Guinea-Bissau

Risk-sensitive Budget Review

UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction UNDRR Country Reports on Public Investment Planning for Disaster Risk Reduction

This series is designed to make available to a wider readership selected studies on public investment planning for disaster risk reduction (DRR) in cooperation with Member States. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) Country Reports do not represent the official views of UNDRR or of its member countries. The opinions expressed and arguments employed are those of the author(s). Country Reports describe preliminary results or research in progress by the author(s) and are published to stimulate discussion on a broad range of issues on DRR.

Funded by the European Union

Front cover photo credit: World Meteorological Organization. A group of farmers gather around a rain gauge as part of a roving seminar in Guinea-Bissau, 2013. Page i

Table of contents

List of figures...... ii List of tables...... iii List of acronyms and abbreviations ��iv Acknowledgements ��v Executive summary �� 1 1. Introduction �� 2 2. Guinea-Bissau at a glance �� 3 3. Disaster risk reductionin Guinea-Bissau �� 5 3.1. Past disasters and losses ��5 3.2. Disaster risk governance ��6 4. Risk-sensitive budget review �� 7 4.1. Methodology ��7 4.2. Scope of the analysis ��8 4.3. Aggregate DRR marked budget �� 10 4.4. RSBR results by sector and category �� 10 4.5. RSBR results by ministry �� 15 4.6. RSBR results by type of funding �� 19 5. Conclusion and recommendations �� 21 References �� 23 Annex 1: Risk-sensitive budget review methodology �� 25 Annex 2: Additional tables �� 28 Page ii

List of figures

Figure 1: Scoring decision rule for the OECD DAC DRR policy markerand Rio marking system �� 8 Figure 2: Four-year average marked DRR budget �� 10 Figure 3: Average principal DRM marked PIP by sector �� 11 Figure 4: Average significant DRM marked PIP by sector �� 13 Figure 5: Average principal DRM marked PIP by ministry �� 15 Figure 6: Significant DRM marked PIP by ministry �� 17 Page iii

List of tables

Table 1: Occurrence of natural hazards, deaths and number of people affected, 1987–2018 ��5 Table 2: Scope of the risk-sensitive budget review ��9 Table 3: Principal DRM marked PIP across sectors �� 11 Table 4: Principal DRM marked PIP across DRR categories �� 12 Table 5: Principal DRM marked ODA across DRR categories �� 12 Table 6: Principal DRM categories in the disaster cycle �� 13 Table 7: Significant DRM marked PIP across sectors �� 14 Table 8: Significant DRM marked PIP across DRR categories �� 14 Table 9: Significant DRM categories in the disaster cycle �� 15 Table 10: Principal DRM marked PIP across ministries �� 16 Table 11: Principal DRM marked PIP across DRR categories �� 17 Table 12: Significant DRM marked PIP across ministries �� 18 Table 13: Significant DRM marked PIP across DRR categories �� 19 Table 14: Principal DRR investment in marked PIP by type of funding �� 20 Table 15: Significant DRR investment in marked PIP by type of funding �� 20 Table A1: UNDRR’s RSBR: an overview �� 27 Table A2: Principal DRM marked programmes by ministry �� 28 Table A3: Significant DRM marked programmes by ministry �� 29 Page iv

List of acronyms and abbreviations

ACP African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States DRM Disaster risk management DRR Disaster risk reduction EU European Union F CFA CFA Franc (XOF) GDP Gross domestic product MDAs Ministries, departments and agencies MEF Ministry of Economy and Finance OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development OECD DAC OECD Development Assistance Committee ODA Official development assistance PIP National public investment programme RSBR Risk-sensitive budget review SFDRR Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction UNDRR United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Risk

Currency equivalents

Year 1 US$ to F CFA 2015 591.5 2016 593.0 2017 582.1 2018 558.6 (based on UN operational rates1)

1 UN Operational Rates of Exchange: https://treasury.un.org/operationalrates/OperationalRates.php. Page v

Acknowledgements

UNDRR wishes to express its profound appreciation for the support provided by the national authorities for disaster risk reduction/disaster risk management and by the United Nations Country Teams in the respective countries. Coordinators: Jean-Marc Malambwe Kilolo (Economist) and Roberto Schiano Lomoriello (Associate Expert DRR Economics). Under the overall supervision of Katarina Mouakkid Soltesova (Risk Knowledge Programme Officer) and Luca Rossi (Deputy Chief of the Regional Office for Africa). Analysts (authors): Belinda Kaimuri (Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia (The), Ghana, Kenya, São Tomé and Príncipe), Brais Álvarez Pereira and Tatiana Martinez Zavala (Angola, Guinea-Bissau), Elvis Mtonga (Botswana, Cameroon, Eswatini (The Kingdom of), Namibia, Zambia), Jean-Claude Koya (Côte d’Ivoire). UNDRR particularly thanks the country experts and DRR specialists for their comments on and review of two draft versions of the analysis, specifically: Edson Fernando (Angola), Nkosiyabo Moyo (Botswana), Mariatou Yap and Celestin Kegne (Cameroon), Dr. Touré Kader and Paul Kaman (Côte d’Ivoire), Gabriel Ngua Ayecaba (Equatorial Guinea), Russell Dlamini (Eswatini (The Kingdom of)), Hortense Togo (Gabon), Sanna Dahaba and Kawsu Barrow (Gambia (The)), Koranteng Abrokwah (Ghana), Alsau Sambu, Elisio Gomes Sá, Justino Fernandes and Domingos Gomes da Costa (Guinea-Bissau), Charles Owino (Kenya), Japheth Litenge (Namibia), Jean-Baptiste Nsengiyumva (Rwanda), Carlos Dias (São Tomé and Príncipe), Charles Msangi (Tanzania (United Republic of)), Lengandji Sikaona (Zambia). Produced with support from Development Initiatives. Published in January 2020. Page 1

Executive summary

This report analyses public investment planning for disaster risk reduction (DRR) mainstreaming in Guinea-Bissau, as part of UNDRR’s programme “Building Disaster Resilience to Natural Hazards in sub-Saharan African Regions, Countries and Communities”. It does this through a risk-sensitive budget review (RSBR) analysis, which uses the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC) DRR policy marker to provide an account of public financial resources mobilized and invested for DRR in the country. The analysis is based on national budget data and records from the financial years 2015 to 2018.

Key findings • Ministries, departments and agencies (MDAs) in Guinea-Bissau have not explicitly marked DRR in their programmes and activities, and the public investment program (PIP) is the only component of the current national budget detailed enough for an evaluation of its DRR elements. By applying the OECD DAC DRR policy marker to the PIP, this research identified 55 programmes related to DRR in seven ministries. • The estimated annual expenditure on DRR-related programmes averaged at $4.1 million over the four-year period, which is equivalent to 14.5% of the PIP and 5.1% of the national budget. This comprised activities that explicitly targeted DRR, which averaged at $645,000 (2.3% of the PIP), and activities that indirectly benefitted DRR, which averaged at $3.5 million (12.3% of the PIP). • The proportion of the DRR budget committed to pre-disaster activities was 30.3% of the PIP marked as “principal” DRM, and 83.5% of the PIP marked as “significant” DRM (see section 4.1 for a definition of these terms). In contrast, post-disaster activities were 69.7% of principal DRM marked PIP, and only 16.5% of the significant DRM marked PIP. • The social sector had the highest share of expenditure on DRR (62.8% of the total significant marked PIP and 58.4% of the total principal marked PIP). This was driven mostly by expenditure of the Ministry of Education on principal DRR and by the Ministry of Public Health on significant DRR. Page 2

1. Introduction

In 2013, the European Union (EU) and the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP) signed an agreement focused on strengthening the ACP Member States’ regional integration and inclusion in the global economy. Furthermore, the agreement addressed challenges related to climate change, agriculture and rural development. Under this agreement, a programme titled “Building Disaster Resilience to Natural Hazards in sub- Saharan African Regions, Countries and Communities” was launched in July 2015. Its aim was to provide a comprehensive framework for disaster risk reduction (DRR) and disaster risk management (DRM), and their effective implementation across sub-Saharan Africa. To support DRR in the region, the €80 million programme covered a period of five years and focused on five key results: strengthening regional DRR monitoring and coordination; enhancing DRR coordination, planning and policy advisory capacities of Regional Economic Communities; improving the capacity of national and Regional Climate Centres for weather and climate services; improving risk knowledge through disaster databases for future risk modelling; and developing disaster risk financing policies, instruments and strategies at regional, national and local levels. The programme contributed to broader efforts aiming to assist African countries in building capacity in risk-sensitive investment planning and supporting initiatives to increase public investment in DRR. Furthermore, referring to the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015–2030), the programme sought to assist countries in estimating potential disaster impacts, including economic losses. Subsequently, it provided tools for countries to optimize their investment plans in order to address disaster risk and reduce future losses. As part of the programme, UNDRR has developed risk-sensitive budget review reports for 16 countries in sub-Saharan Africa: Angola, Botswana, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Eswatini (The Kingdom of), Gabon, Gambia (The), Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Namibia, Rwanda, São Tomé and Príncipe, Tanzania (United Republic of) and Zambia. The analysis uses the DRR policy marker, developed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC). The methodology has been used widely to provide information about DRR mainstreaming. Nevertheless, the tracking of planned and actual expenditures related to DRR is an area that is still evolving. This report provides information on public investment planning for DRR in Guinea-Bissau and presents the findings of a RSBR analysis of the country’s budget from 2015 to 2018. The analysis which follows was presented and discussed during a series of country-level workshops – conducted in 2018, in each of the 16 countries – and additional feedback and input from country experts was sought to improve the analysis. The report is organized as follows: following this introductory section, section 2 presents Guinea- Bissau at a glance (key statistics), while section 3 examines the country’s risk profile and the structure of its disaster risk governance. Section 4 explains the methodological basis of the OECD DAC DRR policy marker and its application by UNDRR across 16 country analyses, and then presents the findings of the RSBR for Guinea-Bissau. The report concludes with a summary of the findings and recommendations for further action. Page 3 Sustainable 10 20 30 Stable 40 2. Guinea-Bissau at a glance 50 60 Warning 70 80 POPULATION GDP90 Alert 100 110 120

2018 estimate 2018 estimate 1.6 1.5 (million people) (billion $)

2050 projection 2050 projection 3.6 14.9 (million people) (billion $)

Area: 36,125 km2 Services: 36.9 % of GDP Sources: Data from: African Development Bank (2019); Central Intelligence Agency; International Institute for Applied Analysis; Population density: Industry: 13.1% of GDP United Nations, Department of Economic 43.9 people/km2 and Social Affairs; Population Division (2019); Poverty rate United Nations Development Programme (2019); Human Development Index: 0.5 ($1.90 per day): 67.1% United Nations, Statistics Division; and World Bank.

Agriculture: 50% of GDP

The Republic of Guinea-Bissau is a West African nation state. Its population was estimated at 1.6 million in 2018, with 25% of people living in the capital. The annual population growth rate has fluctuated at around 2.25% since the start of the 1990s and has frequently reached 2.5%.2 The population is projected to grow further, and is expected to reach 3.6 million in 2050. Guinea-Bissau’s economy is highly dependent on the primary sector. Since 2013, the expansion of cashew nut production and the rise of its international price have significantly contributed to the growth of gross domestic product (GDP). The agricultural sector contributes 50% of GDP, while the services sector accounts for 36.9% and the industry sector 13.1%.3 Despite political gridlock and the suspension of donor funds to the country,4 Guinea-Bissau’s economy continues to grow. In 2017 economic growth reached 5.9%,5 largely as a result of high international cashew prices and good cashew production. However, economic activity slowed in 2018 to 3.8%, mainly due to a decline in the price of cashew nuts.

2 Worldometers (2017). 3 Central Intelligence Agency. 4 World Bank (2017). 5 African Development Bank (2019). Page 4

Recently, fiscal revenues represent about 10% of national GDP,6 and expenditures typically exceed total revenues by between 10% and 20%. In 2018, the budget deficit stood at -2.5% of GDP.7 Public investment in the country is almost fully financed by external resources, which implies that DRR investments also rely mostly on the efforts of donors. Poverty levels (under $1.90 per day, based on 2010 purchasing power parity) are very high in Guinea-Bissau. An estimated 67.1% of the population were below the poverty line in 2014. However, a recent study suggests this fell to 43.8% in 2017.8 Similarly, the Human Development Index increased from 0.39 in 2005, to 0.46 in 2017.9

6 Hanusch, M. (2016). 7 Central Intelligence Agency. 8 Álvarez Pereira, B., Correia, T. J., Kumah, F. Y. and Na Salú, B. (2017). 9 UNDP (2019). Page 5

3. Disaster risk reduction in Guinea-Bissau

3.1. Past disasters and losses According to data from EM-DAT, the most recurrent natural hazards affecting Guinea-Bissau over the last 30 years have been epidemics, floods storms and drought. Another hazard experienced in the past years is wildfire (Table 1).

Table 1: Occurrence of natural hazards, deaths and number of people affected, 1987–2018

Hazards Occurrence Deaths Affected Drought 2 132000 Epidemic 8 3032 105380 Flood 4 5 58542 Storm 3 4 16966 Wildfire 1 3 1500 Source: EM-DAT: The International Disaster Database – Université Catholique de Louvain – CRED, 2018. Epidemics caused the highest mortality between 1987 and 2018, with tropical diseases (specifically malaria and tuberculosis) causing the major epidemics in the country. Malaria incidence has decreased in recent years, from 295 cases per 1,000 people at risk in 2010, to 58 per 1,000 in 2017. On the contrary, the tuberculosis burden in Guinea-Bissau has increased from 305 new cases per 100,000 people in 2000, to 374 per 100,000 in 2017. Although efforts to fight HIV have resulted in a decrease in prevalence since 2010 (4%), Guinea-Bissau has one of the highest rates in the region, affecting 3.4% of the population between the ages of 15 and 49.10 In addition, due to its geographic location near the affected areas of the Ebola outbreak of 2014, the country risked contagion, although there were no reported cases. Droughts are mainly experienced in the east of the country, further away from the ocean and the main rivers, while floods are mainly experienced in the Quinará province in the south-west of the country. In 2008, flooding affected city-dwellers, with 4,000 people contracting cholera, linked to poor sanitation facilities and heavy rains. In June 2018, Guinea-Bissau was hit by violent winds of 80–120km an hour, resulting in the destruction of hundreds of houses and infrastructures, and even three reported deaths. Hazards such as fire, tsunami and storms have also had an impact on the country, according to data for the last two years on record from the UNDRR’s Disaster Information Management System (DesInventar).11 Storms have injured the highest number of people and destroyed and damaged the highest number of houses followed by fires, which have killed the highest number of people.

10 UNAIDS estimates: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.DYN.AIDS.ZS. 11 UNDRR: United Nations DesInventar Open Source Initiative: www.desinventar.net/DesInventar/index.jsp. Page 6

3.2. Disaster risk governance There appears to be no DRR legislation in Guinea-Bissau and its formal framework on DRM is scarce. Post-disaster actions are mainly handled by the National Service of Civil Protection (institutionalized by law in 2011), while pre-disaster activity is generally handled by the Ministry of Natural Resources, and more specifically by the Institute of Biodiversity and Protected Areas (IBAP). This institute was created in 2005 with funding from the World Bank, the Global Environment Facility Fund and the EU. IBAP coordinates the management of protected areas, mapping of species and ecosystems and development of action plans for endangered species. As a result of this ecological focus, the role of IBAP in DRR is rather limited. Page 7

4. Risk-sensitive budget review

4.1. Methodology The OECD DAC DRR policy marker is a quantitative tool used to identify spending activities that target DRR as a policy objective. An activity should be classified as linked to DRR if it promotes the targets of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 to achieve “substantial reduction of disaster risk and losses in lives, livelihoods and health and in the economic, physical, social, cultural and environmental assets of persons, businesses, communities and countries”.12 According to the OECD DAC policy marker document,13 a DRR-related activity focuses on preventing new risks, and/or reducing existing disaster risks and/or strengthening resilience through “the implementation of … measures that prevent and reduce hazard exposure and vulnerability to disaster and increase preparedness for response and recovery with the explicit purpose of increasing human security, well-being, quality of life, resilience, and sustainable development”. In addition, a DRR-related activity must meet at least one of the four priorities for action of the Sendai Framework,14 namely: (1) understanding disaster risk; (2) strengthening disaster risk governance to manage disaster risk; (3) investing in DRR for resilience; or (4) enhancing disaster preparedness for effective response and to “Build Back Better” in recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction.15 The risk-sensitive budget review (RSBR) is simply the application of the OECD DAC DRR policy marker to country budgets to identify and mark public expenditures that have a DRR objective. By doing this, the extent to which the government has planned or invested implicitly or explicitly in DRR can be identified. Spending activities targeting DRR are screened, marked and weighted as follows: • Activities are marked as “principal” (marked as 2) when DRR is their principal objective and it is fundamental in the design of and motivation for the activity. These budget activities are then weighted as 100% of the planned or spent allocations which underpin them. • Activities are marked as “significant” (marked as 1) when their DRR objective is explicitly stated but is not a fundamental motivation for undertaking and designing the activity. These budget activities are weighted as 40% of the planned or spent allocations which underpin them. Activities are not marked (marked as 0) when they have no DRR-related objective. These budget activities are weighted as 0% of the planned or spent allocations which underpin them.16 The total of principal and significant marked budget allocations is counted as DRR-focused planned or spent budgets or, put simply, DRR investments. Figure 2 illustrates the marking and scoring procedure for the OECD DRR policy marker and how funding allocated to DRR objectives is accounted for.

12 UNDRR (2015), p.12. 13 OECD (2017), p.8. 14 UNDRR (2015), p.14. 15 From this, a DRR-related activity can be located along the disaster management cycle: pre-disaster (prevention, mitigation or preparedness) or post-disaster activities (response or mitigation). 16 Petri (2016); European Commission (2016). Page 8

Figure 1: Scoring decision rule for the OECD DAC DRR policy marker and Rio marking system

Do any objectives of the budget activity meet any “eligibility criteria” • DRR marker = 0 ~ Rio marker = 0 of the DRR marker? 0% of budget • DRR marker = 1 ~ Rio marker = 1 YES NO 40% of budget • DRR marker = 2 ~ Rio marker = 2 100% of budget Would the budget activity have been undertaken without that DRR objective?

NO YES

2 1 0 Principal Significant Not marked

Source: OECD (2017).

4.2. Scope of the analysis At the time of this analysis, the national budget structure did not allow for a clear identification of DRM elements. Future analysis may be able to identify DRD budget items better, as Guinea- Bissau’s Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF) plans to switch to a project-based approach for the development of future budget plans. Nevertheless, the PIP within the budget provided sufficient information to perform the RSBR.17 The RSBR analyses the execution-based PIP data for the years 2015–2018, which comprised both foreign and domestic expenditures. In the case of Guinea-Bissau, foreign funds represent over 95% of public investment, while domestic funds are mainly associated with tax exemptions made by the government to the projects financed by foreign donors. Although many ministries are covered within the PIP, only seven were found to have registered expenditures in programmes and activities that implicitly or explicitly target DRR, as shown in Table 5. Table 2 below shows the scope of the RSBR and the specific sectors and ministries that were found to have a DR objective. Overall, 55 projects were identified to have DRR elements, which are shown in Annex 1, whether marked as having principal (Table A2) or significant (Table A3) objectives.

17 Calculations for this analysis were based on 2015–2018 PIP provided by Guinea-Bissau’s Ministry of Economy and Finance in electronic format. Page 9

Table 2: Scope of the risk-sensitive budget review

Sectors and ministries which comprise the PIP DRM marked projects

Economic sector18 Ministry of the Environment and Sustainable X Development Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Livestock X Ministry of Fishing Ministry of Foreign Affairs, International Cooperation and Communities Ministry of Natural Resources X Ministry of Economy and Finance – Secretariat X of State of Planning and Regional Integration Social sector19 Ministry of the Combatants for Freedom of the Homeland and Social Reinsertion Ministry of Culture and Sports X Ministry of Youth and Employment Ministry of Education X Ministry of Women, Family and Social Cohesion Ministry of Public Health X Ministry of Tourism and Craftwork Administrative sector20 Ministry of Public Function, Administrative Reform and Employment Ministry of Justice Secretariat of State of Local Power Secretariat of State of Ordinance and Administration of the Territory National Popular Assembly Infrastructure sector21 Ministry of Transport and Communications Ministry of Energy and Industry

Ministry of Public Works, Construction and Urbanism Public safety sector22 Ministry of National Defence

Ministry of Interior

Year plan 2015–2018 Budget or expenditure Expenditure Target hazards Drought, flood and storm, fire, epidemics, pest and diseases outbreak Source: Authors’ calculations based on 2015–2018 PIP, Guinea-Bissau’s Ministry of Economy and Finance.

18 Defined as a sector that addresses the productivity of the economy, which comprises the ministries involved in the traditional primary, secondary and tertiary economic activities. 19 Defined as a sector whose main aim is to achieve social development and improve the welfare of its people. 20 Defined as a sector that manages the government and public administration. 21 Defined as a sector that focuses on public works and construction. 22 Defined as a sector that focuses on the general security of the country. Page 10

4.3. Aggregate DRR marked budget

Figure 2 shows the total marked DRR PIP and its disaggregation to principal and significant investments. The average of this aggregate measure of DRR investment over the four-year period amounted to $4.1 million per year, representing 14.99% of the average PIP and 5.17% of the total budget.

Figure 2: Four-year average marked DRR budget 2.33% of PIP (0.8% of total budget)

12.66% of PIP (4.37% of total budget)

DRR investments

0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5

million $

Principal Significant

Source: Authors’ calculations based on 2015–2018 PIP, Guinea-Bissau’s Ministry of Economy and Finance.

4.4. RSBR results by sector and category

Principal objective by sector Figure 3 shows that the social sector had the highest share of budget DRM marked with a principal objective (58.4%), based on the aggregate sectors outlined in Table 2. This was followed by the economic sector (41.6%). None of the other sectors had principal marked DRM projects during the period analysed.23

23 A lack of DRR projects in the administrative sector could imply there has been little effort to strengthen governance in order to manage DRR. Moreover, an absence of DRR projects in the infrastructure sector implies low preparedness to imminent risks. The National Service for Civil Protection was not found in the PIP, and it is possible that this department’s resources were allocated to DRR in the public safety sector. However, this could also be explained by lack of data disaggregation, given the fact that there is no budget by project. Page 11

Figure 3: Average principal DRM marked PIP by sector

Social sector 58.4% Economic sector 41.6%

Source: Authors’ calculations based on 2015–2018 PIP, Guinea-Bissau’s Ministry of Economy and Finance. Table 3 presents the principal DRM marked PIP by sector and year of analysis. The data shows a trend of decreasing expenditure in the social sector, with no principal DRM expenditure in 2017 and 2018. Conversely, spending in the economic sector rose in 2018 (after a period of decline from 2015 to 2017). Nevertheless, the high value of principal DRM marked PIP for the social sector in 2015 and 2016 gives this sector a higher average over the period.

Table 3: Principal DRM marked PIP across sectors

Sector (value in $ thousands) 2015 2016 2017 2018* Total Four-year % executed average** PIP Economic sector 481 137 75 287 979 269 41.6% Social sector 1,074 434 - - 1,507 377 58.4% Total principal DRM marked PIP 1,555 570 75 287 2,486 645 100.0% Total PIP execution 27,981 25,887 31,856 21,148 106,872 28,480 Total national budget 87,908 86,526 92,175 42,927 309,535 80,961 Share of PIP execution 2.3% Share of national 0.8% executed budget

Source: Authors’ calculations based on 2015–2018 PIP, Guinea-Bissau’s Ministry of Economy and Finance.

Notes: * Data for 2018 was only available until September. ** The four-year average is weighted to account for unavailable data for the third quarter of 2018. The principal DRM marked PIP amounted to $645,000 on average, which is approximately 2.3% of the PIP and 0.8% of the average total national budget for the four-year period.

Principal objective by DRR category Table 4 shows the principal DRM marked PIP across the four key DRR categories. The largest share of the principal DRM marked PIP was allocated to reconstruction and recovery, averaging 58.4% of the total. This is principally explained by expenditure in 2015 and 2016. Prevention and mitigation projects represent 24.7% of the total, mainly derived from efforts in 2018. Expenditure on projects for response and relief as well as preparedness was only found for 2015 and 2016, which resulted in a four-year average of 11.3% and 5.6%, respectively. This picture is worsened when humanitarian aid from official development assistance (ODA) is taken into account (see Box 1). Page 12

Table 4: Principal DRM marked PIP across DRR categories

DRR category 2015 2016 2017 2018* Total Four-year % (value in $ thousands) executed average** PIP Prevention and mitigation 62 119 75 287 542 159 24.7% Preparedness 145 - - - 145 36 5.6% Response and relief 275 17 - - 292 73 11.3% Reconstruction and recovery 1,074 434 - - 1,507 377 58.4% Total principal DRM marked PIP 1,555 570 75 287 2,486 645 100.0%

Source: Authors’ calculations based on 2015–2018 PIP, Guinea-Bissau’s Ministry of Economy and Finance.

Notes: * Data for 2018 was only available until September. ** The four-year average is weighted to account for unavailable data for the third quarter of 2018. In line with previous results, Table 6 shows that a larger share of the principal DRM marked PIP was allocated to post-disaster activities (69.7% of the total), while only 30.3% was allocated to pre-disaster activities.

Box 1: Humanitarian ODA principal DRM investments In addition to domestic and foreign funds covering the PIP, further principal marked DRM disbursements have been identified from humanitarian ODA during the period 2015–2017 (see Table 5). Due to the unforeseeable nature of these disbursements, they were not programmed in the PIP.

Table 5: Principal DRM marked ODA across DRR categories

ODA disbursements 2015 2016 2017 Total Three-year % and DRR categories average (value in $ thousands) Prevention and mitigation 11 42 225 278 93 9.2% Preparedness - 31 - 31 10 1.0% Response and relief 1,645 482 61 2,187 729 72.4% Reconstruction and recovery 526 - - 526 175 17.4% Total principal DRM 2,181 555 286 3,022 1,007 100.0% Marked ODA

Source: Authors’ calculations based on OECD humanitarian aid data: www.oecd.org/dac/stats/humanitarian-assistance.htm. This humanitarian assistance compensated for the post-disaster immediate actions, namely the response and relief category, which only amounted to 12% of the principal marked PIP. The large share that both response and relief and reconstruction and recovery categories represent (in ODA as well as in the PIP) confirms a lack of pre-disaster principal marked funds oriented towards reducing risks in Guinea-Bissau during this period. Page 13

Table 6: Principal DRM categories in the disaster cycle

Pre-disaster activities Post-disaster activities Period Risk prevention Preparedness Response and Reconstruction and mitigation relief and recovery 2015–2018* 24.7% 5.6% 11.3% 58.4% Four-year 30.3% 69.7% average** Source: Authors’ calculations based on 2015–2018 PIP, Guinea-Bissau’s Ministry of Economy and Finance.

Notes: * Data for 2018 was only available until September. ** The four-year average is weighted to account for unavailable data for the third quarter of 2018.

Significant objective by sector Figure 4 depicts the average significant DRM marked PIP by sector for the four-year period analysed. The social sector comprised 62.8% of the total, while the remaining 37.2% was marked for the economic sector. No other sector had projects with a significant DRM objective.

Figure 4: Average significant DRM marked PIP by sector

Social sector 62.8% Economic sector 37.2%

Source: Authors’ calculations based on 2015–2018 PIP, Guinea-Bissau’s Ministry of Economy and Finance. Table 7 presents the significant DRM marked PIP by sector throughout the period of analysis. While DRM marked PIP within the economic sector remained fairly consistent across the four-year period, the social sector saw a sharp decline in 201824, which significantly reduced its weighted average. It is advisable to maintain a relatively stable allocation of funds among all sectors, and donors themselves should incorporate DRR into their priorities as well.

24 From the analysis of the PIP data, it is not possible to identify why there was a sharp decline. One plausible explanation could be that DRR projects that began in 2015 had ended by 2018. Page 14

Table 7: Significant DRM marked PIP across sectors

Sector (value in $ thousands) 2015 2016 2017 2018* Total Four-year % executed average** PIP Economic sector 1,292 1,367 1,043 1,120 4,822 1,299 37.2% Social sector 2,790 2,477 3,229 217 8,713 2,196 62.8% Total significant DRM 4,082 3,844 4,272 1,337 13,535 3,495 100.0% marked PIP Total PIP execution 27,981 25,887 31,856 21,148 106,872 28,480 Total national budget 87,908 86,526 92,175 42,927 309,535 80,961 Share of PIP execution 12.3% Share of national 4.3% executed budget

Source: Authors’ calculations based on 2015–2018 PIP, Guinea-Bissau’s Ministry of Economy and Finance.

Notes: * Data for 2018 was only available until September. ** The four-year average is weighted to account for unavailable data for the third quarter of 2018. The total PIP expenditure with a significant DRM objective reached $13.5 million (equating to a four-year average of $3.5 million), which represents 12.3% of the PIP and 4.3% of the total national budget.

Significant objective by DRR category Table 8 presents the significant DRM marked PIP across different categories during the period of analysis. Risk prevention and mitigation accounted for the largest share (81.6% of the total). Response and relief projects have second largest share (16.5% of the total), while only 1.9% was executed in projects for preparedness. No projects with a significant DRM objective were found in the reconstruction and recovery category.

Table 8: Significant DRM marked PIP across DRR categories

DRR categories 2015 2016 2017 2018* Total Four-year % (value in $ thousands) executed average** PIP Prevention and mitigation 3,734 2,437 3,576 1,245 10,992 2,852 81.6% Preparedness 113 12 86 40 250 66 1.9% Response and relief 235 1,395 610 52 2,292 577 16.5% Reconstruction and recovery ------0.0% Total significant DRM 4,082 3,844 4,272 1,337 13,535 3,495 100.0% marked PIP ource: Authors’ calculations based on 2015–2018 PIP, Guinea-Bissau’s Ministry of Economy and Finance.

Notes: * Data for 2018 was only available until September. ** The four-year average is weighted to account for unavailable data for the third quarter of 2018. Furthermore, Table 9 shows that 83.5% of the significant DRM marked PIP was allocated to pre- disaster risk reduction activity. This is in contrast to the findings for principal DRM marked PIP, where the majority of spend was allocated to post-disaster actions. These findings indicate that significant DRM marked PIP could have compensated for the low pre-disaster principal marked PIP and generated balanced aggregate results. In general, this type of investment targets the eco-system and the well-being of individuals or communities; as a result, it can improve resilience to disasters but does not necessarily reduce the drivers of risk. Page 15

Table 9: Significant DRM categories in the disaster cycle

Pre-disaster activities Post-disaster activities Period Risk prevention Preparedness Response and Reconstruction and mitigation relief and recovery 2015–2018* 1.6% 1.9% 16.5% 0.0% Four-year 83.5% 16.5% average** Source: Authors’ calculations based on 2015–2018 PIP, Guinea-Bissau’s Ministry of Economy and Finance.

Notes: * Data for 2018 was only available until September. ** The four-year average is a weighted to account for unavailable data for the third quarter of 2018..

4.5. RSBR results by ministry

Principal objective by ministry Figure 5 and Table 10 disaggregate principal DRM marked PIP by ministry. The Ministry of Education had the greatest share (58.4%), followed by the Ministry of the Environment and Sustainable Development (23.7%) and the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Livestock (17.9%). None of the other ministries showed expenditures in principal DRM marked projects for the period under analysis. Annex 1, Table A2 shows the various programmes under these ministries with a principal DRM marked objective.

Figure 5: Average principal DRM marked PIP by ministry

Ministry of the Environment and Sustainable Development 23.7%

Ministry of Education 58.4%

Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Livestock 17.9%

Source: Authors’ calculations based on 2015–2018 PIP, Guinea-Bissau’s Ministry of Economy and Finance. Table 10 presents the principal DRM marked PIP across ministries, by sector and throughout the period of analysis. While the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Livestock and the Ministry of Education had large allocations in 2015 and 2016, they were allocated close to nothing 2017 and 2018. The opposite is observed for the Ministry of the Environment and Sustainable Development, which achieved its highest allocation during 2018. This suggests a change in priorities and reallocation of resources through time, both by the government and by international donors. Page 16

Table 10: Principal DRM marked PIP across ministries

Sector and ministry 2015 2016 2017 2018* Total Four-year % (value in $ thousands) executed average** PIP Economic sector 481 137 75 287 979 269 41.6% Ministry of the Environment and 62 98 70 287 516 153 23.7% Sustainable Development Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry 420 38 4 - 462 116 17.9% and Livestock Social sector 1,074 434 - - 1,507 377 58.4% Ministry of Education 1,074 434 - - 1,507 377 58.4% Total principal DRM marked PIP 1,555 570 75 287 2,486 645 100% Total executed PIP 27,981 25,887 31,856 21,148 106,872 28,480 Total national budget 87,908 86,526 92,175 42,927 309,535 80,961 Share of PIP execution 2.3% Share of national 0.8% executed budget

Source: Authors’ calculations based on 2015–2018 PIP, Guinea-Bissau’s Ministry of Economy and Finance.

Notes: * Data for 2018 was only available until September. ** The four-year average is a weighted to account for unavailable data for the third quarter of 2018.

Principal DRM objective by ministry and by DRR category Table 11 describes the principal DRM marked PIP according to the four key DRR categories for the period 2015–2018. Key findings are as follows: • Two ministries were found to have planned for risk prevention and mitigation: the Ministry of the Environment and Sustainable Development (23.7%) and the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Livestock (1%). • The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Livestock was the only ministry to have projects for preparedness (5.6%) and response and relief (11.3%). • Reconstruction and recovery appeared to have the largest share of principal DRM marked PIP and was solely present for projects by the Ministry of Education (58.4%). Page 17

Table 11: Principal DRM marked PIP across DRR categories

DRR category and ministry 2015 2016 2017 2018* Total Four-year % (value in $ thousands) executed average** PIP Prevention and mitigation 62 119 75 287 542 159 24.7% Ministry of the Environment and 62 98 70 287 516 153 23.7% Sustainable Development Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry - 21 4 - 26 6 1.0% and Livestock Preparedness 145 - - - 145 36 5.6% Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry 145 - - - 145 36 5.6% and Livestock Response and relief 275 17 - - 292 73 11.3% Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry 275 17 - - 292 73 11.3% and Livestock Reconstruction and recovery 1,074 434 - - 1,507 377 58.4% Ministry of Education 1,074 434 - - 1,507 377 58.4% Total principal DRM marked PIP 1,555 570 75 287 2,486 645 100.0% Source: Authors’ calculations based on 2015–2018 PIP, Guinea-Bissau’s Ministry of Economy and Finance.

Notes: * Data for 2018 was only available until September. ** The four-year average is weighted to account for unavailable data for the third quarter of 2018.

Significant DRM objective by ministry

Figure 6 the proportion of significant DRM marked projects owned by different ministries. The Ministry of Public Health had the largest share (62.7%), followed by the Ministry of Economy and Finance (18%), comprised entirely by the Secretariat of State of Strategic Planning and Regional Integration. Smaller shares were also found for the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Livestock (10.4%), Ministry of Natural Resources (4.8%), Ministry of the Environment and Sustainable Development (3.9%) and the Ministry of Culture and Sports (0.1%). Annex 1, Table A3 shows the various programmes under these ministries with significant DRM marked objective.

Figure 6: Significant DRM marked PIP by ministry

Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Livestock 10.4%

Ministry of Natural Resources 4.8%

Ministry of Ministry of the Public Health Environment 62.7% and Sustainable Ministry of Economy and Finance 18% Development 3.9%

Ministry of Culture and Sports 0.1%

Source: Authors’ calculations based on 2015–2018 PIP, Guinea-Bissau’s Ministry of Economy and Finance. Page 18

Table 12 presents the significant DRM marked PIP by sector and ministry. For the economic sector, the Ministry of Economy and Finance had the largest share (18%), which is entirely represented by projects of the Secretariat of State of Strategic Planning and Regional Integration. For social sector, the Ministry of Public Health absorbed nearly all significant DRM marked PIP (62.7% of the total).

Table 12: Significant DRM marked PIP across ministries

Sector and ministry 2015 2016 2017 2018* Total Four-year % (value in $ thousands) executed average** PIP Economic sector 1,292 1,367 1,043 1,120 4,822 1,299 37.2% Ministry of the Environment and 207 158 128 39 532 136 3.9% Sustainable Development Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry 307 201 235 536 1,278 364 10.4% and Livestock Ministry of Natural Resources 101 42 256 209 608 169 4.8% Ministry of Economy and Finance 678 965 424 336 2,404 629 18.0% Social sector 2,790 2,477 3,229 217 8,713 2,196 62.8% Ministry of Culture and Sports 4 9 7 - 20 5 0.1% Ministry of Public Health 2,787 2,468 3,222 217 8,693 2,191 62.7% Total significant DRM 4,082 3,844 4,272 1,337 13,535 3,495 100.0% marked PIP Total executed PIP 27,981 25,887 31,856 21,148 106,872 28,480 Total national budget 87,908 86,526 92,175 42,927 309,535 80,961 Share of PIP execution 12.3% Share of national 4.3% executed budget Source: Authors’ calculations based on 2015–2018 PIP, Guinea-Bissau’s Ministry of Economy and Finance.

Notes: * Data for 2018 was only available until September. ** The four-year average is a weighted average to account for the unavailable data of the third quarter of 2018. A broader approach is used to mark significant DRM activities. As a result, the data indicates many more ministries and a substantially higher amount of resources allocated to qualifying projects than those marked as having a principal objective. The great variety of projects observed throughout the four-year period and across ministries reveals a polyvalent component to DRM which should improve Guinea-Bissau’s resilience in the long run, if efforts from this period are retained or are improved.

Significant objective by DRR category Table 13 presents the significant DRM marked PIP according to the four key DRR categories for the period 2015–2018. Key findings are as follows: • Five ministries were identified as having risk prevention and mitigation projects with a significant DRM objective, accounting for 81.6% of the total: the Ministry of Public Health (46.4%), the Ministry of Economy and Finance (17%), the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Livestock (9.5%), the Ministry of Natural Resources (4.8%) and the Ministry of the Environment and Sustainable Development (3.8%). • Preparedness projects only accounted for 1.9% of the total. • Response and relief projects accounted for 16.5% of the total, most of which came from projects in the Ministry of Public Health (16.3%). • No projects were identified in the reconstruction and recovery category. Page 19

Table 13: Significant DRM marked PIP across DRR categories

DRR category and ministry 2015 2016 2017 2018* Total Four-year % (value in $ thousands) executed average** PIP Prevention and mitigation 3,734 2,437 3,576 1,245 10,992 2,852 81.6% Ministry of the Environment and 207 158 120 39 524 134 3.8% Sustainable Development Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry 307 199 164 496 1,165 333 9.5% and Livestock Ministry of Natural Resources 101 42 256 209 608 169 4.8% Ministry of Economy and Finance 536 965 424 336 2,262 594 17.0% Ministry of Public Health 2,584 1,073 2,611 165 6,433 1,622 46.4% Preparedness 113 12 86 40 250 66 1.9% Ministry of the Environment and - - 8 - 8 2 0.1% Sustainable Development Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry - 2 71 40 113 32 0.9% and Livestock Ministry of Economy and Finance 109 - - - 109 27 0.8% Ministry of Culture and Sports 4 9 7 - 20 5 0.1% Response and relief 235 1,395 610 52 2,292 577 16.5% Ministry of Economy and Finance 32 - - - 32 8 0.2% Ministry of Public Health 203 1,395 610 52 2,260 569 16.3% Reconstruction and recovery ------0.0% Total significant DRM 4,082 3,844 4,272 1,337 13,535 3,495 100.0% marked PIP Source: Authors’ calculations based on 2015–2018 PIP, Guinea-Bissau’s Ministry of Economy and Finance.

Notes: * Data for 2018 was only available until September. ** The four-year average is weighted to account for unavailable data for the third quarter of 2018.

4.6. RSBR results by type of funding

Principal DRR investment by type of funding Most of the principal DRR marked PIP was funded through external resources and exclusively through foreign donations (97%) as depicted in Table 14. Average tax exemptions for principal DRM marked PIP were estimated to a total $79,000, representing 3% of the total on average. Page 20

Table 14: Principal DRR investment in marked PIP by type of funding

Type of PIP funding 2015 2016 2017 2018* Total Four-year % (value in $ thousands) executed average** PIP Donations 1,506 545 70 287 2,408 626 97.0% Loans ------0.0% Total external 1,506 545 70 287 2,408 626 97.0% Financial contributions ------0.0% Tax exemptions 49 25 5 - 79 20 3.0% Total internal 49 25 5 - 79 20 3.0% Total executed PIP 1,555 570 75 287 2,486 645 100.0% Source: Authors’ calculations based on 2015–2018 PIP, Guinea-Bissau’s Ministry of Economy and Finance.

Notes: * Data for 2018 was only available until September. ** The four-year average is weighted to account for unavailable data for the third quarter of 2018.

Significant DRR investment by type of funding Significant DRM marked PIP projects were predominantly funded by foreign funds (96.3%), of which 80.9% were donations and 15.4% were loans. With regards to domestic funds, the estimates suggest that 3.6% of the total significant DRM marked PIP came from tax exemptions. These results are presented in Table 15.

Table 15: Significant DRR investment in marked PIP by type of funding

Type of PIP funding 2015 2016 2017 2018* Total Four-year % (value in $ thousands) executed average** PIP Donations 3,314 3,148 3,777 805 11,044 2,828 80.9% Loans 650 534 338 475 1,998 539 15.4% Total external 3,965 3,682 4,115 1,281 13,042 3,367 96.3% Financial contributions - - - 2 2 1 0.0% Tax exemptions 117 162 158 54 491 127 3.6% Total internal 117 162 158 56 493 128 3.7% Total 4,082 3,844 4,272 1,337 13,535 3,495 100.0% Source: Authors’ calculations based on 2015–2018 PIP, Guinea-Bissau’s Ministry of Economy and Finance.

Notes: * Data for 2018 was only available until September. ** The four-year average is weighted to account for unavailable data for the third quarter of 2018. Page 21

5. Conclusion and recommendations

UNDRR has partnered with the EU, the African Union and the ACP to deliver a programme to build the capacity of African countries in risk-sensitive investment planning and to increase public investment in disaster risk reduction. The intention is to assist the countries to align their strategies with the targets outlined in the SFDRR 2015–2030.

This report contributes to this deliverable with the risk-sensitive budget analysis of Guinea-Bissau’s national budget over the period 2015–2018 using the OECD DAC DRR marker and the Rio marker system, by determining DRM marked projects in the PIP and their contribution to the DRM cycle.

The RSBR showed that: • MDAs in Guinea-Bissau have not yet moved towards a programme-based budgeting approach. Moreover, there is still no explicit DRM objective leading their programmes and activities. However, the description of programmes in the PIP were sufficient to depict and identify DRM activities. • The application of the OECD DAC DRM and the Rio marker system outlined 55 programmes and activities that relate to DRM under seven ministries within the period 2015–2018. • DRM marked PIP projects totalled over $16 million, resulting in a four-year weighted average of $4.1 million, which represents 14.5% of the PIP. • Principal DRM marked PIP conclusions: - Principal DRM marked PIP amounted to a total of $2.5 million, averaging $645,000 over the four years of analysis and representing 2.3% of the total PIP. - The principal DRM marked projects were principally allocated to the social sector in 58.4% of cases and entirely through the Ministry of Education. The remaining 41.6% were projects belonging to the economic sector, specifically through the Ministry of the Environment and Sustainable Development and the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Livestock. - The principal DRM marked PIP was highest under the reconstruction and recovery DRR category with 58.4% of the total, while preparedness had the lowest share with 5.6%. Thus, the majority of principal DRM marked PIP was implemented towards post-disaster risk management activities. - Allocating the principal DRM marked PIP to the four Sendai Priorities for Action showed Priority Action 4 having the highest allocation at 58.4%. Page 22

• Significant DRM marked PIP conclusions: - Significant DRM marked projects amounted to a total of $13.5 million, averaging $3.5 million over the four years of analysis and represented 12.3% of the total PIP. - The significant DRM marked projects were principally allocated to the social sector in 62.8% of cases and mostly through the Ministry of Public Health. The remaining 37.2% were projects belonging to the economic sector, and mostly from projects of the Ministry of Economy and Finance and the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Livestock. - The significant DRM marked PIP was highest under the risk prevention and mitigation DRR category which amounted to 81.6%, while the reconstruction and recovery category did not have any projects. Thus, the majority of significant DRM marked PIP was implemented towards pre-disaster activities.

Recommendations

• There is a structural need to work towards the creation of formal institutions with the direct mandate of coordinating and being responsible for DRM efforts in the country.

• With few DRM institutions currently existent, it would be advisable for the government to create relevant specific authorities to tackle each one of the potential hazards in the country. Optimally these should be overseen by a higher institution to verify the coordination of actions among them in line with the country’s development plan.

• Taking advantage of Guinea-Bissau’s current plan to switch towards a project-based budgeting, DRM should be an important component that is feasible to evaluate.

• It is advisable to promote better coordination among ministries with a primary role in DRR. This should ensure that expenditure on DRR objectives can be enhanced by efforts in climate change adaptation, ecosystem management and general well-being.

• Pre-disaster risk management activities should be enhanced, and target risk drivers as a principal objective. By reducing the risk of disasters, Guinea-Bissau could focus more on promoting policies targeting economic challenges instead of humanitarian crises. Page 23

References

African Development Bank (2019). Guinea-Bissau Economic Outlook. Available at https://www.afdb.org/en/countries/west-africa/guinea-bissau/guinea-bissau-economic- outlook. Accessed on 15 January 2020.

Álvarez Pereira, B., Correia, T. J., Kumah, F. Y. and Na Salú, B. (2017). Impact of economic structure and policy on poverty incidence and distribution. Chapter 4 in Guinea-Bissau Selected Issues Paper: International Monetary Fund, December 2017. Available at www.imf.org/en/Publications/CR/ Issues/2017/12/18/Guinea-Bissau-Selected-Issues-Paper-45486.

Álvarez Pereira, B., Melhado, O. and Schaber, S. (2019). The Cashew Economy. Working Paper. International Monetary Fund.

Central Intelligence Agency. World Factbook: Guinea-Bissau. Available at https://www.cia.gov/library/ publications/the-world-factbook/geos/pu.html. Accessed on 15 January 2020.

EM-DAT: The International Disaster Database – CRED. D. Guha Sapir, Université Catholique de Louvain (UCL), Brussels. Available at http://www.emdat.be. Accessed on 11 December 2019.

Food and Agriculture Organization (2005). Fighting the Locusts… Safely: Pesticides in desert locust control: balancing risks against benefits.

Hanusch, M. (2016). Guinea-Bissau and the Cashew Economy. Macroeconomics and Fiscal Management Practice Notes, No. 11 (January). The World Bank Group. Available at http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/443831467999735473/102933-REVISED- PUBLIC-MFM-Practice-Note-11.pdf.

Index Mundi (2019). Guinea-Bissau – Age dependency ratio. Available at https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/guinea-bissau/age-dependency-ratio. Accessed on 11 December 2019.

International Institute for Applied Analysis. Shared Socioeconomic Pathways Database. Available at https://tntcat.iiasa.ac.at/SspDb/dsd?Action=htmlpage&page=welcome. Accessed on 15 January 2020.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2017). Proposal to Establish a Policy Marker for Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) in the OECD DAC Creditor Reporting System (CRS). Available at http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=DCD/DAC/ STAT(2017)26&docLanguage=En.

OECD (2018). States of Fragility 2018. Paris: OECD Publishing.

United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2019). World Population Prospects 2019 database. Available at https://population.un.org/wpp/DataQuery/. Accessed on 15 January 2020. Page 24

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2019). Human Development Index (HDI). Available at http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-development-index-hdi.

UNDP (2019). Inequalities in Human Development in the 21st Century: Briefing note for countries on the 2019 Human Development Report – Guinea-Bissau. Available at http://hdr.undp.org/sites/all/ themes/hdr_theme/country-notes/GNB.pdf.

United Nations, Statistics Division, Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2018). Demographic and Social Statistics. Available at https://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic-social/products/dyb/ dyb_2018/. Accessed on 15 January 2020.

United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) (2015). Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030. Available at https://www.preventionweb.net/files/43291_ sendaiframeworkfordrren.pdf.

UNDRR and CIMA (2018). Disaster Risk Profile – Kenya. Nairobi: UNDRR and CIMA Research Foundation.

UN Operational Rates of Exchange. Available at https://treasury.un.org/operationalrates/ OperationalRates.php. Accessed on 11 December 2019.

World Bank (2017). Country partnership framework for the Republic of Guinea-Bissau for the period FY18–FY21. Available at http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/905591497578455518/pdf/ Guinea-Bissau-CPF-Board-version-May-15-gt-ks-05192017.pdf.

Worldometers (2017). Elaboration of data by United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. World Population Prospects: The 2017 Revision. Available at http://www. worldometers.info/world-population/guinea-bissau-population.

World Bank. Data: GDP growth (annual %). Available at https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP. MKTP.KD.ZG. Accessed on 15 January 2020.

World Bank. Data: GDP per capita (current US$). Available at https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD. Accessed on 15 January 2020. Page 25

Annex 1: Risk-sensitive budget review methodology

UNDRR’s application of the OECD DAC DRR policy marker: an overview Performing the RSBR for each country involved several steps, the first one being to access programme-based budgets.25 For most countries (13 out of 16), the budget information was readily available online (generally through the Ministry of Finance web portal).26 Budget information from Cameroon and Côte d’Ivoire was shared by some participants during national DRR workshops organized by UNDRR in Yaoundé and Abidjan, respectively, both in 2018. In the case of Guinea- Bissau, consultants managed to gain access through their connection with the Ministry of Finance. For a more detailed methodological note on UNDRR’s application of the RSBR, please consult the companion document, “A methodological guidance note on risk-sensitive budget reviews”. Once the budget data were secured, the OECD policy marker methodology was applied to identify DRR components from the budgets. This involved reviewing the most recent national budgets available (see Table A1) in several steps: Step 1: Review of overall performance of each ministry/institution in its respective programmes. Step 2: Review of targets and policy outcomes expected to be delivered for DRR elements. This then guided the authors in reviewing budget allocations under each programme and subprogramme. Step 3: Analysing subprogramme activities that had DRR elements and categorizing them according to the four key DRR categories – risk prevention and mitigation, preparedness, response and relief, and reconstruction and recovery. Step 4: The same subprogramme activities were further categorized according to DRR policy objectives – principal, significant and not targeted – and were weighted using the OECD DAC Rio marker weighting guidelines (principal = 100%, significant = 40% and non-DRR = 0%). The policy marker relies on – and the quality of results therefore depends on – the availability of documentation in relation to policy objectives and spending activities. In general, the more disaggregated and documented the budget at the activity level, the more accurate the marking. In reality, the level of disaggregation varies from one country to another.27

25 When budget data was not available (i.e. for Cameroon and Guinea-Bissau), public investment plans were used instead. Due to data availability, the analysis is based on ‘planned’ rather than ‘executed’ expenditures. 26 Budget information for Gabon and São Tomé and Príncipe was retrieved from www.mays-mouissi.com and www.cabri-sbo.org, respectively. 27 An interesting aspect of disaggregation is whether local government authorities have their own budgets, in addition to national budgets. In 13 cases out of 16, countries have only national budgets (the exceptions are Angola, Rwanda and Tanzania (United Republic of)). Page 26

Although programme objectives were stated in 14 country budgets out of 16, Table A1 shows that only half of the countries disaggregated activities. In most cases (13 out of 16), financial documents available captured exclusively domestic budget resources; Angola,28 Côte d’Ivoire and Guinea-Bissau were the exceptions (both domestic and foreign resources were presented in the budgets). The main challenge experienced during the RSBR was that programmes and activities are often neither classified/coded for DRR nor sufficiently described. This makes it difficult to identify the full range of activities that may be related to DRR in the budget. For some countries, such as Angola, budget expenditures are simply not coded; this requires the titles of expenditures to be linked across different years to perform the RSBR. Considering these challenges and the 13 countries with national budgets only, the RSBR overview shows that, on average, a country has 27 national ministries, departments and agencies, of which 11 have DRR expenditures (either principal or significant).

28 For example, the publicly available budgets for Angola do not separate domestic and external resources, making it impossible to take the origin of resources into account into the analysis. Page 27 Larger share of share Larger Infrastructure DRR marked budget lies under… Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Principal None Principal Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Larger share share Larger of Health DRR marked budget lies under… Significant Significant Principal Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant DRR marked sectors* DRR marked Larger share share Larger of Agriculture DRR marked budget lies under… Principal Significant Significant Significant Significant Principal Significant Significant Significant Significant Principal Significant Significant Significant Significant Significant Climate change adaptation (CCA) How was climate change in marked budgets? Principal NA Principal Principal NA Principal Significant NA Principal Principal Principal NA Significant NA Principal Principal DRR agency portfolio Was the Was national DRR agency budget marked? Yes* No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No No Yes Are programme programme Are objectives disaggregated activities? to No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes No No No Yes Disaggregation level Disaggregation Are Are programme objectives stated in the budget? No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Source of Source budget Budget resources Budget resources in the considered analysis^ Domestic/foreign Domestic Domestic Domestic/foreign Domestic Domestic Domestic Domestic Domestic Domestic/foreign Domestic Domestic Domestic Domestic Domestic Domestic # of DRR marked MDAs 40 9 13 29 5 12 9 5 8 7 10 8 42 7 48 21

# of MDAs # of MDAs (ministries, departments, agencies) 66 25 54 38 21 35 21 19 29 23 23 35 56 11 93 27 Coverage of RSBR analysis Coverage Period 2017–2019 2014/15–2018/19 2019 2016–2018 2016–2018 2014/15–2018/19 2014–2017 2014–2017 2016–2018 2015–2018 2013/14–2016/17 2014/15–2018/19 2016/17–2018/19 2014–2017 2016/17–2018/19 2015–2017

Country Angola Botswana Cameroon Côte d’Ivoire Equatorial Guinea Equatorial Eswatini (The Kingdom of) Gabon Gambia (The) Ghana Guinea-Bissau Kenya Namibia Rwanda São Tomé and Príncipe Tanzania (United Republic of) Zambia Table A1: UNDRR’s RSBR: an overview RSBR: UNDRR’s A1: Table UNDRR (2019). Source: planned budgets. found in the RSBR analysis; ^ - All budgets analysed were for CCA were NA hazards; – No programmes natural linkage to their direct chosen due to were These sectors * Page 28

Annex 2: Additional tables

Table A2: Principal DRM marked programmes by ministry

Type of PIP funding Project name Funding Share of DRM marked PIP (value in $ thousands)

Ministry of the Environment and Project for Protected Areas and Resilience UN 14.4% Sustainable Development for Climate Change Project Third National Communication UN 3.9% of Climate Change Project for Capacity Reinforcement for Adaptation to UN 2.5% Climate Change for the Hydric-Agricultural Sector Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry Improving Resilience of Means of Existence against UN 0.5% and Livestock Risks and Crises Vaccination Programme of Animals Sensitive UEMOA 0.6% to Hematic Carbolic Disease Urgent Agricultural Support Project for Vulnerable UN 11.7% Families affected by Food Insecurity and Malnutrition Emergency Project for the Support of Food WB 5.8% Security "PEASA" Ministry of Education Prolonged Relief and Recovery Operation for WFP 60.6% Guinea-Bissau Source: Authors’ calculations based on 2015–2018 PIP, Guinea-Bissau’s Ministry of Economy and Finance. Page 29

Table A3: Significant DRM marked programmes by ministry Ministry Project name Funding Share of DRM marked PIP Ministry of the Environment and Regional Programme for Environmental Education in Countries of the Regional UN 0.6% Sustainable Development Partnership for Marine Conservation Project Enabling Activity for Review and Update of the National UN 0.0% Implementation Plan (NIPs) for Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) Project for Adaptation to Climate Change in the Coastal Zone UN 0.1% Technical Support Project for the Development of Actions for Implementation UN 0.8% of a Monitoring System of the National Forest Biodiversity Conservation Project "BCP" WB 1.7% Project for the Consolidation of the Terrestrial Protected Areas System in UN 1.8% Guinea-Bissau Participatory Research Project for Conservation of the Biodiversity of the UN 0.7% National Marine Park Project to Strengthen the Dynamics of Environmental Conservation in UN 0.6% Guinea-Bissau Management Plan Project for the Elimination of Hydrochlorofluorocarbons UN 0.1% "HCFC" Project for the Development of a National Report, Update of the National UN 0.1% Strategy and Action Plan for Biodiversity Conservation Project for Sustainable Management of Forest Resources of "PNTC" EU 0.6% Project for the Great Marine Ecosystem of the Gulf Chain of Guinea (GEM-CG UN 0.3% / GCLME) Capacity-Building Project and Civil and Political Involvement in the UN 1.8% Management of Natural Resources Project for Consolidation of the Capacity of Management and Conservation of UN 0.0% Nature in the Bolama-Bijagos Islands Project for Conservation of the Marine Turtles in the Bolama-Bijagos Islands UN 0.4% Project for Monitoring and Conservation of Limicles in the Bolama-Bijagos UN 0.3% Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry Support the Improvement and Sustainable Management of Small Breeding in UN 1.3% and Livestock the Suburban Area Support for the Sustainable Development of the Seed Performing Sector in UN 0.2% Guinea-Bissau Right to Food and Food Security and Nutrition Coordination in Guinea-Bissau UN 1.1% National Institute of Agricultural Research (INPA) CHINA 0.1% Improving Food and Nutritional Security through the Development of School UN 0.2% and Community Gardens in the East and North Regions Warehouses Construction Programme for the Harvest and Seed Conservation UEMOA 2.0% Food Security Programme (PSA) WB 0.0% Project for Support of the Economic Development in the Southern Regions FIDA 13.0% (PADES) Project of Capitalization (PRESAR) BAD 0.2% Project to Support Food Security (PASA) BOAD 5.1% Rehabilitation and Construction Project of the Slaughterhouse of Bissau UEMOA 0.4% Page 30

Ministry Project name Funding Share of DRM marked PIP Ministry of Natural Resources Multi-use Hydraulic Programme for Food Security UEMOA 0.4% Hydraulic Project of 200 water points and 2500 latrines UEMOA 1.9% Project to Support the Water Sector and the Hydraulic Rural Solar EU 0.7% (UTAP / PASA-HRS) Project for Institutional Reinforcement and Quality of the Water Supply Service UEMOA 8.3% in the cities Bafata, Bambadinca and Mansoa Ministry of Economy and Finance Monitoring and Evaluation of the Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey UN 2.1% Urgent Project for the Amelioration of the Water and Electricity Supply WB 41.7% Services (PUASEE) Urgent Project for the Electricity and Water Sectors WB 0.6% Ministry of Public Health Programme for the Reduction of the Incidence of Tuberculosis UN 4.9% National Programme to Fight HIV/AIDS UN 10.3% Programme for Reducing the HIV incidence rate in the General Population and GF 2.4% for Reducing HIV-related Mortality by 2020 Child Survival and Development Programme "Health and Nutrition" UN 59.6% Medicine Purchase Project (CECOM) WB 5.6% Children and AIDS Project UN 2.2% Project to Reduce Malaria-Related Mortality and Mobility UN 39.2% Project for the Social Mobilization and Fight against STDs/HIV/AIDS UN 6.1% Reproductive Health, Information and Quality Education Project (FISTULA) UN 0.1% Project National Secretary of Fight against AIDS WB 28.3% Strengthening of the Reproductive Health Services of Quality and the UN 1.4% Provision of HIV/AIDS - GBS03P01 E 08 Health Products Security Project UN 0.5% Ministry of Culture and Sports Reproductive Health of Adolescents and Young Adults UN 0.4% Source: Authors’ calculations based on 2015–2018 PIP, Guinea-Bissau’s Ministry of Economy and Finance. UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction www.preventionweb.net/resilient-africa www.undrr.org This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union.

The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union.

The material in this document is subject to copyright. Because UNDRR encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for non-commercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given.

Citation: UNDRR (2020). Guinea-Bissau: Risk-sensitive Budget Review.