Document of The World Bank

Report No: ICR2317 Public Disclosure Authorized

IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT (TF096347 TF096348)

ON A

GRANT

Public Disclosure Authorized IN THE AMOUNT OF € 2.87 MILLION (US$4.28 MILLION EQUIVALENT)

TO THE

REPUBLIC OF GUINEA-BISSAU

FOR AN

EMERGENCY FOOD SECURITY SUPPORT PROJECT

UNDER THE Public Disclosure Authorized

EUROPEAN UNION FOOD CRISIS RAPID RESPONSE FACILITY

June 28, 2012

Agriculture and Rural Development Unit Sustainable Development Department Country Department AFCF1 Africa Region Public Disclosure Authorized

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (Exchange Rate Effective May 31, 2012) Currency Unit = CFAF CFAF 1.00 = US$ 0.001978 US$ 1.00 = CFAF 505.53 € 1.00 = CFAF 655.96

FISCAL YEAR January 1 – December 31

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS CFA Communauté Financière Africaine (Financial Community of Africa) EC European Commission EFSSP Emergency Food Security Support Project ESMF Environmental and Social Management Framework ERL Economic Recovery Loan EU European Union EUFRF European Union Food Crisis Rapid Response Facility Trust Fund FM Financial management FPCR Food Price Crisis Response Trust Fund GDP Gross domestic product GFRP Global Food Crisis Response Program ha Hectares ICR Implementation Completion and Results Report IDA International Development Association (World Bank Group) ISR Implementation Status Report km kilometer M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MARD Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development MOI Ministry of Infrastructure NGO Nongovernmental organization PDO Project Development Objective PNIA National Agriculture Investment Plan PRRO Protracted Relief and Recovery Operation QAG Quality Assurance Group RAP Resettlement Action Plan t (metric) ton TCU Technical Coordination Unit/ Project Implementation Unit TF Trust Fund TTL Task Team Leader UN United Nations WFP World Food Programme

Vice President: Makhtar Diop Country Director: Vera Songwe Acting Sector Manager: Martien van Nieuwkoop Project Team Leader: Aniceto Bila ICR Team Leader: Aniceto Bila

ii

REPUBLIC OF GUINEA-BISSAU Emergency Food Security Support Project

CONTENTS

Data Sheet A. BASIC INFORMATION ...... IV B. KEY DATES ...... IV C. RATINGS SUMMARY ...... IV D. SECTOR AND THEME CODES ...... V E. BANK STAFF ...... V F. RESULTS FRAMEWORK ANALYSIS ...... VI G. RATINGS OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE IN ISRS ...... VII H. RESTRUCTURING (IF ANY) ...... VII I. DISBURSEMENT PROFILE ...... VIII

1. PROJECT CONTEXT, DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES, AND DESIGN ...... 1 2. KEY FACTORS AFFECTING IMPLEMENTATION AND OUTCOMES ...... 4 3. ASSESSMENT OF OUTCOMES ...... 7 4. ASSESSMENT OF RISK TO DEVELOPMENT OUTCOME ...... 12 5. ASSESSMENT OF BANK AND BORROWER PERFORMANCE ...... 13 6. LESSONS LEARNED ...... 15 7. COMMENTS ON ISSUES RAISED BY GRANTEE/IMPLEMENTING AGENCIES/DONORS .15

ANNEX 1. PROJECT COSTS AND FINANCING ...... 17 ANNEX 2. OUTPUTS BY COMPONENT ...... 18 ANNEX 3. ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS ...... 24 ANNEX 4. GRANT PREPARATION AND IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT/SUPERVISION PROCESSES ...... 26 ANNEX 5. BENEFICIARY SURVEY RESULTS ...... 27 ANNEX 6. STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP REPORT AND RESULTS ...... 28 ANNEX 7. SUMMARY OF GRANTEE'S ICR AND/OR COMMENTS ON DRAFT ICR ...... 29 ANNEX 8. COMMENTS OF COFINANCIERS AND OTHER PARTNERS/STAKEHOLDERS.....33 ANNEX 9. LIST OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ...... 39 MAP ...... 40

iii

Data Sheet

A. Basic Information

Emergency Food Country: Guinea-Bissau Project Name: Security Support Project Project ID: P120214 L/C/TF Number(s): TF096347,TF096348 ICR Date: 06/22/2012 ICR Type: Core ICR REPUBLIC OF Lending Instrument: ERL Grantee: GUINEA-BISSAU Original Total US$ 3.84 million Disbursed Amount: US$ 3.65 million Commitment: Revised Amount: US$ 3.84 million Environmental Category: B – Partial Assessment Implementing Agencies: Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Co-financiers and Other External Partners: World Food Programme (WFP)

B. Key Dates Revised/Actual Process Date Process Original Date Date(s)

Concept Review: 10/26/2009 Effectiveness: 03/11/2010 05/14/2010

Appraisal: 12/09/2009 Restructuring(s):

Approval: 03/03/2010 Mid-term Review: 06/30/2010 NA

Closing: 08/31/2011 12/31/2011

C. Ratings Summary C.1 Performance Rating by ICR Outcomes: Satisfactory

Risk to Development Outcome: Moderate

Bank Performance: Satisfactory

Grantee Performance: Satisfactory

iv

C.2 Detailed Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance (by ICR) Bank Ratings Borrower Ratings Quality at Entry: Satisfactory Government: Satisfactory Implementing Quality of Supervision: Satisfactory Satisfactory Agency/Agencies: Overall Bank Overall Borrower Satisfactory Satisfactory Performance: Performance:

C.3 Quality at Entry and Implementation Performance Indicators Implementation QAG Assessments (if Indicators Rating Performance any) Potential Problem Project Yes Quality at Entry (QEA): None at any time (Yes/No): Problem Project at any Quality of Supervision No None time (Yes/No): (QSA): DO rating before Satisfactory Closing/Inactive status:

D. Sector and Theme Codes Original Actual

Sector Code (as % of total Bank financing) Crops 50 50

General education sector 30 30

Roads and highways 20 20

Theme Code (as % of total Bank financing) Global food crisis response 100 100

E. Bank Staff Position At ICR At Approval Vice President: Makhtar Diop Obiageli Katryn Ezekwesili Country Director: Vera Songwe Habib M. Fetini Sector Manager: Martien van Nieuwkoop (acting) Karen Mcconnell Brooks Project Team Leader: Aniceto Timoteo Bila Aniceto Timoteo Bila ICR Team Leader: Aniceto Timoteo Bila Aniceto Timoteo Bila ICR Primary Author: Aniceto Timoteo Bila Aniceto Timoteo Bila

v

F. Results Framework Analysis

Project Development Objectives (from Project Appraisal Document) The Project Development Objective (PDO) was to improve access to food for the most vulnerable population of the Member Country, including children, and to increase smallholder rice production in the Selected Areas.

Revised Project Development Objectives (as approved by original approving authority) The PDO was not revised.

(a) PDO Indicator(s)

Original Target Actual Value Formally Values (from Achieved at Indicator Baseline Value Revised approval Completion or Target Values documents) Target Years Indicator 1 Preschool and primary students receiving at least one meal a day (number) Value (quantitative 0 28,000 28,030 or qualitative) Date achieved 03/30/2010 08/31/2011 12/31/2011 Comments (incl. % This indicator was achieved at 100%. achieved) Workdays (rations distributed to rural producers) in food-for-work activities Indicator 2 (number of days) Value (quantitative 0 165,000 168,000 or qualitative) Date achieved 03/30/2010 08/31/2011 12/31/2011 Comments (incl. % This indicator was exceeded because of communities’ strong participation in the achieved) project. Indicator 3 Beneficiaries of the food-for-work program (number) Value (quantitative 0 43,860 53,452 or qualitative) Date achieved 03/30/2010 08/31/2011 12/31/2011 Comments (incl. % Exceeded due to high participation of communities. achieved) Indicator 4 Rice produced (paddy) in the new rehabilitated areas under the project (tons) Value (quantitative 0 1,000 1,877 or qualitative) Date achieved 03/30/2010 08/31/2011 2/10/2012 Comments (incl. % achieved)

vi

(b) Intermediate Outcome Indicator(s)

Original Target Actual Value Formally Baseline Values (from Achieved at Indicator Revised Value approval Completion or Target Values documents) Target Years Roads rehabilitated (km) 0 300 300 Fertilizer procured and 0 50 50 distributed (t) Area cultivated with improved seed and adequate dosage of 0 1,000 1,000 fertilizer (ha) Meals served per day (number) 0 28,000 28,030 Seed procured and distributed 0 60 60 to farmers (t) Subprojects approved and 0 50 64 under implementation (number)

G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs Date ISR Actual Disbursements No. DO IP Archived (US$ millions) Missing; deleted 1,2,3 through a system and 4 malfunction 5 10/11/2011 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 3.36 6 01/03/2012 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 3.54

H. Restructuring (if any)

Not Applicable

vii

I. Disbursement Profile

viii

1. Project Context, Development Objectives, and Design

1.1 Context at Appraisal

1. Guinea-Bissau continues to be a fragile, post-conflict state. About three-fifths of the population lives in poverty, which is concentrated in rural areas. Economic growth has been anemic since the civil war ended in 1999. The economy is predominantly agricultural, with cashews accounting for approximately 98 percent of total export revenues and 17 percent of government revenues. Rice, the country’s main staple, is grown both in swampy coastal areas (mangrove rice) and in drier savannah areas (upland and lowland rice).

2. Guinea-Bissau has good agro-ecological conditions but weak institutional capacity. Despite fertile soils and good rainfall, Guinea-Bissau is handicapped by weak institutional capacity, poor agricultural practices, inadequate and irregular input supply, lack of small-scale farming equipment, weak agricultural research and extension support, and lack of a well-defined rice policy. Food represents more than one-third of its imports; rice accounts for half of all imported food. With rice prices nearly doubling in international markets between 2007 and 2008, the cost of rice imports increased significantly and made the country extremely susceptible to the consequences of price inflation. The drop in international cashew prices added to the number of rural people who became vulnerable to food insecurity. In the 2008/09 agricultural season, more land was rehabilitated and brought under rice cultivation, but irregular rains seriously affected rice yields. The government prepared an Emergency Plan in June 2008 that was designed to mobilize coordinate donor assistance during the food crisis and build a framework for partners to channel assistance.

3. In this context, the World Bank, European Union (EU), and other donors became involved in food security support to Guinea-Bissau. The Emergency Food Security Support Project (EFSSP), in the amount of € 2.87 million, was financed from the European Union Food Crisis Rapid Response Facility Trust Fund (EUFRF) under the Global Food Crisis Response Program (GFRP). It was designed as parallel financing to a similar on-going World Bank project (the Guinea-Bissau EFSSP) that was funded through the Food Price Crisis Response Trust Fund (FPCR).

4. The EUFRF-supported project was intended to complement and help scale up the FPCR-supported project. Although it was an emergency response to short-term food security issues for the most vulnerable elements of the population, the EFSSP also sought to ease critical medium-term bottlenecks in food production (especially rice production). To meet immediate food needs, under the school feeding program, the project was designed to provide one meal each day to 28,000 students in 191 schools for one school year (three semesters, for a total of 160 days). Under a food-for-work program, it was aimed to make food available for 18,900 people through 162,000 days of employment to rehabilitate 300 kilometers of feeder road in rural areas within 5 regions (Bafata, Biombo, Cacheu, Gabu, and Oio). The EFSSP would also enable about 2,000 smallholders to produce 1,000 additional tons of paddy rice through subprojects (micro-projects) and the

1 distribution of sufficient improved seed and fertilizer to plant rice in 1,000 hectares, and it would support micro-projects through grants to farmer groups. The road rehabilitation, dissemination of rice production technology and knowledge, and the micro-projects all had the potential to improve food security over the medium term.

1.2 Original Project Development Objectives (PDO) and Key Indicators 5. The PDO was to improve access to food for the most vulnerable population of the Member Country, including children, and to increase smallholder rice production in the Selected Areas. As mentioned, the project would also finance activities to address the medium-term implications of the food security crisis and complement activities under the FPCR-funded EFSSP. The project had four PDO outcome indicators: (i) numbers of preschool and primary students receiving at least one meal per day; (ii) number of workdays (rations distributed) provided to rural producers in food-for-work activities; (iii) number of beneficiaries of the food-for-work program; and (iv) metric tons of paddy rice produced in newly rehabilitated areas under the project.

1.3 Revised PDO (as approved by original approving authority), Key Indicators, and reasons/justification

The PDO was not revised.

1.4 Main Beneficiaries

6. The project was intended to benefit several primary target groups and beneficiaries. The project had developed objective criteria for the selection of target groups and beneficiaries. These criteria were spelled out in the Operations Manual and were applied in a very transparent and participatory manner. Children and members of other vulnerable groups would benefit immediately from food distribution. Small- scale/poor farmers would benefit from rapidly receiving, on a demand-driven basis, critical agricultural inputs (improved seed, fertilizer) and agricultural implements to increase the productivity of key food crops. Farmers and others in the rural population would benefit from the rehabilitation of feeder roads. Capacity building would improve the provision of technical advice to smallholders and their organizations.

7. The World Bank and EC involvement brought in considerable global experience and knowledge related to supporting pro-poor programs and smallholder farmers in countries emerging from conflict, such as Guinea-Bissau. Based on that experience, the EFSSP was designed to use a community- and demand-based approach to ensure that beneficiaries would have a say in determining which project activities best met their needs and could be sustained. The project included six of the country’s eight regions: Biombo, Bissau, Cacheu, and Oio in the North and Bafata and Gabu in the East. Areas selected for the project met the following criteria: They had favorable agro-climatic conditions for rice production, significant population density, were accessible throughout the year, had access to markets, and had some supporting rural infrastructure. The North, which is most vulnerable to poverty, is characterized by high levels of food insecurity and a high proportion of vulnerable groups, but it also has significant potential for long-term sustainable development.

2

1.5 Original Components

8. The Project consisted of three components: (i) Support to the Most Vulnerable Population; (ii) Support for Increasing Food Production; and (iii) Project Coordination, Monitoring, and Evaluation. Component 1: Support to the Most Vulnerable Population (€ 2.05 million) 9. This component, which was implemented by the World Food Programme (WFP), was designed to support the most vulnerable members of the population, especially children, through (i) a school feeding program, and (ii) a food-for-work program to rehabilitate feeder roads. The financing provided through this project made it possible to increase the school feeding program from an estimated 14,000 students to 28,000 students. The food-for-work program was designed to rehabilitate 300 kilometers of feeder roads and provide food for 18,900 beneficiaries. Altogether, the project would distribute about 1,477 metric tons of food commodities to beneficiaries of both programs (617 tons for the school feeding program and 860 tons for the food-for-work program).

Component 2: Support for Increasing Food Production (€ 0.53 million) 10. This component, which was implemented by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) through a Technical Coordination Unit (TCU), was designed to: (i) promote food production through the distribution of improved seed and fertilizer; (ii) provide matching grants to groups of smallholder farmers to finance micro-projects related to small-scale agricultural infrastructure, production, processing, and marketing; and (iii) strengthen MARD’s technical capacity to assist smallholders and their organizations. Although the project was designed to support diversification and production of all food crops, the intervention focused primarily on increasing paddy rice production. Component 3: Project Coordination, Monitoring, and Evaluation (€ 0.29 million) 11. The objective of this component was to enhance MARD’s capacity to coordinate project implementation, public awareness (visibility), monitoring, evaluation, and resource management, in accordance with the EFSSP’s objectives and procedures. The preparation of the Operations Manual, Communication Strategy, the Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF), and Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) was also part of this component.

1.6 Revised Components

12. The project components were not revised.

1.7 Other significant changes

13. The design, scope, scale, and implementation arrangements for the project did not change during its implementation. The closing date was extended, however, from August 31, 2011 to December 31, 2011. The Government of Guinea-Bissau and WFP requested the extension for three reasons: (i) the disbursement of funds was initially

3

delayed due to the need to prepare Environmental and Social Management framework (EMSF) and the Resettlement Action Plan (RAP); (ii) additional time was needed to complete the rehabilitation of feeder roads; and (iii) the initial closing date fell in the middle of the rice-growing season (July–December).

2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes

2.1 Project Preparation, Design, and Quality at Entry

14. The EU-funded project was prepared by the same task team that supported implementation of the FPCR-funded emergency food security project. The design of the EU-funded project very much reflected the design and emerging lessons of the on- going FPCR-funded project. The use of the WFP for implementing component 1 of the project minimized delays in implementation and prevented elite capture. The WFP had extensive experience in the country in implementing school feeding program as well as food for work programs. The school feeding and food-for-work programs were very effective in providing access to food among vulnerable populations, including children, providing employment, and bringing new agricultural land into production.

15. Appropriate measures were put in place to mitigate potential risks. At appraisal, the overall risk was rated Substantial. Despite the limited scope of the activities conducted under this operation and the use of implementation mechanisms that had already been tested in the country under the on-going project, the national governance, fiduciary, and operating environment justified the risk rating. The mitigation strategy included providing technical support, using established implementation mechanisms with tested financial management and procurement frameworks, and, when possible, using established delivery mechanisms (such as the use of WFP). Both the risk assessment and mitigation strategy seem to have worked, since no major issues were reported during implementation.

2.2 Implementation

16. The Project Steering Committee, chaired by the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, was key for successful implementation of the project The Steering Committee was responsible for: (i) approving the annual work program and the budget; (ii) providing necessary policy guidance to the Technical Coordination Unit (TCU); (iii) addressing any emerging operational problems that were likely to affect progress in project implementation; and (iv) providing general oversight during the implementation of this project. Overall, the system worked very well.

17. Component 1 was implemented by WFP, in light of extensive experience gained in implementing the school feeding program over several years as well as the school feeding program and the food for work program (in rehabilitating rice fields) under the on-going food security project. Arrangements for collaboration were detailed in (i) the Grant Agreement with the World Bank; and (ii) a Letter of Understanding with the Government of Guinea-Bissau. Because a framework and mechanism for collaboration between WFP and the World Bank had already been established, funds could be

4 channeled rapidly to respond to the emergency and reach children through the school feeding program relatively quickly.

18. Component 2 was implemented by MARD’s Rural Engineering Department with support from the TCU and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The component was designed to provide demand-based support, in the form of matching grants, to smallholder farmer groups (both men and women) for small-scale production, processing, and marketing micro-projects. The implementation arrangements for the micro-projects included the following steps and elements: identification, appraisal, evaluation, approval, and implementation.

19. The implementation arrangements for the micro-projects included specific steps to be followed by beneficiaries, NGOs, and the government from the identification to the implementation of the micro-projects. These steps were instrumental for micro- projects to be implemented successfully, since they clarified the process for all involved and prevented any elite capture.

20. Two factors enabled the project’s generally successful implementation. First, the geographical area and beneficiaries covered by the project were identified using clear and transparent guidelines. Second, the project was implemented in a decentralized way, at the regional rather than the central level.

21. The main difficulty encountered during implementation was to find reliable contractors to rehabilitate feeder roads under the food-for-work program implemented by the WFP, coupled with weak capacity in the main government counterpart—the Department of Roads and Bridges in the Ministry of Infrastructure (MOI). This technical department was given the responsibility for establishing feeder road standards, as per government guidelines, helping in the selection of the contractors, and monitoring the quality of the rehabilitation work. During implementation, it became clear that a major issue was that incentives for contractors were limited by the limited resources available to rehabilitate 300 kilometers of feeder roads; especially given the limited time available to undertake this emergency work (that short period was further reduced by the rains in the long rainy season).

22. As a result, the project initially encountered two main problems: delayed rehabilitation of feeder roads and poor quality of the early road work. The problems were overcome during phase 2 of the rehabilitation work by: (i) tightening the selection parameters for the contractors by considering only those contractors that were highly qualified and had their own equipment (which had to be capable of performing the type of work to be undertaken); and (ii) improving coordination between WFP, MOI, and MARD through regular meetings and pro-active involvement by WFP. In the end, all 300 kilometers of feeder roads were rehabilitated on time and met quality standards established by MOI.

23. Five supervision missions were conducted while the project was implemented.

5

2.3 Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Design, Implementation and Utilization

24. The M&E system was weak initially. The project was not able to implement a strong management information system (MIS) at the central level in order to build local institutional capacity as well as to oversee data collection, analysis, and the provision of feedback to project managers and stakeholders — an important function, given the wide geographical distribution of the project’s activities. To compensate for this slow progress at the central level, the regional offices collected and tracked data related to road rehabilitation, numbers of children that received daily meals, and numbers of smallholders that had access to agricultural inputs and whose subprojects were approved and implemented. During implementation, M&E was strengthened through training related to the design and implementation of M&E systems. MARD staff members were also trained in data collection and analysis. In a country with weak M&E capacity, this contribution of the project was important and essential for building institutional capacity in the country.

2.4 Safeguard and Fiduciary Compliance

25. Safeguards. The client complied with all safeguard provisions related to Environment Assessment (OP/BP 4.01), Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04), Pest Management (OP/BP4.09), and Involuntary Resettlement (OP 4.12). The project prepared an Environment and Social Management Framework (ESMF) and Resettlement Action Plan (RAP). Compliance with safeguards was rated Satisfactory by the supervision missions and at the time of the Implementation Completion Report (ICR) preparation.

26. Financial management. With the exception of one occasion where the government has to return funds to the Bank (about US$1,000) paid incorrectly to consultants, no major issues were reported in relation to financial management. The auditors issued an unqualified opinion of the 2010 accounts. Overall performance was rated Satisfactory during the last supervision mission. The Account system operated satisfactorily.

27. Procurement. WFP used its own procurement and financial management procedures to implement Component 1, and no major issues were reported. The government had demonstrated adequate capacity to carry out procurement based on experience with the FPCR-funded emergency food security project.

2.5 Post-completion Operation/Next Phase

28. The project was considered successful by the Government of Guinea-Bissau in using an emergency approach to support vulnerable populations and at the same time create medium term sustainable capacity to increase food production in the country, especially rice. The lessons learned under this project have already been used in designing an envisaged Additional Financing to the on-going FPCR-funded project in the amount of US$7 million from FPCR resources. The Additional Financing will extend successful activities under the EUFRF-funded project to other regions in the

6

country. The Additional Financing will continue to place emphasis on sustainability and reinforce the capacities of smallholders, government institutions, and other stakeholders to enhance operation and maintenance (O&M) arrangements for infrastructure rehabilitated under the EU-funded project.

3. Assessment of Outcomes

3.1 Relevance of Objectives, Design, and Implementation Rating: Satisfactory

29. The project’s objectives, design, and implementation were highly relevant, and its objectives remain relevant to the beneficiaries and to agriculture and rural development as a whole in Guinea-Bissau. The project design was relevant for addressing emergency needs as well as medium-term institutional capacity and food security issues. The implementation arrangements were well suited to the project’s emergency support task and remained relevant throughout the life of the project. Increasing domestic rice production remains a priority in the Government’s National Agriculture Investment Plan (PNIA) for the next 15 years. The Bank’s Country Assistance Strategy supports the PNIA; the additional resources provided will be used to increase agricultural production and productivity through improved technology. Increasing rice production and productivity remains a national priority.

3.2 Achievement of Project Development Objectives Rating: Satisfactory

30. Based on the project’s outcome and intermediate indicators, the PDOs was achieved successfully by the end of the project. Achievement of the outcome indicators is summarized in Table 1. All expected outcomes were successfully achieved or even exceeded agreed targets. One meal was provided daily to, on an average, 28,030 students for 217 days (surpassing the target of 160 days under the school feeding program). Food was provided for 168,000 workdays, against the target of 162,000 workdays under the food-for-work program. A total of 53,452 beneficiaries—against a target of 18,900—benefited during feeder road rehabilitation under the food-for-work program. The amount of paddy produced on 1,000 hectares owing to the distribution and use of modern rice seed and fertilizer was 1,877 tons compared to the planned 1,000 tons. Almost half (48 percent) of students benefiting from the school feeding program were female; all students benefitting from the take- home ration program — a mechanism for encouraging girls to stay in school — were female (on average, 3456 students). The share of female students reached by the school feeding and take-home ration programs combined was 54 percent. In addition, 52 percent of the beneficiaries under the food-for-work program were women.

7

Table 1: Completion of Project Outcome Indicators

Project Outcome Indicator Status of Indicator Planned Achieved % Achieved Preschool and primary students receiving at 28,000 28,030 100 least one meal a day (number) Workdays (rations distributed to rural producers) in food-for-work activities 162,000 168,000 104 (number of days) Beneficiaries of food-for-work program 18,900 53,452 283 (number) Paddy rice produced in the newly 1,000 1,877 188 rehabilitated areas under the project (ton)

31. All the expected outputs were successfully achieved (Table 2). On average, 28,030 meals were served for 217 days under the school feeding program and 3,456 rations were provided under the take-home ration program. Three hundred kilometers of feeder road were fully rehabilitated in rural areas served by the project. The project also procured and distributed 60 tons of improved rice seed and 50 tons of urea and compost fertilizer (NPK). Farmers planted 1,000 hectares to improved rice seed and applied the recommended dose of fertilizer on 600 hectares of lowland rice (note that fertilizer is not recommended on mangrove rice land). The 64 micro-projects approved and implemented. These micro-projects dealt mainly with production and post-harvest management (processing, storage, and transport).

Table 2: Completion of Intermediate Indicators

Intermediate Indicator Completion rate December 2011 Planned Actual % Achieved Component 1

Students receiving one meal a day (number) 28,000 28,030 100

Roads rehabilitated (km) 300 300 100

Component 2

Seed procured and distributed (ton) 60 60 100

Fertilizer procured and distributed to farmers 50 50 100 (ton)

Area planted to improved rice seed and receiving adequate dosage of fertilizer for low 1,000 1,000 100 land rice (ha)

Micro-projects approved under implementation 64 64 100

8

3.3 Efficiency Rating: Satisfactory

32. Given the emergency nature of the project, a detailed economic and financial analysis was not undertaken in advance of implementation. The project focused on feeding vulnerable schoolchildren and implementing a food-for-work program for the rural poor to rehabilitate feeder roads, which constituted 71 percent of project costs. By rehabilitating feeder roads, the project generated direct as well indirect employment in rural areas. The 300 kilometers of road rehabilitated under the project had not been repaired since independence in 1974. The rehabilitated feeder roads are likely to have a major impact on the economic life of the adjacent villages by providing better access to agricultural markets, better schools, colleges, and hospitals. During field visits by the Bank missions, EU delegation, and government teams, villagers reported that feeder roads are already having a substantial impact on their economic and social lives. The project also generated benefits associated with higher rice yields on 1,000 hectares following the provision of improved rice seed, chemical fertilizer, and advice on agronomic practices (particularly for rice). Given the high returns to investments in seed and fertilizer, farmers are likely to continue using those inputs as well as the improved practices. In this primarily agrarian economy, such benefits are likely to have long-term positive impacts on village life, agricultural production and poverty reduction in the rural areas. The project’s contribution to strengthening institutional capacity in the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) at both central and regional levels is also likely to have a major impact after the life of the project.

33. The project was completed with minor extension of the closing date (four months) and the flow of funds worked well with both implementation partners.

3.4 Justification of Overall Outcome Rating Rating: Satisfactory

34. The overall project rating of Satisfactory is justified, given that the PDO and outcome indicators were relevant and achieved (in some cases exceeding the target) within the relatively short implementation period (18 months). It is important to note that the project was rated Moderately Satisfactory up to the last Implementation Status Report. Although most outcome indicators were completed by August 31, 2011 the project closing date was extended to allow the completion of the roads that were under rehabilitation. The rehabilitation of the roads was completed after the last supervision mission undertaken in November 2011. Because of this reason the implementation progress was rated Moderately Satisfactory up to the last mission.

3.5 Overarching Themes, Other Outcomes, and Impacts

(a) Poverty Impacts, Gender Aspects, and Social Development

35. This project dealt with three major themes: the provision of food to students, food for work (road rehabilitation), and assistance to smallholders to increase rice production. The

9 outcomes and impacts related to each theme have positive implications for reducing poverty, addressing gender issues, and promoting social development.

36. According to WFP, the school feeding program in Guinea-Bissau not only provided much-needed food every day to 28,000 students (about half of whom were girls) but also increased the enrollment rate, attendance rate, and pass rate and reduced the dropout rate. This is a major achievement in a very short period of implementation. The 27 roads rehabilitated through the food-for-work program already benefit 59 communities and over 100 villages. Aside from gaining stronger linkages with markets and improved commercial opportunities, households near the rehabilitated roads will benefit from much better access to higher education and healthcare.

37. The project supported 64 micro-projects involving production and post-harvest activities. The training and improved incomes provided through those micro-projects will enable farmer groups to sustain their activities. Farmer groups are already have a system in place that charge a nominal fee for use of the equipment provided under micro-projects, and the accumulated funds will be used for regular maintenance or replacement of the equipment after its useful life is over. In February 2012, the World Bank mission, EU delegation, and government team visited several villages where micro-projects were implemented. They saw the use of rice mills obtained through the project and visited vegetable gardens established by groups of women farmers. The gardens—planted to lettuce, tomatoes, bell peppers, hot peppers, beans, cucumbers, and other crops—will clearly have a positive impact on the household income and nutrition and be sustainable over time. The women farmers were very proud of their achievements.

38. In summary, the development impact of these intervention can be divided into six categories:

(i) Food security for vulnerable populations. Through the school feeding program and the food-for-work program, over 28,000 students received one meal per day for 217 days and almost 53,452 individuals obtained food in exchange for working to rehabilitate roads. (ii) Food security for farmers. Approximately, 2,350 farmers obtained improved rice seed, fertilizer, and knowledge of recommended agronomic practices for rice. Aside from the immediate increase in rice yields, farmers gained knowledge that they can use in the future to maintain or increase rice yields and thus improve their food security in the medium term. (iii) Food access for the rural population. The rehabilitated feeder roads provide 59 large communities and over 100 villages with better access to markets to purchase agricultural inputs and sell outputs (including rice). The resulting increase in production and productivity of rice and high- value crops such as vegetables will provide more (and more diverse) food to these communities.

10

(iv) More employment. The food-for-work program directly employed rural people but also created opportunities to generate indirect employment both within and outside agriculture. (v) Additional income. Farmers increased their income though improved agricultural practices and rural laborers increased their incomes through new employment opportunities. (vi) New knowledge and capacity. Staff of MARD received new knowledge to provide better service to farmers. Farmers improved their knowledge through training by NGOs, particularly training on how to maintain feeder roads, implement micro-projects, and use improved practices to grow paddy. A rice expert hired under the project trained farmers in improved methods for rice cultivation and rice seed production.

(b) Institutional Change/Strengthening

39. The TCU under MARD was responsible for coordinating all project activities and the agencies involved in their implementation. The project may have been small in terms of funding (at € 2.87 million), but many agencies benefitted from working with each other during its implementation—among them MARD, the TCU, WFP, NGOs, World Bank, and EU. The project interventions engaged three major international organizations (including the EU as a donor) as well as the government, the private sector, and the civil society of a still-fragile, post-conflict country. Given that the project was an emergency response to a worsening food security threat, it was governed as expeditiously as possible. For example, rather than developing new procedures for interaction, all of the organizations involved followed their own internal rules and procedures, although they were not always consistent across organizations. Despite the resulting challenges for coordination and the chain of command across organizations, all of the participating organizations performed beyond the initially agreed parameters to deliver results in a timely and effective manner. For example, WFP addressed some of the supply chain problems encountered during implementation through proactive efforts and community involvement.

40. To improve the likelihood that the rehabilitated feeder roads would be maintained regularly, Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) were signed with 59 Community Management Committees to maintain the roads, and all committees and communities received the appropriate training from local NGOs (which had been trained in road maintenance in coordination with MOI) as well as necessary tools. This arrangement to provide the local population with the basic skills and means for essential road maintenance is extremely low cost, seems quite successful, and should have a long- term impact.

(c) Other Unintended Outcomes and Impacts (positive or negative)

41. The communities and smallholder groups assisted through this project are now better trained, equipped, and prepared to champion their own development agendas. Through the project, they have actively partnered with the government and donors to identify roads for rehabilitation, create management committees, and design micro- projects funded through the project.

11

3.6 Summary of Findings of Beneficiary Survey and/or Stakeholder Workshops

42. Given the emergency nature of the project and very short period for its implementation, no beneficiary survey or stakeholder workshop was organized. The TCU and supervision missions organized several meetings with beneficiaries and stakeholders to obtain first-hand information about the project’s status and discuss the likely impacts of project activities. As part of this process, several mission involving the World Bank, EU, and government representatives visited various communities participating in the project in different parts of the country. The feedback received from beneficiaries and stakeholders indicated that the project’s interventions not only had a positive immediate impact but seemed likely to be sustained over time.

4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome Rating: Moderate

43. The Moderate rating stems from the fact that the project’s short-term activities to improve food security for vulnerable populations were not designed to be sustainable. For example, to sustain the school feeding program implemented under the project, the WFP would require donors to provide resources (cash or food). Given the current level of food insecurity in Guinea-Bissau, it is quite probable that some donors will continue to provide resources for the school feeding program, and for the present, the program remains very active in Guinea-Bissau.

44. As far as rural feeder roads are concerned, the project has put in place a sustainable maintenance system through the Community Management Committees. As mentioned, the communities were trained in proper road maintenance and received the tools to maintain the roads rehabilitated under this project.

45. Similarly, farmers are expected to continue using improved agronomic practices and improved agricultural inputs, mainly because the returns to investments in these activities are high and are expected to remain high for rice production. In any case, given the high level of poverty (hence low household savings) and poorly developed credit institutions, farmers may not have resources to purchase agricultural inputs. Input supply can also be a problem, as some inputs are produced locally but others (such as fertilizer) are imported from neighboring countries. Since most rice production is rain-fed, sustaining rice production at current levels also depends on the timeliness and adequacy of rainfall.

12

5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance

5.1 Bank Performance

(a) Bank Performance in Ensuring Quality at Entry Rating: Satisfactory

46. The World Bank has been responsible for administering this EU Trust Fund Grant made to the Government of Guinea-Bissau. The main objective of the Grant was to provide parallel financing for the Emergency Food Security Support Project.

47. During preparation, the main focus of the World Bank was to design the project in cooperation with MARD and WFP. For this purpose, the team rightly chose to rely heavily on the design and implementation arrangements in use for the on-going FPCR- funded emergency project. The team played a very proactive role in ensuring that all technical, fiduciary (financial management and procurement), and safeguard arrangements were fully understood by the implementing agencies. Some of the safeguard requirements (particularly the ESMF and RAP) were relatively new for the implementing agencies; the World Bank had facilitated preparation of these documents and made sure that they were implemented, where appropriate.

(b) Quality of Supervision Rating: Satisfactory

48. The Bank organized regular project supervision missions throughout the project’s implementation. Supervision teams involved staff with relevant skills and qualifications, such as transport specialists, community development specialists, economists, and social and environmental safeguard specialists, among others. The supervision reports were considered of high quality and very useful by the implementing agencies. The missions reviewed the complete set of potential implementation issues, including conformity with safeguards as well as procurement, financial management, and all fiduciary aspects of the project. Successive missions made recommendations based on their findings, which were discussed with partners and the government. The Task Team Leader was based in the region, spoke the local language, and was in regular contact with the Project Coordinator on the progress of implementation as well as any emerging implementation problems. WFP had dedicated staff members that coordinated the work with MARD and were always available during the Bank supervision missions. Collaboration between the Bank missions and the EU’s local delegation in Guinea-Bissau was also very good. The EU was always invited to join supervision missions and participated with local technical staff, especially with respect to supervising progress on feeder roads.

49. It is important to report that at the end of each mission the Bank team prepared an Aide Memoire which was discussed with both the implementation partners and with the EU Delegation in Bissau. As a follow up to the supervision missions, the Bank team also prepared an Implementation Status Report (ISR) using internal Bank system. In total six ISRs were prepared for this project but only the last two 5 and 6 were properly archived due to malfunction of the system. Initially the Portal considered both

13

Guinea-Bissau Emergency Food Security Support Projects (P113468 and P120214) as one operation (project) with the same reporting arrangements. But these were two parallel projects and each one with its reporting requirements. It took some time for the Bank to delink into two operations and when it was delinked ISRs 1 to 4 were lost.

(c) Justification of Rating for Overall Bank Performance Rating: Satisfactory

50. The Bank team paid great attention to the quality of project supervision and each mission made appropriate recommendations to improve implementation as it is documented in the Aide Memoires. Supervision of the project from the field contributed to a hands-on approach and rapid problem solving. The recommendations made during the supervision missions were instrumental in guiding corrective action by the partner institution to conclude the road work. The feedback received by the Bank team from the Government of Guinea-Bissau, the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD), the regional governors, other stakeholders, and beneficiaries has been very positive.

5.2 Borrower Performance

(a) Government Performance Rating: Satisfactory

51. The Grant under this project had two Recipients: WFP and the Government of Guinea-Bissau. Both performed well. The Government of Guinea-Bissau, through the TCU, was responsible for coordinating all activities under the Grant. MARD was designated as the main government agency responsible for project implementation. Wrap-up meetings for the Bank’s supervision missions were always chaired by H.E. the Minister of MARD, who was very active in solving any pending issues brought to his attention, indicating full ownership on the part of the Government of Guinea- Bissau of the design and implementation of this project.

(b) Implementing Agency or Agencies Performance Rating: Satisfactory

52. The TCU, under MARD, was responsible for coordinating overall implementation of this project. Despite having limited experience in implementing World Bank projects, the TCU pulled together a very good team of capable staff and strengthened its capacity through appropriate training under the project. The Project Director (who is the Director of the Rural Engineering Department, MARD) provided the necessary leadership, motivated TCU staff and developed very good working relations with the cooperating agencies (including EU and WFP). The Project Director deserves special recognition for the success of this project.

14

(c) Justification of Rating for Overall Borrower Performance Rating: Satisfactory

53. Both the WFP and government agencies provided the necessary ownership and commitment for this project and performed very well during its design and implementation.

6. Lessons Learned

54. Collaboration among implementing agencies is key. As indicated, the successful implementation of this project can be attributed to close collaboration and coordination among the multiple agencies involved, including the TCU (MARD), WFP, EU, and World Bank teams. In the absence of this teamwork and close collaboration, it would have been difficult to design and implement this project successfully in Guinea- Bissau.

55. Involving United Nations agencies under government-led programs could be a challenge. The World Bank was very pleased to work with WFP, which successfully implemented Component 1 of the project. No problems were experienced at the working level. Even so, the very successful collaboration and other positive outcomes of this project would have improved further if WFP had been more transparent in sharing information with the TCU and World Bank on a timely basis; strengthened staff and/or NGO capacity to monitor implementation in all regions over time; more stringently evaluated the qualifications of the Phase 1 contractors for rehabilitating feeder roads; and evaluated the impact of the component’s activities separately rather than as part of its overall program (as done for the school feeding program). Furthermore, problems arose in providing a consistent supply of food for the school feeding and food-for-work programs, so students and work program beneficiaries did not always receive the planned basket of food commodities. Future collaboration with WFP should address these issues prior to planned collaboration and project implementation.

56. Appropriate design and implementation of project M&E system is critical. Successful project implementation depends on monitoring progress over time and informing project management of emerging implementation problems before they become serious. The M&E system for this project was initially weak, but a management information system was established in the course of implementation to strengthen M&E. Although the project was an emergency operation, a well- functioning M&E system would have facilitated better monitoring and captured additional lessons from implementation.

7. Comments on Issues Raised by Grantee/Implementing Agencies/Donors

(a) Grantee/Implementing agencies

57. The Government’s ICR is summarized in Annex 7.

15

58. A summary of the WFP’s completion report is presented in Annex 8.

(b) Co-financiers/Donors

59. The Bank prepared a separate implementation completion report to the EU on the format agreed with EU under the Administrative Agreement between the Bank and the EU. The implementation completion mission for both reports was joint with EU and the main results and conclusions were shared with the EU delegation in Guinea- Bissau. The EU delegation in Bissau was pleased to be invited to the field visits by the government, WFP, and World Bank mission members during project implementation, but recognized that that implementation of some provisions of the special joint visibility guidelines could have been improved, e.g., The EU was expected to participate in the Steering Committee meetings as observer and they were never invited by Government. The steering committee meetings were chaired by the Minister of Agriculture and were used to approve the annual working plans and budget, and reports. These meetings were used approved budgets of both operations (EU and Bank funded) but under Bank financing the bank was not expected to participate in the meetings. The Bank team is pleased with the cooperation established with the EU delegation in Guinea-Bissau.

(c) Other partners and stakeholders (e.g. NGOs/private sector/civil society)

60. A summary of WFP’s completion report is presented in Annex 8.

16

Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing

(a) Project Cost by Component (in €million equivalent)

Component Appraisal Actual/Latest Percentage of Estimate Estimate Appraisal (€ millions) (€ millions) Component 1: Support to the 2,050,000 2,050,000.00 100.0 Most Vulnerable Population Component 2: Support for 530,000 414,833.51 78.3 Increasing Food Production Component 3: Project Coordination, Monitoring, 290,000 237,615.91 81.9 and Evaluation Total Baseline Cost 2,870,000 2,702,449.42 94.2 Physical Contingencies 0.00 0.00 0.0 Price Contingencies 0.00 0.00 0.0 Total Project Costs 2,870,000 2,702,449.42 94.2 Project Preparation Costs NA NA NA Total Financing Required 2,870,000

(b) Financing Source of Funds Type of Appraisal Actual/Latest Percentage Cofinancing Estimate Estimate of Appraisal (€ millions) (€ millions) European Union Food Crisis Rapid Response Facility Trust Parallel 2,870,000 2,870,000 100 Fund

17

Annex 2. Outputs by Component

Component 1: Support for the Most Vulnerable Population

Table A2.1: Output Indicators for Component 1 Output Indicator Completion Rate December 2011 Planned Actual % Students receiving one meal 28,000 28,030 100 a day (number) Roads rehabilitated (km) 300 300 100

Subcomponent 1.1: School Feeding Activities

This subcomponent was designed to support the school feeding program by providing one meal a day for 28,000 students in two shifts during three semesters (one school year has 3 semesters). The school feeding program actually lasted for four semesters from March 2010 to June 2011 in 191 schools in 5 regions (Bafata, Biombo, Cacheu, Oio, and Gabu). A total of 1,085.7 tons of food (rice, corn-soya blend, vegetable oil, and sugar) was used for feeding, on average, 28,030 students. This number exceeded the original target of feeding 28,000 students for three semesters. Approximately 48 percent of the students were female. In addition, a take-home ration of rice was provided to girls to promote food security and provide additional incentives for girls to stay in school. Based on annual surveys undertaken for its entire school feeding program in Guinea-Bissau, WFP reported that the enrollment rate, attendance rate and the pass rate improved and the dropout rate fell.

Subcomponent 1.2: Food-for-Work to Increase Food Production

The project supported communities to clear bushes and trees on 300 kilometers of feeder road in rural areas. The clearing prepared the roads for contractors to use heavy equipment to rehabilitate the roads. A total of 503.8 tons of food (472.6 tons of rice, 27.4 tons of vegetable oil, and 3.8 tons of salt) was distributed to 53,452 beneficiaries, substantially exceeding the target of 18,900 beneficiaries. The large difference between the target and actual numbers of beneficiaries is partly owing to heavy demand for work and to adjustments in food deliveries by family size. Overall, 168,000 workdays were provided to people from local communities versus the target of 162,000 workdays. By the end of December 2011, road rehabilitation had been completed in two phases (200 kilometers in phase 1 and 100 kilometers in phase 2) as planned, fully meeting the original project objective.

This program required additional time to implement, but its impact on the lives of local communities is already evident. Emergency rehabilitation of feeder roads was crucial for promoting market linkages and increasing rice and food production in line with the government’s vision for rural development. It is important to note that the government chose to rehabilitate 300 kilometers of feeder road in rural areas in consultation with stakeholders. The main justification for pursuing extensive emergency rehabilitation of

18 unpaved feeder roads was to provide access to a larger number of rural communities across five regions rather than spending the subcomponent’s limited financial resources (€ 1.27 million) on intensive rehabilitation of a few kilometers of roads serving only a few communities. The Governor of Bafata told the team (representatives from the EC delegation, World Bank mission, and TCU) on February 15, 2012 that rehabilitation of feeder roads was the best strategy in Bafata and is already promoting agricultural and rural development. The Governor also said that the roads would have a significant impact on promoting education and saving lives.

Component 2: Support for Increasing Food Production

Table A2.2: Output Indicators for Component 2

Output Indicator Completion Rate December 2011 Planned Actual % Seed procured and distributed (ton) 60 60 100 Fertilizer procured and distributed to 50 50 100 farmers (ton) Area cultivated with improved rice seed 1,000 1,000 100 and adequate dosage of fertilizer (ha) Micro-projects approved under 64 64 100 implementation (number)

Subcomponent 2.1: Matching Grants for Food Production

The main activities carried out under this subcomponent were:  Procurement and distribution of 60 tons of seed of improved rice varieties and 50 tons of chemical fertilizer for 2,000 smallholders and 14,000 beneficiaries. In reality, the amount of seed and fertilizer was adjusted to the size of each farmer’s rice area. As a result, 2,350 smallholders and 16,450 beneficiaries actually benefitted from the use of improved rice seed and chemical fertilizer. It is important to note that fertilizer is not recommended for use on mangrove rice land and was not given to farmers growing mangrove rice. Improved rice seed was planted on 1,000 hectares (600 hectares of lowland rice area and 400 hectares of mangrove rice area), and fertilizer was used on 600 hectares of lowland rice belonging to smallholder farmers. The seeds and fertilizer were used to increase rice yields and rice production.  Provision of resources to finance production and post-harvest micro-projects for 64 communities. These micro-projects consisted of different activities, materials, and equipment, including small rice mills, maize mills, small storage facilities, and improved vegetable seed. All of the material for 64 micro-projects was distributed by the TCU by the project closing date.  Increasing paddy production. Approximately, 1,877 tons of paddy rice was produced, equivalent to about 1,221 tons of clean rice. Production exceeded the target of 1,000 tons of paddy by 88 percent.

19

Subcomponent 2.2: Technical Support to MARD

Four out of six planned training programs were organized for 26 MARD technicians. The objectives were to strengthen their capacity to support the agricultural activities of smallholder farmers in the project areas (particularly rice production) and to improve early warning capacity in relation to food production and food security. The training included information on soil and water analysis, statistical analysis, topography, and M&E activities. The two remaining training programs on procurement and project management were not undertaken because the TCU coordinator could not participate. In addition, farmers received training in improved rice production and rice seed production techniques. Following the project, MARD is better prepared to address the concerns of smallholder farmers.

Component 3: Project Coordination, Monitoring, and Evaluation

This component was designed to enhance MARD’s capacity to implement the project in accordance with its objectives, including technical and administrative coordination, project resource management, public awareness and visibility initiatives, and M&E. Appropriate actions were undertaken related to the coordination, management, and implementation of the project’s technical and fiduciary aspects as well as the environmental and social safeguard frameworks. Although the field presence of the project’s M&E staff was weak, they provided the information required for monitoring project implementation and impact. The M&E function emphasized monitoring the project from field reports and compiling data rather than undertaking field surveys.

A number of public awareness activities enhanced the project’s visibility as per EC guidelines. The project hired a communication specialist, and in partnership with local radio (radio Sol Mansi), disseminated 24 technical messages on rice production methods to farmers during the rice season. The project also produced informational billboards and installed them in each project location, developed brochures describing project activities and results, and produced a video that was repeatedly broadcast on local television to inform the general public about the project’s efforts to increase food production and food security. Through these various reports, billboards, and videos, as well as meetings, missions, and field visits to which EU representatives were invited, the TCU made a concerted effort to highlight the EU’s role as the project’s funding agency, but the TCU recognizes that some of the special joint visibility guidelines agreed upon by the World Bank and EC could have been implemented better.

The EU representatives attended many of the meetings and field visits with government, WFP, and World Bank representatives, and the Bank team is pleased with the cooperation established with the EU delegation in Bissau.

20

Table A2.3: List of roads rehabilitated by region, management committees created and materials distributed by the Project

Number of Materials distributed (Number) Length of Name of the management Region the road committees Wheel road Hoe Shovel Pickaxe Machete (km) Barrow

Uflé - Oio Encheia 13.5 2 10 10 10 10 10 Quinaque - Biur 16 3 15 15 15 15 15 K3 - Olossato 22 4 20 20 20 20 20 Encheia - Cambia 3.5 1 5 5 5 5 5 Encheia - Fanhe 10 2 10 10 10 10 10 Sub- total 1 65 12 60 60 60 60 60 Gâ-Basse - Bafatá Temanto 20 4 20 20 20 20 20 Gamanudo pacua 20 4 20 20 20 20 20 Cuntuga- Gã- Basse 10 2 10 10 10 10 10 Contuboel- Candjai 10 2 10 10 10 10 10 Sub- total 2 60 12 60 60 60 60 60 Pitche - Gabu candjufa 25 5 25 25 25 25 25 Mafanco - Sonaco 20 4 20 20 20 20 20 Gã - Sissé 10 2 10 10 10 10 10 Sintcha Botche - 10 2 10 10 10 10 10 Sintcha Imabé Sub- Total 3 65 13 65 65 65 65 65 Prabis - Biombo Quicete 8 1 5 5 5 5 5 Prabis - Blonde 1.7 1 5 5 5 5 5 Bissalanca- ponta Vicente 6.8 1 5 5 5 5 5

21

Nova Nhoma - Blom de Bismita 10.9 2 10 10 10 10 10 Agusto Feliz Nguran 10 2 10 10 10 10 10 Estrada Djaal- Ponta Djaal 3.4 1 5 5 5 5 5

Estrada principal - Bolanha Bocomil 2.3 1 5 5 5 5 5 Estrada principal - Bolanha Bissa 2.9 1 5 5 5 5 5 Centro de Safim - Bolanha Incat 4 1 5 5 5 5 5 Sub- Total 4 50 11 55 55 55 55 55

Estrada de Djita - Ilha Cacheu de Djete 12 2 10 10 10 10 10 Sedengal - Apilho 8 1 5 5 5 5 5 Cacheu - Bianga 10 2 10 10 10 10 10 Pelundo Djolmet 20 4 20 20 20 20 20 Ponta Poulo Classical 10 2 10 10 10 10 10 Sub- Total 5 60 11 55 55 55 55 55 300 59 295 295 295 295 295 Total

22

Table A2.4: Distribution of micro projects, distribution of seeds and fertilizers and the number of beneficiaries

Region Number of Distribution (in tons) Beneficiaries (in tons) micro-projects supported Fertilizers Seeds Fertilizers Seeds Cacheu 11 9 10 277 328 Oio 11 10 12 250 483 Bafata 11 10 12 250 400 Gabu 11 10 12 274 400 Biombo 11 6 9 208 572 SAB 9 5 5 132 167 Total 64 50 60 1,391 2,350

23

Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis

A quantitative economic and financial analysis was not undertaken prior to implementing the project, primarily because it was an emergency project to address food insecurity through a large number of diverse activities over a relatively brief period (about 18 months after the project became effective). All of the project’s activities were efficiently implemented to achieve the PDO. In relation to its small size, the project benefitted a large number of people (farmers, consumers, and children) in the short term and created the capacity to grow more rice to improve food security over the long term.

In addition to providing food to vulnerable school children and the rural poor, the project yielded direct benefits by increasing rice yields on 1,000 hectares through the use of improved rice varieties, chemical fertilizer, and improved agronomic practices. Given the high returns to investing in seed and fertilizer, farmers are likely to continue using those inputs as well as the improved agronomic practices.

The project also generated direct as well indirect employment in rural areas by rehabilitating 300 kilometers of feeder roads that had not been rehabilitated since independence in 1974. The improved roads are likely to have a major long-term impact on the economic life of the surrounding villages by providing better access to agricultural markets, better schools, colleges, and hospitals. During field visits, villagers told the Bank mission, EU delegation, and government team that the feeder roads are already substantially affecting their economic and social lives.

The project was also responsible for building capacity in various ways. It disseminated knowledge of improved agricultural practices, particularly for rice, which should have a long-term positive impact in this primarily agrarian economy. The project also strengthened the capacity of TCU staff and MARD to serve farmers better.

In sum, this small project, implemented in a very short time, made significant economic contributions and improved the lives of many families in rural Guinea-Bissau. Some of its development impacts are certain to endure for some time.

The development impacts were of six types (see the discussion in Section 3.5), summarized in Table A3.1 by type of impact.

24

Table A3.1: Types of Development Impacts of EU-funded EFSSP in Guinea-Bissau

Category Impact (i) Food security Through the school feeding program and the food for work for vulnerable program, over 28,000 students received one meal every day for 217 populations days. The food-for-work program to rehabilitate feeder roads reached 53,452 beneficiaries. (ii) Food security Some 2,350 farmers received improved rice seed, fertilizer, and for farmers knowledge about the best agronomic practices for rice cultivation. In one season, rice yields increased; in the medium term, farmers can use their new knowledge to sustain higher rice yields and production and thus improve food security. (iii) Food access The project rehabilitated 300 km of rural feeder roads serving 59 for the rural large communities and over 100 villages in 5 regions. The population renovated roads facilitate access to markets to purchase agricultural inputs and sell surplus produce (including rice), providing incentives to increase production of rice and other high-value crops such as vegetables. (iv) Employment Rural workers were employed under the food-for-work program and the project generated indirect employment in the agricultural and non-agricultural sectors. (v) Income Farmers increased their income though improved agricultural inputs and practices, and rural laborers increased their incomes through additional employment opportunities. (vi) New MARD staff received training to serve farmers better. Farmers knowledge/capacity improved their knowledge through training by NGOs on road maintenance and the implementation of micro-projects. A rice expert hired under the project trained farmers in improved methods for rice cultivation and rice seed production.

25

Annex 4. Grant Preparation and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes

(a) Task Team members Responsibility/ Name Title Unit Specialty Lending/Grant Preparation Aniceto Bila Senior Operations Officer AFTAR TTL Anthony Molle Counsel LEGAF Carmen Pereira Liaison Officer AFCF1 Cheick Traoré Senior Procurement Specialist AFTPC Cheikh A. T. Sagna Senior Social Scientist AFTCS Elisabeth Mekonnen Language Program Assistant AFTAR Jean Philippe Tré Senior Economist AFTAR Luisa Matsinhe Team Assistant AFMMZ Marie-Claudine Fundi Language Program Assistant AFTAR Mohinder Mudahar Economist, Consultant AFTAR Osval R. A. Romao Financial Management Specialist AFTFM Ronnie Hammad Senior Operations Officer AFTRL Sossena Tassew Office Manager AFTAR Wolfgang Chadab Senior Finance Officer CTRFC Yves Prévost Lead Environmental Specialist AFTEN

Supervision/ICR Aniceto Bila Senior Operations Officer AFTAR TTL Bienvenu Rajaonson Senior Environmental Specialist AFTEN Safeguards Cheikh Sagna Safeguard Specialist Safeguards Jose Chembeze Transport Specialist Feeder Roads Marie-Claudine Fundi Language Program Assistant AFTAR Mohinder Mudahar Economist, Consultant AFTAR Economist Osval R. A. Romao Financial Management Specialist AFTFM FM Sidy Diop Senior Procurement Specialist AFTPC Procurement

(b) Staff Time and Cost Stage of Project Cycle Staff Time and Cost (Bank Budget Only) US$ thousands (including No. of staff weeks travel and consultant costs) Lending

Total: NA 44,053 Supervision/ICR Total: NA 281,587

Note: The TF cost for lending was US$ 44,053 and for supervision was US$ 281,597.

26

Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results

A beneficiary survey was not undertaken for this project, although members of the World Bank mission, EU delegation, and government team had an opportunity to meet beneficiaries in several villages during the Implementation Completion Mission in February 2012. They saw some of the micro-projects supported by the project, including rice mills and vegetable gardens, and had a very useful discussion with beneficiaries that lasted several hours.

One of the vegetable gardens belonged to a group of women farmers. It was clear that the garden would not only have a positive impact on household incomes and nutrition but could also be sustained. The women farmers were very proud of their achievements. The project financed 63 other micro-projects such as this.

The February meeting was attended by at least 150 participants from neighboring villages. The Governor of Bafata Region as well as officials of the Department of Agriculture at the regional level also participated. Similar meetings with beneficiaries and stakeholders were organized during the implementation of this project. The feedback was always positive, both in terms of need and likely impact.

27

Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results

No stakeholder workshop was undertaken, but the implementation team interacted directly with beneficiaries and stakeholder during the supervision mission and witnessed the results and impact of this operation.

28

Annex 7. Summary of Grantee's ICR

1. Introduction

The project was designed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) of Guinea-Bissau with support from the World Bank and WFP. This project was funded by the EU and it was designed to parallel the existing project funded through the GFRP Trust Fund. The total amount made available by the EU was € 2.87 million. Similar to the original project, this project was implemented by the WFP (Component 1) and by MARD (Components 2 and 3).

Project Development Objectives and key indicators The PDO was to improve access to food for the most vulnerable population of the Member Country, including children, and to increase smallholder rice production in the Selected Areas. The Project had four PDO-level outcome indicators: (i) preschool and primary students receiving at least one meal per day; (ii) workdays (rations distributed) to rural producers in food-for-work activities; (iii) beneficiaries of the food-for-work program; and (iv) rice produced in new rehabilitated areas under the project.

The expected outputs of the project included: (i) provision of additional meals for 28,000 students for a period of 160 days; (ii) provision of seed and fertilizer to cover an additional 1,000 hectares of cultivated land; and (iii) provision of an additional 64 small grants to smallholder groups. Under the food-for-work program, the project will complement the land rehabilitation work initiated under the existing EFSSP and rehabilitate 300 kilometers of rural feeder roads to improve the access to production areas.

Main beneficiaries The main beneficiaries were: (i) children in preschool and primary school through provision of school feeding programs; (ii) poor farmers through the food-for-work program under the road rehabilitation; (iii) smallholder associations through provision of inputs and capacity-building programs; and (iv) the public in general through rehabilitation of feeder roads.

The project had three components: Component 1: Support to the Most Vulnerable Population (€ 2.05 million) This component, which was implemented by the WFP, was designed to support the most vulnerable population, especially children, through: (i) a school feeding program and (ii) a food-for-work program to rehabilitate feeder roads. The parallel financing increased the funding for this component, resulting in an estimated increase of the school feeding program from 14,000 students to 28,000 students. The food-for-work program was designed to rehabilitate 300 kilometers of feeder roads and provide food for 18,900 beneficiaries. During the implementation period, the project was designed to distribute about 1,477 metric tons of food commodities for both programs (617 metric tons for school feeding program and 860 metric tons for food-for-work program).

29

Component 2: Support for Increasing Food Production (€ 0.53 million) This component, which was implemented by MARD through a Technical Coordination Unit (TCU), was designed: (i) to promote food production through distribution of seed and fertilizer; (ii) to provide matching grants to smallholder farmer groups aimed at financing small-scale agricultural infrastructure, production, processing, and marketing subprojects; and (iii) to strengthen the technical capacity of MARD to assist smallholders and their organizations. While the project was designed to support diversification and production of all food crops, the main focus of intervention was to increase rice production. Component 3: Project Coordination, Monitoring, and Evaluation (€ 0.29 million) The objective of this component was to enhance MARD’s capacity to coordinate project implementation, visibility, M&E, and resources management in accordance with project objectives and procedures. The preparation of the Operation Manual, Communication Strategy, the ESMF, and the RAP was also part of this component.

2. Project Implementation, Monitoring, and Evaluation

Implementation The overall implementation of the project was satisfactory. All key performance indicators were achieved and in some cases exceeded. The project built its implementation structure on that of the existing project, and there were no issues to report. The main constraint was the capacity of private sector firms to implement the feeder roads on time and to agreed standards. Despite these difficulties, which were experienced almost up to the closing date, all roads were rehabilitated to the standard agreed with government. The support provided by the WFP and World Bank was instrumental to accomplish the feeder roads.

Monitoring and evaluation Monitoring and evaluation were weak in project implementation due to lack of skilled personnel in-country, and the project did not foresee an international consultant for this position. Despite this, all indicators were collected at the regional level and compiled at the central level.

30

3. Project Achievements of the Output Indicators

Project Outcome Indicators Baseline Status of Indicators Comments Planned Achieved % of Planned Preschool and primary students receiving at least one meal a 0 28,000 28,030 100 day Workdays (rations distributed to rural producers) in food for 0 162,000 168,000 104 work activities (number of days) Beneficiaries of food-for-work The total number of program participants was 7,636 and there 0 18,900 53,452 283 were 53,452 beneficiaries under the food-for-work program Paddy rice produced in the new 1,200 tons paddy rehabilitated areas under the were produced on a project (t) lowland area covering 600 ha (2 0 1,000 1,877 188 t/ha) and 677 tons in mangrove land covering approximately 400 ha (1.7 t/ha)

3. Sustainability

The project has established management committees and farmer associations in selected areas. These institutions are the key to maintaining feeder roads and to continued production of rice.

4. Assessment of Bank and Government Performance

World Bank

Team composition and quality of supervision

Composition of the World Bank team was generally good, made up by high-profile and experienced people, and covering a wide range of expertise in development areas such as agricultural economics, social and environmental aspects, economics, finance, procurement, and other technical areas. Supervision missions were regular and were successful in identifying problems and quickly finding solutions to the problems identified.

31

Financial management and procurement

With the exception of misunderstandings that happened at the beginning of the project, which ended with other central institutions having to return funds to the Bank, the performance of the Bank team was in general good. They helped to identify the problems in a timely way and indicate the right solutions, according to Bank procedures.

Government Performance

Overall government performance was also good despite overall weak capacity in the country. The agriculture ministry was able to interact with all implementing agencies and followed up on all agreed actions.

5. Lessons Learned

During project implementation there were some difficulties and challenges that the lessons learned could be built on, for example:

 Monitoring and Evaluation are crucial for good project implementation, for the learning process, and for ensuring sustainability by the involved stakeholders. M&E have to be implemented throughout the life of the project, and to that end both activities should be as easy as possible and practical to implement.

32

Annex 8. Comments of Co-financiers and Other Partners/Stakeholders

European Union Food Crisis Rapid Response Facility Trust Fund Summary Report of WFP Completion Report

Introduction

The European Union Food Crisis Rapid Response Facility Trust Fund in the amount of €2.87 million was approved by the World Bank in February 22, 2010 and became effective in May 14, 2010 and closed in December 31, 2011.

The EUFRF has one Project Paper and two Grant Agreements, one with the World Food Program (WFP) to implement Component 1 in the amount of €2,050,000 (TF096348) and the second Agreement with the Government of Guinea-Bissau to implement components 2 and 3 in the amount of €820,000 (TF096347).

The disbursements to WFP were made in July 2010. The PDO of the Project is to improve access to food for the most vulnerable population of the Member Country, including children and increase smallholder rice production in the Selected Areas. The Project has three Components, including: (i) Support to the Most Vulnerable Population; (ii) Support of Increasing Food Production; and (iii) Project Coordination Monitoring and Evaluation.

Component 1- Support to the Most Vulnerable Population (€2.05 million) was designed to designed to support the most vulnerable population especially children, through: (i) a school feeding program; and (ii) a food-for-work program to rehabilitate feeder roads. This financing was designed to increase the funding to this component resulting in an estimated increase of the school feeding program from 14,000 students to 28,000 students. The food-for-work program will rehabilitate 300 km of feeder roads and provide food for 18,900 beneficiaries, over 18 months. This component was expected to purchase about 1,477 metric tons of food commodities for both programs (617 metric tons for school feeding program and 860 metric tons for food-for-work program).

The allocation for Component 1 was €2.05 million, which accounts for almost 71.4% of the total grant. Clearly, this is the most important component under this grant. Within Component 1, the allocation of funds is as follows: 32% for the school feeding program - -SFP (€649,279); 62% for the food for work program – rehabilitation of 300 km feeder roads - - FFW (€1,266,613); and about 6% for indirect cost (€134,112).

The SFP is designed to feed one meal a day to 28,000 pre-primary and primary students in school days for one school year in 191 schools (in five regions of the country (Bafata, Biombo, Cacheu, Gabu and Oio).

Related to Food for Work, according to the results indicators, the project is expected to rehabilitate 300 kilometers (km) of rural feeder roads in five regions of Guinea-Bissau

33

(including Bafata, Biombo, Cacheu, Gabu and Oio) in order to increase food production by improving access of the farming communities to the market towns. The project is also designed to provide food for 162,000 workdays through the FFW program. Roads are rehabilitated by the contractors. However, the initial work related to road clearance is undertaken by the workers from the local communities. Communities were expected to be responsible for road maintenance after the rehabilitated roads are delivered to them.

Activities Implemented

The SFP under this project was completed in June 2011 at the end of the school year. The key achievements of the SFP are: (i) The SFP activities were undertaken for four trimesters (one trimester in 2010 school year and one full school year 2010/11), as opposed to only one school year of three trimesters planned; (ii) the amount of the total food distributed was 1085.7 metric tons (both SF and THR), as opposed to 869.1 metric tons planned (the balance of 216.6 metric tons were contributed by WFP); (iii) the total number of students who were served one hot meal a day during the school days were, on an average, 28,030 (however, the number varies slightly by trimester); (iv) the share of girl students for one meal a day was 48% (the share exceeds 50% if THR girl students are included); (v) on an average, 3456 girl students were provided THR during the 4 trimesters. These are major achievements of providing supplemental food supply to students and thereby contributing to food security. In addition, the SFP in Guinea-Bissau has made positive contributions by improving the enrollment attendance rate and pass rate and reducing the drop-out rate. The SFP also appears to have made a positive contribution to the school attendance by girl students.

Related to Food for work, partially due to initial delays in the release of funds under this project, the implementation of the overall road rehabilitation program was delayed. In any case, the road rehabilitation work was done under two phases: phase 1 for 199.9 km and phase 2 for 100.1 km. There were several problems encountered during the implementation which included which monitoring capacity of the Government Agency which was responsible to provide technical capacity to WFP, weak implementation capacity of the contractors, lack of reliable equipment among other issues.

Despite these constraints, by the closing date December 31, 2011 all 300km feeder roads were completed. A detailed list of the roads rehabilitated under this program is presented on Table 1 below.

34

Table A8.1: Rural roads rehabilitation (April 10 - December 11)

Km % Region Enterprise Road name Item execution plan rehab 1st Phase (199,9 km) Belinca Construçöes Quinaque - Biur 16 16 100 1 Oio Soco estradas K3 - Olossato 22 22 100 Gâ-Basse - Temanto 20 20 100 2 Bafatá Belinca Construçöes Gã Manudo Pácua 20 20 100 Gã Basse-Cuntuba 10 10 100 Pitche - Candjufa 25 25 100 3 Gabu Empreendimento DUMA Mafanco - Sonaco 20 20 100 Prabis - Quicete 8 8 100 Nova Nhoma - Blom de 4 Biombo Alberto Silva / ERCANO 10.9 10.9 100 Bigimita Agusto Felix- Nguran 10 10 100 URTEC Sedengal - Apilho 8 8 100 5 Cacheu Mango Construçöes / Soco estradas Pelundo -Jolmete 20 20 100 Soco estradas Ponta Paulo -Classical 10 10 100 SUB-TOTAL1 199.9 199.9 100 2nd Phase (100,1 km)

Uflé - Encheia 13.5 13.5 100 1 Oio ERCANO Encheia - Cambia 3.5 3.5 100 Encheia - Fanhe 10 10 100 2 Bafatá Empreendimento DUMA Contuboel-Candjai 10 10 100 Gã - Sissé 10 10 100 3 Gabu Empreendimento DUMA Sintcha Botche - Sintcha 10 10 100 Imabé Prabis - Blunde 1.7 1.7 100 Bissalanca - ponta Vicente 6.8 6.8 100 Djaal road - Ponta Djaal 3.4 3.4 100 4 Biombo Soco estradas Main road -Bolanha Bucomil 2.3 2.3 100 Main road -Bolanha Bissá 2.9 2.9 100 Safim Centre - Bolanha Incat 4 4 100 Djita road - Djete Island 12 12 100 5 Cacheu ERCANO Cacheu - Bianga 10 10 100 SUB-TOTAL2 100,1 100 100

TOTAL (SUB-TOTAL 1+2) 300 300 100

35

Sustainability

To ensure the sustainability of rehabilitated infrastructures (roads) in each community, the following actions were carried out: (i) NGO´s community awareness, on the importance of rural roads maintenance;

(ii) Establishment of 59 Steering committees responsible in sensitizing and informing the communities on the road maintenance in every 5 km;

(iii)Signing of partnership protocols between community’s activities supervising NGOs and the 59 steering committees;

(iv) Organizing training sessions for 10 Cooperating partners form different NGOs who will later train 59 steering committees members on rural roads maintenance. The training itself was administered by the technician of the Roads and Bridges General Department, Ministry of Infrastructure.

Purchasing and distribution of 1475 different types of small equipments (hoes, shovels, machetes, pickaxes and wheelbarrows) for the maintenance of rehabilitated rural roads. Each type is composed by 295 units and each steering committee benefitted from 5 units per type.

Constraints in the implementation of the project

During the project implementation the following constraints were found:  Constant malfunction with equipments of the contracted enterprises;

 Lack of spare parts in the domestic market;

 Limited enterprise intervention capacity due to the lack of own equipments;

 Inadequate follow up missions and work supervision by the Ministry of Infrastructure;

 Involve donors such as World bank and European Union on the definition of the rehabilitation model;

36

 Low organizational and participatory capacity of the partners (NGOs) and communities.

Conclusions and recommendation

The conclusions drawn from the implementation of the activities was that the enterprises lacked operational capacity and were not minimally prepared to intervene in the construction sector and or rural roads rehabilitation. Most of the enterprises did not own their equipments, and for those who owned their equipments there were difficulties in obtaining spare parts in the domestic market. Therefore we recommend the following for future interventions:

-An accurate and accountable selection of enterprises; -The use of power and prerogatives by the Ministry of Infrastructure through its Roads and Bridges General Department as the competent body that runs the policy on road traffic sector to follow up the implementation process of any project regarding its intervention area; -Involvement of regional administrative and traditional authorities, NGOs and the benefitting communities in the follow up and maintenance of infrastructures built or rehabilitated; -Population should replant trees in areas where lateritic materials were removed to avoid erosion.

37

Table A8.2: Financial Report

WORLD FOOD PROGRAMME Project Guinea Bissau - PRRPO -EU FCRR TF Grant number: TF 096348-GUB (Statement of Account as of December 31st) European Union Food Crisis Execution Amount of the Cumulative Category Grant Allocated to date % Balance In Euro (1) Direct Operating cost for Part A.1 and A.3 of the Project 649,275 649,275 100% - (2) Direct Operating Costs for Part A.2 of the Project 1,266,613 1,266,613 100% - (3) Indirect Support Costs 134,112 134,112 100% - Total Amount 2,050,000 2,050,000 100% -

38

Annex 9. List of Supporting Documents

1. Emergency Project Paper for the Emergency Food Security Support Project for the Republic of Guinea-Bissau, Report No. 51266-GW, supported by a Grant from European Union Food Crisis Rapid Response Facility trust Fund, World Bank. February 22, 2010.

2. Final Report, Republic of Guinea-Bissau, Emergency Food Security Support Project (EUFRF P120214 and TF 071341), European Union Food Crisis Rapid Response Facility DCI-FOOD/2009/217-407 and DCI-FOOD/2009/218-742, World Bank, February 2012.

3. Guinea-Bissau: Implementation Completion Memorandum (ICM), Emergency Food Security Support Project, Parallel Financing by the European Union Food Crisis Rapid Response Facility Trust Fund under the Overall Global Food Crisis Response Program (GFRP), February 2012.

4. Summary Report, Implementation of School Feeding and Feeder Roads Activities, PRRO 106090, World Food Programme, Guinea-Bissau, February 2012.

5. Republic of Guinea-Bissau, Emergency Food Security Support Project, (P120214), Aide Memoire for the Implementation Support Mission, November 28-December 9, 2011, World Bank.

39 16W 15W 14W

To SENEGAL Kounkané To To Sédhiou Kolda To Kolda To CuntimaCuntima CambajuCambaju SareSare BBácarácarcar PiradaPirada (300 m) Sédhiou BajocundaBajocunda DungalDungal CanhCCanhâminaanhâminamina JumbembemJumbembem To CanquelifCCanquelifáanquelifá Ziguinchor To Diiattakounda FarimFarim CambajuCambaju BuruntumaBuruntuma ri To ba To Oussouye jam Kabrousse IgnoréIgnorIgnoré an u C ContuboelContuboel CamajCCamajábáamajábá To SSãoão DomingosDomingos BarroBarro he ac Youkounkoun C MansainaMansaina PitchiePitchie OlossatoOlossato a MansabMMansabáansabá b ê SusanaSusana G GabuGabu Varela CacheuCacheu OlossatoOlossato MansabMMansabáansabá GamamudoGamamudo To eu JolmeteJolmete BissorBBissorãissorã ch Youkounkoun a C OIOO I O GGêbaêbaba UacabaUacaba CACHEUC A C H E U BafatáBafatBafatá GABÚGABG A B Ú BulaBula Calequisse BinarBinar EncheiaEncheia MansMMansôaansôa CanchungoCanchungo BAFATÁBAFB A F AT Á CabucaCabuca BambadincaBambadinca 12N l 12N NhacraNhacra a SafimSafim GalomaroGalomaro b XimeXime ru Caió o PorPPortoortoto GoleGole C QuinhQQuinhámeluinhámelmel GanquecutaGanquecuta G ChCChéhé ChCChéhé BISSAUBISSAU êba a GarGGarfanhapaarfanhapafanhapa BBéliélili ô s JabedJJabedáabedá Co n BIOMBOB I O M B O ru DulombiDulombi a BISSAUBISSAU EnxudEEnxudénxudé ba ATLANTIC M PrPPrábisrábisbis l VVenduenduendu Iljante FulacundaFulacunda LeidiLeidi TTiteiteite BoBBoéoé Ondame XitoleXitole o To OCEAN d GuilegeGuilege al QUINARAQ U I N A R A Koumbia an To C BubaBuba Féfiné Ilha de SSãoão JoJJoãooão Caravela lha de Ilha de BolamaBolama QueboQuebo To Ilha de e EmpadaEmpada SaafaSaafa Bénnsané Carache Bolama e d CaravelaCaravela Formosa nd 14W ra Abu I. das G o Galhinas Ri

Arquipélago I. de Soga MadinaMadina dede GandembelGandembel GUINEA li BedandaBedanda I. de BaixoBaixo a b To GUINEA-BISSAU dos Bijagós BOLAMAB O L A M A Rubane m o Boké Bubaque T TOMBALIT O M B A L I Ilha de TTombaliombaliombali CatióCatiCatió Ilha de I. de Bubaque EMERGENCY FOOD Uno Uno Canogo CachambaCachamba Ilha de BalantaBalanta SongonhaSongonha Roxa EticogaEticoga To SECURITY Ilha de Boké Ilha de Orangozinho Cacine

Orango e SUPPORT PROJECT in I. de IIlha c a Meneque Joao Vieira C Campeane 11N Ilhéu do Meio PROJECT REGIONS CITIES AND TOWNS GUINEA- BISSAU 0 10 20 30 40 Kilometers REGION CAPITALS NATIONAL CAPITAL 0201030 40 Miles RIVERS IBRD 39398 This map was produced by the Map Design Unit of The World Bank. MAIN ROADS The boundaries, colors, denominations and any other information JULY 2012 shown on this map do not imply, on the part of The World Bank REGION BOUNDARIES Group, any judgment on the legal status of any territory, or any endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES 16W 15W