New Page 1

LOTS OF EMAILS COMING IN.......BUT...SORRY GUYS there is way to much to do and I AM OVERLOADED! PLEASE

4) ....as they say.... ALL ROADS EVENTUALLY,- LEAD TO SEX - FOOD - SLEEP, OR A LAWYER!

THANK YOU ALL FOR CONTRIBUTING.....here is some of the material cut and pasted in ....(I cant clean it up....gets a bit messy ....) but you can work it out!

Government hands over forest land management to BEE groups | Wednesday, January 26, 2005 |

Printer Friendly Version | <<Back

Government has transferred the management of 140 000 hectares of forestland to two operators as part of its ongoing plan to restructure state-owned forests. Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF) Minister Buyelwa Sonjica signed lease agreements with MTO Forestry (Pty) Ltd as well as Amatola Forestry (Pty) Ltd in this regard. Under one agreement, Amathole Forest Holdings and its Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) partner Wildbreak Investment Holdings will take over the running of 25 000 hectares of forest in the Hogsback and Stutterheim areas of the Eastern Cape.

The other agreement allows MTO to lease approximately 115 015 hectares of state forestland situated in the Western and Southern Cap. The successful bidder in this regard is BEE company, Cape Timber Resources, which comprises Cape Sawmills and Wild Peach Investment Holdings.

Ms Sonjica told reporters in Pretoria today that in terms of the restructuring agreements, 75% of the new forestry businesses would be sold while government would retain 25%.

She said 9% would be reserved for SAFCOL and her department's staff (??), 10% would be allocated for future BEE opportunities while the remaining 6% would be retained by the State for at least 5 years.

"These transactions are in line with government's policy of exiting from direct forest management activities while promoting Black Economic Empowerment in the forestry industry. At the same time, land, which is less suitable for forestry, will be converted for other uses or reserved for conservation," she added.

Thus in the Southern and Western Cape, 44 000 hectares of marginal State forest land will be clear felled and handed over for other uses including conservation (29 000 hectares), agriculture (9 000 hectares), community forestry (6 000 hectares) and settlement development (200 hectares).

Ms Sonjica has also assigned management responsibility for the Tokai Cecilia State forests in Cape Town to SANParks following Cabinet's decision in 1996 to develop the Cape Peninsula Protected Natural Environment.

"Tokai and Cecilia forests (1 001 hectares in extent) are located in a Protected Environment area and contain important lowland and mountain fynbos as well as pockets of Afro-montane forest, which need to be maintained. Eventually the two forests will be incorporated into the Table Mountain National Park (TMNP)," she explained.

In the interim, Tokai and Cecilia will be managed by MTO in terms of a 20 year lease during which MTO will gradually clear fell the area where after it will be released for conservation, said the Minister.

"MTO will also make a financial contribution to the initial rehabilitation of clear-felled areas," she said. SAFCOL will also transfer all of its eco-tourism business activities and personnel at Tokai and Cecilia to SANParks.

These agreements follow two others concluded in 2001 with Singisi Forests in the Eastern Cape and the Siyaqhubeka consortium in KwaZulu-Natal.

The department said the major outstanding transaction covering Komatiland in Mpumalanga was currently awaiting the outcome of a Competition Tribunal hearing.

Source: BuaNews

Email this article to a friend

One of the more important pieces of information about L. Xate we found here :

http://www.afsgroup.co.za/profile/empowerment.htm

Scroll down to :

Moya (Pty) Ltd

The shareholders of Moya are Lulamile Xate and Arthur Shipalana who were both comrades of the Sihayo members having been prisoners on Robben Island. Lulamile and Arthur have a focus on the energy sector and have investments in fishing, financial services and recently partnered with Afrox. Lulamile was formerly the minister of Finance for the ANC in the Western Cape and is currently a special advisor to the Minister of Energy.

So he is special advisor to the Minister and the same Minister grants DARLIPP a power license where Mr. Xate is a shareholder ?!

Mr. Xate seems to represent many companies :

                "Lulamile

of and myself, would like to invite

                any interested person or representative of  any organisation

                to attend the INAUGURAL MEETING OF THE

            RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY COUNCIL OF SOUTHERN AFRICA

                            R E C O S A

DATE:                                         Saturday the 5th of August

2000; 10 for 11 a.m.

VENUE: 6, Long Street, DARLING "

These guys dont like Mr. Xate neither (page 17 ff ):

http://www.sessa.org.za/mediaandlinks/policydiscussionforum/RE_ORG2_Lukey.pdf

or here below he was representing OneWorld Sustainable Investments : http://www.oneworldgroup.co.za/bulletinboard.asp Its one world, indeed ...

Report on the Southern African Regional REEEP Meeting Page 2 of 25 REEEP Secretariat, Foreign & Commonwealth Office, London Table 1: Schedule of preparatory meetings

Sunday 20^{th – Tuesday 22nd July
2003}

Contact person		Representing		Location
1	Dr Chippy Olver		Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism		Pretoria
2	Ms Hesphina Rukato; Mr Smunda Mokoena		NEPAD Secretariat		Midrand
3	Mr Greg Babaya		SCMB		Pretoria
4	Mr Michael Meacher Beth Arthy Barry Bredenkamp Mike de Pontes Gertude Ngenda Trevor v d Vyver Jon Adams Annie Sugrue		UK Minister for the Environment DFID BONESA CEF CCP SESSA SESSA EcoCity		Pretoria
5	Richard Davy Barry Fontini		Shell Solar		Pretoria
6	Denis Tomlinson		ILLOVO		Durban
7	Dr Wolsey Barnard Mr Richard Worthington Mr Sandile Tyatya Jackie Friedenthal Wim Klunne Noma Qase Henk Newak		NER Earthlife Africa DME DANIDA World Bank RAPS Department of Foreign Affairs		Pretoria
8	Mr Martin Krause		UNDP / GEF		Pretoria
9	Kevin Nassiep		DME		Pretoria
10	Mr Herman Oelsner Ms Belynda Hoffman Mr Steve Thorne Ms Lwandle Mqadi Mr Mike Munnik Mr Mark Howells Mr Lulamile Xate Mr Osman Asmal Mr Mark Borchers		DARLIPP OneWorld Sustainable Investments SouthSouthNorth SouthSouthNorth BP Energy Research Institute OneWorld Sustainable Investments City of Cape Town Sustainable Energy Africa		Cape Town
11	Mr Nick Ndaba		BOTEC		Pretoria

Source : http://www.reeep.org/media/downloadable_documents/j/k/Southern%20Africa%20%20Regional%20Meeting%20Report.pdf

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The Government of South Africa (GoSA) has developed an innovative program to protect the rich biological heritage of the Cape Floristic Region (CFR). The overall goal of this Program, entitled Cape Action for People and the Environment (C.A.P.E. Program) is that the natural environment of the Cape Floristic Region and adjacent marine environment will be effectively conserved, restored wherever appropriate and will deliver significant benefits to the people in a way that is embraced by local communities, endorsed by government and recognized internationally.

Approval Date November 01, 1997 GEF Grant 12.385 million US$ (approx 92 million rand)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

ON THE WORKING FOR WATER CASH FLOW.....Broadcast on Saturday 30/11/2002 Working for Water has got a budget this year of about $US50-million, which translated into our currency makes it a considerable amount of money. (Approx 375 million Rand) It is the biggest conservation program that’s running in Africa. It employs 18,000 people,.......

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Approval Date November 01, 1997 GEF Grant 12.385 million US$ (approx 92 million rand)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Document of The World Bank FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Report No: 34935 IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION REPORT (TF-28321 TF-28322 TF-28956) ON A GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF US$12.3 MILLION TO THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA FOR THE CAPE PENINSULA BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION PROJECT February 2, 2006 Environment, Rural and Social Development Unit, AFTS1

Africa Region This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization.

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (Exchange Rate Effective on January 12, 2006) Currency Unit = ZAR

January 1 - December 31 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ABI C.A.P.E. Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative

SANBI/NBI South African National Biodiversity Institute, formerly National Botanical

Country/Department: SOUTH AFRICA Region: Africa Regional Office Sector/subsector: Forestry (40%); Other social services (20%); General public administration sector (20%);

Theme: Biodiversity (P); Land administration and management (P); Export development and

competitiveness (P); Rural non-farm income generation (P); Participation and civic

Approval: 02/17/1998 Closing: 06/30/2004 06/30/2005 Borrower/Implementing Agency: Government of South Africa/South Africa National Parks; Government of South

Other Partners: Civil Society, South African National Biodiversity Institute, FFEM STAFF Current At Appraisal

Amanda Younge (Consultant) 2. Principal Performance Ratings (HS=Highly Satisfactory, S=Satisfactory, U=Unsatisfactory, HL=Highly Likely, L=Likely, UN=Unlikely, HUN=Highly Unlikely,

HU=Highly Unsatisfactory, H=High, SU=Substantial, M=Modest, N=Negligible) Outcome: HS

3. Assessment of Development Objective and Design, and of Quality at Entry 3.1 Original Objective: The Cape Peninsula Biodiversity Conservation Project was the first GEF project in South Africa, initiated in the period immediately after the democratic transition of 1994 in support of local efforts to conserve the unique biodiversity of the Cape Peninsula and the associated marine environment, as part of the Cape Floristic Region (CFR). South Africa ranks as the third most biologically diverse country in the world, and is the only country in the world to have within its borders an entire plant kingdom, the CFR. This region harbors exceptional biodiversity, exemplified by high species richness, habitat diversity and gamma diversity (turnover) across the ecological landscape. The region has more than 9,600 plant species, of which close to 1,400 are endangered or close to extinction. Its freshwater habitats harbour 19 species of fish, all endemic or near-endemic. In South African coastal waters, 11,000 species of marine animals have been recorded, of which 3,500 are endemic to the CFR. The marine fish fauna is very rich with some 400 species recorded (including several notable endemics). The CFR spans 89,000 km and three provinces, has

2 nearly 5 million inhabitants and a wide variety of organizations and government bodies with an interest in biodiversity, either directly or indirectly. The project development objective (PDO) was: "to ensure the rehabilitation and sustainable protection of globally significant flora and related fauna of the Cape Peninsula including surrounding marine ecosystems, and to initiate planning and conservation activities for the entire Cape Floral Kingdom."

The project fincanced the development of a long-term strategy to conserve the CFR, while also providing funds to fast-track the establishment of a national park in the most threatened and biodiverse part of the region, the Cape Peninsula Mountain Chain, and to capitalize an existing small grants fund to support NGO activities across the CFR, targeting conservation priorities. In 1998, the GEF provided US$12.3 million to fund the project activities. The project objective was relevant as it responded to the severe levels of threat faced by the fauna and flora of the CFR, and the urgent need to preserve this ecologically unique region from degradation. The project was consistent with the efforts of the Government of South Africa (GoSA) to address national and global environmental priorities by supporting the development of an enabling environment to reverse land degradation and conserve biological resources. The project was implemented by two established, reputable organisations, South African National Parks (SANParks) and WWF-South Africa, both with strong track records in their fields of competence. The project was to be implemented shortly after the transition to democracy and consequently the policy environment was relatively fluid. However, the risk was limited because of institutional stability and GoSA's commitment to honor international obligations. 3.2 Revised Objective: The project development objective was not revised. 3.3 Original Components: The project was designed to support on-going initiatives to conserve the Cape Peninsula Mountain Chain and to provide for a strategic planning process to identify priorities and develop an action plan for the CFR.

The project comprised three components: (i) Strengthening management of and extending the globally significant Cape Peninsula National Park (now known as the Table Mountain National Park, TMNP) under the management of South African National Parks (SANParks); (ii) Part-capitalizing a newly-established small grants trust fund, the Table Mountain Fund (TMF) under the management of WWF-South Africa, and (iii) Preparing a strategy and action plan for conserving the CFR as a whole, carried out by WWF-South Africa. While the components were implemented by two different institutions, close collaboration between them and common goals supported the achievement of the project objectives. Component 1: Table Mountain National Park (TMNP) (US$6.3 million): The TMNP, located in the centre of the Cape Town metropolitan area (a city of 3.5 million people) is an open-access park, surrounded by both poor and wealthy communities. The TMNP was established in 1998, consolidating property that had previously been part of 14 different authorities at national, provincial and local government levels and also owned by private persons.

To facilitate consolidation and management of the park, GEF support to TMNP focused on the following sub-components: a. Invasive alien plant eradication: Alien plants posed the most severe threat to fynbos ecosystems in the Park. The objective of the six-year program was to remove the entire infestation of woody, seed-bearing alien invasive plants. b. Environmental education: Environmental education centers within the park were upgraded, to better cater to the growing stream of tourists, as well as to target city disadvantaged communities to participate on-site. There were also outreach activities for surrounding communities. c. Enhanced fire management: Fire management in the Park entails balancing management of wild fires and undertaking prescribed burning of high-risk areas. Funding was provided to support a fire management plan, for the provision of link roads, to finance a helicopter on standby, together with labor groups for fire control and management. d. Improved tourist infrastructure: As the Park is in part an open system, with many informal and formal access points, impact on the natural areas needs to be directed and managed. Inappropriate, poorly aligned and inadequately constructed footpaths had resulted in severe erosion and required rehabilitation.

Safe gateways to the Park were also provided with informational signage. e. Capacity building: Entrepreneurial training was provided for promising independent contractors. This was to build capacity amongst potential contractors to carry out clearing of alien species, footpath maintenance and other park-related tasks. f. Marine protection program: The key activities focused on supporting the establishment of a marine park. This included assessing park feasibility, identifying appropriate boundaries, drafting regulations, researching the socio-economic needs of communities, collection of baseline data, monitoring programs and applied marine research. Active participation of the communities were sought. g. Knowledge management: The existing Park Environmental Information System (EIS) was upgraded and consolidated to incorporate the results of management research. This includes legal mechanisms for securing conservation control of land; analysis of visitor use patterns; impacts of management actions on surface hydrology; cost-benefit analysis of alien plant control methods; restoration of transformed habitats; identification of new bio-control agents; a feasibility study for control of Himalayan Tahrs, and land use planning in the urban interface. - 3 -

Component 2: Table Mountain Fund (TMF) (US$5 million): The objectives for the TMF component were the conservation of the biological diversity of the Cape Peninsula and its adjacent marine systems, and the conservation of the broader CFR and its adjacent marine systems. The Fund was established in 1993 by WWF-SA with US$2 million raised locally. The TMF was originally a capital fund providing small grants to NGOs and other organizations for the conservation of the biodiversity of the Cape Peninsula and adjacent marine systems. Component 3: CFR Strategy and Action Plan (CAPE) (US$1 million): The objectives of this component were to develop a long-term strategy to ensure the conservation of the CFR and adjoining marine ecosystems, and to prepare a five-year investment program focused on strategic priorities. The strategy was designed over two years and it was intended to integrate four sub-components:

(a) terrestrial biodiversity; (b) marine biodiversity and coastal zone management; (c) institutional, legal and policy factors; and (d)financial, economic and social aspects. The geographic extent of the CFR, the lack of compatible scientific data and consultation with a wide range of stakeholder groups posed challenges to developing the strategy. However, these were overcome. 3.4 Revised Components: The components were not revised. 3.5 Quality at Entry: The quality of the overall project design at entry is rated as satisfactory. Project design took into account the need for a comprehensive set of interrelated initiatives addressing different aspects of the conservation of the region to achieve a sustainable outcome. Preparation activities were well-managed and thorough, relying extensively on South African expertise and knowledge of the region. The project was closely aligned with Government of South Africa (GoSA) policy objectives of poverty alleviation and biodiversity conservation. Its focus on building institutional capacity together with enhancing the financial sustainability of conservation activities was realistic and appropriate in terms of the policy context and funding environment of the project. The project design was sufficiently robust and flexible to address the challenges of being implemented in a rapidly changing legal and institutional environment. The strong participatory focus and support for NGO activities was both congruent with the political climate and stakeholder expectations, and able to secure buy-in and support from key stakeholder groups. 4. Achievement of Objective and Outputs 4.1 Outcome/achievement of objective: Achievement of the overall project objective has been rated as highly satisfactory. The objective of ensuring the rehabilitation and sustainable protection of globally significant flora and related fauna of the Cape Peninsula including surrounding marine ecosystems, through the establishment of a financially and institutionally viable Park has been very well achieved. Though the overall project provided little financial resources its impact has been tremendous. The establishment of the Park and financial success is now used as a model for other parks in the country. The success in the rehabilitation of Table Mountain National Park is reflected in the fact that the GoSA now deems Cape Town as the gateway to the country. The Table Mountain Fund is considered to be a 'model' trust fund' to support biodiversity and conservation in the area. - 4 -

And finally the development of the Cape Strategy is considered to be an international best practice. Key indicators of success of the project are : (i) there has been no extinction of tracked species; (ii) in areas cleared of alien invasive plants, 3 endangered plant species (one protea and two ericas) have expanded their range and numbers; (iii) increased raptor breeding activity has been noted; (iv) 54 klipspringers have been reintroduced to the Park in 2004-5 after eradication of the Himalayan Tahrs; (v) the revised target of initial clearing of 85% of invasive woody seed-bearing aliens by year 7 (2005) was met, with GoSA funds committed to clearing the remaining 15%; all cleared areas are in follow-up maintenance; (vi) increasing effectiveness of the fire services can be gauged by comparing two dry seasons, 2000/1 and 2004/5, where over 8,000ha and 823ha respectively were burnt in wildfires; fires are smaller and of shorter duration; levels of fire-preparedness are significantly higher than at project inception and fire services are much better organised; and fire damage to private property outside the Park now only occurs where landowners have not cleared their land of alien invasive tree species; (vii) a marine protected area has been proclaimed, and is being implemented under an agreed management plan; and (viii) TMNP is financially in surplus. The objective of having an agreed strategic and investment program for the CFR has been met, with the CAPE strategy not only successfully completed but now in implementation, and having leveraged significant financial, institutional and stakeholder support. The Table Mountain Fund has contributed strategically to supporting C.A.P.E. implementation by supporting 60 sub-projects. 4.2 Outputs by components: (i) Table Mountain National Park (TMNP) This component is rated as highly satisfactory. Despite having been established only 7 years ago, TMNP is now the second most profitable of the 22 parks run by SANParks. GoSA and other domestic co-funding of the component in the project period reached $77.8 million, exceeding the appraisal target by $8.2 million. Annual park revenue from admissions (in the order of $2 million in 1997) is now at $8.6 million annually, $6.8 million of which funds the annual operating budget of the Park, and $1.8 million currently reverts to the SANParks national biodiversity project. In 2004, 1.5 million paying visitors entered the Park at the controlled gateways. The Park also offers great opportunity for open and free access to the adjacent urban areas. The Park has introduced a Cape Town "Wild Card" and it is anticipated that tourism/visitor revenue to the Park will continue to fund current and expanded operations in the future. The GoSA is committed to investing a significant amount (current estimate US$55 million) into tourism-related infrastructure in the Park over the next 3 years through the Expanded Public Works Program. Long-term operating costs have been lowered through major investment into removal of alien invasive species, erosion control (through footpath rehabilitation), and wildfire management, thus improving financial sustainability. A Strategic Management Plan guided operations in the period 2000 2004, and is currently being revised for the period 2006 2010. An independent review (S. Davies, H. Fortuin & P. Lochner, Review of the Strategic Management Plan of the Table Mountain National Park (2001-2004), CSIR Environmentek, Stellenbosch, 2005) of the implementation of the Park's Strategic Management Plan concluded that TMNP has been successful in establishing the foundations for sustainable management and operation of the Park in the future. This plan was considered worldwide, as of such high quality that it warranted a special international award. The Park has management agreements with the City of Cape Town, the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Marine and Coastal Management, the SA National Biodiversity Institute, the Expanded Public Works Program, and the Working on Fire Program. The Park participates in the TMNP-City of Cape Town Bilateral Forum, the Cape Peninsula Land Consolidation Working Group, - 5 -

the Cape Peninsula Fire Protection Association, Western Cape Department of Education and Development's forums for all seven townships around the Park. The preferred Park boundary comprises of 30,000 ha of land of which 83% (25,000 ha) is now under SANParks conservation management. Land purchase is being funded by grants from the Table Mountain Fund, City of Cape Town and SANParks. A number of incentives are now in place to support further contracting-in of private land, including a rates exemption offered by the City Council to private landowners. The bulk (85-90%) of alien invasive plants has been cleared, the original objective of 100% having been found to be unrealistic to achieve within the project period. SANParks is committed to clearing the remaining portion and sustaining follow-up clearing in the long term, with GoSA funding. The invasive foreign animal populations have been removed and a local species, the Klipspringer reintroduced. The Park operates environmental education and outreach programs involving 24,000 visits by local schoolchildren per year. Five hundred teachers have been trained, the GEF-funded environmental education resource pack has been distributed to over 100 schools, and mainstreamed into the curriculum and in-service teacher training by the Department of Education. Three environmental education centres have been renovated and refurbished, serving as interpretive and visitor centres supported by trained volunteers. One of the centers operates as an overnight and weekend facility for school groups, and another as a tourist interpretation and overnight facility for the Hoerikwaggo Trail. Twelve interpretive brochures have been produced and made available at visitor centres and formal Park gateways. Interpretive posters and displays have been erected at key locations. Volunteers have been trained and are active in staffing visitor centres and assisting with fundraising activities. Fire management in the Park poses an increasing challenge as the summer season becomes drier, with global warming. The Park Fire Management Plan conforms to the National Veld and Forest Fire Act 101 of 1998, setting out procedures for managing wildfires and prescribed (controlled) burning. A Fire Risk Map identifies vegetation at different levels of wildfire risk. The Park maintains one standby helicopter on contract during fire seasons, and works in partnership with the City of Cape Town, the Provincial Government, volunteers and the Working on Fire Program, to provide additional fire management services. Levels of preparedness are significantly higher than at project inception and fire services are much better organised. Improved effectiveness in fire detection and suppression has dramatically reduced the probability that very large fires will occur. However, irrespective of the measures taken, this probability will always exist. The original target of rehabilitating 37 footpaths was reduced to 14 in 2003, due to the prioritization of footpath mapping and development through rehabilitation rather than new construction. Progress was delayed due to turnover of key staff, lack of knowledge and the priority given to clearing alien vegetation. By the end of the project, 19 footpaths were completed (i.e. 87 km of a total of 660 km). A further 250 km are programmed for rehabilitation with government funding (ZAR21 million or US$3.5 million) over the next three years. The first set of four Hoerikwaggo trails has been completed, which will provide 86 km of continuous path down the length of the Park, supported by overnight accommodation. GEF funding provided for the rehabilitation of a number of key access points and planned for the upgrade of a further 30 access points. The targets for access points to be funded by GEF resources were reduced as GoSA provided $5 million over three years for tourism infrastructure. The training and capacity building targets for the project were met and exceeded; including outsourcing of 50% of conservation work contracts to community contractors and the creation of (over 400) contract labor

jobs in alien vegetation clearing and footpath construction. Being located in the heart of a densely-populated metropolitan area, SANPark conducts an extensive public information and communication program. However this could be further strengthened. The current focus is on day-to-day management issues affecting city residents, including fire management and visitor safety. A new constitution and elected representatives have revitalized the Park Forum and ensured its effective functioning. A range of community partnerships is in place, with volunteers, `friends' groups and adjacent communities. The Marine Park was proclaimed in 2004, with law-enforcement and marine environmental education functions devolved from the Chief Directorate of Marine and Coastal Management, supported by the Marine Living Resources Fund. A number of important research studies continue to be undertaken to support marine management efforts, incorporating expertise from other relevant projects (e.g. Aliwal Shoal Marine Protected Area). The Park's knowledge management and monitoring is undertaken by means of the Integrated Environmental Management System (IEMS, based on ISO 14000). This system represents South African best practice, and has served as a model for implementing environmental management systems throughout SANParks. (ii) Table Mountain Fund (TMF) Project achievements of the TMF are rated as satisfactory. The Fund, administered by WWF-SA, has been successful in providing key catalytic resources for over 60 projects (many are community based) amounting to $2.5 million in the past 6 years, within 7 focal areas: a) conservation of prioritised habitats: terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems, b) conservation of the CFR lowlands, c) building environmental awareness, d) controlling alien invasives and restoring biodiversity, e) applied research, f) enhancing the global conservation status of the CFR, and g) capacity building. In at least 80% of cases, TMF funding has served as seed funding, leveraging resources from other sources and building partnerships. Based on a recent in-house evaluation, these projects have been deemed to be sustainable with investments from communities, private and public sources. Key performance indicators (KPI) for knowledge management (applied research) and invasive alien species eradication have been met. The KPI for environmental education was revised in alignment with the CAPE Strategy. TMF provides a sustainable (albeit limited) source of funding to support biodiversity conservation within the CFR, and intends raising further funding to enhance this function in the future. The Fund's governance structure was amended in 2004, from one where trust membership was based on

institutional representation, to one based on individuals. WWF-SA remains the only institutional member, due to the fact that it was the founding member. This change was a result of the collapse of the original TMNP Park Committee, which had 2 representatives on the Trust. Difficulties arose in determining which agencies should have representation on the Trust, given the extent of the stakeholder community in the CFR. Thus, an alternative was to base trust membership on individuals involved with conservation. The working arrangements of the Fund, with independent Trustees, should be reviewed to ensure that it is functioning in an open and transparent manner. The service provider to the Trust is WWF-SA which is also one of the Trustees, hence there is a need to ensure that there are no issues of conflicts in the roles and responsibilities. A Memorandum of Understanding between the Trustees of TMF and WWF-SA to govern the relationship is currently being discussed, to ensure that the benefits of the synergy between the two are retained while accountability concerns are addressed. - 7 -

There is also a need to ensure that the TMF continues to directly support the implementation of the CAPE strategy, to ensure sustainability of the project outcomes. A TMF Strategic Plan recently agreed by the Trustees supports this. TMF is also a signatory to the C.A.P.E. MoU. This relationship should be formalized through appropriate agreements with the C.A.P.E. Implementation Committee (CIC) and the C.A.P.E. Co-ordination Unit (CCU), and should take into account the potential role that the CIC could play in protecting the Trust's governance, and the role that the CCU has played in the past on the Project Approval Group of TMF sub-project proposals. (iii) CFR Strategy and Action Plan (CAPE Strategy) This component was rated as highly satisfactory on completion in 2000. To implement the strategy $60 million has been obtained; including two GEF financed projects: Cape Action Plan for the Environment: Implementation Program (Grant No. TF053225 for $9 million) and the UNDP/GEF funded Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative (Project ID 1055 for $3.23 million), as well as receiving co-financing from Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) and domestic sources amounting to $45 million. The CAPE Strategy is acknowledged globally as one of the most advanced and innovative bioregional conservation initiatives. The strategy combined intensive multi-disciplinary stakeholder involvement with an explicit, systematic quantitative conservation planning procedure. It established clear targets for conserving a representative sample of biodiversity patterns and ecological processes at landscape scale. Strong emphasis was placed on building partnerships between executing agencies, non-governmental organizations, research institutes and the private sector from the outset, in order to create commitment to implementation and ensure long-term social sustainability to match the efforts towards ecological sustainability. C.A.P.E was able to gain the support of key stakeholders, to create commitment to implementation by executing agencies, and build a sound base for implementation. Its success, attributed in large part to strong government commitment and stakeholder support, provides a strong assurance that further conservation measures intended to realise the C.A.P.E. vision have a high probability of success, both in terms of mitigating threats and ensuring sustainability. 4.3 Net Present Value/Economic rate of return: No specific analysis of the net present value and economic rate of return from the GEF investment was undertaken for any of the components. The TMNP commissioned a study in 2004, by the University Of Cape Town Graduate School Of Business, (Standish, B. et al, The Economic Contribution of the Table Mountain National Park,October 2004) to assess the macroeconomic impact of the Park and it was found that the Park has had a significant macroeconomic effect on Cape Town and the Western Cape. It estimated that the Park 's direct cumulative contribution to the Western Cape Gross Geographic Product was R132million over the last six financial years. Total employment created was around 300 to 600 and about 103 and 158 indirect jobs have been created over the last six years. There are also other multiplier effects such as on tourism with impact on the hotel and entertainment industry that needs to be included to determine the true quantitative impact. 4.4 Financial rate of return: As typical for environmental projects of this kind, the project did not include the calculation of financial rates of return. The aim of establishing two institutions, the Park and the TMF, as properly functioning and financially sustainable entities, has been achieved (refer to 4.2 above), and there is GoSA commitment to sustaining this investment. In addition, to implement the CAPE Strategy, significant financial support has been obtained. - 8 -

4.5 Institutional development impact: Institutional development impacts are most clearly seen in GoSA biodiversity conservation policy. This includes the expansion of the South Africa National Biodiversity Institute's (SANBI) role to include responsibility for bioregional planning and programs (starting with the implementation of the CAPE Strategy) and the establishment of the TMNP and its impact on the SANParks approach to conservation management. The project strongly influenced evolving GoSA policy on biodiversity and conservation management. Draft biodiversity and protected areas legislation; in the pipeline at effectiveness; was significantly enhanced by innovations and lessons of the project. In particular, the CAPE strategy presented a first serious attempt to apply the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) ecosystem approach to conservation, and catalysed a paradigm shift from species-based and "in-park" conservation management approaches to landscape-level conservation strategies and activities across the country. The scientific approach adopted by CAPE, the first of its kind in the world, pioneered a new way of identifying biodiversity priorities. It designed a scientifically defensible protected area network, and stimulated a focus on the Cape Lowlands as a conservation priority. Both the National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment (2004) and the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (2005) incorporated insights and lessons from the project. The project provided a springboard for SANBI to support similar ecoregional/bioregional approaches in other priority biomes such as the Succulent Karoo, the Sub-tropical Thicket and the Grasslands. SANBI now has a directorate charged specifically with supporting bioregional planning and programs, and houses the C.A.P.E. Implementation Program as well as other similar programs. A Conservation Planning Unit has been established to generate and distribute the products of these scientific exercises, in the form of environmental sensitivity maps to guide sustainable development and planning, and to highlight important areas for the conservation of biodiversity. Management of conservation in the CFR has benefited from significant improvements in co-ordination between agencies, through the institutional partnerships created to co-ordinate and manage the implementation of the CAPE Strategy. CAPE has provided an excellent model of institutional collaboration around biological and program priorities. The CAPE Strategy serves as a broad framework for alignment of institutional conservation responsibilities, in particular those of CapeNature (the Western Cape provincial conservation agency), SANParks, other government departments (Water Affairs and Forestry, Agriculture, Mineral and Energy Affairs) and municipal land use decision-making. Capacity to manage environmental resources has improved significantly within the TMNP. As a result of the challenges of working in a metropolitan environment, the project also substantially influenced

SANParks' approach to park management, assisting SANParks to move beyond an outdated paradigm to managing parks in a broader economic, social and physical landscape, shifting `beyond the fence' in all parks, even those in deep rural areas. 5. Major Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcome 5.1 Factors outside the control of government or implementing agency: Just prior to the mid-term review in 2000, a large fire resulted in changed vegetation growth patterns and subsequent alien growth which contributed to having the project extended by one year. The scale of the alien vegetation clearing operation resulted in the work on the footpaths roll-out program lagging. - 9 -

Extension was also warranted due to the depreciation of the rand during implementation and SANParks also obtaining additional resources from the Working for Water Program which had to be utilized within a short period. The fluctuation of the exchange rate between the US dollar and the South African rand impacted on the capital resources of the Table Mountain Fund (TMF). Half of the GEF resources have been maintained in US dollars and invested in off shore accounts. These accounts did not perform well during the project period resulting in limited resources available for investments. The expected rate of return from the Trust Fund was to be at least 7.5% on average. As a result of weak performance on the equity markets and fluctuating exchange rates, this level of net return proved unrealistic. The average return was around 5% against a capital amount of $8.4 million. The Trustees have indicated that they would have to extend their fund raising activities for a fresh injection of capital. 5.2 Factors generally subject to government control: No major endogenous factors negatively affected project outcomes. Project implementation went more or less according to schedule. Even though TMNP revenue from user fees revert to SANParks consolidated account, the bulk of this is returned to the Park to finance operating costs. 5.3 Factors generally subject to implementing agency control: As mentioned earlier, the slow start-up in TMNP footpath construction resulted from lack of knowledge and expertise and the need to address alien clearing. However, the Park has been assured of GoSA funding to complete the rehabilitation program in the next 3 years. During project extension phase GEF resources were utilized for rehabilitating footpath construction and alien clearing. 5.4 Costs and financing: Overall funding from GEF resources was a small fraction of total project cost. Total domestic co-financing (government and other) exceeded the appraisal target by $14.12 million (118.1%), and international co-financing exceeded the appraisal target by $0.46 million (See Annex 2). The TMNP funding exceeded the appraisal target of $69.8 million of domestic investment by $8 million. Almost all Park co-financing was of domestic origin. TMF and WWF-SA had raised an initial $8 million in co-financing by project inception, subsequently raising a further $5.74 million including $3 million to purchase the strategic Noordhoek Kommetjie Wetlands for inclusion into TMNP. Domestic in-kind contributions to the CAPE Strategy during project implementation and in support of the post-strategy transition period were estimated at $0.43, nearly five times the appraisal target. Further foreign co-financing ($0.46 million) for the transition was raised from WWF-US, Conservation International South Africa, Fauna and Flora International, and EarthVoice/Humane Society. Funding for implementation of the CAPE Strategy since 2002 has included Critical Ecosystem Partnership Funds (CEPF) of $6 million for activities aligned to the strategy. CAPE was further funded by two PDF-B grants for preparation of full-sized GEF grants (2004) of US$9 million to C.A.P.E and $3.2 million to the

Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative, a CAPE strategy priority. Disbursement Of the total GEF grant of US$12.3 million, only about US$137,000 remains undisbursed. At project effectiveness US$5 million was disbursed as equity investment to the Table Mountain Fund. The remaining

resources of US$7.3 million were primarily for the TMNP and developing the CAPE strategy. 6. Sustainability 6.1 Rationale for sustainability rating: The project sustainability rating is highly likely. Sustainability of TMNP is dependent on the value placed on the Park by stakeholders and communities, which derives both from benefits provided and from effective communication between management of the park and the public. Evidence of sustainability is reflected by:

(a) the Park is now financially sustainable with an explicit commitment of SANParks to sustaining the GEF investments; (b) the Park has protection through legislation; (c) management of the Park is by SANParks, the country's premier conservation agency with the highest levels of expertise and management capability;

(d) the new biodiversity legislation ensures that the managers of protected areas are to develop and implement plans to control and eradicate invasive alien plants; (e) the Park's environmental education program has been mainstreamed within the curriculum of the provincial Department of Education;

(f) public pressure by the Park and new legislation requires effective wildfire management by the Park and other agencies; (g) GoSA is financially committed, through the EPWP, to upgrade tourism infrastructure;

(h) the provision of sustainable financing for the Marine Protected Areas from the Marine Living

Resources Fund; (i) partnerships agreements exist with all major institutional stakeholders; and j) the Park

Forum has been restructured and is functioning effectively. The TMF is a capital fund, providing a potentially sustainable funding source for the conservation of the CFR. The governance structure will be reviewed to ensure the sustainability of the investments. The CAPE strategy is now under implementation and demonstrates a remarkable level of mainstreaming and sustainability. The CAPE Strategy in essence constituted a pre-feasibility phase for a broader initiative to protect the entire CFR. There is a strong assurance that further conservation measures intended to realise the CAPE vision have a high probability of success, both in terms of mitigating threats and engineering sustainability. 6.2 Transition arrangement to regular operations: Transition to regular operations has taken place successfully in all components. The TMNP is deemed sustainable and the TMF continues to operate effectively. The Cape Strategy is well under implementation through mainstreaming. Two projects, evolving out of the CAPE strategy continue to receive GEF funds, namely - Cape Action Plan for the Environment Implementation Program and the Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative. 7. Bank and Borrower Performance Bank 7.1 Lending: Bank activities during project identification, design and appraisal were satisfactory, being consistent with CAS and with GoSA development strategy. It was technically well supported by the client and involved stakeholder participation. Design and implementation planning were realistic in terms of local capacity, local lessons were taken into account, and risks adequately assessed.

7.2 Supervision: There were three Task Managers for the project. However this did not adversely impact on supervision,

nor on project outcomes. However, with the last change in Task Manager and Team the implementation

progress and development ratings did change from 'highly satisfactory' to 'satisfactory'.(Annex 4) On

hindsight, the main reason for this has to do with the more conservative approach to ratings that the new

Team had compared to the previous Team. Supervision is rated as satisfactory, having been conducted in a

collegial and supportive manner. Supervision supported pragmatic adaptations to component design during

implementation, and provided guidance in areas where local expertise was limited. Reporting was

consistent, and technical problems were generally identified and rectified in good time. Supervision missions were well staffed with correct skills mix throughout implementation. An area where

Bank supervision could have provided more appropriate guidance was in the review of the amendment to

the TMF Trustee representation. Post project and under the aegis of the Cape Program, it may be

worthwhile to review the governance structure to ensure there are no conflict of interests and that there is

more effective structure in place. Two minor changes were made to PDO indicators during supervision: a. TMNP Alien clearing KPI: The initial target was found to be unrealistically high for a new Park with

unforeseen demands of wildfires and limited capacity in terms of staffing, skills and experience. The target

was revised to a more realistic 85% of invasive alien seed-bearing plants removed by year 7. b. TMF: There was no KPI for the fund in the PAD Logframe. A new KPI was created: "TMF making key

contribution to implementation of CAPE strategy through support to NGOs, CBOs and to leverage

government. Over 30 projects supported." 7.3 Overall Bank performance: Overall Bank performance is rated as satisfactory. Borrower

7.4 Preparation: Borrower performance in preparation is rated as highly satisfactory. Significant support was provided to

design and stakeholder participation. The project was a homegrown initiative. This was the first externally

aided project to the country. However, the Borrower was quick to learn the processes required to access the

GEF grant. 7.5 Government implementation performance: GoSA performance in implementation is rated as satisfactory. Creation of an enabling legal and policy

framework for the project during implementation significantly enhanced the project's likelihood of being

sustainable. Funding commitments were met and have been sustained since project completion. - 12 -

7.6 Implementing Agency: Performance of SANParks and WWF-SA is rated as satisfactory. All three components received

unqualified audits. Work was undertaken in a timely manner on the whole, with minor delays being

occasioned only by inexperience in new aspects of work and staff turnover. All components were

implemented in a participatory manner with all relevant stakeholders. 7.7 Overall Borrower performance: Overall borrower performance is rated as satisfactory. 8. Lessons Learned Some of the key lessons for similar programs include the following: Take advantage of post-conflict opportunities to influence policy and practice: This GEF investment in

South Africa in the immediate post-conflict period took advantage of the "window of opportunity", offered

by the fluid policy and institutional environment, to catalyse a paradigm shift in the way in which

biodiversity conservation is undertaken, establishing the conditions for more effective conservation in the

country. Avoid over-design: The project benefited significantly from a broad-brush Logframe, which clearly set out

the objectives and KPIs but avoided detail (10% design and 90% implementation). This created sufficient

flexibility and robustness to allow for adjustments where necessary and facilitated innovative approaches

and solutions. A free hand was given to the architects of the project to be innovative and to take risks. Manage beyond park boundaries: While the TMNP's location in the heart of a major metropolitan area

requires it to work effectively with user groups and surrounding communities, providing benefits and

ensuring effective two-way communication, this approach is appropriate to the successful management of

all parks, regardless of location. Build in concerns for sustainability from project inception: It is the view of SANParks that sustainability

of future investments in new parks should be a priority from the beginning of the project. Use limited resources to catalyse projects and leverage other sources of funding: TMF works on the

principle that a small amount of funding can catalyse significant outcomes through appropriate co-funding

and project partnerships. This also leverages stakeholder commitment and supports sustainability.

Plan for the transition from strategy to implementation: The CAPE strategy was co-ordinated by

WWF-SA on the understanding that implementation would be the responsibility of statutory agencies.

However, delays in moving to strategy implementation were caused by: a) failure to provide adequate

funding support for the transition period; b) no clear indication as to which agency would be responsible

for leading implementation; and c) no clear indication of the appropriate procedure by means of which the

implementation plan would enter the GEF pipeline. This also resulted in a repetition of the strategic

planning process through the PDF-B, which confirmed but did not add significant value to the strategy. Create stakeholder buy-in and commitment to implementation: As was learnt from this project, in a

complex regional program, the roles of various stakeholders should be differentiated (in consultation with - 13 -

stakeholders) to determine a range of levels and forms of involvement appropriate to the needs of the

project and those of stakeholders. A sustained effort needs to be made to create partnerships around

co-ordinated implementation of the action plan, and to develop an effective institutional framework to

manage and fundraise for implementation. Key stakeholders should be deeply involved in project

governance from inception. Create alignment of agencies and programs: The alignment of objectives, work programs and budgets of

partner agencies with the goals of the CAPE Strategy leveraged huge benefits for implementation. The most

significant achievement in this regard has been CapeNature's adoption of the CAPE Strategy almost in its

entirety as a basis for future operations. More recent alignments have been those of the SANBI, the

Department of Agriculture and the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. Equally significant has been

the alignment of donor funding (TMF, CEPF) in support of CAPE objectives. Provide fiduciary training to staff at project start: The executing agencies indicated that their work could

have been facilitated if they had better knowledge of GEF financial and procurement procedures. 9. Partner Comments (a) Borrower/implementing agency: SANParks, WWF-SA and SANBI all expressed the feeling that the project had catalysed important

national and local developments in policy, legislation and approaches to conservation, facilitated

institutional strengthening, co-ordination, alignment and efficiency, built great capacity and momentum in

the conservation community, supported the evolution of good practice and significantly facilitated the

sustainable conservation of the CFR. (b) Cofinanciers: International co-financing was limited, consisting of small but strategic contributions to the TMNP by the

French GEF (FFEM) for marine management, support to TMF by the Mulargo Fund via Conservation

International, and bridging finance for the CAPE Strategy by WWF-US. (c) Other partners (NGOs/private sector): A wide range of local NGO partners have participated and continue to participate in the project.

Stakeholders and partners are involved in all strategic review processes in all components. The TMNP Park

Forum is functioning more effectively since restructuring, and seeks improved communication with Park

management. 10. Additional Information 10.1 Implementation Approach As noted in Section 8, the project benefited from a flexible design and Log-frame. As a result there was fine

tuning of many of the indicators. Project implementation had to take into account management changes

especially as the national park was being consolidated and formed from the multitude of local governments

under whose jurisdiction parts of the Park were under. Implementation of the project benefited from

extensive and intensive stakeholder and NGO consultations. TMNP had developed an integrated

environment and management system (IEMS) which served as a model for implementing environmental

systems throughout SANParks. The TMF adminstration, namely WWF/SA had provision for monitoring - 14 -

and evaluting the sub-projects. 10.2 Country Ownership/Drivenness The project demonstrates a commendable level of country ownership, as evidenced by: a) supportive

legislation, including a new Biodiversity Act, Protected Areas Act, National Veld and Forest Fire Act, alien

species control legislation, marine protection legislation and legal protection of both TMNP and its

associated Marine Protected Areas (MPA); b) supportive policy frameworks, including a White Paper on

Conservation and Sustainable Use of South Africa's Biological Diversity, a National Spatial Biodiversity

Assessment, and a National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan; c) financial commitment to sustaining

GEF investment by GoSA and in particular SANParks; d) a number of institutional partnerships for

ongoing implementation, including two CAPE MoUs, partnerships between TMNP and key stakeholders,

and local partnerships fostered by TMF; and e) alignment of all key government conservation and

development agencies, major NGOs and relevant private sector associations in the CFR with the CAPE

strategy. 10.3 Partnerships and Stakeholder Participation The project is characterised by strong partnerships and stakeholder participation at all levels. The Park

Forum, consisting of key stakeholders, is an institutionalized body which provides advice to SANParks

management through regular meetings. Both TMNP and TMF have active websites: www.tmnp.co.za and

www.panda.org.za/tmf.htm. Addtionally, information is disseminated by TMNP through regular

newsletters. 10.4 Replication approach and impact Project processes and outputs have had significant influence on GoSA institutions and management

practices beyond the immediate project implementers, eg: SANParks (landscape approach, alien clearing,

knowledge management, environmental education, footpaths and tourism infrastructure); SANBI

(bioregional planning approach); CapeNature (strategic priorities, capacity building); Working on Fire

Program (fire management approaches); Marine and Coastal Management (establishing new marine

protected areas and devolution of responsibilities); and CAPE partners (institutional collaboration and

strategic alignment). The CAPE strategy and its implementation have influenced landscape and bioregional planning in a number

of other parts of South Africa and the world, including the Sub-tropical Thicket Ecosystem Project, the

Succulent Karoo Ecosystem Project, the Grasslands Biome Project, the Eastern African Marine Ecoregion

(Kenya, Tanzania and Mozambique), the Central Annamites (Vietnam), an Eastern Africa Coastal Forests,

as well as the dryland ecoregional programs of WWF. The Strategy has resulted in two new Programs

funded by the GEF. 10.5 Financial Planning Refer to Annex 2. The quality of financial reports were considered to be of good quality. Regular and

timely audits were carried out of the financial statements of both TMNP and TMF. There were no

10.6 Monitoring and evaluation All three components undertake regular in-house and independent reviews, incorporating stakeholder

participation. The TMNP IEMS provides the basis for ongoing data capture and management monitoring

for the Park. CAPE Strategy implementation is monitored as part of Bank supervision. Annex 1 provides

the outcomes of the monitoring of the key indicators. 10.7 Cost Effectiveness Refer to Annex 3 - 16 -

Annex 1. Key Performance Indicators/Log Frame Matrix Outcome / Impact Indicators: Indicator/Matrix as in PAD Key Performance Amendments During SupervisionActual/Latest

Project Development Objectives for SANP 1. Rehabilitate and maintain indigenous terrestrial flora and 1. No indigenous species 1. No extinctions of tracked species have occurred.

fauna on the Cape Peninsula and marine conservation in added to the list of rare In areas cleared of alien invasive plants 3 endangered

immediately surrounding areas. and/or threatened species plant species (one protea and two ericas) have

Himalayan Tahrs. 2. All invasive alien seed 2. Revised target of 85% removed by year 7 (2005)

6. 3. 80% reduction of area 3. The area burnt in wildfires varies from year to year,

services are much better organised. 4. No infrastructural 4. A significant amount of damage to private

invasive tree species. 5. Implementation of an 5. MPA proclaimed, plan drawn up under

plan. Outcome / Impact Indicators: Indicator/Matrix as in PAD Key Performance Amendments During SupervisionActual/Latest

1. Rehabilitate and maintain indigenous terrestrial flora and WWF for this PDO) implementation of CAPE strategy through support to

fauna on the Cape Peninsula and marine conservation in NGOs, CBOs and to leverage government. Over 30

2. Development of a conservation strategy for the much 2. Agreed strategic and 2. Strategic Plan and investment program for the

larger Cape Floral Kingdom, of which the Cape Peninsula investment program for the CFR completed and now in implementation

Alien clearing component: 1. Remove 2500ha Only 18500 ha or 83% of park will be cleared 85% cleared. Remaining areas to be

of alien seed bearing vegetation per year and because. 1. Some areas form a part of the cleared with GoSA funding.

24000 ha of park (100%) to be clear of alien cultural landscape, other areas are very

seed bearing vegetation as per PAD. inaccessible, other areas do not need clearing.

visitor survey/ data, 2. 1 enviro education centre 2. 3 enviro centres rehabilitated and

1. Controlled regeneration of natural vegetation 1 and 2 100% 100% achieved for both

Tourism infrastructure. 1. Well maintained and 1. 14 paths completed 1. 19 paths (87km) rehabilitated,

sign posted visitor infrastructure on 37 paths to 2. Visitor data maintained at 3 points with interpretive signage.

Established marine protected area adjoining the MPA in place and being implemented 100% achieved

Knowledge management system to manage the 100% complete and in use 100% achieved

Real rate of net returns from the Trust Fund at Reduced to 5% due to investment climate and Amended target achieved

Annex 2. Project Costs and Financing Table 1: Project Cost by Component (in US$ million equivalent) Component Cost Category Appraisal Actual/Latest Percentage of

Note: N.B.F= Not Bank financed. All items under ICB (US$0.7mill) and Other (US$11.6mill) are financed entirely by GEF. - 20 -

Costs (TMNP) 5. Miscelleanous (TMF) 5.0 13.74 18.74 Total 0.71 11.48 93.46 105.65 Note:

1. All items under ICB and Other are finance entirely by GEF. "Other" includes civil works and

goods to be procured through national shopping, consulting services, services of contracted staff of the

proct management office, training, technical assistance services, and incremental operating costs related

to (i) managing the project, and (ii) re-lending project funds to local Government units.

3. TMNP breakdowns by expenditure categories are an approximation, as Park financial are not

Table 4: Project Financing by Component (in US$ million equivalent) Component Appraisal Estimate Actual/Latest Estimate Percentage at Appraisal

1. In order to make comparisons with the PAD, the definitions of headings in this table are as set out in the

PAD. The domestic column includes finance from domestic resources, including SANP central subsidies, provincial

and local Government contributions, revenue from admission fees and tourism venture royalty, NGO land purchases

and domestic stakeholder contributions. "COF" signifies foreign co-financing i.e. FFEM.

2. Exchange rate calculations based on US$1=ZAR 5.45 (exchange rate at appraisal) - 22 -

Annex 3. Economic Costs and Benefits A cost-benefit analysis of the project was not conducted. An update of the incremental cost analysis in the

PAD is set out below. The objectives of GEF assistance were to: (i) Roll back the threat of invasive alien species to allow the natural regeneration of indigenous

species, protect the area from raging wildfires and recreate nature's own renewal process, extend the realm

of effective conservation to surrounding marine areas, upgrade the capacity to provide environmental

education, improve roads and paths to minimize erosion and enhance accessibility, upgrade the monitoring

and study of biodiversity in this unique area. (ii) Ensure the maintenance in perpetuity of biodiversity conservation on the Cape Peninsula and

beyond in the Cape Floral Kingdom, extending the reach of conservation activities to private land outside

the National Park, and using NGOs as implementing agencies and decision-makers. (iii) Lay the strategic foundation for effective conservation of the Cape Floral Kingdom. These objectives were largely met and in many instances exceeded by the project, and significant global

benefits leveraged. The GEF grant triggered the proclamation of the TMNP and has accelerated its alien clearing program by

15 years, making a huge impact on the invasive alien species problem. Without the GEF grant, almost no

environmental education would have taken place. The refurbishment of environmental education centres

would have taken place at a much slower rate and on a smaller scale, reducing the levels of awareness

amongst visitors and schools, particularly those from disadvantaged communities. The Park would have

remained to a large extent the preserve of the City's wealthy minority. The firefighting capability of the

Park would be significantly less efficient and effective, and a very limited amount of tourist infrastructure

development would have taken place. Very limited capacity building would also have been possible. It is

also extremely doubtful that the marine park would have been established in this period. Development and

use of an IEMS was not standard within SANParks at the time. Without the GEF funding, the existing

system would not have the capacity and effectiveness that has been developed. Without the GEF investment, the scope and size of the TMF would have remained limited to the Cape

Peninsula, and no funding would have been made available for conservation activities in the broader CFR.

In addition, funding for activities on the Peninsula itself would have been more limited. The important role

that TMF has been able to play in piloting innovative approaches developed through the CAPE strategy,

such as the Cape Lowlands project and the Stewardship Program, would not have been possible. The GEF investment was the single most crucial factor resulting in the CAPE Strategy being developed. No

similar bioregional program had been undertaken in South Africa and such programs were not a priority for

the conservation sector. An added benefit of the GEF funding has been the replication effect in other

Annex 5. Ratings for Achievement of Objectives/Outputs of Components (H=High, SU=Substantial, M=Modest, N=Negligible, NA=Not Applicable)

Conservation activities of the Table Mountain National Park have strong links to the local community

given its urban setting. Community leaders are represented in the Park Forum which meets with the

Annex 6. Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance (HS=Highly Satisfactory, S=Satisfactory, U=Unsatisfactory, HU=Highly Unsatisfactory) 6.1 Bank performance Rating Lending HS S U HU

Annex 7. List of Supporting Documents The following documents, reports and papers were produced during project implementation: Table Mountain National Park Cape Peninsula National Park: Management Policy, 2000. Cape Peninsula National Park: Strategic Management Plan, 2000 2004. Clark, BM, A new marine park for the Cape Peninsula, Cape Peninsula National Park, February 2001. Davies, S, Fortuin, H and Lochner, P, Review of the Strategic Management Plan of the Table Mountain

National Park (2001-2004), CSIR Environmentek, Stellenbosch, 2005. Forsyth, GG et al, A Fire Management Plan for the Cape Peninsula National Park. CSIR Environmentek,

December 2000. Forsyth, GG and Bridgett, J, Table Mountain National Park Fire Management Plan. CSIR

Environmentek, May 2004. Standish, B et al, The Economic Contribution of the Table Mountain National Park, Graduate School of

Business, University of Cape Town, October 2004. Setplan, Managing the CPPNE: A strategy for land consolidation, Cape Peninsula National Park,

Ukuvuka, City of Cape Town, WWF-SA and Park Committee, December 2001. Table Mountain National Park: Integrated Environmental Management System materials. Table Mountain National Park: Teachers' Resource Pack (5 documents) Table Mountain National Park: Footpath Construction Manual, 2001. Table Mountain National Park: Information Brochures Table Mountain Fund: Cowling, R, Evaluation of the Table Mountain Fund. Terrestrial Ecology Research Unit, University of

Port Elizabeth, September 2000 Laros, M, An evaluation of the Table Mountain Fund: January 1998 to June 2000. CommonGround

Minutes of Strategic Planning Workshops in George, Port Elizabeth and Cape Town, May 2004. Questionnaire to Current TMF Project Executants Annual Financial Reports to the Trustees Annual Program PortfolioWorld Bank, Febraury 1998, Project Document -GEF- South Africa-Cape

Peninsula Biodiversity Conservation Project Cowling, R, Evaluation of the Table Mountain Fund. Terrestrial Ecology Research Unit, University of

Port Elizabeth, September 2000 Laros, M, An evaluation of the Table Mountain Fund: January 1998 to June 2000. CommonGround

Consulting, September 2000. Myrdal, B, Review of the First Five Years of Table Mountain Fund. 2003. Table Mountain Fund Strategic Plan: March 2005 March 2010 Wood, J, The Table Mountain Fund: Programme Update. March 2005. Minutes of Strategic Planning Workshops in George, Port Elizabeth and Cape Town, May 2004. Questionnaire to Current TMF Project Executants Annual Financial Reports to the Trustees Annual Program Portfolio Cape Action Plan for the Environment (CAPE Strategy): Boshoff, AF and Kerley, GIH 1999. Conservation planning in the Cape Floristic Region: Distribution,

conservation status and spatial population requirements of the medium- to large sized mammals. In:

Terrestrial Ecology Research Unit, University of Port Elizabeth. Report No 26. pp 141. Prepared for

WWF-SA Boshoff, AF, Cowling, RM and Kerley GIH (2000). The Baviaanskloof Conservation Area. A

conservation and development priority. Terrestrial Ecological Research Unit. Report No. 27. University of

Port Elizabeth. Baard EHW, Branch WR, Channing AC, De Villiers AL, Le Roux A, and Mouton, PleFN, 1999. A review

of the amphibians and reptiles of the Cape Floristic Region as indicators of centers of biodiversity,

sensitive habitats and sites of special interest. Western Cape Nature Conservation Board, Stellenbosch.

Prepared for WWF-SA. Cole NS, Lombard AT, Cowling RM, Euston-Brown D, Richardson DM and Heijnis CE, 2000.

Framework for a conservation plan for the Agulhas Plain, Cape Floristic Region, South Africa. IPC

Cowling RM, Pressey RL, Lombard AT, Heijnis CE, Richardson DM and Cole N, 1999. Framework for a

conservation plan for the Cape Floristic Region. IPC Report 9902 prepared for WWF-SA. Cowling, RM and Pressey, RL guest eds. Conservation Planning in the Cape Floristic Region, South

Africa. Special Issue, Biological Conservation, Vol. 112 nos 1-2 July- August 2003. Cowling RM and Heijnis CE. Broad Habitat Units as biodiversity entities for conservation planning in

the Cape Floristic Region. South African Journal of Botany. CSIR, 1999. Cape Action Plan for the Environment: An assessment and review of the current policy,

legal, institutional, socio-economic and financial situation affecting the conservation of biodiversity in

the Cape Floristic Kingdom. Parts 1 and 2. CSIR Report No.: ENV-S-C 99130 A. Prepared for

WWF-SA. CSIR, 2000. Cape Action Plan for the Environment: Strategy. CSIR Report No.: ENV-S-C 99130 B.

Prepared for WWF-SA. CSIR, 2000. Cape Action Plan for the Environment: Report on the Strategy Development Workshop

held from 16-18 February 2000 CSIR Report No.: ENV-S-C 99130 C. Prepared for WWF-SA. CSIR, 2000. Cape Action Plan for the Environment: Implementation Programme Report. CSIR Report

No.: ENV-S-C 99130 D. Prepared for WWF-SA. CSIR, 2000. Cape Action Plan for the Environment: Independently Submitted Projects Report. CSIR

Report No.: ENV-S-C 99130 E. Prepared for WWF-SA. Fowkes, S. 1999 Public Involvement Programme for Phase 1: Situation Assessment and Review. Prepared

for WWF-SA. Griffiths C and Prochazka K. 2000. Cape Action Plan for the Environment: Final report of the Marine

Component. Zoology Department & Marine Biology Research Institute, University of Cape Town.

Prepared for WWF-SA Impson ND, Bills IR, Cambray JA and Le Roux A, 1999. The primary freshwater fishes of the Cape

Floristic Region: conservation needs for a unique and highly threatened fauna. Western Cape Nature

Conservation Board. Prepared for WWF-SA. Jones G, van Nieuwenhuizen GDP and Day JA. July 2000. Cape Action Plan for the Environment:

Selecting priority wetlands for conservation: The Agulhas Plain as a case study. Freshwater Research

Unit, Zoology Department, University of Cape Town. Prepared for WWF-SA. Pressey, R and Cowling, RM, eds. Special Issue of Biological Conservation, Vol. 112, Nos. 1 2, July

August 2003, 2001 Prochazka K and Griffiths C, 2000. Cape Action Plan for the Environment: Final report of the Estuarine

Component. Zoology Department & Marine Biology Research Institute, University of Cape Town.

Lloyd JW, van den Berg EC and van Wyk E, 1999. CAPE Project: The mapping of threats to biodiversity

in the Cape Floristic Region with the aid of remote sensing and Geographic Information Systems. Report

GW/A1999/54. Agricultural Research Council: Institute for Soil, Climate and Water. Prepared for

WWF-SA. Pierce, SM, Cowling, RM, Sandwith, T and MacKinnon, K, eds. 2002. Mainstreaming Biodiversity in

Development: Case Studies from South Africa, World Bank Environment Department. Van Nieuwenhuizen GDP and Day, JA eds. July 2000. Cape Action Plan for the Environment:The

conservation of freshwater ecosystems in the Cape Floral Kingdom. Freshwater Research Unit, Zoology

Department, University of Cape Town. Prepared for WWF-SA. Younge, A. and Ashwell, A. 2000. Cape Action Plan for the Environment: A Biodiversity Action Plan for

the Cape Floral Kingdom. WWF-South Africa, Stellenbosch. Younge, A. An ecoregional approach to conservation in the Cape Floral Kingdom, South Africa in

Biodiversity, Sustainability and Human Communities: Protecting beyond the Protected, Cambridge

Additional Annex 8. Summary of Borrower Implementation Completion Reports Table Mountain National Park The objective for this component was to "rehabilitate and maintain indigenous terrestrial flora and fauna on

the Cape Peninsula and marine conservation in immediately surrounding areas". The original GEF funding

of US$6.3 million was designed to kick-start the establishment of the Table Mountain National Park. The

TMNP, located in the centre of the Cape Town metropolitan area (a city of 3.5 million people) is an

open-access park, surrounded by both poor and wealthy communities. Although only seven years old, the Park is now a fully-fledged operation, the second most profitable of all

parks run by SANParks. Annual park revenue from admissions is now at $8.6 million annually, $6.8

million of which funds the annual operating budget of the Park, and $1.8 million reverting to the

SANParks. In 2004, 1.5 million paying visitors entered the Park at controlled gateways. Long-term

operating costs have been lowered through investment into removal of alien invasive species, erosion

control (through footpath rehabilitation), and wildfire management. A study in 2004 (Standish, B. et al,

The Economic Contribution of the Table Mountain National Park, Graduate School of Business,

University of Cape Town, October 2004) found that the Park has had a significant macro-economic effect

on Cape Town, the Western Cape and South Africa. Eighty-three percent of the preferred Park area (25,000 ha) is now under SANParks conservation

management, land purchase being funded by grants from the TMF, the City of Cape Town and SANParks.

A number of incentives are in place to support further contracting-in of private land, including a City

Council rates exemption to private landowners. The bulk (85%) of woody seed-bearing alien invasive plants in the Park has been cleared. The initial target

was found to be unrealistically high for a new Park with unforeseen demands and limited capacity, and was

revised to a more realistic 85% of invasive alien seed-bearing plants removed by year 7, which was met; all

cleared areas are in follow-up maintenance. SANParks is committed to clearing the remaining portion with

GoSA funding in the near future, and to sustaining follow-up clearing in the long term. No extinction of

tracked rare and endangered plant species has occurred; in areas cleared of alien invasive plants 3

endangered plant species (one protea and two ericas) have expanded their range and numbers; increased

raptor breeding activity has been noted; and 54 klipspringers have been reintroduced to the Park in 2004-5

after eradication of the Himalayan Tahrs. Park environmental education and outreach programs involve 24,000 visits by local schoolchildren per

year. 500 teachers have been trained, and the GEF-funded environmental education resource pack has been

distributed to over 100 schools, and mainstreamed into the curriculum and in-service teacher training by the

Department of Education. Three environmental education centres have been renovated and refurbished,

serving as interpretive and visitor centres supported by trained volunteers; one also operates as an overnight

and weekend facility for school groups, and another as a tourist interpretation and overnight facility for the

Hoerikwaggo Trail. The planned upgrade of a fourth to enable overnight use was not proceeded with due to

stakeholder concerns. Twelve interpretive brochures have been produced and made available at visitor

centres and formal Park gateways. Interpretive posters and displays have been erected at key locations.

Volunteers have been trained and are active in staffing visitor centres, assisting with other visitor activities

and fundraising. A Fire Management Plan conforming to the National Veld and Forest Fire Act 101 of 1998 sets out

procedures for managing wildfires and prescribed (controlled) burning. A Fire Risk Map identifies - 32 -

vegetation at different levels of wildfire risk. The Park maintains one standby helicopter on contract during

fire seasons, and works in partnership with the City of Cape Town, the Provincial Government, volunteers

and the Working on Fire Program, to provide additional fire management services. Levels of

fire-preparedness are significantly higher than at project inception and fire services are much better

organised, and fire damage to private property outside the Park now only occurs where landowners have

not cleared their land of alien invasive tree species. The original target of rehabilitating 37 footpaths was reduced to 14, by project end, 19 footpaths were

completed (i.e. 87 km of a total of 660 km) and a further 250 km are programmed for rehabilitation with

GoSA over the next three years. GEF funding also provided for the rehabilitation of a small number of key

access points and planning for the upgrade of a further 30 access points. Initial targets for access points

were reduced primarily as a result of agreement by GoSA to provide $5 million over three years to fund

tourism infrastructure upgrade including minor access points and footpath rehabilitation. Surplus GEF

project funding was redirected to the alien-clearing program. The training and capacity building targets for

the project were met and exceeded, including the ongoing outsourcing of 50% of conservation work

contracts to community contractors and the creation of (over 400) contract labor jobs in alien vegetation

clearing and foothpath construction. The Park conducts an ongoing extensive public information and communication program. The current

focus is on day-to-day management issues affecting city residents, including fire management and visitor

safety. A new constitution and elected representatives have revitalized the Park Forum and ensured its

effective functioning. A range of community partnerships is in place, with volunteers, `friends' groups and

adjacent communities. A marine protected area was proclaimed in 2004 and is being implemented in terms of an agreed

management plan. Law-enforcement and marine environmental education functions are devolved from the

Chief Directorate of Marine and Coastal Management, supported by the Marine Living Resources Fund. A

number of important research studies have been and continue to be undertaken to support marine

management efforts, incorporating expertise from other relevant projects. Knowledge management and monitoring is undertaken by means of the Integrated Environmental

Management System (IEMS, based on ISO 1400). This system represents South African best practice, and

has served as a model for implementing environmental management systems throughout SANParks. It

provides the basis for ongoing management monitoring for the Park. Capacity to manage environmental resources has improved significantly within the Park, which also has

management agreements with the City of Cape Town, the Department of Environmental Affairs and

Tourism, Marine and Coastal Management, the SA National Biodiversity Institute, the Expanded Public

Works Program, and the Working on Fire Program. The Park participates the TMNP-City of Cape Town

Bilateral Forum, the Cape Peninsula Land Consolidation Working Group, the Cape Peninsula Fire

Protection Association, and the Western Cape Department of Education and Development's forums for all

seven townships around the Park. A Strategic Management Plan guided TMNP operations in the period 2000 2004, and is currently being

revised for the period 2006 2010. An independent review(S.Davies, H.Fortuin and P.Lochner, Review of

the Strategic Management Plan of hte Table Mountain National Park (2001-2004), CSIR Enviromentek,

Stellenbosch,2005)of the implementation of the Park's Strategic Management Plan concluded that TMNP

has been successful in establishing the foundations for sustainable management and operation of the Park - 33 -

in the future. Table Mountain Fund The objective of this component was "to ensure rehabilitation and sustainable protection of the globally

significant flora, and related fauna, of the Cape Peninsula including surrounding marine ecosystems"

primarily through expanding NGO-managed community-based conservation activities in support of the

TMNP and throughout the CFR. TMF was designed as a sustainable funding source. The capital of the Trust consists of two portions, the

first being $2 million raised within South Africa by WWF-SA; (income from these funds is earmarked for

the Cape Peninsula and can be used for land acquisition); the second being $5 million provided by GEF,

which can be used throughout the CFR. The Fund is now a properly functioning and financially sustainable

entity. Additional resources have been mobilised, the most important being $3 million for the purchase of

the Noordhoek Kommetjie Wetlands by TMNP. TMF's Trust Document sets out the following objectives for TMF:

l The conservation of the biological diversity of the Cape Peninsula and its adjacent marine systems,

l The conservation of the biological diversity of the remainder of the Cape Floristic Kingdom and its

l To create a capital fund, the income from which will provide an ongoing source of finance for

l The launching, maintenance and promotion of any nature conservation projects and related

activities associated with the development of these objectives, including research and educational

and/or other similar activities. The current TMF goal is that by 2010, TMF will be a major sustainable fund for the implementation of

C.A.P.E. Strategy in the CFR, through providing a home for conservation funds, funding projects and

promoting transformation and capacity building in the conservation sector. TMF is currently the only

independent sustainable funding facility supporting the implementation of C.A.P.E Strategy, is a signatory

to the C.A.P.E. MoU and has played an important role in piloting innovative approaches developed through

the CAPE Strategy. Over project period, TMF has funded and managed over 60 projects many of which are community based

- amounting to $2.5 million. This had taken place within seven focal areas: a) conservation of prioritised

habitats: terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems (16 projects), b) conservation of the CFR lowlands

(7 projects), c) building environmental awareness (11 projects), d) controlling alien invasives and restoring

biodiversity (6 projects), e) applied research (18 projects), f) enhancing the global conservation status of

the CFR (2 projects), and g) capacity building 1 project. TMF works on the principle that a small amount

of funding can catalyse significant outcomes through appropriate co-funding and project partnerships. This

also leverages stakeholder commitment and supports sustainability. Stakeholder consultation throughout the six years has been critical to the strategic direction that TMF has

taken and will take in the future, and has included a workshop held in 1999 to define TMF's strategy, an

evaluation workshop in 2000, and a series of three strategic planning held 2004 in Cape Town, George and

Port Elizabeth. It was noted at the 2004 strategy workshops that monitoring and evaluation of TMF and its

Financial management and administration of the trust have been contracted to WWF-SA. WWF-SA is also

represented on the Board of Trustees. TMF uses the existing WWF-SA system of project application, peer

review, project approval process, project payment tracking and contract management. Projects are either

identified and developed with the project executant or received as unsolicited. A review of TMF investments was undertaken in 2003 and with the assistance of an independent

professional consultant provided by the Bank. Following this, a decision was made to spread both the

South African and the offshore components over several unit trusts with a 50/50 split between equity and

bonds offshore and a 50/40/10 split (equities/bonds/cash) in South Africa. As a result of weak

performance on the equity markets in general (both in South Africa and abroad) as the substantial

strengthening of the Rand against the major currencies in recent years, it has not been possible to give

effect to the original strategy of disbursing 7.5% of adjusted capital annually. South African inflation has

decreased from double figures in 1998 to about 5% at present. Following the review carried out in 2003 it

was also decided that in the current economic climate a 7.5% disbursement over and above inflation was

unrealistic and the trustees have decided to base future disbursement targets at 5% instead. The Fund's governance structure was amended in 2004, from membership based on institutional

representation (other than from WWF-SA), to membership by individuals. This resulted from the collapse

of the original TMNP Park Committee, which had two representatives on the Trust. Difficulties arose in

determining which agencies should have representation on the Trust, given the extent of the stakeholder

community in the CFR, and the alternative of basing trust membership on individuals was preferred. CAPE Strategy The objectives of the CAPE Strategy and Action Plan were twofold: to develop a long-term strategy to

ensure the conservation of the CFR and adjoining marine ecosystems; and to prepare a 5-year investment

program focused on first priorities within the strategy to be presented to financial agencies, private and

public, national and international, including GEF. This component was undertaken over two years (1998-2000) in three phases: stocktaking and analysis,

strategy development, and implementation programming (action planning). The strategy combined intensive

multi-disciplinary stakeholder involvement with an innovative scientific approach to regional conservation

planning, which established clear targets for conserving a representative sample of biodiversity patterns and

ecological processes at landscape scale. Strong emphasis was placed on building partnerships between

executing agencies, non-governmental organizations, research institutes and the private sector from the

outset, in order to create commitment to implementation and ensure long-term social sustainability to match

the efforts towards ecological sustainability. The component was successful in integrating the work of biological and social scientists in an effective

strategy; conducting a regional-scale participatory process which created partnerships, buy-in and

commitment to implementation; developing conservation approaches that delivered economic benefits to

disadvantaged constituencies; meaningfully tackling the underlying causes of biodiversity loss; ensuring the

sustainability of the implementation programme; and mainstreaming implementation by supporting

institutional development. Management of conservation in the CFR has benefited from significant

improvements in co-ordination between agencies, through the institutional partnerships created to

co-ordinate and manage the implementation of the CAPE Strategy. Domestic in-kind contributions to the CAPE Strategy during project implementation and in support of the

post-strategy transition period were estimated at $0.43, nearly five times the PAD target. Further foreign - 35 -

co-financing ($0.46 million) for the transition was raised from WWF-US, Conservation International South

Africa, Fauna and Flora International, and EarthVoice/Humane Society. The strategy is now in

implementation, having leveraged significant financial support (over $60 million, including two GEF

projects: Cape Action Plan for the Environment: Implementation Program (Grant No. TF053225 for $9

million) and the UNDP/GEF funded Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative (Project ID 1055) ($3.23 million), $6

million from CEPF and $45 million from domestic sources). The CAPE Strategy is acknowledged globally as one of the most advanced and innovative of bioregional

conservation initiatives. The project represented a first serious attempt to apply the CBD ecosystem

approach to conservation, and catalysed a paradigm shift from species-based and "in-park" conservation

management approaches to landscape-level conservation strategies and activities across the country. The

scientific approach adopted by CAPE, the first of its kind in the world, pioneered a new way of identifying

biodiversity priorities. Both the National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment (2004) and the National

Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (2005) incorporated insights and lessons from the project, as did

other ecoregional/bioregional programs in South Africa in the Succulent Karoo, the Subtropical Thicket,

KwaZulu-Natal, the Wild Coast and the Grasslands. The project provided a springboard for the recently

established SA National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) to establish a directorate of Bioregional Planning

and Programs. The CAPE strategy and its implementation have also influenced landscape and bioregional

planning in a number of other parts of the world, including the the Eastern African Marine Ecoregion

(Kenya, Tanzania and Mozambique), the Central Annamites (Vietnam), an Eastern Africa Coastal Forests,

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

This is the html version of the file http://www.globalenvironmentfund.com/GEF%20Final%20HRes%202004%20Annual%20Report.pdf.

G o o g l e automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web.

To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:1oorAyHF7JIJ:www.globalenvironmentfund.com/GEF%2520Final%2520HRes%25202004%2520Annual%2520Report.pdf+gef+buys+pine+plantations&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

G L O B A L E N V I R O N M E N T F U N DA N N U A L R E P O R T 2 0 0 4 – 2 0 0 5A New Environmental Era

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This year, Global Environment Fund celebrated its 15th year of investing in businesses enter-prises that promote the development and deployment of advanced environmental and energytechnologies around the globe. Since 1990, GEF has grown from $5 million in capitalinvested in a single entity into one of the world’s largest and most experienced private equityfirms dedicated to clean technologies, renewable and clean sources of energy, and environ-mental infrastructure systems. The investment funds under GEF’s management reached avalue of $500 million in 2004. GEF’s investments have assisted scores of companies around the globe to deploy advanced technologies, clean water, renewable and efficient sources of energy, and other environmentalservices that lead to a cleaner, healthier world. The hundreds of millions of dollars in privatecapital deployed by Global Environment Fund have made a direct and measurable impact on thequality of life in many regions of this planet, a vital part of the mission we set for GEF in 1990. We founded GEF to take advantage of growing worldwide opportunities to turn environmentalchallenges into investment propositions rather than projects supported by charity or addedcosts for industry. Equally as important as the environmental contributions of our investments,GEF has sought to distinguish itself by providing sustained long-term investment returns toour investors. In this regard, 2004 was a banner year for GEF in the two areas of focus for our currentinvestment funds: clean technology and emerging markets. Our 1998 vintage funds in thesetwo areas achieved substantial liquidity, increasing the internal rate of return on all invest-ments made by GEF to 29.4 percent through 2004. These financial returns embody the othercore part of GEF’s mission. GEF achieves its financial results by utilizing a combination of first-class financial skills andin-depth technical expertise in environment-related industries. Through decades of first-handexperience, our investment teams know the technologies, industries and countries in whichwe invest. Our team members have operational experience inside advanced technology compa-nies, as well as companies involved in the energy development, electricity, pollution control,forestry, healthcare, manufacturing and aerospace industries. Our approach to financial excel-lence is underscored by the fact that more than half of our investment professionals haveachieved the Chartered Financial Analyst®(CFA®) designation, a globally recognized standardfor investment professionals. We are proud of the financial returns that GEF has achieved for you—our investors—andour investment teams are now focused on a new generation of investment opportunitiesand capital to deploy. John EarhartJeffrey LeonardChairmanPresidentA N N U A L R E P O R T 2 0 0 4 – 2 0 0 51John EarhartJeffrey LeonardTo Our Investors:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2G L O B A L E N V I R O N M E N T F U N DThe Firm’sinvestments focus on businessoperations thatdeliver measurableenvironmentalbenefits throughimprovedenvironmentalinfrastructure and “clean”technologies.CORPORATE PROFILEGlobal Environment Fund (GEF) makesprivate equity investments in companiesthat address growing global demands forcost-effective solutions to environmentalchallenges. The Firm’s investments focus onbusiness operations that deliver measurableenvironmental benefits through deploymentof improved environmental infrastructureand “clean” technologies. GEF meets itsinvestment goals by identifying well-managed companies with proprietary tech-nologies, ownership of environmentalinfrastructure projects, healthcare servicemodels, or specialized expertise in sustain-able resource management. MISSIONOur mission is to be the premier globalprivate equity group dedicated to invest-ments that bring significant improvementsin environment and the quality of life. In multiple markets and under varyingmarkets conditions, we strive to generateconsistent, risk-adjusted rates of return forour investors over the long term. Towardthat end, we control risks in accordance withinvestment guidelines, maintain the higheststandards of ethics and personal conductand employ a disciplined, value-orientedapproach to all investments. EXPERIENCEAs one of the world’s most experienced envi-ronmentally focused private equity firms,GEF has completed dozens of privately nego-tiated transactions in a broad range of indus-trial sectors and in all corners of the globe.GEF currently manages a group of privateequity investment funds in emergingmarkets, including funds dedicated to basicenvironmental infrastructure, sustainableforestlands management, and healthcaredelivery systems. GEF’s other major invest-ment fund is a venture capital fund focusingon clean technologies in North America.Today, the firm’s private equity portfolioincludes controlling or major interests in fast-growing, entrepreneurial companies whoseaggregate sales are in excess of $2 billion. LEADERSHIPGEF is an active investment firm that gener-ally originates and structures its own trans-actions. The firm frequently acts as leadinvestor in equity private placements orbuyouts that have a transforming or catalyticeffect for companies. Target companies havecapable and responsible management, astrong local presence, an ingrained respectfor the environment, and a market advan-tage such as long-term contracts, strategiclocation, first-mover advantage, recognizedmarket leadership, advanced technology, or unique expertise. GEF works closely with the portfolio companies to add valuethrough board representation, assistingmanagement in their business strategiesand ensuring a focus on building long-termshareholder value. DISCIPLINED INVESTORGEF seeks out undervalued companies witha clear vision of how to take advantage ofthe significant opportunities for growth andvalue creation. The Firm follows a top-downinvestment strategy, starting with a carefulanalysis of global and regional economicand industry trends that make certainsectors and geographical regions attractive.The investment team thoroughly analyzesmultiple companies and competitors withinthose sectors to find the best potentialinvestment candidates. INTEGRITY AND EXCELLENCEGEF Management Corporation, the GeneralPartner of GEF’s investment funds, is a SEC-registered investment management firm.GEF’s investment team possesses comple-The Global Environment Fund

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A N N U A L R E P O R T 2 0 0 4 – 2 0 0 53mentary backgrounds and specialized skillsin private equity, project finance, legal struc-turing, corporate governance, and businessenterprise development. All of our invest-ment funds adhere to strict guidelines inregard to valuation policies, cross-transactionsand the crediting of fees received from inter-ested parties and portfolio companies. Eachfund also maintains a separate AdvisoryCommittee with independent membersresponsible for evaluating fund valuationsand any conflict-of-interest situations.ENVIRONMENTAL FOCUSUnderlying GEF’s measurable financialsuccess is our resolute commitment toaddress critical environmental problems.Since inception in 1990, GEF has seen cor-porate environmental interest grow from theconcern of a relatively small number of eco-logically-motivated companies to a criticalarea of attention for all business sectors.Global Environment Fund is proud to haveassisted environmentally responsible com-panies for over 15 years. Our firm distin-guishes itself from newcomers to this fieldby its specialized investment experience inand history of support for companies thatpromote environmental sustainability. PRINCIPAL INVESTMENTSGEF’s proven track record is reflected inthe internal rates of return and multipleson invested capital achieved in the coreareas of investment for GEF sponsoredfunds. As the firm has achieved financialsuccess, GEF’s management company and its principals have invested significantamounts of capital in the funds the firmmanages. As a result, GEF’s managementcompany today is one of the largestinvestors in GEF sponsored funds. Underlying GEF’smeasurablefinancial success is our resolutecommitment to address criticalenvironmentalproblems.© The New Yorker Collection 1988 Robert Mankoff from cartoonbank.com. All Rights Reserved.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4G L O B A L E N V I R O N M E N T F U N DHistory will lookback on Kyoto’ssweepingprovisions asdemarcating the beginning of a new era in internationalrelations.February 16, 2005 marked the day that theKyoto Protocol of the Framework Conventionon Climate Change entered into force andbecame legally binding on its 141 SignatoryParties. Its passage caps off a 15-year periodof new international environmental initia-tives, many instigated and led by the UnitedStates, including: the Montreal Protocol toProtect the Ozone Layer (1987); the BaselConvention on Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Wastes (1989); the FrameworkConvention on Climate Change (1992); the Convention on Biological Diversity(1996); and the Convention to CombatDesertification (1996). Even with the United States on the side-lines, history will look back on Kyoto’ssweeping provisions as demarcating thebeginning of a new era in international relations. The advent of the Kyoto Regimerepresents the first serious, long-term, comprehensive set of collective actionsundertaken by nation-states to attempt toreduce the cumulative adverse impacts ofhuman activities on the global environment. The key provisions of Kyoto are: • Thirty industrialized nations are legallybound to meet quantitative targets forreducing greenhouse gas emissions below1990 levels;• An international emissions trading regimeenables countries to buy and sell credits tomeet reduction targets;• A Clean Development Mechanism encour-ages investments in developing countriesto promote sustainable development foremissions offsets; and • An Adaptation Fund will help developingcountries to meet financial burdens fromclimate change. In fact, Kyoto itself is really only a place-holder—a first tepid experiment at interna-tional cooperation— that nations of the worldwill build upon in coming decades. The KyotoProtocol has many flaws and certain of itsmechanisms—such as the emissions tradingregime—still have not proven to be workablein the long run. Some developing countriescomplain that the trading provisions favor theinterests of the rich nations, and encouragethem to pay “guilt money” for the right tocontinue to consume resources profligatelyand emit large amounts of CO2 per capita. Many of Kyoto’s major signatories haveacknowledged that key provisions look obso-lete or unattainable from the outset. Talkamong certain key nations is already thatthe original greenhouse gas emissionstargets may need to be revised. One of thereasons cited by the United States in optingout of the treaty was that major polluters inthe developing world, notably India andChina, should not be exempt from the Kyotostandards because they are going to add thelion’s share of incremental new CO2 emis-sions in coming decades.Yet, the important point about Kyoto andother global environmental initiatives is that they signify major ongoing behavioralchanges among nation-states, multinationalcorporations, world financial institutions, and local governments all over the world.Members of the European Union have agreedto an umbrella approach to meeting theirgreenhouse gas emissions, tying energy andmany other national commercial decisions to a broader EU planning process. SinceJanuary 1, 2005, some 12,000 large industrialplants in the EU have been able to buy andsell permits to release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. As of early 2005, 29 majorbanks operating around the world haveagreed to a series of guidelines known as the“Equator Principles” on social and environ-mental issues in loans to developing coun-tries. The principles apply to financings in allindustry sectors, including mining, oil andgas, and forestry, and will change the rules A New Environmental Era

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A N N U A L R E P O R T 2 0 0 4 – 2 0 0 55of the road for over 100 billion dollars inglobal investment over the next 10 years,according to a World Bank statement. In the United States, which contributes 25percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emis-sions, the failure to sign the Kyoto Protocolhas not stopped 29 states and 154 cities from enacting climate action plans. Thirty-six states now have special programs thatprovide tax incentives, grants and investmentsubsidies to companies and consumers whoadopt renewable energy or energy efficiencytechnologies. American-based corporationshave been as active as European andJapanese corporations in purchasing andselling emissions credits in burgeoning commercial markets for such swaps. In decades to come, the nascent GlobalEnvironmental Regime will continue to accu-mulate a more comprehensive body of agree-ments, treaties, conventions and agencies.These protocols and guidelines will increas-ingly constrain, influence and incent the international and domestic environmentalbehavior of even the mightiest of nations and the largest of financial institutions. The advent of a New Environmental Era in international commercial and politicalrelations forms the backdrop for investment opportunities that GlobalEnvironment Fund is pursuing on a global basis. [Excerpted from a lecture delivered by H. Jeffrey Leonard at Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton, New Jersey, onFebruary 16, 2005]Scientists have documentedindisputable evidence of threecorrelated trends over the past twocenturies that affect the state of theEarth’s atmosphere and ecosystems:• Carbon emissions have risen sincethe dawn of the industrialrevolution, as the burning of fossilfuels releases carbon trapped ingeological layers of time. Inaddition, human activities havedisrupted natural carbon cyclingwithin the Earth’s forests andgrasslands.• Concentrations of carbon dioxideand other more virulent greenhousegases such as methane haveincreased in the atmosphere as a result.• After a millennium of relativestability, the earth’s mean surfacetemperature has shown significantincreases that correlate in time andsequence with the first two trends.[Graphic courtesy of ACIA, Impacts of a Warming Arctic: Arctic ClimateImpact Assessment. CambridgeUniversity Press, 2004]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The increasingly measurable challengesof the global environment, and the effortsof governments, agencies and corporationsaround the world to redress these chal-lenges, focus the spotlight intently on theprime areas of investment opportunitiesidentified by GEF. The external “drivers”push increasingly for global actions to stemgreenhouse gas emissions, slow destruc-tion of unique habitats and ecosystems,and reduce the ecological damages associ-ated with development of coal and oilenergy resources. These stimulate moredemand for technologies, infrastructuresystems, and intensive management ofnatural resource systems that can yieldhigh rates of productivity and return oncapital and simultaneously lower rates of environmental destruction or harmfulemissions per unit of output. Hence, GEF’sinvestment program focuses on threeprime areas of investment opportunity. First, we believe intently in the power offinding new and improved applicationsfor technologies that can make traditionalindustries such as manufacturing, energyproduction and transportation more envi-ronmentally friendly and more economi-cally efficient. Thus, GEF has maintainedan investment focus on Clean Technologysince our inception in 1990. Second, we see that global environmentalproblems such as potential climate dis-ruption due to greenhouse gas emissionsare occurring even at a time when up tohalf of the world’s people do not haveaccess to grid electricity and two-thirds do not own automobiles. In this regard,in rapidly industrializing nations such as India, China, and Brazil, there is atremendous unmet demand for newinfrastructure systems that help meetbasic human economic needs—water,6G L O B A L E N V I R O N M E N T F U N DGEF’s investmentprogram focuseson three primeareas of investmentopportunity: Clean Technology,Emerging Markets,and SustainableForestry.© The New Yorker Collection 1999 Mick Stevens from cartoonbank.com. All Rights Reserved.Productivity Enhancing Environmental Investments

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

electricity, energy, transportation—in amanner that leads to less, not more, envi-ronmental destruction. Our investmentfocus on Environmental Infrastructure in Emerging Markets has been a coretheme for GEF since 1994. Third, destruction of forests and othernatural resource systems continues aroundthe globe, both as a result of poverty andgrowing demand for wood and relatedproducts. We believe that intensive man-agement of high-production, ecologicallystable areas for sustainable harvest of com-mercially valuable products, coupled withlocal investment in high-value-added pro-duction capacity, can provide the vastmajority of the world’s commercial woodsupplies. Moreover, sustainable forestrycan generate significant local economicdevelopment and employment, yield attrac-tive risk-adjusted long-term returns, andhelp reduce pressure on many more eco-logically valuable natural forest areas.Starting in 1999, GEF has made a majoreffort to pioneer Sustainable ForestryInvestments in the Southern Hemisphereas a focus. A N N U A L R E P O R T 2 0 0 4 – 2 0 0 57Future affluence on this planet mustbe obtained with cleaner energysources and lower per capita levels of pollution and natural resourcedestruction than have prevailed inthe past. After all, serious globalenvironmental consequences aremanifested today even though half of the world’s 6.2 billion inhabitantsstill do not have grid electricity (as evidenced by the satellite photo)and more than two-third do not ownautomobiles.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8G L O B A L E N V I R O N M E N T F U N DNORTH AMERICA REVENUEmillions USDNORTH AMERICA EBITDAmillions USDLATIN AMERICA REVENUEmillions USDLATIN AMERICA EBITDAmillions USDTHE EXPANDING WORLD OF GEF COMPANIES

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A N N U A L R E P O R T 2 0 0 4 – 2 0 0 59EUROPE AND AFRICA REVENUEmillions USDEUROPE AND AFRICA EBITDAmillions USDASIA REVENUEmillions USDASIA EBITDAmillions USD

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Most “traditional” industries—manufac-turing, materials processing, transportation,energy generation—still rely overwhelminglyon technologies that are resource, energy,and pollution intensive. Conventional tech-nologies used by these industries have left alegacy of worldwide environmental damage,including the effects of greenhouse gasemissions, air and water pollution anddepletion of natural resources. Everywherein the world today, however, industries areunder pressure to change the “profligate”ways of the past. Governments and thepublic are placing intense pressure on corporations to limit environmental damage.Shareholders are demanding that these businesses operate more efficiently tobecome more competitive.Industrial corporations are recognizing the“double-bottom-line” benefits—pollutionprevention and profitability—that cleantechnology offers by enabling them tooperate more efficiently and with a lighter“footprint.” The adaptation of clean tech-nologies by traditional industries is drivingsignificant growth in the U.S. economy, as well as providing real and measurablebenefits by reducing the amount of rawmaterials and energy utilized per unit of production. GEF seeks to take advantage of this trendtoward cleaner, more efficient technologiesby identifying emergent companies whosebusiness plans center around deploying newcommercial applications of cleaner technolo-10G L O B A L E N V I R O N M E N T F U N DClean TechnologyTHE REAL ENERGY CRISIS IN AMERICA“ We are a major superpower with a third world electrical grid. Our grid is antiquated. It needs serious modernization.” — GOVERNOR BILL RICHARDSON OF NEW MEXICO, FORMER ENERGY SECRETARYA massive power failure left manyAmerican cities in the dark onAugust 14, 2003.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gies in traditional sectors of the economy.The combined effect of lowered operatingcosts due to efficiency gains plus the reduc-tion in backend traditional environmentalexpenditures can provide compelling bottomline benefits for large enterprises that inte-grate such clean technologies within theirproduction systems.GEF’s investment strategy emphasizesincremental technologies that are embeddedwithin, and increasingly empowering,existing production systems, rather than rev-olutionary displacement technologies. Thestrategy of investing in evolutionary tech-nologies that can be rapidly deployed withimmediate positive environmental benefitshas set GEF apart from many environ-mental and energy related venture capitalfunds. The technologies our portfolio com-panies deploy take the form of and combineinnovative manufacturing methods,advanced hardware and materials technolo-gies, software applications, sensors andmonitoring devices, and communicationnetworking systems. GEF targets emerging growth NorthAmerican firms commercializing proventechnologies, as well as as those withpromising technologies that have beenapplied to one industry and have significantadaptability and market potential in others.Areas of special focus for the cleantechnology investment team center aroundthe large pent-up demand in the UnitedStates to invest in technologies that create a “smart grid” in the electricity sector and that stimulate greater energy efficiencyin major manufacturing industries.A N N U A L R E P O R T 2 0 0 4 – 2 0 0 511Even the most optimistic projectionsfor installation of renewable energyand fuel cell technologies will stillleave over 50 percent of all electricitygenerated in the United Statesdependent on fossil fuels for manydecades. Thus, adaptation of moreefficient technologies for electricitytransmission and electrical end-usersin industry, commerce and buildingsmay not only provide cost-effectiveand high pay-off investments, butalso may yield the largest immediateenvironmental benefits.© The New Yorker Collection 2003 Frank Cotham from cartoonbank.com. All Rights Reserved.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the rush to confront the challenges of economic growth, many emergingmarket nations tend to overlook the environmental impacts of rapid industrial-ization and urbanization. For countrieswith a weak history of environmental regulation and minimal exposure to environmentally responsible businessmodels, balancing immediate economicneeds with the implementation of sustain-able natural resource management andenvironmentally sound infrastructuresystems can appear costly and unattain-able. Yet, the long-term economicprospects of emerging countries dependon the environmental sustainability of their current development. The scale of growth in the rapidlyexpanding economies of Asia, EasternEurope, Latin America and Africa presentsinvestment opportunities equal to thechallenges this growth creates. Emergingmarket countries today have the opportu-nity to incorporate productivity-enhancingtechnologies and environmentally sustain-able business models into their developingeconomies at the ground level. In addi-tion, an increasing international commit-ment to environmental standards isinfluencing business practices in both the industrialized and developing world.Emerging market nations are recognizingthe substantial environmental and eco-nomic benefits found in resource conser-vation and efficiency improvement. GEFinvestment strategy emphasizes capitalinvestments that help developing nationsattain higher standards of living while lowering environmental costs that will bedeferred to the future.Over the past decade, middle-incomecountries have gained from the transitionto market-oriented policies and conver-gence with large regional markets such as12G L O B A L E N V I R O N M E N T F U N DEmerging marketcountries today have theopportunity to incorporateproductivity-enhancingtechnologies andenvironmentally-sustainablebusiness modelsinto theirdevelopingeconomies at the ground level. Emerging Market Environmental Finance© The New Yorker Collection 1985 Joseph Mirachi from cartoonbank.com. All Rights Reserved.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the European Union and North Americathrough freer trade. The rise of a vibrantmiddle class in these countries has placedincreased pressure on governments andprivate companies to provide a betterhuman environment, including safedrinking water, cleaner air, sustainablymanaged resources, and quality health-care. This pace of expansion in environ-mental infrastructure and services canonly be met with significant private sectorinvestment. Emerging markets provide an opportunityto invest in solid infrastructure companieswith much higher growth rates than arepossible in the more saturated developedmarkets, and with less immediate compe-tition from entrenched strategic players.Focusing on a regionally diverse set ofcountries, GEF fund focus sectors include:clean energy, renewable resource manage-ment, water and wastewater, solid wastemanagement, public transportation,healthcare provision, and clean technolo-gies. Companies operating in GEF’ssectors of interest also profit from a solid,often undervalued, asset base and strongmultilateral and local government support,as manifested by easier access to debtfinancing and tax incentives. In addition,the development of substantial local part-ners and recruitment of managementteams with proven experience working inthe region comprise critical componentsof GEF companies’ success. A N N U A L R E P O R T 2 0 0 4 – 2 0 0 513The satellite photo depicts a denseblanket of polluted air that now hangsperpetually over eastern China.Rapidly industrializing and urbanizingcountries such as China and Indiagrapple with extreme environmentaldegradation, congestion and publichealth problems at levels of intensitythat have already surpassed those inNorth America, Europe and Japan.These problems urgently demandtransfers of cleaner technologies andinvestments in infrastructure systemsto deploy them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Global demand for wood products continuesto grow as populations and per capitaincomes increase. At the same time, theavailable supply of timber from naturalforests is declining due to the mismanage-ment of these natural resources. Manyrapidly growing economies such as Indiaand China are cutting more wood than cur-rently is being grown. In more advancedcountries such as the United States andEurope, significant amounts of forest arebeing removed from production because of land-use conversion and environmentalrestrictions. These trends suggest the poten-tial for eventual shortages of fiber sourcesduring the next several decades, particularlyin certain regions of the world. Worldwide, from an ecological perspective,forest resources continue to be cleared anddegraded at alarming rates despite manyyears of public and private sector attention.This forest loss can have deleterious impactsboth locally and globally, including theerosion of biodiversity levels, exacerbation of global climate change impacts, alteration14G L O B A L E N V I R O N M E N T F U N DThe developingmarketplace forforest ecosystemservices—such ascarbon sinks—suggests signifi-cant businessopportunities intimberlands.Forestlands as an Asset Class© The New Yorker Collection 1989 Ed Fisher from cartoonbank.com. All Rights Reserved.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

of regional water regimes, and impoverish-ment of forest-dependent communities. To help conserve these ecologically valuablenatural forests, and to promote sustainablesystems of timberland production, GEFmakes direct equity investments in mid-sized, sustainable forest management companies in emerging markets. Targetcompanies include those profiting from out-standing forest management practices andthe manufacture of environmentally certifiedwood products. These products, coupled with the developing marketplace for forestecosystem services – such as carbon sinks,water system regulators, and protection of biological diversity – suggest significantbusiness opportunities in timberlands.The mainstream investment community has chosen to access the forestry sector by investing in the traditional “industrialforestry model,” which involves huge timber-land ownerships in lower-risk developedeconomies. GEF’s strategy, on the otherhand, is to invest in undervalued timberlandassets that are also accompanied by or can bedirectly linked to industrial facilities capableof locally producing value-added products for the domestic as well as export markets. GEF’s strategy takes advantage of a long-term global shift in fiber supply, in terms of both geographical source and forest type,that will occur in the coming years. Lowercost structures and more favorable growingconditions, together with increasingly restric-tive environmental policies in developednations, will cause an increasing amount of the world’s wood supply to come fromsouthern hemisphere nations.The successful companies that GEF investsin benefit from manufacture and produc-tion costs that are significantly below worldaverages due to the very low-cost nature of the fiber. The manufacturing componentof the business also supports local eco-nomic development and job creation in the regions where the timberland assets are located, facilitating a supportive com-munity environment. A N N U A L R E P O R T 2 0 0 4 – 2 0 0 515

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Current GEF InvestmentsNORTH AMERICAAthena Technologies www.athenati.comAurora Flight Sciences www.aurora.aeroEssex Corporation www.essexcorp.comXymetrexwww.xymetrex.comASIAModern Asia Environmental www.mae-asia.comNiko Resources www.nikoresources.comModern Asia Environmental (MAEH) offers integrated, responsible wastemanagement and recycling services to both municipal and industrial wastegenerators in Southeast Asia. Currently, less than 10 percent of wasteproduced in the region is disposed of in an environmentally sound manner.However, standards imposed in association with multilateral aid programsand increasing societal pressure for environmental responsibility, evidenced in the billboard picture above, present significant business opportunities forenvironmentally responsible companies such as MAEH.Essex Corporation (NASDAQ:KEYW) produces advanced optical and signalprocessing products and services. In 2004 the company received a Notice of Patent Allowance for a 3-D imaging technology from the U.S. Patent andTrademark Office. The company is developing applications for this technologyin the areas of homeland security, environmental assessment, medicalimaging, agriculture and forestry planning and transportation security.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LATIN AMERICAAmerica Latina Logistica www.all-logistica.comGeodex Communicationswww.geodex.com.brSanepar www.sanepar.com.brVITA www.internationalhospital.comEUROPE AND AFRICAEuromedic Internationalwww.euromedic-group.comGlobal Forest Products www.globalforestproducts.netAn America Latina Logistica (BOVESPA: ALLL4) train receives its cargo at agranary in Brazil. Utilizing rail transport can help to reduce the pressure for newroad building and protect the undeveloped tropical forests in South America.The environmental advantages of rail over trucking for freight also includereduced fuel consumption and pollution, lower greenhouse gas emissions and fewer accidents and chemical spills per mile of transported goods.Global Forest Products (GFP) manages over 200,000 acres of ForestStewardship Council-certified pine plantations in South Africa. Employing awork force of almost 2,000 people, GFP prides itself on a comprehensive staffdevelopment program combining on the job training opportunities, literacyclasses and healthcare services. The Company also contributes to thesurrounding community through medical clinics and education initiatives. Printed on recycled paper.Written by Kristen CampbellDesigned by Laurie Rosenthal

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

G L O B A L E N V I R O N M E N T F U N DInvesting in a cleaner, healthier world1225 Eye Street, N.W. Suite 900Washington, D.C. 20005Phone: 202-789-4500 Fax: 202-789-4508www.globalenvironmentfund.com

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx