South Africa Environment Outlook: A Strauss. 2005. National Spatial Biodiversity Assess- Report on the State of the Environment. Pretoria. ment 2004: Priorities for Biodiversity Conservation in South Africa. South African National Biodiver- --. 2006c. South Africa Environment Outlook: A sity Institute. Pretoria. Report on the State of the Environment. Executive Summary and Key Findings. Pretoria. Driver, M., T. Smith, and K. Maze. 2005. Special- ist Review Paper on Biodiversity for the National --. 2006d. South Africa's Third Report to the Con- Strategy for Sustainable Development. Report vention on Biological Diversity. Pretoria. compiled by the National Biodiversity Institute on --. 2006e. Status Report on South Africa's Engage- behalf of the Department of Environmental Affairs ment with the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and Tourism, Pretoria. and Implementation of its Medium-Term Frame- DTI (Department of Trade and Industry). 2001. First work. Pretoria. Edition Environmental Implementation Plan (EIP). --. 2007. National Framework for Air Quality Pretoria. Management. Pretoria. DWAF (Department of Water Affairs and Forestry). --. 2008. "National Greenhouse Gas Inven- 1997. White Paper on a National Water Paper for tory." Global Climate Change and Ozone Layer South Africa. Pretoria. Protection. EU (European Union)­South Africa. 2006. Cooperation DEAT and UNDP (Department of Environmental between the European Union and South Africa, Affairs and Tourism and United Nations Develop- Joint Country Strategy Paper 2007­2013. ment Programme). 2004. National Capacity Self- FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2008. Assessment for Global Environmental Manage- "Country Profile for South Africa." www.fao.org/ ment. Project document. fi/fcp/en/ZAF/profile.htm. DOA (Department of Agriculture). 2006. Pesticide Forsyth, G. G., B. W. van Wilgen, R. J. Scholes, M. R. Management Policy in Terms of the Fertilizer, Farm Levendal, J. M. Bosch, T. P. Jayiya, and R. Le Roux. Feeds, Agricultural Remedies, and Stock Remedies 2006. Integrated Veldfire Management in South Act of 1947. Pretoria. Africa: An Assessment of the Current Conditions DME (Department of Minerals and Energy). 1998. and Future Approaches. Council for Scientific and White Paper on the Energy Policy of the Republic of Industrial Research, Stellenbosch, South Africa. South Africa. Pretoria. GEF (Global Environment Facility). 2001. Initial --. 2003. White Paper on Renewable Energy. Guidelines for Enabling Activities for the Stockholm Pretoria. Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, GEF Assistance for Enabling Activities in the Context of --. 2004. Renewable Energy Policy of South Africa the Convention. White Paper. Pretoria. --. 2007. Focal Area Strategies and Strategic Pro- --. 2005. Energy Efficiency Strategy of the Republic gramming for GEF-4. GEF Policy Paper. Washing- of South Africa. Pretoria. ton, DC. Doyle, Allister. 2007. "Africa the `Forgotten Continent' --. n.d. Monitoring and Evaluation Framework, in Climate Fight" (November 19). Reuters. Third Operational Phase. Small Grants Pro- Driver, A., K. Maze, A. T. Lombard, J. Nel, M. Rouget, gramme. Washington, DC. J. K. Turpie, R. M. Cowling, P. Desmet, P. Good- GEF EO (Global Environment Facility Evaluation Office, man, J. Harris, Z. Jonas, B. Reyers, K. Sink, and T. formerly Office of Monitoring and Evaluation). Strauss. 2004. South African National Spatial Bio- 2004a. Biodiversity Programme Study. Washing- diversity Assessment 2004: Summary Report. Preto- ton, DC. ria: South African National Biodiversity Institute. --. 2004b. Climate Change Programme Study. Driver, A., K. Maze, M. Rouget, A. T. Lombard, J. Nel, Washington, DC. J. K. Turpie, R. M. Cowling, P. Desmet, P. Good- man, J. Harris, Z. Jonas, B. Reyers, K. Sink, and T. Bibliography 145 --. 2004c. Program Study on International Waters. World Bank. Gland, Switzerland, and Washington, Washington, DC. DC. --. 2005a. GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Mittermeier, R. A., P. R. Gil, and C. G. Mittermeier. Costa Rica (1992­2005). Evaluation Report No. 32. 1999. Megadiversity: Earth's Biologically Wealthi- Washington, DC. est Nations. Washington, DC: Conservation International. --. 2005b. International Waters Programme Study. Washington, DC. National Treasury of South Africa. 2006. "A Frame- work for Considering Market-Based Instruments --. 2006. The GEF Monitoring and Evaluation to Support Environmental Fiscal Reform in South Policy. Evaluation Document No. 1. Washington, Africa." Draft Policy Paper, April 2006. Compiled DC. by the Tax Policy Chief Directorate. --. 2007a. GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: The Peterson, C., and B. Huntley. 2004. "What Is Main- Philippines (1992­2007). Evaluation Report No. streaming Biodiversity?" In unpublished Proceed- 36. Washington, DC. ings of "Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Production --. 2007b. GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Landscapes and Sectors Workshop" (September). Samoa (1992­2007). Evaluation Report No. 37. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Washington, DC. Cape Town. --. 2008a. GEF Annual Country Portfolio Prowse, M., and T. Braunholtz-Speight. 2007. The First Evaluation Report 2008. Evaluation Report No. 44. Millennium Development Goal, Agriculture and Washington, DC. Climate Change. Overseas Development Institute. London. --. 2008b. Joint Evaluation of the GEF Small Grants Programme. Evaluation Report No. 39. Washing- Responses Working Group of the Millennium Ecosys- ton, DC. tem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing: Policy Reponses. Millennium Ecosystem Hoffman, T., S. Todd, Z. Ntshona, and S. Turner, 1999. Assessment Series, vol. 3. Island Press, Washing- Land Degradation in South Africa. Final Report. ton, D.C. DEAT. Pretoria. Rouget, M., B. Reyers, Z. Jonas, P. Desmet, A. Driver, K. Kiker, G. A. 1999. "Synthesis Report for the Vulner- Maze, B. Egoh, R. M. Cowling, L. Mucina, and M. ability and Adaptation Assessment Section. South Rutherford. 2004. South African National Spatial African Country Study on Climate Change." Biodiversity Assessment 2004: Technical Report. Unpublished document. School of Bioresources Volume 1: Terrestrial Component. Pretoria: South Engineering and Environmental Hydrology, Uni- African National Biodiversity Institute. versity Natal, Durban, South Africa. SADC (Southern Africa Development Community). Mail & Guardian. 2007. "How Green Was My Budget?" 2004. SADC Sub-Regional Progress Report on the February 22. Implementation of the United Nations Convention Malzbender, D., and A. Earle. 2007. Water Resources to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) in Southern of the SADC: Demands, Dependencies, and Gov- Africa. Gaborone, Botswana. ernance Responses. Report compiled by the Afri- --. 2005. Regional Biodiversity Strategy. Fourth can Centre for Water Research for the Institute for Draft. Gaborone, Botswana. Global Dialogue and the Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa. Cape Town. SANBI (South African National Biodiversity Institute). 2006. People Making Biodiversity Work. SANBI McNeely, J. A., K. R. Miller, W. V. Reid, R. A. Mit- Biodiversity Series 4. Pretoria. termeier, and T. B. Werner. 1990. Conserving the World's Biological Diversity. International Union Slater, R., L. Peskett, E. Ludi, and D. Brown. 2007. "Cli- for the Conservation of Nature and Natural mate Change, Agricultural Policy, and Poverty Resources, World Resources Institute, Conserva- Reduction: How Much Do We Know?" Natural tion International, World Wildlife Fund­US, and Resource Perspectives 109 (September). 146 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) South Africa. 1994. "White Paper on Reconstruction South Africa SGP. South Africa Country Programme and Development." Pretoria. Strategy (revisions and current drafts) --. 1996. Growth, Employment, and Redistribution --. 2007. "SGP Country Strategy for the Utilization Strategy. Department of Finance. Pretoria. of RAF Funds." --. 2000. Integrated Sustainable Rural Develop- Secretariat of the Stockholm Convention. 2008. Stock- ment Strategy. Pretoria. holm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. --. 2003. Policy Framework and Procedural Guide- UNCBD (UN Convention on Biological Diversity) Sec- lines for the Management of Official Development retariat. 2008. "South Africa: Details." Assistance. 1st edition. Pretoria. www.dcis.gov.za. United Nations. 2002. WSSD South Africa Country Pro- --. 2004. 2004 National Action Programme to file. New York. Combat Land Degradation and Alleviate Rural --. 2007. Report of the Secretary-General, New Poverty for U.N. Convention to Combat Desertifi- Partnership for Africa's Development: Fifth Consol- cation. Pretoria. idated Report on Progress in Implementation and --. 2006. "A Framework for Considering Market- International Support. New York. Based Instruments to Support Environmental Fis- --. n.d. U.N. Agencies' Contribution to South Africa cal Reform in South Africa." Draft policy paper, and Links to GEF Projects. New York. compiled by the Tax Policy Chief Directorate, National Treasury, Pretoria. --. n.d. Development Assistance Programme to South Africa, 2002­2006 and 2007­2010. New --. 2007a. Development Indicators Mid-Term York. Review. The Presidency, Pretoria. UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). --. 2007b. South Africa Millennium Development 2007a. Country Programme for South Africa Goals Mid-Term Country Report. Pretoria. (2007­2010). New York. --. 2007c. "South Africa Consultancy to Review, --. 2007b. Human Development Report 2007/2008. Advice [sic], and Update the Policy Framework Fighting Climate Change: Human Solidarity in a and Operational Guidelines for the Management Divided World. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. of Official Development Assistance." International Development Co-operation/National Treasury, --. 2008. "South Africa: The Human Development Pretoria. Index: Going Beyond Income." Factsheet. Human Development Reports. --. 2007d. South Africa Yearbook 2006/2007. Com- piled and published by Government Communica- UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). tion and Information System. Fourteenth edition. 2006. Challenges to International Waters: Regional Assessments in a Global Perspective. Global Inter- --. 2007e. Community Survey 2007. Statistics national Waters Assessment. Nairobi, Kenya. South Africa. www.statssa.gov.za/community_ new/content.asp. UNEP and DEAT. 2002. "POPs Enabling Activities for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic South African Institute of Race Relations. 2007. Chal- Pollutants (POPs) National Implementation Plan lenging the Poverty Consensus. www.sairr.org.za/wsc. for South Africa." Project document. South African Water Research Commission. 2007. UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Technical Briefing on Organic Pollutants in Sludge. Climate Change) Secretariat. 1998. Kyoto Proto- Pretoria. col to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Scholes, R. J., and R. Biggs. 2004. Ecosystem Services in Change. Southern Africa: A Regional Assessment. Millen- Winkler, H. and A. Marquard. 2007. Energy Develop- nium Ecosystem Assessment. Council for Scientific ment and Climate Change: Decarbonising Growth and Industrial Research, Pretoria. in South Africa. Occasional paper, no. 40, Human --. 2005. "A Biodiversity Intactness Index." Nature Development Report 2007/2008. Energy Research 434: 45­49. Centre, University of Cape Town. Bibliography 147 World Bank. 2006. South Africa 1999 Country Assis- World Bank and DME. 2007. "Renewable Energy Mar- tance Strategy Completion Report. ket Transformation." Project document. --. 2007. 2007 World Development Indicators. WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature). 2006. Implemen- Washington, DC. tation Completion Report for the Cape Peninsula Biodiversity Conservation Project. --. 2008. Country Partnership Strategy for the Republic of South Africa for the period 2008­2012. Report No. 38156-ZA (December 12). Washing- ton, DC. 148 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) GEF Evaluation Office Publications Number Title Year Evaluation Reports 44 GeF Annual country Portfolio evaluation report 2008 2008 43 GeF country Portfolio evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) 2008 42 GeF country Portfolio evaluation: Madagascar (1994­2007) 2008 41 GeF country Portfolio evaluation: benin (1991­2007) 2008 40 GeF Annual Performance report 2007 2008 39 Joint evaluation of the GeF Small Grants Programme 2008 38 GeF Annual Performance report 2006 2008 37 GeF country Portfolio evaluation: Samoa (1992­2007) 2008 36 GeF country Portfolio evaluation: the Philippines (1992­2007) 2008 35 evaluation of the experience of executing Agencies under expanded Opportunities in the GeF 2007 34 evaluation of Incremental cost Assessment 2007 33 Joint evaluation of the GeF Activity cycle and Modalities 2007 32 GeF country Portfolio evaluation: costa rica (1992­2005) 2007 31 GeF Annual Performance report 2005 2006 30 the role of Local benefits in Global environmental Programs 2006 29 GeF Annual Performance report 2004 2005 28 evaluation of GeF Support for biosafety 2006 third Overall Performance Study 2005 GeF Integrated ecosystem Management Program Study 2005 biodiversity Program Study 2004 climate change Program Study 2004 International Waters Program Study 2004 Evaluation Documents eD-3 Guidelines for GeF Agencies in conducting terminal evaluations 2008 eD-2 GeF evaluation Office ethical Guidelines 2008 eD-1 the GeF evaluation and Monitoring Policy 2006 Evaluation Office G LOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY Global Environment Facility Evaluation Office 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433 USA www.gefeo.org