S 57587 ignposts Evaluation Office G LOBAL E NVIRONMENT F ACILITY July 2008 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) South Africa contains internationally Findings significant biodiversity, habitats, and Relevance marine resources. Although consid- GEF support has addressed national priorities, particularly ered a middle-income country, it has in biodiversity and the South African component of interna- wide economic, racial, and gender tional waters projects, but less clearly for climate change. Photo: Cronin-Paine family, Cape Town disparities that affect the state of Key challenges in biodiversity are to integrate with sustainable the environment. The country has a high proportion of threatened land and water resource management that factor in social and species, and many habitats are poorly conserved. South Africa economic development. For climate change, an exclusive focus is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the region and one on mitigation, not adaptation, and on renewable energy does not of the world's most carbon-intensive countries. Land degradation align with national energy or climate change policy. and pressures on marine resources are critical issues. The GEF portfolio is broadly relevant to South Africa's South Africa has actively participated in the Global Environment draft sustainable development framework and the South Facility (GEF) since 1994. Most GEF support has gone to bio- Africa GEF Medium-Term Priority Framework, but the bal- diversity and climate change, and the rest to persistent organic ance of support to different focal areas raises questions. pollutants (POPs) and the Small Grants Programme (SGP). Gaps exist both within focal areas and across the portfolio. GEF support does not sufficiently recognize that environmen- In October 2007­February 2008, the GEF Evaluation Office tal sustainability is closely tied with addressing poverty and in- evaluated GEF support to South Africa. The assessment was equality, and overconsumption and waste. An important area part of a series of country portfolio evaluations examining the of potential impact will be institutional and systemic capac- totality of GEF support across all GEF Agencies and programs, ity building as well as catalyzing action and developing and using a country as the unit of analysis. Benin, Madagascar, and transferring technical expertise. South Africa were chosen for evaluation according to a process that included random selection and specific criteria. The Evalu- Country ownership of the GEF portfolio varies among fo- ation Office synthesized these evaluations in its GEF Annual cal areas, but overall ownership of the portfolio needs Country Portfolio Evaluation Report 2008 to assess the expe- strengthening. Significant cofinancing by the government rience and common issues across different countries on the reinforces that a country strategy that aligns with international continent. South Africa was chosen, in particular, because of its conventions and South Africa's needs and priorities should historically large and diverse portfolio of 11 completed projects drive the GEF portfolio. Such a strategy is currently lacking, with potentially important results and a government-developed except in the biodiversity area. medium-term priority framework for GEF support. The country will receive a large allocation under the Resource Allocation GEF support to South Africa is relevant to the GEF man- Framework due to its important global biodiversity and depen- date, principles, and objectives, but this varies by focal dency on fossil fuels. area. GEF support has targeted areas with the greatest po- tential global benefits: biodiversity and international waters. The evaluation focused on the country's 26 GEF national Gaps and weak areas, however, may represent missed oppor- projects worth $86.27 million, including 26 projects under the tunities to achieve benefits in land degradation, the SGP, and GEF SGP, which were evaluated as one project. One global POPs. Resource allocation in climate change, for instance, a and four regional projects focused on international waters gap in energy efficiency projects, has not maximized potential were included in the evaluation. global benefits. S ignposts Evaluation Office G LOBAL E NVIRONMENT F ACILITY GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: South Africa (1994­2007) Results and Effectiveness The focal point should have played a more effective role GEF support to biodiversity in South Africa has resulted in in strategic guidance and information and in facilitating significant impacts. Examples include formal protection of the in- learning and synergies. Absence of clear focal area strate- ternationally significant Cape Floristic Region and Succulent Karo; gies and of plans for South Africa's response to conventions, strengthening of conservation systems and management; and sig- except for biodiversity, has hampered the focal point mecha- nificant influence on conservation policy, strategy, and management nism, affecting portfolio relevance and replication. practice that has been replicated beyond the project portfolio. Recommendations GEF support to international waters projects has strength- ened South Africa's commitment to global and regional To the GEF Council cooperation to reduce overexploitation of fish stocks and GEF strategies and programs should recognize and re- land- and sea-based pollution. The country has signed the spond to existing integrated regional and national analyses International Maritime Organization Convention on Ballast and strategies for meeting convention requirements and/or Water, which it helped shape, and has increased its capacity support their development where relevant. to regulate International Maritime Organization requirements. Improve the basis for monitoring and evaluating GEF sup- port. The climate change portfolio has had limited direct im- pacts on greenhouse emissions, but some catalytic and Establish a basis for more flexible country-based portfolio replication effects are expected. A concrete strategy for management to strengthen country ownership, account- South Africa's climate change response is likely by the end of ability, sustainability, relevance, and efficiency. 2008. Projects to date have focused on increasing renewable Specify and communicate GEF Agency roles and respon- energy use. The value of most projects, however, will be in sibilities. testing and demonstrating technology; removing market barri- To the Government of the South Africa ers; and improving policy, regulatory, budgetary, and strategy frameworks supporting technology change. Establish a strategic basis for directing the portfolio; select- ing, designing, and implementing GEF projects; and moni- Results in other focal areas are limited. SGP projects have toring and evaluating achievements. lacked effective support for management and implementation. Take decisive action to strengthen the SGP. A national plan on POPs is close to completion. No projects in land degradation have been approved. Strengthen the focal point mechanism. Improve the sustainability of gains made through GEF sup- Long-term sustainability of global and local benefits port. achieved is uncertain. Capacity built in the biodiversity and international waters focal areas must now be embedded in the relevant mandated agencies. The GEF could improve its ef- The GEF Evaluation Office is an independent entity fectiveness by better targeting the impact of poverty on South reporting directly to the GEF Council, mandated to eval- Africa's environmental and global biodiversity results. uate the focal area programs and priorities of the GEF. The full versions of the GEF Country Portfolio Evalu- Efficiency ation: South Africa (1994­2007) and GEF Annual Stakeholders view GEF processes and procedures as Country Portfolio Evaluation Report 2008 (Evalu- overly complicated and inefficient, negatively affecting ation Report Nos. 43 and 44, 2008) are available the country's ability to drive the portfolio. These process- in the Publications section of the GEF Evaluation es erode stakeholder energy and interest mobilized during Office Web site, www.gefeo.org. For more informa- tion, please contact the GEF Evaluation Office at project design. Stakeholders also have difficulty distinguish- gefevaluation@thegef.org. ing the roles of the GEF Agencies and focal point.