Document of The World Bank

Public Disclosure Authorized Report No: ICR00003837

IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT

ON A

GRANT

Public Disclosure Authorized IN THE AMOUNT OF

SDR 1.3 MILLION (US$1.95 MILLION EQUIVALENT)

TO THE

REPUBLIC OF GUINEA-BISSAU

FOR A

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION PROJECT (BCP) Public Disclosure Authorized

November 29, 2016

Environment and Natural Resources Global Practice Public Disclosure Authorized Africa Region CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS

(Exchange Rate Effective May 31, 2016)

Currency Unit = Franc CFA FCFA 592.0011 = US$ 1.00 US$ 1.00 = SDR 1.00

FISCAL YEAR January 1 – December 31

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

BCP Biodiversity Conservation Project BT Board of Trustees (the FBG Board) CAFÉ Consortium of African Environmental Funds CAIA Environmental Impact Assessment Unit (Célula de Avaliação de Impactos Ambientais) CB Cost Benefit CBADP Community-based Avoided Deforestation Project in Guinea-Bissau CBMP Coastal and Biodiversity Management Project CC Consultative Committee CDD Community Driven Development CE Cost Effectiveness CPAR Country Procurement Assessment Report CTF Conservation Trust Fund DC Donors’ Circle (FBG) EIA Environmental Impact Assessment ES Executive Secretariat/Secretary ESMF Environmental and Social Management Framework ESMP Environmental and Social Management Plan FIAL Fund for Local Environmental Initiatives FBG BioGuinea Foundation (Fundação BioGuine) FCV Fragility Conflict and Violence FFEM French Global Environment Fund FISCAP Fisheries Monitoring and Control Institution FUNBIO Biodiversity Foundation (Brazil) GA General Assembly GAC Governance and Anti-Corruption GCCA Global Climate Change Alliance GEF Global Environment Facility G-B Guinea-Bissau HIPC Heavily-indebted Poor Country IBAP Institute for Biodiversity and Protected Areas ICB International Competitive Bidding ICR Implementation Completion and Results Report IDA International Development Association

IDF International Development Fund IFR Interim Financial Report IMET Institute of Marine and Environmental Technology IMPAC III International Marine Protected Areas Congress III ISN Interim Strategy Note IUCN International Unit for Conservation of Nature LDCF Least Developed Countries Fund M&E Monitoring and Evaluation METT Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool MRV Monitoring, Reporting and Verification MSP Medium Size Project NCB National Competitive Bidding OP/BP Operational Policy / Bank Policy PA Protected Area PNB Boé National Park PNC Cantanhez National Park PND Dulombi National Park PNLC Lagoa de Cufada Natural Park PNMJVP João Vieira and Poilão Marine National Park PNO Orango National Park PNTC Rio Cacheu Natural Park RAMPAO Regional Network of Marine Protected Areas in West Africa RAPPAM Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Area Management REDD Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation REDLAC Latin America and Caribbean Network of Environmental Funds RF Results Framework RPF Resettlement Policy Framework SCD Systematic Country Diagnosis SISRI Small Island States Resilience Initiative SNAP National System of Protected Areas (Sistema Nacional de Áreas Protegidas) STAR System for the Transparent Allocation of Resources UEMOA West African Economic and Monetary Union (Union Economique et Monétaire Ouest Africaine) UK United Kingdom UNDP United Nations Development Program VCS Verified Carbon Standard WACA West Africa Coastal Areas Initiative WARFP West Africa Regional Fisheries Program

Senior Global Practice Director: Julia Bucknall Practice Manager: Benoit Bosquet Project Team Leader: Maman-Sani Issa ICR Team Leader: Maman-Sani Issa

Republic of Guinea-Bissau Biodiversity Conservation Project

CONTENTS

Data Sheet A. Basic Information B. Key Dates C. Ratings Summary D. Sector and Theme Codes E. Bank Staff F. Results Framework Analysis G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs H. Restructuring I. Disbursement Graph

1. Project Context, Development Objectives and Design ...... 1 2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes ...... 4 3. Assessment of Outcomes ...... 12

4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome ...... 20 5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance ...... 21 6. Lessons Learned ...... 23 7. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners ...... 25 Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing ...... 26 Annex 2. Outputs by Component ...... 27 Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis ...... 50 Annex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes ...... 60 Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results ...... 62 Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results ...... 63 Annex 7. Summary of Borrower's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR ...... 64 Annex 8. Comments of Cofinanciers and Other Partners/Stakeholders ...... 67 Annex 9. List of Supporting Documents ...... 68 MAP: IBRD 42532

A. Basic Information

Guinea-Bissau Country: Guinea-Bissau Project Name: Biodiversity Conservation Project Project ID: P122047 L/C/TF Number(s): IDA-H6700 ICR Date: 11/29/2016 ICR Type: Core ICR GOVERNMENT OF Lending Instrument: SIL Borrower: GUINEA-BISSAU Original Total XDR 1.30M (USD1.95 XDR 1.30M (USD 1.95 Disbursed Amount: Commitment: M equivalent) M equivalent) Revised Amount: N/A Environmental Category: B Implementing Agencies: Guinea-Bissau Institute for Biodiversity and Protected Areas (IBAP) Co-financiers and Other External Partners: BioGuinea Foundation

B. Key Dates Revised / Actual Process Date Process Original Date Date(s) Concept Review: 07/19/2010 Effectiveness: 07/29/2011 06/21/2011 Appraisal: 01/19/2011 Restructuring(s): 12/03/2014 Approval: 03/17/2011 Mid-term Review: 03/31/2013 10/26/2013 Closing: 05/31/2015 05/31/2016

C. Ratings Summary C.1 Performance Rating by ICR Outcomes: Satisfactory Risk to Development Outcome: Substantial Bank Performance: Satisfactory Borrower Performance: Satisfactory

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 Highly Satisfactory Agency/Agencies: Overall Bank Overall Borrower Satisfactory Satisfactory Performance: Performance:

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

D. Sector and Theme Codes Original Actual Sector Code (as % of total Bank financing)* General agriculture, fishing and forestry sector 100 -- -- Other Agriculture, Fishing and Forestry -- 100

Theme Code (as % of total Bank financing) Biodiversity 100 -- Environment and Natural Resources Management --Climate Change ------Mitigation -- 50 Renewable Natural Resource Asset Management 100 50 --Biodiversity *The Bank changed Sector and Theme Code taxonomies as of November 4, 2016. Taxonomy for BCP is inaccurate - omitting public sector management/institutional development codes – but cannot be changed

E. Bank Staff Positions At ICR At Approval Vice President: Makhtar Diop Obiageli K. Ezekwesili Senior Global Practice Julia Bucknall Habib M. Fetini Director/Country Director Practice Benoit Bosquet Idah Z. Pswarayi-Riddihough Manager/Manager: Project Team Leader: Maman-Sani Issa John Virdin ICR Team Leader: Maman-Sani Issa ICR Primary Author: Anna Roumani

F. Results Framework Analysis

Project Development Objectives (from the Legal Agreement)

The Project Development Objectives (PDO) were to: (i) strengthen the Institute for Biodiversity and Protected Areas' (IBAP) management of Guinea-Bissau’s national parks; and, (ii) pilot the operation of a sustainable financing mechanism for the national parks.

Revised Project Development Objectives (as approved by original approving authority)

The PDO was not revised.

(a) PDO Indicator(s)

Original Target Formally Actual Value Values (from Revised Achieved at Indicator Baseline Value approval Target Completion or documents) Values Target Years Aggregated Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) scores for Indicator 1 : the 5 existing parks 433 (2009 baseline aggregate METT score of Value which: João Vieira e quantitative or 468 507 Poilão 104; Orango 111; qualitative) Cacheu 102; Cufada 67; Cantanhez 49) Date achieved 03/17/2011 05/31/2015 05/31/2016 Exceeded: 108.3% METT scores were 108.3% of the target and 117% of the 2009 baseline. Disaggregated by Protected Area (PA), the 2015 scores were: Comments João Vieira e Poilão 116; Orango 119; Cacheu 129; Cufada 83; and, Cantanhez (incl. % 60. See Main Text 3.2 and Annex 2 for discussion of these results. Of the 5 achievement) parks, Cantanhez was the newest and its results were affected by several years without a Park Director. BioGuinea Foundation (FBG) legally established and operational in Indicator 2 : accordance with the minimum requirements for receiving GEF funds in the endowment FBG legally established and Value Not Established and operational in quantitative or established/operational operational accordance with qualitative) GEF minimum requirements. Date achieved 03/17/2011 05/31/2015 05/31/2016 Achieved: 100% The FBG was given official non-profit status in both the United Kingdom (UK) and Guinea-Bissau in 2012. (It was actually legally Comments established/registered in the UK under the Coastal and Biodiversity Management (incl. % Project (CBMP)). The FBG’s executive, management and governance units achievement) became operational under BCP: Executive Secretariat, Board of Trustees, General Assembly, Consultative Committee and Donors’ Circle. The Investment

Committee is in place and functioning with an approved Investment Policy Statement. An Investment Manager was appointed for the FBG’s Endowment Fund. The above meet all minimum requirements for receiving GEF funds in the endowment. These requirements are detailed in Annex 2.

(b) Intermediate Outcome Indicator(s)

Original Target Actual Value Formally Values (from Achieved at Indicator Baseline Value Revised approval Completion or Target Values documents) Target Years Component 1:

Indicator 1 : Number of surveillance and control missions covering the five parks conducted per year 300 (12 Zero (CBMP did not surveillance and Value report # surveillance control missions (quantitative missions in parks by per year/park – 709 or qualitative) EOP, to establish a 60/year for 4 baseline). years, extended to 5) Date achieved 03/17/2011 05/31/2015 05/31/2016

Exceeded: 236% Surveillance and control missions and related events and Comments activities on the ground involving IBAP staff, institutional partners and (incl. % community members/guards totaled 709: 2012 (109); 2013 (134); 2014 (164); achievement) 2015 (302).

Indicator 2 : Internal regulations and park-specific Business Plans developed/updated Value 2 internal 5 Internal Zero (regulations and (quantitative regulations, 3 Regulations; 5 business plans) or qualitative) Business Plans Business Plans Date achieved 03/17/2011 05/31/2015 05/31/2016 Exceeded: 250% and 167% Five parks have fully updated internal Comments regulations subject to further revision/updating by the Park Management (incl. % Councils; and five parks each have a Business Plan valid to 2020, subject to achievement) periodic updating. Indicator 3 : Direct project beneficiaries (of which female) 43,000 people. See Comments below Value Target was 70,000 (quantitative Zero (of which 50.6% Female or qualitative) female). beneficiaries were estimated at 65% of direct financing. Date achieved 03/17/2011 05/31/2015 05/31/2016 Comments Partially achieved/exceeded: 61% (and 128.5% female) This Core Indicator (incl. % was mandatory at appraisal even though the Bank team realized that its achievement) measurement might be difficult as it was not an ideal fit with activities directly

under BCP control. (A Bank-sponsored census of the PA population in 2007 counted about 70,000 people living in/around the parks). Therefore, the Team’s basic premise at appraisal was that IBAP’s burgeoning capacity to conserve, protect and stabilize the nation’s biological resources represented a direct benefit to this population. Based on actual implementation, IBAP conservatively estimates that the BCP directly benefited around 43,000 people, some 61% of the target. These included training for 786 IBAP personnel at Headquarters and in the PAs, plus an estimated 42,200 people who received biodiversity-related sensitization training, and training targeted at the beneficiaries of IBAP’s micro- investment financing (leveraged from other donors) under IBAP’s BCP-financed communications/awareness-building outreach and training programs. An estimated 65% were women, 128.5% of total. See Main Text Section 3.2, footnote 29 and Annex 2. Number of protected area staff and community co-managers trained in key Indicator 4 : species, protected areas field monitoring and ecotourism guide skills Value 25 (PAD). IBAP (quantitative Zero 786 target was 200. or qualitative) Date achieved 03/17/2011 05/31/2015 05/31/2016 Exceeded: 393% The PAD cumulative target was 25 but this was likely an error. IBAP’s Final Report defines an annual target of 50/year over 4 years (200) Comments and this is applied here. The BCP financed training events in a wide range of (incl. % relevant subjects including species monitoring, PA field monitoring and achievement) ecotourism guide skills for 786 people (IBAP staff, Park Management Councils, park communities and partner institutions) from 2012 to 2015. Main Text 3.2 and Annex 2 matrix. Component 2:

Indicator 5 : FBG Board and executive secretariat established and meeting in accordance with TORs and timetable defined in the Statutes FBG Board of Trustees and Executive Value FBG Board Secretariat were (quantitative Zero established and established and are or qualitative) meeting meeting based on TORs and timetable/Statutes. Date achieved 03/17/2011 05/31/2015 05/31/2016 Achieved: 100% Executive Secretariat, Board of Trustees, General Assembly (a UK governance body), Consultative Committee and Donors’ Circle were established and are meeting/acting based on TORs, official timetables and Statutes. (The first FBG Board Meeting occurred on February 18, 2012, attended Comments by two Trustees, the EC Observer, World Bank as Facilitator and IBAP as (incl. % Secretary). Work Plans, annual budgets, annual financial reports are prepared and achievement) presented by the Executive Secretary to the Board of Trustees for approval. Institutional links are in place between Government and FBG donors. The Consultative Committee (multi-stakeholder forum) meets annually and ad hoc if needed. Board meetings coincide with the Donors’ Council annual meetings, providing IBAP opportunities for joint planning and strategy formulation. See

Annex 2. Indicator 6 : Comprehensive capitalization strategy under implementation Value Capitalization Capitalization Zero (strategy document (quantitative strategy under strategy under does not exist) or qualitative) implementation implementation Date achieved 03/17/2011 05/31/2015 05/31/2016 Achieved: 100% Intensive fund-raising efforts have resulted so far in firm donor pledges to the FBG endowment totaling EUR 4.6 million (G-B Government EUR 1.00 m, MAVA Foundation EUR 1.3 m, GEF V USD 1.20 m, Comments equivalent to between EUR 1.00 and 1.20 depending on exchange rate) and, (incl. % EUR 1.0 m from FFEM). The VCS-REDD+ pilot is underway and expected to achievement) result in carbon credit sales from emission reductions (ER) averaging 900,000 tCO2/year over 20 years due to avoided deforestation (from Cacheu and Cantanhez parks) valued at an average US$3.04 m/year/20 years. See Annex 3. Management systems (including fiduciary systems) in place and operational, Indicator 7 : producing satisfactory annual and quarterly reports Management Management systems systems are in Value place, operational already in place from Management (quantitative and producing systems in place or qualitative) CBMP and GEF satisfactory annual projects. and quarterly reports Date achieved 03/17/2011 05/31/2015 05/31/2016 Comments Achieved: 100% BCP financed the continuation and upgrading of existing (incl. % management systems. achievement) Component 3:

Indicator 8 : Monitoring systems in place and operational, producing satisfactory annual and quarterly reports Monitoring systems Monitoring systems established and Value operational, already in place from Monitoring (quantitative producing systems in place or qualitative) CBMP and GEF satisfactory annual projects. and quarterly reports Date achieved 03/17/2011 05/31/2015 05/31/2016 Achieved: 100% BCP financed the continuation and upgrading of existing Comments monitoring systems. BCP also financed design of a SNAP-wide (incl. % achievement) Monitoring System to track the biological and socio-economic health of the PAs, an activity not contemplated at appraisal.

G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs

Actual Date ISR No. DO IP Disbursements Archived (USD millions) 1 09/25/2011 Satisfactory Satisfactory 0.43 2 03/19/2012 Satisfactory Satisfactory 0.44 3 10/10/2012 Satisfactory Satisfactory 0.44 4 04/24/2013 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 0.59 5 11/23/2013 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 0.88 6 05/18/2014 Satisfactory Satisfactory 1.13 7 12/03/2014 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 1.29 8 06/08/2015 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 1.70 9 12/20/2015 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 1.95 10 05/31/2016 Highly Satisfactory Satisfactory 1.95

H. Restructuring (if any)

ISR Ratings at Amount Board Restructuring Disbursed at Restructuring Reason for Restructuring & Approved Restructuring Date(s) Key Changes Made PDO Change DO IP in USD millions Closing Date extended 12 months to compensate for the Bank’s coup-related suspension 12/03/2014 MS MS 1.29 of project activities and disbursement, and to permit achievement of PDO.

I. Disbursement Profile

1. Project Context, Development Objectives and Design

1.1 Context at Appraisal

1.1.1 Guinea-Bissau is a small West African nation of about 1.45 million people with an economy based primarily on farming and fishing, which represents some 55 percent of gross domestic product (GDP).1 At the time of appraisal, agriculture generated about 80 percent of employment and 90 percent of exports (mainly raw cashew nut). Fishing represented from seven to ten percent of GDP and 25-40 percent of public revenue. Infrastructure was - and remains – poor, and social indicators weak: life expectancy of 48 years, 70 percent of the population living below US$2/day, and 20 percent enduring extreme poverty. Some 60 percent of the population were <25 years old at that time. The fragility of the state and its institutions has undermined development of the country’s economic and social infrastructure and its prospects for reducing widespread poverty. Civil war in 1988-89, a series of military coups, repeated political turmoil and government turnover have stifled the country’s ability to thrive.

1.1.2 Sector and institutional context: Despite this situation, Guinea-Bissau has enormous potential. It has the human and natural resources and the geography to grow and provide diverse sources of income: abundant, high quality land, favorable rainfall, mineral deposits, biodiversity of global importance, and fishing and tourism potential especially in the coastal zone which is home to about 80 percent of the population. This unique coastal zone comprising mangroves, sandbanks and mudflats, shallow estuarine waters and sub-humid Guinean forests, is among the richest in West Africa for biodiversity: globally significant species of sea-turtles, manatee, goliath grouper, bottlenose skate, ocean-going hippos, chimpanzees and migratory birds. The João Vieira and Poilão Marine Protected Area (PA) is a major green turtle nesting site, the third largest in the Atlantic. Cufada Lakes Natural Park is a designated Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar) site (while the Bijagós Biosphere Reserve also achieved official Ramsar status in January 2013). Guinea-Bissau now has four Ramsar sites totaling 1.2 m ha. Such biodiversity and the cultural tradition it supports are a significant natural asset around which a viable tourism industry could be built. The coastal zone already provides important ecosystem services: nursery/breeding grounds for commercial fish stocks, carbon stocks and a buffer against climate change.

1.1.3 Government and its partners, including local and international NGOs such as the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) have, since the 1990s, been working to conserve and manage the coastal zone upon which the country’s biodiversity depends. The Coastal and Biodiversity Management Project (CBMP, 2004-2010) financed by the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the European Union (EU), IUCN and the World Bank, helped the Government to establish five national parks covering almost 450,000 ha and some 70,000 people, along with a financially and administratively autonomous agency, the Institute for Biodiversity and Protected Areas (IBAP).2 Staff and infrastructure were supported for a national headquarters as well as local park management offices in the five parks, along with awareness-building of local communities and the development of park management plans. In order for these parks/PAs to

1 At appraisal, Guinea-Bissau ranked 173 out of 182 countries on the United Nations Human Development Index (2009). 2 The five national parks targeted at appraisal were: Parque Nacional Marinho João Vieira e Poilão (PNMJVP); Parque Nacional de Orango (PNO); Parque Nacional dos Tarrafes do Rio Cacheu (PNTC); Parque Natural das Lagoas de Cufada (PNLC); and, Parque Nacional de Cantanhez (PNC). Other parks not covered by the BCP are also IBAP-managed, e.g., the Urok Community Marine Protected Area. 1

conserve biodiversity and eco-system functions, and to serve as sustainable development poles, the Government established – under the CBMP – the Fund for Local Environment Initiatives (FIAL), a mechanism for providing pro-environment block grants to local communities for initiatives including schools, wells, rice-field rehabilitation, beekeeping, palm oil extraction and fish processing. Both the strategy and rationale for the CBMP in 2004 entailed Guinea-Bissau also establishing a private Foundation for Biodiversity in Guinea-Bissau (Fundação BioGuinea - FBG) with the mandate to manage an expanding endowment fund, sinking funds and revolving revenue streams to secure financing in perpetuity for, at minimum, management of core recurrent activities of the country’s network of protected areas and biodiversity conservation efforts.

1.1.4 Rationale for Bank involvement: Sustaining and consolidating these institutions and achievements have become critical drivers of new Bank-supported operations. 3 Two “sister” Bank-supported projects were conceived to directly capitalize/consolidate IBAP and the FBG and sustain park management activities during this process: (i) a GEF medium-sized project (MSP) approved in July 2010 (Guinea-Bissau Biodiversity Conservation Trust Fund Project - BCTF) supported final steps to secure tax exempt status (in the UK and Guinea-Bissau) for the FBG, its key operating instruments – a governing Board, executive staff, operational manual, business plan and capitalization strategy – as well as limited, short-term transition funding for IBAP’s activities in up to three parks; and, (ii) the IDA-financed Biodiversity Conservation Project (BCP) analyzed by this ICR, designed to build upon the GEF MSP by financing the core recurrent costs of all five parks – known as the National System of Protected Areas (SNAP) - until the FBG could be operationalized and its endowment at least partially capitalized. The goal was to avoid a cessation of IBAP’s conservation activities and the parks during the near-term transition period which could reverse a decade’s gains and, to pilot operation of the FBG.4 See Section 2.1.

1.1.5 The BCP would assist Guinea-Bissau to develop/demonstrate capacity to effectively and transparently manage conservation funds, promoting donor confidence; support initial FBG fund- raising efforts; and, provide a baseline for a GEF V follow-on in FY12 conceived as seed capital for the FBG endowment and designed to encourage contributions from other donors. (See para 1.5.1 for Component 1 financing arrangements). Other sources of funding for the FBG endowment were also envisaged: carbon credits under a REDD (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) program envisaged to begin in 2013, future park entry fees and tourism taxes, and debt-for-nature swaps with government creditors. The then recently-approved, Bank-supported Guinea-Bissau Community Driven Development Project (CDD) was also a critical part of the picture, designed to continue supporting local communities in/around the parks, further boosting overall sustainability of the conservation framework.

1.2 Original Project Development Objectives (PDO) and Key Indicators (as approved)

1.2.1 The PDO (as per the Grant Agreement) was to support the Recipient to: (i) strengthen IBAP’s management of the Recipient’s National Parks; and (ii) pilot the operation of a

3 Design of the FBG was formulated in 2009 by a diverse working group, supported by international partner institutions, and took global lessons into account. The FBG was legally registered as a private foundation for public utility under United Kingdom Law in 2011. 4 An endowment of around US$20.0 m was estimated sufficient to finance IBAP and the PAs if financed solely from investment returns and more modestly, around US$5.0 m would be needed to finance the core management of at least the two priority PAs in the Bijagós Archipelago (PNO and PNMJVP). Transitional donor financing however, was still essential. 2

sustainable financing mechanism for the National Parks. The PAD notes that this PDO would build upon and was consistent with the GEF MSP (approved in 2011).5

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

1.3.1 Neither the PDO nor the Key Indicators were revised.

1.4 Main Beneficiaries

1.4.1 The PAD describes the project’s primary target group (in the Results Framework described as “direct” beneficiaries) as including over 70,000 people living in/around the parks and dependent on park resources for their livelihoods. Longer-term, other beneficiaries – given the then-current and expected contribution of the PA network to national and regional economic growth – were national and local authorities (including IBAP), sector ministries, NGOs and the private sector. The SNAP would also benefit the national population at large by providing the backbone of a future tourism industry capable of generating substantial public revenue, and international stakeholders through investment in the existence value of the country’s biodiversity. Section 2.3 discusses the characterization of beneficiaries.

1.5 Original Components (as approved)

1.5.1 The BCP comprised three components:

Component 1: Consolidation and strengthening of capacity for management of coastal and marine protected areas and biodiversity (IDA US$1.27 m, 65 percent of total project costs) financed strengthening of the management of five coastal and marine parks and increasing the monitoring and conservation of globally significant biodiversity.

Component 2: Pilot the operation of the BioGuinea Foundation (IDA US$0.39 m, 20 percent of total project costs) supported pilot operationalization of the FBG as a mechanism capable of financing the core management activities of at least two existing national parks.

Component 3: Project management and monitoring and evaluation (IDA US$0.29 m, 15 percent of total project costs) financed the effective and efficient implementation of project activities and their coordination with other, related donor initiatives.

1.6 Revised Components

1.6.1 Components were not officially revised (i.e., via restructuring) but as recommended by a Bank monitoring and evaluation (M&E) specialist conducting an M&E Review of the BCP in 2011, IBAP added activities under Component 3 designed to establish a SNAP-wide Monitoring System for the longer-term monitoring of the biological and socio-economic health of the parks. The BCP financed the system’s design, and other donors its implementation (ongoing). See Section 3.2 and Annex 2.

5 GEF MSP PDO: (i) strengthen the ongoing management and conservation of the Recipient’s selected National Parks; and, (ii) pilot the establishment of a sustainable financing mechanism for such parks. 3

1.7 Other significant changes

1.7.1 Project design, scope and scale were not changed. However, as a direct result of a political/military coup on April 12, 2012 which overthrew the Government, the Bank triggered OP/BP 7.30 (“Dealing with de facto Governments and World Bank Missions”), suspending until further notice disbursements, Bank missions and the processing of new lending. On December 13, 2012, following the election of a new government, Bank Senior Management authorized the resumption of all three elements. Also, a Level two restructuring (December 3, 2014), extended the project closing date by 12 months to May 31, 2016 to compensate for the effects of the eight- month suspension including to permit further evolution/consolidation of the FBG and its endowment.

2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes

2.1 Project Preparation, Design and Quality at Entry

2.1.1 Soundness of the background analysis: The project was consistent with the Bank’s assistance strategy for Guinea-Bissau at appraisal. It supported the two pillars of the Interim Strategy Note (ISN): (i) strengthen economic management and lay the foundation for improvement in the productive sectors; and, (ii) increase access to basic services, especially for the rural population. It also supported the ISN’s cross-cutting theme of capacity development and partnership-building. Specifically, the BCP supported improved management of the natural resources base on which both then-current livelihoods and future economic development depended, as well as the enhanced financial capacity to sustain such management into the future. As such, the BCP responded to the potential of the country’s biodiversity assets to provide the backbone of a future tourism industry, as outlined in the then-upcoming Country Economic Memorandum (CEM). It also complemented the then-proposed Bank support for the national and regional fisheries sector as part of the West Africa Regional Fisheries Program (WARFP).

2.1.2 Assessment of project design: Project objectives were, prima facie, realistic and achievable in the engagement period, although minor deficiencies in the Results Framework limited a more ample appreciation of BCP results/achievements (see Section 2.3). The components supported the PDO but it was agreed with IBAP following effectiveness that activities would be included under Component 3 to design and establish a SNAP-wide Monitoring System. This would be an essential complement to the METT scorecard, which was starting to be regarded in the conservation community as insufficient (on its own) to gauge the health of ecosystems and species on the ground (Section 2.3). The project’s organizational framework – as with the CBMP - saw IBAP in the lead, leveraging financial/other support from many partners and donors (see Annex 2). This was consistent with a strategy using a programmatic approach involving a spectrum of sector entities, each contributing – in an organized manner – to achievement of the end-goal. In parallel, the BCP financed the structuring and staffing of the FBG to take over the financial support of the SNAP from IBAP. Organizational (and operational) aspects of project design were strengthened by the institutional continuity, capacity and experience of IBAP’s core leadership/professionals whose continued growth the BCP financed. The PDO’s social goals were expressed through the expected impact – direct and indirect - of increasingly more effective and efficient PA management on the socio- economic and biological health of the parks, which had both local and national implications, and via the Safeguards triggered: OP/BP 4.01(Environmental Assessment) and OP/BP 4.12 (Involuntary Resettlement).

4

2.1.3 The BCP was another piece of a larger framework – governed by the same over-arching vision and logic – intended to advance IBAP and the FBG closer to the ultimate goal of a well- managed and sustainable SNAP. This is and always has been, a process made more difficult by the short supply of funding. Efforts have been focused on catalyzing, coordinating and harmonizing all donor projects – including Bank-supported – so that each contributes to achieving the big picture even if only addressing a portion of it.6 As example, the IDA-financed BCP and the GEF-financed BCTF were two separate but very similar, closely-coordinated and mutually reinforcing operations with parallel financing, similar/consistent PDOs and Results Frameworks and joint supervision. The GEF was a two-year project (as designed) effective in March 2011, and the BCP was a four-year project (as designed) effective in June 2011. Their monitoring and evaluation (M&E) was coordinated by IBAP within an integrated MIS, structured to distinguish clearly between the two operations. The BCP and GEF had separate budgets and procurement plans but were coordinated through a joint planning process since both operations were under the IBAP umbrella. Under their respective PDOs: GEF would “pilot the establishment of a sustainable financing mechanism for such parks” and the BCP “pilot the operation of a sustainable financing mechanism for the national parks”.7

2.1.4 To avoid overlapping disbursements under Component 1, the BCP Legal Agreement included a covenant (Schedule 2, Section IV, B1) whereby Component 1 would initially be financed exclusively by the GEF grant (under its own rubric, not to cost-share the BCP). Only when Government had fully-disbursed the GEF funds designated for Component 1 (US$613,000 – see Implementation Completion Memorandum (ICM)) would the IDA funds start disbursing. This situation evolved when the Bank project team saw an opportunity for GEF financing to follow-on from the successful CBMP and, while the amount was small (US$950,000), it would provide continuity. Soon after, additional IDA funds became available and the team prepared the complementary BCP operation. The GEF was to be “limited, transitional, short-term financing for core park management activities”. The IDA BCP would build upon and complement the GEF- funded activities by “extending the transition funding for the management of the parks and supporting the second pilot operational phase of the FBG”.

2.1.5 Lessons from previous operations: Due to the earlier timing of BCP preparation, the lessons of the CBMP ICR were not yet available so the PAD relied more on observed events and experiences8 which strongly suggested the need to continue supporting IBAP to manage the parks successfully and, to collaborate with the Environmental Impact Assessment Unit (CAIA) on the environmental monitoring of surrounding areas. Viewed retroactively, BCP design foreshadowed the ICR’s lessons, including: (i) the benefits of multiple, donor-supported interventions over time for the sustainability of such projects; (ii) the advantages of stable Bank and Borrower/Client teams especially for technically difficult projects in troubled environments; and, (iii) the fact that intensive supervision can still be maintained/conducted without a physical presence, i.e., using electronic means during periods of civil unrest. In the case of the FBG, its concept and design were informed by the lessons of Bank and external studies of global experiences with conservation and protected areas trust funds, including in the West Africa Region.

6 At BCP closing, IBAP was managing/executing seven projects totaling EUR 6.5 million, the largest being the EU-financed, Protected Areas and Climate Change Project (EUR 4.0 million). Two additional operations totaling EUR 0.5 million had been submitted for approval by the financial entity involved, and another two projects were at the conceptual stage. See Table 5, Annex 2. 7 “Operation” was not intended to include actual grant-making by the FBG but rather the establishing of structures/units, staffing, policies and processes and initiation of scheduled meetings and decision-making. 8 See ICR, Report No. 001684 of October 26, 2011. 5

2.1.6 Assessment of risk: Aside from the country risk (political instability and weak macro- economic situation) which was beyond the scope of the project to address, the two critical risks identified at appraisal were: (i) that additional donor contributions would not materialize and the FBG would not secure sufficient funds to sustain even the management of core recurrent activities of the two marine parks in the Bijagós Archipelago (a risk rated High);9 and, (ii) that external impacts (e.g., from mining or petroleum exploitation) would compromise or threaten conservation objectives of one or more of the five parks in the PA network (not rated).10 Efforts to mitigate the first risk were initiated early on by securing/fostering active involvement of the donor community in designing the FBG, by piloting the FBG’s operations over the course of the project, and by launching a financial capitalization strategy for its endowment. For the second risk cited, mitigation measures were developed under the previous CBMP: preparation of a national law governing environmental impact assessments and establishing the Environmental Impact Assessment Unit (CAIA - Célula de Avaliação de Impactos Ambientais) based in the Prime Minister’s Office, to oversee implementation of the law.

2.1.7 Adequacy of Government’s commitment: Governments in power have consistently backed IBAP and the SNAP despite the political situation. The BCP grew out of government’s ongoing commitment to the PAs as the means to conserve biodiversity and eco-system functions and to serve as “sustainable development poles”. During BCP preparation, the Cufada Park experience (opening of roads and land clearing inside the park for construction of a future port, with no Environmental Impact Assessment, EIA) was a milestone in the Government’s relationship with the Bank, becoming a national governance issue rather than a side-story, and creating a discussion on how to balance sustainability, safeguards compliance and development, which government clearly came to own.11 Government also: (i) allocated budget in 2010 for fisheries surveillance activities – a positive signal of intention to sustain the then-newly- established system - but was unable to follow through;12 (ii) approved a national Environmental Impact Assessment Law as the legal basis for mainstreaming environmental and social considerations into future development and economic growth while legally reinforcing the role of associated national institutions; and, (iii) successfully designed and piloted – within the CBMP - the Fund for Local Environmental Initiatives (FIAL – Fundo para Iniciativas Ambientais Locais) to complement biodiversity conservation and demonstrate tangible benefits to communities in/around the parks using a participatory approach. A special Bank M&E Support Mission in 2011 found that government’s “ownership of the overall objective and commitment to its effective implementation are exemplary”.

2.1.8 Participatory processes: Participation has been a hallmark of the Bank-supported, biodiversity conservation projects. The BCP was founded on an exceptional level of stakeholder participation, especially by local communities in/around the PAs. Sustainability of the SNAP depends on it, just as the communities themselves depend on the parks for their livelihoods. Dialogue and awareness-building have been ongoing for 25 years, paving the way for the creation and participatory management of the PA system. The national park plans existing at the time of

9 Orango National Park and João Vieira e Poilão Marine National Park 10 See ICR for CBMP, Report #1684 of October 26, 2011 describing such events and their resolution. 11 Ibid. The port was needed to make bauxite extraction in the Boe region viable. To date, this project has not advanced and cleared forest has been regenerating. 12 Government was unable to honor its promise to allocate regular budget to IBAP due to the fiscal constraints of maintaining Highly-indebted Poor Country (HIPC) program triggers and the EU’s unexpected suspension of budget support following political violence in 2010. 6

BCP appraisal resulted from a multi-year participatory process, and their implementation at the time of CBMP closure was being overseen by Park Management Councils, 50 percent of whose members were/still are drawn from resident communities and resource users. The BCP saw their involvement, along with local authorities and technical ministries, as a way to ensure their continued engagement in the PA system, and their adherence to the idea of the PAs as development focal points.

2.2 Implementation

2.2.1 The factors affecting project implementation were primarily related to political instability:

The political/military coup in 2012 and its aftermath affected IBAP’s ability to implement the project but partner/donor collaboration and commitment mitigated its effects. Guinea- Bissau’s technical and financial cooperation with its principal development partners (Bank and GEF) was ruptured. The Bank suspended BCP disbursements (and other Bank projects including the BCTF/GEF) from April to December 2012 due to the uncertain legitimacy of the transition government. National fiscal revenues declined and, due to the State’s absence, greater pressure was exerted on fisheries and forest resources, the latter through the illegal logging and trading of wood in PA border zones and some attempted incursions into Cantanhez - fended off by the local population.13 Even so, important activities made progress in this period, importantly because the EU, MAVA Foundation and UNDP sustained their support to IBAP/SNAP even while suspending all other portfolio activities. Also, the Designated Account had been replenished right before the coup, enabling sufficient cash flow to continue key activities. Another positive factor was proactive Bank supervision, collaborating with IBAP via frequent online and skype guidance/troubleshooting. The project’s programmatic approach to achieving the higher-level goals, and IBAP/Bank efforts to harmonize donors and activities, were also positive elements.

FBG’s fund-raising and operational status specifically, were hampered by these same conditions. Several factors were important: (i) Fund raising/capitalization of the FBG endowment proved challenging and time-consuming due to donor unwillingness to commit resources in the aftermath of the coup; (ii) expectations at appraisal under-estimated the time potentially required to meet fund-raising goals, a lesson for similar projects (but difficult to gauge at appraisal); and, (iii) salaries could not be paid (most public employees went unpaid in this period including within IBAP) deterring potential FBG recruits. The resulting delays in launching the FBG operationally were beyond the BCP’s control, affecting constitution of the Board, recruitment of the Executive Secretary and Financial Officer, and the transfer of responsibilities for implementing Component 2 from IBAP to the FBG. Difficulties in finding qualified candidates for FBG Executive Secretary (ES) saw the Board recruit a consultant as interim ES to permit a long-term, suitable candidate to be located and groomed without time pressure. This interim arrangement was subsequently converted to a longer contract.

Presidential and legislative elections in April/May 2014 and the swearing in of a new government, re-established a fragile normality. Government sponsored in March 2015, an International Conference of Donors at EU Headquarters in Brussels, presenting a new Strategic Operational Plan (Terra Ranka, 2015-2020) with an investment program and multi-year action plan. Biodiversity and natural capital were presented as a “foundation”, and the major cross-

13 Client Completion Report, IBAP, July 2016. 7

cutting sector and development instrument for the entire strategy. From mid-2014 to June 2016 however, political crises had become cyclical with challenges in 2014, the President’s dismissal of the elected government in 2015 and multiple, unsuccessful attempts since then to put a new government in place, affecting BCP execution. At the time of ICR preparation, the Government’s program was still awaiting approval by the National Popular Assembly resulting in partial paralysis of the state. This recurrent instability impinged upon IBAP’s functionality and growth due to its partner public agencies in the Government being virtually moribund for extended periods, and leadership of the State Secretariat of Environment changing repeatedly. Delays occurred in key operations including the IBAP-managed Global Climate Change Alliance Project (GCCA+) and the official establishment of the new Boé National Park and Dulombi National Park under the SNAP.

Surveillance activities in the Cantanhez, Cufada and Orango parks were also affected, even though the METT scores and SNAP surveillance results indicate that IBAP did regain and maintain control in affected parks. Cantanhez Park was quite new, lacked operational resources (suspension-related) for adequate enforcement and control missions from 2012 to 2013, took three years to recruit a new Park Manager/Director (although Cantanhez did have a director in the period), and was as a result slower to evolve/consolidate. Management of Cufada Park was also affected by the suspension, lack of a surveillance vessel and the absence of its new Manager/Director. In Orango Park, surveillance missions were hampered by burdensome bureaucratic procedures limiting fuel purchases for public vehicles. Surveillance by 2015 however, had fully recovered and was exceptionally strong for two reasons: (i) intensive/extensive BCP-financed communications/outreach activities were paying off, prompting widespread local community involvement/collaboration in park management; and, (ii) IBAP’s increasing skill in creating financial synergies with institutional partners. This included the BCP/IDA in cooperation with FISCAP and the Rias do Sul Project (IUCN-UEMOA) enabling 302 missions in six PAs (including AMPC-Urok) of the 312 programmed and, achievement of 96.8 percent of the marine/coastal surveillance program due to the acquisition of new vessels.

Government commitment to the SNAP resulted in substantial budget support for IBAP at a critical point in the BCP’s final year. The BCP faced a financing constraint from August 2015 because the project contribution to IBAP salaries and operational costs was ending. IDA funds under Component 1 were fully-disbursed and the costs associated with an additional year of operations had not been anticipated. The FBG was not yet sufficiently capitalized or mature to contribute, although at that time three potential sources of funding had been identified/promised. The Bank team urged the Government to provide support from the national budget, starting in 2016. Government came through, allocating CFA 60.0 million (about US$100,000) for core IBAP salaries and activities, although this was an exceptional, one-time injection of transitional funds not associated with a permanent budget line. IBAP confirmed that these promised resources were released.

2.2.2 Restructuring: The Level two restructuring in 2015 is discussed in Section 1.7.

2.2.3 Mid-term Review (MTR): The MTR was conducted in October 2013 in the post- coup/pre-election period, a challenging environment both for maintaining regular PA management activities and the momentum of fund-raising for the FBG endowment. The Bank team found that IBAP had kept the project largely on track, with some delays: (i) IBAP’s capacity to manage the SNAP was steadily strengthening and tangible results were being achieved in the parks – METT scores had already exceeded appraisal targets; (ii) FBG operationalization was gaining momentum and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) transferring implementation responsibilities for Component 2 from IBAP to the FBG, had been

8

signed; and, (iii) project management continued to be satisfactory with an exemplary degree of project ownership and fiduciary control at all levels. No major changes were proposed.

2.2.4 Project at Risk status: The Project was not a potential problem project or actual problem project at any time. However, the country-level risk remained significant throughout, associated with the unstable political situation and weak macro-economic environment.

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

2.3.1 Design: M&E design was built around a Results Framework (RF) comprising two PDO Indicators and eight Intermediate Outcome Indicators. Project achievement would be measured primarily by: (i) annual assessment of the management efficiency of the five PAs (continuing the use of the World Bank/World Wildlife Fund Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) scorecards begun under the CBMP);14 and, (ii) legal establishment and operation of the FBG in accordance with “minimum requirements for receiving GEF funds” (although technically, the FBG was already legally established under the CBMP and what the BCP planned was to structure and staff the entity and pilot its operations).15 The RF was generally adequate but had some deficiencies, noted below. The basic capacity to implement planned M&E activities was already established in IBAP and would be boosted by specialized technical assistance. As noted earlier, IBAP used a joint BCTF/BCP Management Information System (MIS) with clear separation of the two operations. The PAD also notes that key indicators were designed taking into account not only the information they would provide but also the costs and feasibility of any additional required data collection, given the small size of the IDA grant.16 IBAP would have primary responsibility, continuing to monitor national park management activities based on indicators identified in individual Park Management Plans.

2.3.2 Design deficits were few. The RF included a Core Sector Indicator: “Direct project beneficiaries (of which female)” with a target of 70,000 people (based on a 2007 CBMP-specific census of the parks’ population) of which 50.6 percent were expected to be women. The Team decided that this indicator - which was obligatory but not considered optimal for activities directly under BCP control - would signal that IBAP’s increasingly strong and astute management of the PAs had direct (and indirect) short and long-term socio-economic benefits for the parks’ total population, including female, by stabilizing the physical conditions for their long- term social and economic survival in place.17 As it turned out, the target was probably the bigger issue: the BCP actually did finance activities with direct beneficiaries but was never likely to reach all 70,000 directly. After effectiveness, the need for a more sophisticated system which

14 METT questionnaires were completed by the Park Management Councils every six months and the IBAP Coordinator and the Monitoring and Planning Unit reviewed the data for quality and consistency. Training in the use of these instruments was/is continuous. PA directors/staff were also trained to use the RAPPAM (Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Area Management, a methodology designed for broad-level comparison among multiple PAs comprising a PA system or network), and instruments developed by IMET (Institute of Marine and Environmental Technology, University of Maryland, USA), for measuring improvements in PA planning and management. 15 See Annex 2 for the minimum requirements for receiving GEF funds. 16 The additional cost burden to the Project of implementing M&E activities was around US$150,000. 17 Small-scale investments became the focus of other CBMP follow-ons: the IDA-financed Rural Community-driven Development Project (P090712, US$5.0 million equivalent) and the SPF-financed Participatory Rural Development Project (P117861, US$5.0 million equivalent). The BCP was clearly expected to catalyze, but not finance, such investments. 9

monitored the long-term biological and socio-economic health of the PAs was acknowledged and activities were added. See below.

2.3.3 Implementation: An analysis in 2011 concluded that IBAP needed to develop a SNAP- wide Monitoring System for biodiversity trends in each park.18 While the METT was considered an adequate proxy for project purposes, at the big picture scale an institution like IBAP needed to be able to monitor the evolution of the status/health of PA resources in terms of biodiversity conservation and ecosystem protection on the ground to determine if its management approaches were/are achieving the desired results or not, i.e., the basis of an adaptive management approach. This required both a more comprehensive, long-term monitoring system for tracking trends in biodiversity and socio-economic indicators, established in line with park objectives, combined with specific research programs to investigate and answer key questions, all well beyond the scope of the BCP. It was recommended that IBAP: (i) define a set of key indicators relevant to the monitoring of endangered and threatened species and/or park health status (e.g., population size, habitat ranges, habitat area); (ii) develop a consistent M&E method with clear data collection protocols, including standardized forms and measurement schedules for each species/ecosystem indicator; and (iii) establish an easily accessible database, updated periodically and harmonized with similar databases in the West Africa region. A BCP-financed, SNAP Monitoring System was designed and other donors are financing its implementation. Para 3.2.3.

2.3.4 An early proposal to restructure the RF, allowing for a period of implementation, did not proceed. Subsequent analysis of indicators and targets suggested that formal revision of the RF was unnecessary due to the minor nature of the few changes proposed, mostly the refining and clarification of some intermediate indicators to improve measurability. Surprisingly, the issue of the Core Sector Indicator did not come up, i.e., reducing the target or clarifying its meaning and measurement. Finally, IBAP prepared a good quality Client Completion Report, reviewed by the Bank.

2.3.5 Utilization: IBAP prepared reports for domestic and external consumption which were shared with all project partners/donors – especially for FBG fund-raising campaigns - and clearly contributed to biodiversity becoming the central, cross-cutting theme of Government’s new 10- year plan, “Terra Ranka” (English: lift-off, fresh start). The BCP monitored a range of activities and functions used on an ongoing basis to improve the performance of IBAP and the BCP itself.

2.4 Safeguard and Fiduciary Compliance

2.4.1 Safeguards compliance: The BCP was classified as a Category B operation and triggered OP/BP 4.01 (Environmental Assessment) and OP/BP 4.12 (Involuntary Resettlement). The Project was designed explicitly to continue and strengthen a participatory process for the management and conservation of parks and biodiversity. None of its activities were expected to produce significant, negative environmental or social impacts and no construction or rehabilitation/civil works were envisaged. But, to minimize and mitigate any potentially adverse impacts, an Environmental Assessment (EA) and Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) were prepared in line with OP 4.01. Similarly, even though the highly participatory approach to PA management involving multiple stakeholders ensured their engagement in the parks’ evolution and reinforced the view that the risk of conflict was inherently low, the BCP

18 See Annex 2 of Aide Memoire for mission of October 31, 2011. 10

triggered OP 4.12 and preparation of a Process Framework - widely disseminated and consulted in the parks - to ensure that any potential risk of restricted resource use would be addressed.

2.4.2 Compliance with the ESMP was satisfactory throughout and no issues emerged. Further, no issues arose requiring action under OP 4.12. As planned at appraisal, a set of safeguards tools was included in the FBG’s Operational Manual to ensure that FBG-supported activities explicitly took into account potential environmental and social impacts, as well as the provisions of the Resettlement Policy Framework. Further, safeguards provisions were also built into the park regulations and business plans. The ICR assesses safeguards compliance as Satisfactory.

2.4.3 Financial management/audit: IBAP established and maintained strong financial management (FM) performance throughout project execution without indications of fraud or corruption. Internal controls were strengthened, the accounting information system was updated regularly, compliance with Bank standards and the FM manual was satisfactory throughout, and financial reporting was regular and of generally good quality. Independent external audits were uniformly unqualified and any issues detected by auditors were resolved promptly. A Bank fiduciary mission in 2013 coinciding with a limited re-engagement of the Bank post-coup and designed to assess the fiduciary capacity of the Bank’s Guinea-Bissau portfolio of active projects and determine the need for technical assistance, praised IBAP’s FM performance during the risky aftermath of the coup. The Bank review found that expenditures were well-supported with no irregularities detected, noting: “This is remarkable and needs to be credited to the (BCP) teams and authorities”.

2.4.4 Procurement: Procurement performance was supervised regularly by the Bank Specialist. Procurement management by IBAP was rated Moderately Satisfactory throughout. Clearly the performance under the BCP was an improvement over the CBMP where IBAP’s lack of experience with Bank procurement rules and processes, and the Bank’s regional institutional arrangements for procurement, created issues. Record-keeping under the BCP was good with some issues in regard to information on payments (actually available in the FM system), archiving of procurement dossiers, non-publication of contract awards, and delayed procurement under some activities. Procurement was especially affected by the suspension of disbursements as most activities foreseen in the Procurement Plan could not be financed, a situation beyond IBAP’s control. A Procurement Risk Assessment post-coup (March 2012) rated the risk for procurement processes and contract administration as Substantial and Moderate, respectively, with overall risk rated Moderate and country risk rated High. There were no outstanding procurement issues at closing.

2.5 Post-completion Operation/Next Phase

2.5.1 The primary financial instrument to sustain reforms, investments and institutional capacity is intended to be the FBG - complemented by ongoing donor support - and this is discussed in detail in Section 3.2 and Annex 2. In terms of follow-on operations, and maintaining the over-arching vision and logic, a range of options and opportunities was discussed with the Government prior to closing, including: (i) continued actions to multiply financing for the FBG to sustain the SNAP in perpetuity; (ii) specific actions in biodiversity protection; (iii) local economic development through support to artisanal fishing, eco-tourism and other income generating activities; and, (iv) exploring the theme of the increasing pressure on forest resources. Following BCP closure, the Bank passed the baton to UNDP/GEF 5 to continue support for FBG fundraising activities. A separate Global Climate Change Alliance (GCCA+)/EU project is funding on-the-ground management activities in several SNAP PAs, while other donor-funded

11

projects are supporting different elements of FBG/IBAP operations. This overall approach, led by the Bank/IBAP is consistent with the long-term vision, realities on the ground and broad stakeholder agreement/collaboration. See Table 5, Annex 2.

2.5.2 Given the importance and vulnerability of the coastal zone, the Bank recommended that Government explore potential linkages with the Bank’s coastal resilience efforts under the West Africa Coastal Areas (WACA) initiative to which Guinea-Bissau could adhere, complemented by the West Africa Regional Fisheries Program (WARFP) financed by the Bank and GEF in which Guinea-Bissau already participates. Government has actually requested that the Bank be implementing agency for a GEF 6 of at least US$ 2.0 million allocated to biodiversity – and a direct follow-on to BCP activities - under their national STAR (System for the Transparent Allocation of Resources) allocation and as part of the second phase of the WARFP. The Bank advised Government to consider preparing a global operation rather than multiple, small projects. IDA resources could potentially be brought in with GEF resources, while STAR funds could be combined with other sources such as the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) under its climate change adaptation window; or, the Small Island States Resilience Initiative (SISRI). A strategic choice to integrate with SISRI could be justified because a large part of Guinea-Bissau’s territory is situated in the coastal region with strong biological diversity and marked vulnerability to climatic variation.

2.5.3 Institutional capacity/growth is considered likely to be sustained but needs ongoing support from the Bank and other partners. As noted earlier, IBAP has operated for 12 years, has survived significant instability, is maturing into a skilled and well-organized institution with a global profile, and has developed notable capacity to leverage donor support for diverse needs of the SNAP. Much work remains to be done to shore up the SNAP and political instability is unlikely to end. Therefore, “sustaining reforms and institutional capacity” does not end with the activation of the FBG but will require sustained Bank leadership and support to ensure that the institutional framework created thus far is not eroded by the exceptionally difficult political context. See also Section 4.

3. Assessment of Outcomes

3.1 Relevance of Objectives, Design and Implementation Rated: High

3.1.1 The relevance of objectives to current country and global priorities remains high. Protecting, conserving and managing Guinea-Bissau’s biodiversity and immense natural wealth is a critical determinant of the nation’s growth potential, and a top priority for the Government as reflected in its pivotal cross-cutting status in Government’s new National Development Strategy 2020 (Terra Ranka), and in IBAP’s National Strategy for Protected Areas.19 Official ownership is high. Economically and socially, the country’s abundant natural resources provide diverse sources of income for a large portion of the country’s population, dependent on them for survival. Of equal importance, given the globally and regionally significant biodiversity and eco-systems hosted by Guinea-Bissau, especially in its marine and coastal areas, project objectives remain relevant and rational, i.e., a two-pronged approach supporting IBAP’s on the ground management of the parks as the repository of national wealth (carbon stocks, regional fisheries, rare species,

19 Estratégia Nacional para as Áreas Protegidas e a Conservação da Biodiversidade na Guinea-Bissau, 2014-2020, IBAP 2014. 12

mangroves, climate change mitigation through coastal flood control), while constructing a formal mechanism for self-financing its long-term continuity/survival.

3.1.2 The fundamental thrust of Government’s strategy is echoed in recent Bank strategies. At the time of project preparation, there was an Interim Strategy Note (ISN) governing the Bank’s engagement in the country. The project supported the two pillars of the 2009 ISN, namely to: (i) strengthen economic management and laying the foundations for improvements in the productive sectors; and, (ii) increase access to basic services, especially for the rural population, as well as its cross-cutting themes of capacity development and building partnerships. In more recent documents, among the pillars of the Country Economic Memorandum (CEM, 2015) 20 , strengthening the public sector - and in particular public financial management - is of primary importance, consistent with the BCP’s objectives for strengthening IBAP and seeking to make the SNAP self-sustaining through the FBG. The CEM calls for strengthening environmental and enforcement agencies, citing IBAP and CAIA; and, mobilizing additional fiscal revenue including by preserving the country’s natural wealth and promoting its efficient management, specifically fisheries (halting illegal activities, increasing license fees and promoting sustainable fishing), forests (timber, carbon credits), and natural habitats and ecosystems as sources of sustainable income. The CEM asserts that securing the ongoing conservation efforts for the SNAP is critical to preserving ecosystem services and economic opportunities. Second, the ongoing relevance of BCP objectives to the Systematic Country Diagnostic (SCD, 2016) is strong, reflected most prominently under the SCD’s challenge of “fragility and weak governance” where the proposed responses include reforming the management of natural resources as the key to a more prosperous and sustainable future. This would be effected through: halting forest loss resulting from cashew and rice expansion, as well as illegal felling; optimal management of fisheries resources; and, ensuring sustained financing for the SNAP, stressing explicitly the urgency of capitalizing the FBG. The SCD also concludes that medium-term, policies and investments geared to harnessing the value of a nature-based economy are key, e.g. eco-tourism.21

3.1.3 The relevance of project design is rated substantial: Design was based on global best practice and on the lessons of the CBMP, and acknowledged the immense value of Guinea- Bissau’s natural endowment both nationally and to other regions.22 Government – with Bank support - has created a national parks system, incorporated coastal and biodiversity management principles and practices nationally, and supported and approved the tax-exempt status of the FBG. The FBG is the result of a national strategy and priorities adopted by IDA, GEF and the Government since 2004 – consistent with the broad, multi-donor approach adopted to achieve an efficiently managed SNAP, and its design is consistent with the best practice recommendations of the GEF and Conservation Finance Alliance. It was entirely relevant and essential – through the BCP (and its sister operation the BCTF/GEF) - to further secure the gains of the CBMP and to strengthen IBAP’s institutional and human resource capacity to manage the SNAP “under one roof” while shoring up its financial status long-term by bringing the FBG to operational status. Project design has, since the beginning, been framed by the modest amounts of financing accessible to Guinea-Bissau – mandating an incremental approach - and each operation is designed to consolidate and further advance/expand what already exists.

20 Guinea-Bissau – Country Economic Memorandum – Terra Ranka! A Fresh Start, World Bank Report # 58296-GW, January 12, 2015. Note that a Country Partnership Framework (CPF) was recently initiated. 21 Guinea-Bissau – Turning Challenges into Opportunities for Poverty Reduction and Inclusive Growth: Systematic Country Diagnostic (SCD), World Bank Report #106725-GB, 2016. 22 Optimizing Guinea-Bissau’s Natural Wealth, H. Edmundson, World Bank, September 2014. 13

3.1.4 Project components and implementation arrangements were appropriate, given the small size of the IDA Grant and the sound, successful institutional structure already established. Components were logical: (i) further boosting IBAP’s institutional capacity to manage the SNAP and monitor species on the ground (Component 1), reinforced after effectiveness by the inclusion of activities to design/establish a higher-level, longer-term monitoring system harmonized with the systems of regional countries; (ii) moving FBG into its operational phase (Component 2); and (iii) Component 3 was the “anchor” supporting the all-important programmatic approach built into project design, multi-source budgeting and uniting stakeholders around the table. Implementation arrangements established under the CBMP remained stable. IBAP maintained its leadership role and autonomous identity, while the FBG got up and running. The rating of Substantial takes account of minor flaws in the RF, bringing the rating below High.

3.1.5 The relevance of implementation is rated high. Implementation was flexible depending on circumstances, much of which under the BCP were completely beyond its control and required patience and resourcefulness. Component 3 was the window through which the programmatic approach was consistently pushed. Continuous efforts to harmonize donors and activities proved crucial during the coup-related suspension of disbursements and activities. The new Government was fully-supportive,23 with the Bank working with the Client to promote understanding of the project vision, and with donor partners in national and international fora to always keep them abreast of where they fit in the big picture and what this entails. Project support helped connect Guinea-Bissau to the global ecological network and this was effected through many specific activities/events accessed opportunistically and always with the long-term goal front and center.

3.2 Achievement of Project Development Objectives Rated: Substantial

3.2.1 The BCP was designed to improve the planning, execution, management and financing of activities affecting a large geographic area - on the ground - complemented by a significant portfolio of other donor projects/activities all of which were/are IBAP-managed and moving in the same direction. IBAP has survived political turbulence, remained stable in its management and core professional staff, demonstrated strong capacity to expand and improve its technical and financial management of the SNAP, and is building an international reputation in the sector. The BCP represented about 80% of IBAP/SNAP’s staff and operational costs but it is important to bear in mind that IBAP of necessity and in the context of its overall, longer-term strategy receives multi-donor, integrated, inter-dependent financial/other support. Thus, determining attribution in the pure sense is not always feasible. The BCP financed all activities planned at appraisal, fully achieved its two PDO Indicators and, of eight Intermediate Outcome Indicators, three were exceeded, four fully achieved and one partially achieved. The sustainability outlook is positive with certain caveats. This is a remarkable achievement in the circumstances. On this basis, achievement of the PDO is rated Substantial, as evidenced below.

Objective 1: Strengthen IBAP’s management of Guinea-Bissau’s national parks. Rated: Substantial

23 This latest government was dismissed shortly before the submission of the ICR.

14

3.2.2 The BCP’s transitional financing provided the bulk of the core operational funding for IBAP (including salaries, fuel, park management committee meetings, surveillance patrols, and extensive communications/outreach and training activities) without which the management of the SNAP would have declined significantly both in terms of PA protection and community sensitization and engagement. The main instrument for measuring the effects on IBAP’s management of the SNAP was the METT, complemented by other achievements demonstrating that IBAP’s management of the parks continued to improve throughout BCP execution. METT score-card results are reported below, along with additional evidence.

 METT aggregate Score Card results by end-2015 were 507, 108.3% of the project target (448), and 117% of the 2009 baseline (433). See footnote 18.

Year PNMJVP PNO PNTC PNLC PNC 2011 106 113 105 74 56 2012 107 115 109 75 56 2013 111 121 122 77 59 2014 114 119 124 81 54 2015 116 119 129 83 60 Source: IBAP/METT Scorecards 2011-2015

 Numbers of annual surveillance and control missions covering the five parks exceeded the 60 missions projected/targeted (12 per park/year). Annual missions increased steadily: 109 in 2012, 134 in 2013, 164 in 2014, and 302 missions in 2015.  This result is attributed to the following: (i) the 2015 surge in surveillance activities by organized, resident park communities motivated by IBAP’s effective, BCP-financed communication, outreach and awareness-building program in the parks. Surveillance activities became more frequent with the communities’ involvement, and with a new dynamism associated with stakeholders’ “ownership” of the management and control instruments/methods; (ii) IBAP’s demonstrated commitment to implementing its PA Action Plans;24 and, (iii) effective collaboration and synergy among IBAP’s institutional partners: BCP, the Fisheries Monitoring and Control Institute (FISCAP) and the Rias do Sul Project (IUCN/West African Economic and Monetary Union -UEMOA). Section 2.2.

Year PNMJVP PNO PNTC PNLC PNC Total 2012 31 45 31 2 0 109 2013 34 64 24 12 0 134 2014 39 39 37 42 13 164 2015 53 53 90 57 24 302 Source: IBAP Surveillance Data, 2012-2015

 All five parks received updated Internal Regulations – validated and signed by the representative PA Management Councils - and Business Plans, exceeding project targets. Other achievements indicative of IBAP’s growing capacity/influence included the participatory preparation of clear/simple responsible fishing plans, working with fishing

24 IBAP’s acquisition of four new coastal/marine surveillance vessels (financed by the Life Web Project) also contributed to its surveillance of the PNO, PNMJVP and PNTC PAs, covering updating of the maritime zones, coastal enforcement activities, and monitoring of threatened species and habitats. 15

communities in Orango, Cacheu and Cufada PAs; and, the integration of social and environmental safeguards into the internal regulations for Cufada and Cacheu PAs.  786 IBAP staff, institutional partners and community managers were trained from 2011- 2015, 314.4% based on an aggregated annual target of 50/year defined at appraisal. Numbers trained annually steadily increased, and training covered a wide range of relevant subjects, tailored to the needs of each PA.25  IBAP estimates that the BCP directly benefited around 43,000 people, some 61% of the targeted 70,000 under IBAP’s BCP-financed communications/awareness-building and direct training activities. These included training for 786 IBAP personnel at Headquarters and in the PAs, plus an estimated 42,200 people who received biodiversity-related sensitization training, and training targeted at the beneficiaries of IBAP’s micro- investment financing (leveraged from other donors) for ecologically-appropriate technologies and alternative livelihoods. An estimated 65 percent were women.  Sensitization impacts were not formally-studied but anecdotal evidence suggests they could be substantial. For example, communities: (i) intervened to deter outside interests from illegal felling/logging of forest on the periphery of several PAs, especially in the unstable, post-coup period; (ii) sought ways to protect rice fields from hippopotamus incursions without harming the invaders; (iii) asked Park Rangers for guidance on humane removal of snakes and other invasive species; (iv) demanded ecologically- appropriate ovens/fire pits; (v) reported illegal settlements within the PAs to Park authorities; and, (vi) consulted Park Rangers about saving an injured manatee.

3.2.3 Monitoring of key species: Effective tracking of species on the ground was recognized as an obvious product of improved SNAP management. Due to the need for a deeper, more global approach than the plan for species monitoring envisaged at appraisal, and insufficient BCP/IDA funds for such larger effort, a more encompassing, two-stage plan thinking beyond the project boundaries and with a different “product” was negotiated with IBAP/donors: a SNAP-wide Monitoring System tracking the overall biological and socio-economic health of the PAs. The BCP/IDA would be the catalyst financing the first stage and donors would finance the second stage under collaborative arrangements. Under Stage I, the BCP/IDA financed the development/design of the overall approach including databases/indicators on emblematic species working with forestry, species and social specialists. Participatory diagnoses helped identify key indicators for each PA, and measurement protocols which could be harmonized with other regional databases in West Africa. Baselines became the foundation for adaptive management. IBAP consulted with sub-regional institutions to integrate and harmonize this database with regional and international systems. Stage I was completed by closing. Stage II – co-financed by MAVA and the EU – is ongoing, consisting of training in data collection, GIS design/implementation and equipment. See also 2.3.3.

3.2.4 Under its regular species monitoring, the BCP/IDA financed Action Plans for marine turtles, mangroves and hippopotamus; and, National Integrated Action Plans for 4 bird species of national and sub-regional importance: Balearica pavonina; Limosa limosa; Phoenicopterus minor; and Platalea alba. Marine turtle and mangrove Action Plans were finalized and under

25 Training covered: monitoring of protected/threatened species; PA management (enforcement and vigilance; conservation of humid zones; Logiciel MIRADO for S&A; the laws governing PAs; and environmental education); eco-tourism; conservation and transformation of halieutic products; local products and sanitary standards; forest management including inventories, nursery management, fire prevention and protection, strategic planning and reforestation methods; construction of eco-friendly stoves; aerial photography, GIS and GPS management; local development and communication. 16

implementation since 2013; the Hippopotamus Action Plan was finalized/validated in 2014 and is now under execution; and, a monitoring strategy was designed for aquatic/migratory birds as well as a National Integrated Action Plan for the four bird species named above. Routine monitoring of marine turtles, marine hippopotamus, and grey parrot in Orango and João Vieira e Poilão parks show steady increase in numbers, nesting/ovation and sightings (see Table 3, Annex 2).

Objective 2: Pilot the operation of a sustainable financing mechanism for the national parks. Rated: Substantial

3.2.5 The following demonstrates substantial advancement of the FBG’s operational status:  The FBG was physically established and its operations piloted (in accordance with the minimum requirements for receiving GEF funds in the endowment – see Annex 2, para 2.7). The FBG Board of Directors was established and was meeting in accordance with its TORs and the timetable defined in its Statutes; its fourth annual session was conducted in 2016. An interim Executive Secretary (ES) was converted to full-time for 4-5 years. The plan is to recruit/train a grants officer to take over the ES position.  FBG management systems (including fiduciary) are in place and operational, producing satisfactory annual and quarterly reports. The FBG’s Operational Manual (OM) and manual of procedures were adopted by the FBG Council. The OM includes environmental and social safeguards instruments.  Formal Board approval was received for the FBG’s Investment Policy Statement and to competitively appoint a UK-based asset Investment Manager for the FBG’s endowment fund, with guidance from a BCP-financed, independent, investment management consultant.26  The SNAP and FBG financing strategy was prepared with support from consultants from the Brazilian Biodiversity Fund (FUNBIO), also involved in a pilot arrangement to mentor the FBG.  Government signed a protocol with the FBG giving it full legal rights to operate as a charity in Guinea-Bissau, with tax-exempt status. The UK also conceded charity status to the FBG. Actual grant flows have not started. Once the UK bank account is established, and the funds deposited, investment will start and revenues will start to flow. Annex 2.  A comprehensive capitalization strategy is under implementation. Donor pledges as at May 31, 2016 totaled some EUR 4.6 m, from: MAVA Foundation (EUR 1.3 m); GEF V/UNDP (USD 1.22 m, equivalent to around EUR 1.0 – 1.2 million depending on exchange rate); Government of Guinea-Bissau (EUR 1.0 m); and, EUR 1.0 m from FFEM. The VCS-REDD+ pilot is underway and expected to result in carbon credit sales from an average avoided deforestation of 900,000 tCO2/year over 20 years (Cacheu and Cantanhez PAs) valued at an average US$3.04 m/year over 20 years, a portion of which will go to the FBG endowment (and portions to monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV), forest management and community benefits). See Annex 3.

3.2.6 Finally, in regard to the objective of reducing dependence on ad hoc financing/projects, the strategic choice to use the UNDP/GEF funds to support FBG operations over the next four years will allow the FBG to apply 100 percent of the revenues to be generated from its endowment to visible biodiversity conservation activities on the ground. Further, the EUR 1.0

26 See Bio Guinea Foundation Investment Manager Selection and Appointment, August 27, 2016. See also, Bio Guinea Foundation Investment Policy Statement, August 27, 2016. Finalization of this work will be co-financed by UNDP/GEF under their follow-on project. 17

million government contribution is for endowment capital, not FBG operating costs, and has been earmarked within the EU Fisheries Accord. It is not drawn from central government budget and is thus insulated from the general fiscal situation. Further, 50 percent of that amount has already been transferred to FBG, and transfer of the balance is considered likely.

3.3 Efficiency Rated: Substantial

3.3.1 Methodology: A classic economic and financial analysis (cost-benefit (CB) or cost- effectiveness (CE)) was not conducted at appraisal and remained inappropriate at closing, given the country context, nature of the BCP and small size of the IDA credit. Based on country conditions in particular, any quantitative measure to value project benefits (for a CB analysis) or project effectiveness (CE analysis) would likely be unable to show a true benefit, value or cost due to systemic distortions and/or conditions of under-financing. The PAD noted that – pending a concrete assessment of the current and future economic and financial benefits attributable to the PA network and the ecosystem services it provides - the importance of those benefits could be inferred. Some positive, updated information is available for several sectors from the World Bank’s Natural Wealth Study for Guinea-Bissau (Edmundson, 2014) and other sources, with caveats concerning data reporting, availability and reliability (see Annex 3).  The wealth study conservatively estimates total fishing “potential” at 120,000 tons/year and total wealth per capita from fishing at some US$305. Further, data shows that the Government took in public revenue of US$20.0 million in 2015 from fishing activities – about 25 percent of total government revenues in 2015 - of which US$9.25 million were license fees from the industrial fishing sector and the remainder were access agreement payments, mainly from the EU. IBAP continues to monitor/protect the country’s vital fish breeding and nursery areas lying within the SNAP.  In regard to carbon, the PAD estimated that carbon storage by some 60,000 ha of protected mangroves in three PAs exceeded 298,000 tons of avoided CO2 emissions/year with potential to generate around US$5.0 million over seven years. At BCP closing, and based on the REDD+ Project, this estimate has increased significantly. Carbon credit sales for just two PAs (Cacheu and Cantanhez) could potentially produce revenues exceeding US$3.0 million per year, averaged over 20 years. See Annex 3, Box 1.  The potential for eco-tourism noted in the PAD remains high, with solid comparative advantage resting on its biodiversity and cultural assets. While reaping the benefits remains well in the future, the BCP’s efforts to further shore up the SNAP’s sustainability was further “down payment” on that future tourism economy.  Annex 3, Table 1 shows a range of other important benefits flowing from the BCP.

3.4 Justification of Overall Outcome Rating Rating: Satisfactory

3.4.1 The overall rating of Satisfactory is based on the following: Relevance: High The PDO was a straightforward statement of well-diagnosed priorities aligned with past and current Bank and Government policies and strategies.27 Project design - with minor caveats - was appropriate for achieving those priorities and

27 Country Economic Memorandum: Guinea-Bissau, Terra Ranka! A Fresh Start, World Bank Report No. 58296 Vol. I and II, January 12, 2015; and, Guinea-Bissau 2025: Strategic and Operational Plan for 2015- 2020 – Terra Ranka, Republic of Guinea Bissau, March 2015. 18

thoughtfully complemented other donor-financed and IBAP-executed operations addressing inter-related portions of the overall vision.  Efficacy: Substantial This rating takes into account the substantial achievement under both major elements of the PDO and all Intermediate outcome elements, the positive sustainability outlook (noting country risk), as well as BCP-financed, successful piloting of FBG operations.  Efficiency: Substantial Many benefits resulted from a modest investment (see Section 3.3 and Annex 3 matrix). All planned project activities were financed (and a vital monitoring activity was added), and the IDA grant was fully-disbursed. The one-year extension of the closing date was essential to compensate for the Bank’s coup-related suspension of disbursements and was not related to inefficient project management.

3.5 Overarching Themes, Other Outcomes and Impacts (a) Poverty Impacts, Gender Aspects, and Social Development

3.5.1 The BCP had no explicit poverty objectives, activities or financing. The BCP’s complementary alliance with the GEF/BCTF and the CDD project, the latter financing small- scale socio-economic investments for park and peripheral communities, was part of a broad vision of the many benefits – including socio-economic - of a well-managed SNAP. Further, as already noted, while the BCP did not directly finance eco-friendly, alternative livelihood investments in the PAs, it did finance the training and awareness-building associated with these investments, as well as the ongoing strengthening of IBAP’s institutional capacity to leverage the requisite resources. IBAP estimates female beneficiaries at 65 percent of direct beneficiaries.

(b) Institutional Change/Strengthening

3.5.2 IBAP: With BCP support, IBAP demonstrated further institutional growth. IBAP made significant advances in adopting a programmatic approach via the piloting of integrated, multi- year planning tools to improve capacity to manage and monitor the SNAP in a coordinated fashion across diverse financing sources and projects. Further, even though individual donors generally require that their reporting requirements be met, the move towards an integrated information management system was designed to improve transparency in the use of funds and to empower IBAP to manage various funding sources more proactively. Further integration of project activities into a codified system continued to progress and was finalized in 2014, to improve the overall efficiency of how SNAP management is implemented and monitored. Its outreach to PA communities and participatory methods for garnering their engagement in park management and especially the surveillance effort was increasingly confident and effective, and the institution acquired a global profile in the conservation sector. It was especially effective in leveraging financial support from multiple donors. At closing for example, IBAP was managing eight operations and processing another four (see Annex 2, Table 5). Astute resource leveraging has become a hallmark of IBAP’s survival strategy, not only plugging financing gaps but helping to crowd in donors. IBAP, as a maturing, experienced agency benefiting from BCP training and mentoring, successfully advocated for and managed the incorporation of two new PAs and three associated biological/wildlife corridors within the SNAP. These parks/corridors were not financed directly by the BCP but were an indirect benefit of the project through IBAP’s burgeoning institutional capacity and donors’ growing sense that the SNAP is well-managed.

3.5.3 BioGuinea Foundation (FBG): BCP support enabled the FBG to successfully pilot its operations, a project objective. Further, human resource and institutional capacity-building of the FBG Team, its participation in international fora for knowledge exchange and learning, as well as

19

collaboration with and mentoring from other Conservation Trust Funds (CTF) in Africa and Brazil helped build a transparent, modern institution operating in line with international best practice and in compliance with UK law. This helped the FBG establish its visibility and credibility, with multiplier effects vis-à-vis the establishment of collaborative relationships and support for its endowment which currently stands at EUR 4.6 million (within the parameters mentioned at appraisal), with strong potential for additional financing from carbon credit sales.

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

3.5.4 Several unexpected and/or noteworthy developments include:  More regular and frequent park surveillance missions in collaboration with local communities, and a new dynamism resulting from local ownership of the instruments for control and management.  Donor/institutional synergies going beyond regular surveillance to other key activities, e.g., the dismantling by IBAP of unauthorized/illegal settlements within the southern borders of the Cantanhez and Cufada Parks.  IBAP’s participatory preparation with fishermen in the marine zone, of clear and simple rules for responsible fishing in Orango and Cacheu Parks.  An easily-managed database, and the valuation and interpretation of field data via GIS resulted in some reduction of illegal fishing and hunting. Evidence suggests that the clandestine cutting of large trees was also reduced on the periphery of several PAs.  IBAP assumed managerial responsibility for over 319,400 ha of new PAs and fauna corridors, expanding the SNAP from 15 percent to 26 percent of the national territory, and ensuring that it now represents all marine and terrestrial zones.  The Bank Team’s adaptation to evolving knowledge and circumstances and going beyond the original project activities/objectives in promoting the formulation and design – with IBAP – of the SNAP-wide Monitoring System.

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

3.6.1 Within a very small financing envelope, surveys and workshops were not feasible. That said, the annual METT score card exercise can be considered a proxy for “beneficiary survey,” asking respondents for their views on a range of indicators of good management performance in the PAs. Annual and special meetings of donors and other international and national partners (NGOs, private sector, other government departments) solicited views on SNAP management, the way forward and their “fit” within the main themes/priorities. Donor/partner recommendations were influential in guiding IBAP’s approach and evolution. While PA communities were not formally surveyed, the meetings of the representative Park Management Councils, communications and dissemination activities in the PAs and the cultural tradition of PA communities freely voicing their opinions, influenced the cycle of feedback and improvement.

4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome Rating: Significant

4.1 The primary justification for rating risk to development outcome as Significant remains the likelihood of further political unrest and the possibility that this could, over time, erode IBAP/SNAP, i.e. country risk. This is beyond the control of IBAP, donors or projects. The Bank has been the lead donor and instigator of annual donor/partner management meetings, creating synergies. The Bank has facilitated – in cooperation with and through IBAP – specific lines of

20

action designed to mainstream and sustain IBAP and SNAP, with the funding being provided by other sources, i.e., a continuous process of leveraging financing for a resource-poor state with a well-defined, high-value endeavor. Such financing is undeniably “drip feeding” but this is the reality and the Bank has consistently sought to ensure that the donor community understands where its contributions fit rationally in the overall picture, to avoid duplication and overlap. Another important sustainability issue is the engagement of a new generation in the SNAP vision – IBAP has recently taken on younger staff, and maintains a proactive communications outreach agenda in the PAs which inter alia, targets younger community members. Overall, the sustainability outlook is quite positive due to the following:

 The FBG endowment has secured firm pledges for around EUR4.6 million and, US$3.04 million/year can potentially be obtained from the sale of carbon credits.28 Part of the former is government’s EUR 1 million, indicating its ownership of the SNAP endeavor, which has not wavered despite repeated turmoil/turnover.  IBAP has consistently demonstrated its ability to navigate this political and operational environment and is now entering its 12th year. There is strong Bank and donor/partner awareness of the risks to the SNAP; all parties seek to mitigate those risks through collaboration, explaining the unusual resilience of the BCP under adverse conditions.  Government followed through on its commitment to keep a portion of IBAP’s core staff salaries afloat during the transition to FBG financing, transferring some CFA 60.0 million to IBAP (about US$100,000 equivalent) to help carry it through into 2016.  Medium-term sustainability of IBAP and the SNAP is there. Many donors have come to the table and there is broad agreement on the importance of the end-goal. Donors are aware that government has stepped up to assist, signaling its commitment.  Government’s pending parliamentary approval of the expanded SNAP and IBAP’s demonstrated commitment to managing the new parks/corridors, boosts confidence that the SNAP is sustainable. Stakeholders are well aware that expansion implies further, aggressive fund-raising for FBG’s endowment and sustained Bank/donor support.  Longer-term sustainability of IBAP, the FBG and the SNAP is likely, although vulnerable to donor financing choices and availability, and implying continuing time and effort to look for funding opportunities.  Biodiversity and natural resource conservation have been successfully inserted and mainstreamed in national and sector strategies, and feature prominently in new Bank strategies underpinning its lending priorities for Guinea-Bissau and the region.  Sustainability also translates into replicability, i.e., testing and consolidating the successful IBAP/SNAP model and its multi-source, programmatic methodology in other parts of Africa and beyond.

5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance

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

28 A portion of the USD 3.04 million is intended for the FBG endowment (see 3.2.5). Avoided emission flows in the first year are actually low, increasing over time. Carbon prices may vary widely, as could IBAP’s ability to manage PA forests, so current numbers are hypothetical and subject to variation. Box 1, Annex 3. 21

5.1.1 The BCP was prepared rapidly and efficiently by an experienced Bank team to take advantage of financing unexpectedly available for maintaining the momentum of and consolidating an important endeavor in a small, poor country. It provided essential bridge/transitional financing for IBAP’s core operations without which management of the SNAP could have deteriorated rapidly. Its similarity to the BCTF/GEF was deliberate, designed to apply additional funding to sets of activities carefully calculated to keep building out each essential part of the long-term vision for a self-sustaining SNAP. Care was taken to ensure that for essential activities under Component 1, GEF resources were exhausted before the IDA funds kicked in. Project design heeded the lessons of the CBMP, was well-aligned to the Bank’s assistance strategy and country needs, and financed international expertise to ensure that the technical strategy was correct, which continued throughout the implementation phase. Quality at entry was enhanced by IBAP’s burgeoning knowledge of Bank requirements, its successful execution of the CBMP, and its stability as an autonomous public agency, which facilitated the Bank’s preparation efforts. Project objectives and the Results Framework were well-designed and straightforward with minor exceptions, and aligned to the modest financing available.

(b) Quality of Supervision Rating: Satisfactory

5.1.2 Bank supervision of the BCP was effective, regular and enhanced by an established practice of constant online and skype communication with IBAP and project partners. This stood the project (and IBAP) in good stead generally but especially during the many political upheavals in the project period. Fiduciary supervision, including safeguards, was regular, comprehensive and well-reported, with a more intensive focus post-coup. There was a strong effort after effectiveness to establish systematic data collection and storage and, separate from regular project monitoring activities, to create an integrated, harmonized database to measure the impact of modern park management techniques on biodiversity, the ecology and the socio-economic status of park residents. This was an example of strong project management by the Bank Team, adapting to evolving knowledge and circumstances and going beyond the original project concept. The Bank’s decision to suspend disbursements following the coup was correct in the circumstances, but not without repercussions on timely project execution. The Bank supervision team worked hard to maintain momentum during this period, and to help the project recover once the suspension was lifted, which entailed a one-year extension of the closing date. The stability and experience of the Bank Team undoubtedly contributed to the project’s success and to the evolution and longer-term sustainability of the IBAP/SNAP vision.

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

5.1.2 The rating of Satisfactory is justified by the consistently strong performance of the Bank team during preparation and supervision, to exploit a programmatic, incremental approach - attuned to the realities of the country and the modest financing available - to build sustainable, modern and transparent institutions capable of managing a uniquely valuable natural resource.

5.2 Borrower Performance (a) Government Performance Rating: Satisfactory

5.2.1 As discussed earlier, the BCP encountered a high degree of political instability during the course of its implementation with a political/military coup in 2012 and subsequent repeated turnovers of the national government even after free and fair elections in 2014. Even so, 22

successive, newly-installed administrations supported IBAP, its associated public institution CAIA, and the SNAP. Government: (i) supported IBAP’s autonomy which in turn catalyzed an enabling operational environment; (ii) financed a portion of IBAP’s salaries/operational costs when the BCP essentially ran out of money/was fully-committed in August 2015, the first time IBAP had received any government funds; (iii) contributed - through a positive dialogue with the Ministry of Environment and Fisheries - EUR 1.0 million to the FBG endowment from the EU Fisheries Accord, stimulating hesitant donors to step forward and participate; (iv) showed strong commitment to the SNAP technically, politically and conceptually, evidenced in biodiversity’s prominent cross-cutting role in the National Development Strategy (Terra Ranka); (v) convened an International Donors’ Conference in 2015 to inter alia, galvanize support for the SNAP/FBG; (vi) acknowledged IBAP’s sector leadership, global profile and demonstrated ability to garner international support not only for the SNAP but for Guinea-Bissau; and, (vii) supported the creation of new PAs and biological corridors totaling well over 300,000 ha.

(b) Implementing Agency or Agencies Performance Rating: Highly Satisfactory

5.2.2 IBAP: This institution now has an impressive record of project management in a complex sector and against high odds. Its performance under the BCP is summarized as follows: (i) fully-executed all planned project activities and fully-disbursed the credit with a one-year extension needed to compensate for the Bank’s suspension of disbursements; (ii) exemplary fiduciary performance throughout the project engagement period drawing special commendation from the Bank for its FM in the risky post-coup period; (iii) impressive ability to leverage donor financing for SNAP needs, including immense effort to secure pledges for the FBG; (iv) absolute commitment to the SNAP vision including the additional parks which represented a high, unforeseen cost burden. IBAP brought them under the SNAP umbrella to ensure standardized approaches to their future conservation/protection on the understanding that the SNAP now represents all ecological areas of Guinea-Bissau, including terrestrial; (iv) skillful use of communications tools to garner stakeholder support in the parks, nationally and in global forums among donors, sector partners and NGOs, and to establish and maintain an inclusive, productive dialogue; and, (v) stable, productive and responsive working relationship with the Bank.

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

5.2.3 The justification for the Satisfactory rating lies in IBAP’s consistently good performance and sustained commitment – including exemplary financial management – under pressure. This was complemented by positive actions by government to support IBAP and the SNAP – again, despite extreme instability – and clear evidence of policy buy-in to the national importance of the country’s unique natural endowment.

6. Lessons Learned

6.1 The following lessons are among the more important from the BCP experience:

Establishing a conservation foundation is a participatory process the pace of which is beyond a project’s control. It is overly ambitious to set targets that assume certain donors/projects will come to the table on time and experience showed that the project was, in any case, just one part of a longer-term effort. Fund raising takes time and is unpredictable, involving many steps, decisions and interests. Events can intervene especially in unstable environments.

23

The institutional and administrative structure can be established but securing and formalizing the funding might take added years. It is recommended that attention be paid to interim financing needs based on a conservative assessment of how long specific fund-raising targets might take to materialize.

Related to the above, there is a transitional, “dormant” period when a foundation is structurally, legally and administratively established but its endowment is insufficient to support financial outflows. Again, given the realistic time-line for a fully-endowed foundation, this is more likely to happen under negative conditions when donor pushback can be expected and is complicated by over-optimistic expectations of fund-raising velocity at appraisal, political factors and the global economy. There is a vulnerable transition period of securing capital for the endowment, getting the foundation up/running while also funding ongoing management of the PA system. Donor/partner collaboration in such environments rests on the political context in- country, not just the technical merits, the former beyond a project’s control. The flow of funds will always require that donor pledges are honored and in the account, and have reached a threshold sufficient to generate significant revenues. Even then, they need to be wisely invested and start generating returns, which may be modest initially and require that transitional donor financing be sustained.

IBAP’s status as a protected areas management agency – an administratively and financially autonomous public institution under the jurisdiction of the State Secretariat of Environment - has sustained it through repeated unrest and government turnover. This institutional design has been critical to IBAP’s success and credibility. All IBAP staff including its Director are competitively-recruited and well-qualified for their roles, and not affected by government turnover. This contrasts with the instability of the more typical project implementation unit embedded in a responsible agency, with its top echelon politically-appointed. Acknowledging that not all projects can or should establish a new public agency, it is recommended that similar projects seek at minimum, to embed the coordination body within a stable sector agency and include a strategy for institutionalizing its functions and staffing, in situ.

Related to the above, the success of the BCP – in a fragile, politically unstable state – was not an aberration. The factors which insulated IBAP and the SNAP included: stable Bank support since the beginning; a sense of solidarity and commitment to the endeavor; IBAP’s institutional autonomy, and established framework of donors/partners who have stayed involved; prudent, conservative fiduciary performance despite pervasive governance issues; stable, communicative relationships with the right entities/people able to get things done, including in government; and, open, transparent and organized opportunities for planning and trouble-shooting - stakeholders understood and agreed on their roles. It is recommended that this model be sustained in Guinea-Bissau, and extended to other African FCV (fragility, conflict and violence) countries with globally-important biodiversity and potential to supply environmental services.

Stability of the Bank and Client core teams and the depth/mutual trust of their engagement have been highly advantageous. Such stability can have major advantages over time especially for technically challenging projects in difficult country conditions. The Bank and Client teams remain largely in place with a strong commitment to the over-arching vision, an excellent working relationship based on trust, and the benefit of institutional memory. It is recommended that this stability be preserved to the extent possible through continued Bank financial support until IBAP and the FBG are clearly able to walk on their own.

Multi-donor support and an integrated, programmatic approach over a significant time period are essential to realize/finance “big picture” objectives in fragile countries. Country

24

conditions suggest that donor contributions to this overall effort are likely to remain small but they can be crucial for securing sustainability. Long-term donor commitment is needed to achieve the end-goal. While there are disproportionate costs to the Bank (relative to the small size of the project), the development impact of such interventions can be large. Economies of scale may not be favorable but on a country basis, the impact justifies the cost to the Bank. It is recommended that this approach be continued to consolidate the major gains already made and that the end-goal be carefully defined to support strategy formulation and planning in the interim.

Intense and sustained supervision is appropriate for high-risk environments but does not need to be costly or always direct, face-to-face encounters with country counterparts and stakeholders. Regular online/skype contact provides many opportunities for timely troubleshooting and reassures the Borrower Team that the Bank Team is committed to the joint resolution of ongoing issues despite the situation on the ground. It is recommended that even for projects not under pressure from political/civil disturbance, a regular agenda of online/related consultation can effectively complement the Bank’s standard six-monthly physical supervision and lead to more timely joint definition and resolution of problems/issues.

METT scorecard results are an important proxy for impact but complementary monitoring to verify actual impact is essential. Appropriate expertise was included in early supervision missions to propose an integrated and harmonized SNAP Monitoring System. Designing and implementing such systems takes time and resources, as shown under the BCP. It is recommended that projects planning to use the METT, also plan for and ensure the financing of the more comprehensive system, which is separate from and complementary to standard project monitoring activities, having a longer-term perspective, wider goals, a science-based approach and cross-border linkages/implications.

The project demonstrated how to ensure sustainable financing for the conservation of globally-important biodiversity in a situation of fiscal constraints. Guinea-Bissau is an emblematic example of uniting donor collaboration around a longer-term vision with the Bank as catalyst, providing relatively small financing with technical assistance to leverage the commitment and resources of diverse entities to achieve a weightier result. It is recommended that the Guinea-Bissau case be used to promote discussion in the Bank on how to ensure minimum financing for protected areas management in the many African countries where this continues to be a struggle despite the significant environmental services such areas provide. It is also recommended, as a product of the ICR management and peer review process, that linking biodiversity conservation to other agendas receiving more attention, (e.g., climate change and land restoration), could attract more financing to the former.

7. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners (a) Borrower/implementing agencies

7.1 The Client’s letter dated November 23, 2016 commenting on the Bank’s draft ICR was received and inserted in Annex 7. The Client concurred with the ICR’s major findings and ratings. (b) Co-financiers N/A (c) Other partners and stakeholders N/A

25

Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing

(a) Project Cost by Component (in USD Million equivalent) Appraisal Estimate Actual Percentage of Components (USD millions) (USD millions) Appraisal

1. Consolidation and strengthened capacity for management of 1.27 1.27 100.00 coastal and marine protected areas and biodiversity

2. Pilot operation of the 0.39 0.39 100.00 BioGuinea Foundation

3. Project management, and 0.29 0.29 100.00 monitoring and evaluation Total Baseline Cost 1.95 1.95 100.00

Physical Contingencies 0.00 0.00 0.00

Price Contingencies 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Project Costs 1.95 1.95 100.00 Front-end fee PPF 0.00 0.00 .00 Front-end fee IBRD 0.00 0.00 .00 Total Financing Required 1.95 1.95 100.00

(b) Financing Appraisal Actual/Latest Type of Co- Estimate Estimate Percentage of Source of Funds financing (USD (USD Appraisal millions) millions) Client N/A 0.00 0.00 0.00 International Development Grant 1.95 1.95 100.00 Association (IDA)

26

Annex 2. Outputs by Component

2.1 The following discussion under each Component is intended to complement the output matrix which shows achievements under all activities slated in the PAD for financing by the BCP.

Component 1: Consolidation and strengthening of capacity for management of coastal and marine protected areas and biodiversity (US$1.27 m)

2.2 This component, in coordination with donor partners, sought to strengthen the participatory management and conservation of the existing network of five parks (Protected Areas) comprising the SNAP during its transition to more permanent, sustainable financing sources. It would finance the implementation of selected elements of existing Park Management Plans, as needed:29 Expenditures for Component 1 would be financed by IDA resources only after the GEF/BCTF resources (US$613,000) for very similar activities were fully-disbursed.

2.3 The METT methodology is a rapid assessment based on a scorecard questionnaire. The scorecard includes all six elements of management identified in the IUCN-WCPA Framework (context, planning, inputs, process, outputs and outcomes) with emphasis on the first four items. It is basic, simple to use and provides a mechanism for monitoring progress towards more effective management over time. It is used to enable park managers and donors to identify needs, constraints and priority actions to improve the effectiveness of Protected Area management. Tracking Tool Indicators/Variables are extensive and have undergone changes over time. The main assessment form has 30 questions, each with a 4-point scale (0, 1, 2 and 3). This scale forces respondents to choose whether the situation is acceptable or not. Generally, 0 is equivalent to no/negligible progress; 1 is some progress; 2 is quite good but with room for improvement; and, 3 is approaching the optimum situation. Four alternative answers are provided for each question to help assessors judge the level of score given. In addition, three groups of supplementary questions expand on key themes in the previous questions and provide additional information. Questions not relevant to the Protected Area are omitted and the scores are adjusted. Scores are then totaled and the percentage of the possible score is calculated. The Tool’s sponsors are aware that the “scoring” process is open to distortion, e.g., the assumption that all questions cover issues of equal weight. Scores provide a better assessment of effectiveness if calculated as a percentage for each of the six elements of the IUCN-WCPA Framework.

Table 1: Park Management Effectiveness - METT Scores by Protected Area, 2011-201630 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Protected Score % Score % Score % Score % Score % Area31 PNMJVP 106 63.3 107 66.2 111 76.9 114 77.7 116 79.8 PNO 113 56.1 115 61.8 121 61.8 119 69.8 119 73.4 PNTC 105 56.3 109 48.9 122 59.4 124 64.6 129 69.8 PNLC 74 64.7 75 65.5 77 71.9 81 72.7 83 74.8 PNC 56 n.a. 56 58.3 59 61.5 54 56.3 60 62.5

29 Based on priorities identified during IBAP’s annual work program and budget exercise. 30 Does not include the newest parks/corridors created during BCP implementation as their formal management was still being established. 31 Respectively: Parque Nacional Marinho João Vieira e Poilão (PNMJVP); Parque Nacional de Orango (PNO); Parque Natural dos Tarrafes do Rio Cacheu (PNTC); Parque Natural das Lagoas de Cufada PNLC); and, Parque Nacional de Cantanhez (PNC). 27

2.3 Creation of new parks: Two new terrestrial parks and three biological corridors were added to the SNAP and are under IBAP management: the national parks of Dulombi and Boé as well as the three biological corridors of Tchetche, Cuntabane-Quebo and Salifo, established with GEF/UNDP financing of EUR 1.22 million under the Consolidation of Land-based Protected Areas Project (2011-2016). While the initial decision to create these new parks was largely donor-driven with little/no consultation with IBAP, upon discovery IBAP insisted that they become part of the SNAP even though this presented a major challenge. Total national territory under the SNAP increased by over 319,000 ha from 15% to 26%. On the positive side, by creating these terrestrial parks, the SNAP now represents all major national eco-systems. Within the big picture, this representative SNAP required BCP support to help IBAP think through the implications of their creation - planning in human and physical terms for the future - although no BCP financing went directly into establishing the new PAs. Multi-donor budgets and IBAP’s financial strategy now include these PAs. However, on the negative side, the estimated cost of managing this larger area – the technical, human resource and financial capacity needs - over the next 20 years has increased from an estimated EUR 20.0 million to EUR 37.0 million, underscoring the urgency of the fund-raising effort for the FBG endowment and the challenge faced by IBAP to establish quality management of these new areas. Expectations have also been created among the populations living in the new areas.

Table 2: Protected Areas under IBAP Management by end-Project Type of Name International Area Area % of Institution Legal Area Designation (ha) (km2) Territory Responsible Statute Protected National Parque Biosphere 158,205 1,582.05 4.4% IBAP Decreto- Park Nacional do Reserve Lei Grupo de Ilhas #11/2000 de Orango National Parque Natural Biosphere 80,000 800.00 2.2% IBAP Decreto- Park dos Mangais do Reserve Lei #1000 Rio Cacheu National Parque Natural Local Ramsar 89,000 890.00 2.5% IBAP Decreto- Park das Lagoas de Lei Cufada #13/2000 National Parque Biosphere 49,500 450.00 1.4% IBAP Decreto- Park Nacional Reserve Lei #6- Marinho João A/2000 Vieira e Poilão Marine Area Protegida Biosphere 54,500 545.00 1.5% IBAP Decreto- Protected Marinha Reserve Lei Area Comunitaria #8/2005 das Ilhas de Urok32 National Florestas de Biosphere 105,767 1,057.67 2.9% IBAP Decreto- Park Cantanhez Reserve Lei #8/2011

32 The Project directly-created Cantanhez National Park in parallel with NGO support for the country’s first Marine Community Protected Area in the UROK Islands, which came to be included in the SNAP. The Urok PA was not financed by the BCP but was managed by IBAP, using the Project methodology, within the SNAP.

28

Type of Name International Area Area % of Institution Legal Area Designation (ha) (km2) Territory Responsible Statute Protected Total: 536,972 5,369.72 14.9% Additional Protected Areas (Terrestrial) established by IBAP from 2011-2016 National Dulombi Being defined 98,951 IBAP To be Park published National Boé Being defined 95,280 IBAP To be Park published Biological Tchetche, Being defined 33,604 IBAP To be Corridors Cuntabane- 55,003 published Quebo and 36,604 Salifo Total: 319,442 3,194.42 10.0% Source: IBAP/METT, 2016

2.4 Species Monitoring: It became evident that to build IBAP’s institutional capacity, exploit its collaborative and catalytic potential, and have a longer-term impact, the BCP needed to think beyond the basic species action plans and monitoring databases/activities, to SNAP-wide, comprehensive species conservation and monitoring, the results of which would not likely be evident during the course of one project. Baselines were needed to enable basic, adaptive management and the project needed to think about how to track the health of and achieve the objectives – biological and socio-economic – for each PA over time, develop adaptive management tools and adjust management strategies and approaches accordingly. It was agreed with IBAP to establish a SNAP-wide Monitoring System and strategy with core indicators (biological and socio-economic) by PA. Terms of Reference and the overall approach were developed, working with specialist TA. This was an ambitious goal for which the BCP lacked adequate resources, so that the original more limited monitoring plan/routine moved ahead in parallel with the more encompassing, global approach with a different “product” being developed in two stages. The BCP was the catalyst but with inadequate funds, IBAP had to think beyond the boundaries of the project - other donors were needed. Stage I (BCP-financed) contracted forestry, species and social specialists to identify, through participatory diagnoses, core/key indicators for each PA, and a protocol for their measurement which needed to be harmonized with other regional species databases. Stage II involves training for data collection, GIS implementation and equipment, and is still ongoing, financed by other donors. See Table 6.33

33 Some 20 Ecological Indicators and 9 Social Indicators designed under the 1st Stage, BCP-financed SNAP Monitoring System include (depending on PA): Abundance and capture of marine turtles on PNO beaches; Fishing: apprehension by surveillance missions and encounters with resident fishermen; Counting of hippopotamus in Angor (PNO) lakes and on beaches; Number of resident fishermen, jetties and fishing, and economic situation; Aquatic birds: Monitoring of Acapa/Imbone (PNO), Imbone lakes and rivers (during surveillance missions); Counting of Timneh African Grey Parrots at specific points; Marine turtles: counting in João Vieira e Poilão, Meio and Cavalos; Regular re-survey of people present in PNMJVP islands and their activities; On-ground measurement and mapping via GPS in PNMJVP; Fishing: monitoring via “fishing clubs” in Bubaque (size, measurement, photography); Participatory counting of species (combe, lingron, gandi and oysters); Demographic dynamics in all Parks; Burning-off: number of fires and area involved; Social facilities in all PA settlements; and, Classification of soil cover. Detailed matrix available in WB Docs.

29

2.5 Table 3 summarizes the results of routine species monitoring activities during the BCP.

Table 3: BCP-financed Routine Species Monitoring by IBAP PA Indicator Objective Frequency Annual Comment Estimate Marine Turtle: 5 most abundant species of Chelonia mydas PNMJVP Abundance of To obtain Campaign Abundance Poilao Island is the 3rd most marine turtle data on of daily . important site for this species (Chelonia long-term monitoring Index of in the Atlantic Region; most Mydas). tendency of over 5 night important in Africa; and Number of turtles to months observation among the 12 largest nesting sightings come to the s: 2000 sites globally. 4 islands of (7400), PNMJVP to 2007 lay eggs/nest (29,000), 2011-2014 (30,000) PNO Abundance of To obtain 8 beaches Abundance Populations of 4 species of marine turtle data on monitored . Index of marine turtle lay their eggs in long-term once/week night PNO. This is also the only tendency of observation known area in Guinea-Bissau turtles to s: of regular egg-laying/nesting come to 2012/2013: of Lepidochelys olivacea. PNO to lay 630 eggs/nest 2013/2014: 1279 2014/2015: 1580 Hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibius) PNO Total number To estimate 7 beaches, Minimum Monitoring of the of the number every 2 size of hippopotamus population hippopotamus of years population: seeks to detect (i) changes in (adults and hippopotam 2009 - 109; the total number of young) us that live 2014-114 individuals; (ii) changes in in Orango (average the proportion of National observation males/females; and (iii) Park s per percentage of young month) individuals. Monitoring of this species in Orango Park is a pre-requisite for understanding population dynamics necessary for their long-term preservation. Timneh African Grey Parrot (Psittacus erithacus) PNMJVP Total number To obtain an 2 islands Population The Timneh Grey Parrot is of individuals index of the (Meio and (Meio-Joao one of the few species of and number evolution of Joao Vieira): birds nesting in Guinea- of young parrot Vieira), 300 Bissau actually on the IUCN numbers in November- Red List, where it is the islands May on classified under the statute of of João annual Globally Vulnerable. Vieira e basis Poilão Park

30

PA Indicator Objective Frequency Annual Comment Estimate Aquatic Birds (Limicola, Group of Species) PNMJVP Total number To obtain Once Various The methodology used today PNO of individual indices of annually species is polygon-based, where AMPC birds of a the (January) counted: different areas are estimated PNLC certain evolution of 2012: but not counted/included. PNTC species of aquatic bird 35,730 PNC Limicolas and numbers and individuals These data from just the Aquatic Birds specific (27 PNMJVP islands are under in PNMJVP diversity families, 8 review according to zone. species); The data have been sent to 2013: Birdlife International/ 24,527 Wetlands for review, individuals approval of the estimate, and (27 integration in a global families, 8 database. The numbers for species); 2014 represent only 2014: polygons in PNMJVP/PNO, 19,327 and do not include individuals Cantanhez/Cufada/Cacheu (30 PAs. Monitoring is families, 8 continuing based on the species). strategy prepared and agreed. IBAP has determined that the birds utilize other habitats outside the PAs, but according to expert opinion, this is a normal dynamic. Source: IBAP, 2016

2.6 Small-scale community investments: An increasingly stronger IBAP, with BCP support, leveraged financing from diverse partners/donors for micro-projects in food security, biodiversity conservation and environment, education and other types (see Table 6), to improve quality of life in the PAs and peripheral areas. While the BCP did not include direct financing for small-scale socio-economic and conservation-friendly investments in the parks – and the ICR is not claiming direct attribution – it did finance an extensive, SNAP-related community outreach campaign, and training supporting those specific investments, as an essential component of good SNAP management. It was tacitly-assumed by IBAP and the Bank BCP team that IBAP would continue these types of investments (mainstreamed under the CBMP) during BCP implementation by leveraging the needed financing. Such activities were/are considered an essential component of the parks as “development poles”, enabling people to continue to live and sustain a livelihood - the socio-economic objectives of the SNAP strategy - in a manner that protects and conserves park biodiversity. Investment resources were leveraged from the following projects/donors: (i) Sustainable Management of Forest Resources Project in the Cacheu Park (EU); Shared Wealth Project (MAVA/IUCN); Rias do Sul Project (UEMOA/IUCN) and national NGOs (Tiniguena, Palmeirinha). These investments are examples of a larger portfolio of micro- investments which benefited over 22,000 people living inside and on the periphery of the PAs. See Table 7 for examples of these investments.

31

Component 2: Pilot the Operation of the BioGuinea Foundation (US$0.39 m)

2.7 While the FBG had already been legally established in the United Kingdom under the Bank-supported Coastal and Biodiversity Management Project, it had no operational framework, premises, established policies or staff, all of which were put in place under the BCP. The FBG became operational in accordance with the minimum requirements for receiving GEF funds into the conservation endowment. These requirements are defined in the request for a waiver of the application of disbursement and trust fund policies to GEF-supported conservation funds approved by the Bank’s Managing Director in March 2002. These conditions are: (i) the Bank should have a right to request audits of the conservation fund throughout the duration of the Bank’s supervision of the GEF-financed project, in accordance with standard Bank practice; (ii) the conservation fund should be subject to the Bank’s procurement and financial management guidelines throughout the duration of the Bank’s supervision of the GEF-financed project; (iii) the selection of the Executive Director and/or the composition of the Board of Directors of the fund (or comparable organ(s)/officer(s) for the administration of the fund) throughout the duration should be satisfactory to the Bank; (iv) the Bank should be consulted before any changes regarding the selection of the Executive Director and/or the composition of the Board of Directors of the fund (or comparable organ(s)/officer(s) for the administration of the fund) throughout the duration of the Bank’s supervision of the GEF-financed project, and, in any event, for a period of not less than three years after the latest capitalization of the fund with GEF proceeds, with the understanding that the Bank should have a right to exercise remedies (or not declare the relevant GEF Grant Agreement effective) if such changes negatively impact project execution in the reasonable opinion of the Bank; and (v) the Board of Directors and/or Executive Director of the fund (or comparable organ(s)/officer(s) for the administration of the fund) should exercise control over the use of the fund.34

2.8 FBG Structure and Responsibilities: The FBG was piloted in the expectation that it would, in the medium-term, generate sufficient revenues to sustainably finance the recurrent management costs of at least two marine national parks in the Bijagos Archipelago, or their equivalent.35 The following organigram shows the internal structure/organization of the FBG as at the time of ICR preparation; this may change depending on circumstances and future needs. The status of each unit of the FBG is then explained in the table following the organigram below.

34 The terms Board of Director and Executive Director in the GEF requirements are synonymous with Board of Trustees and Executive Secretary. 35 It should be noted that the concept of the FBG is one of flexibility. The idea is that the funding should go where it is needed, not be locked into a pre-existing commitment. If the two PAs in the Bijagos Archipelago have sufficient funding, then the FBG funds could theoretically be directed to another PA which has a financing gap. 32

Organigram: BioGuinea Foundation

Table 4: Structure and Functions of the BioGuinea Foundation (October, 2016) Key Units and Status Responsibilities Functions General Assembly of In place: This is the FBG’s highest office. This Members (GA) 1 founding member is in body is a UK governance requirement. Its place and the decision was members have limited but potent powers made to expand to a including the ability to dismiss Trustees or minimum 2 members. to close down the FBG. It is designed to provide a counterbalance and check on the institution. It guarantees the integrity of the FBG. Board of Trustees In place: This is the FBG’s apex executive 4 Members governance body, responsible for approving all work plans and budgets. It ensures that the FBG is administered according to its statutes, and defines the FBG’s strategies and policies and their execution/compliance. It also protects the FBG against risks which could constrain execution of its mission and the FBG’s evolution. It also recruits and supervises

33

Key Units and Status Responsibilities Functions key personnel in the Executive Secretariat.

Executive In place: The ES drives the FBG functionally and Secretariat/Secretary assures its strategic and day-to-day operational management; institutional relations; Board materials; funding levies (with the Board); human resource management; marketing and communications.

Investment In place: Its role is to prepare and supervise the Committee (IC) Terms of reference (TOR) FBG’s investment policy and put into were adopted in July 2016 action the financial resources of the FBG and IC is in place. This with Board guidance. This function body supervised the includes supervision, and evaluation of the recruitment of the management of the FBG’s financial Investment Managers. placements by professionals in this field.

Grant Committee To be put in place:

Donors’ Circle In place with TORs adopted: This unit groups together all donors to the Actual members: World FBG, permitting them to be updated on the Bank (to hold 1st FBG’s situation, to have exchanges Presidency); European regarding the vision and strategies with Union (Bissau); UNDP FBG’s other units and to provide (Bissau); Secretary of State appropriate counsel in regard to their for Fisheries and Maritime experiences and the evolution at their level Resources for Guinea- and on the international plan. Bissau; French World Environment Fund (FFEM); Swiss MAVA Foundation. Consultative Informal structure in place: This body is a multi-stakeholder forum Committee which meets at least once/year – but can be called on more often if needed - convening stakeholders from different sectors of interest to FBG: private sector, international development agencies and international and local NGOs. Role is to keep stakeholders informed and solicit advice/guidance on specific issues. Grant Officer (GO) To be recruited. This unit proposes the FBG’s financing Part of the Executive programs and ensures that they are Secretariat. Will be recruited activated in accordance with the FBG’s within the financing of the strategic direction/vision. GEF V/UNDP and the French Global Environment

34

Key Units and Status Responsibilities Functions Fund (FFEM) which is financing the start of grant/subsidy activities. Administrative and In place These ensure the management of financial Financial Officers Part of the Executive operations, accounting, administration and (AO, FO) Secretariat. Administrative takes into account the development of and Fiduciary Officers/staff internal procedures. were appointed. Other functions To be determined based on Other executive functions might be created needs and resources raised later on (short- and long-term) based on by the FBG. needs and the FBG’s evolution: e.g., monitoring and evaluation; marketing and communications. Further, consultants might be contracted as a function of emerging needs in specific areas. Source: FBG/IBAP, 2016

2.9 Formal FBG Board approval was received for the FBG’s Investment Policy Statement and recruitment/appointment of an Investment Manager for the FBG’s endowment fund. The Investment Committee was established to oversee this recruitment process (tender preparation, short list review and interviews).36 The Foundation Board of Trustees has four members (three international, one national) none of which represents the Government or is a government official. The Bank heads a Donor’s Circle which interfaces directly with the Board. Signatories of the FBG Bank account are Board members and all proceedings are recorded. FBG received its statute as a UK-registered charity in February 2012 (No. 1146130) and establishing the UK bank account will occur when the investment advisor agreement is signed. At that point, the account will receive the funds, invest them and revenues will start to flow.37 There has been experience- sharing with African Conservation Trust Funds registered in the UK. Meanwhile, the Government’s contribution is held in the Eco-Bank in Bissau.

2.10 The FBG is entrusted with holding the endowment and will transfer/release funds to IBAP based on an annual budget proposal. According to the Articles, IBAP is one of many potential recipients but the SNAP/PAs are identified as the priority for funding. The grant process has not yet been tested because FBG has not had sufficient funds and currently, is awaiting the opening of a current account in the UK. Testing may begin soon under follow-on projects, e.g. the FFEM, which has a specific budget line for this and the GEF V/UNDP if its disbursement procedures can be revised to permit such transfers through a foundation. IBAP will be free to continue to leverage other donor and government support. FBG is just one potential source of financing – it is designed as an instrument to ensure stable, secure flows of financing. It

36 See Bio Guinea Foundation Investment Policy Statement, August 27, 2016; Minutes for approval and adoption of the Investment Policy Statement; and, Bio Guinea Foundation Investment Manager Selection and Appointment, August 27, 2016. 37 The accounts needed to service FBG needs are: (i) a Guinea-Bissau-based account for daily expenditures (established); (ii) a UK charity bank account which could hold cash, make transfers to the Guinea-Bissau account, receive revenues from the investment account for onward distribution (not yet established); (iii) the investment account (almost established). 35

does not replace donor projects but complements them to ensure that core activities are financed so as to reduce the SNAP’s vulnerability to financing gaps. Component 3: Project Management and Monitoring and Evaluation

2.11 This component was to ensure the effective and efficient implementation of project activities linked to strengthening the planning and management of IBAP’s protected areas program, in coordination with other related donor initiatives. Component 3 was of pivotal importance to the programmatic approach, the place where the Bank could foment “big picture” thinking, and it financed many intangible activities supporting this. IBAP has to be opportunistic in terms of where it secures financing but also needs a big vision with clear priorities. The component financed for example, the annual donor/partner meetings where all could see in a transparent manner where they fit in this overall vision. It was also a window for the Bank – working with IBAP – to keep the overall enterprise moving, not just the individual project as “destination”. It financed essential communications and sensitization activities to promote commitment to the vision, as well as training and services to support IBAP’s operations and the consolidation of the FBG. Component 3 enabled the BCP to organize and leverage the financing needed for many aspects of the core strategy. Part of the programmatic approach is to help IBAP finance its new, 5-year strategy, avoiding duplication and overlap, and promoting synergies between donors. The following table shows IBAP’s primary partners and the projects either under execution during BCP implementation (and since), nearing approval or at the concept review stage.

Table 5: IBAP’s Main Partners/Donors and Projects Donor/Financier Projects under Implementation Cost (EUR) MAVA Foundation Project to finalize the status of the Bijagos 10,000 Archipelago as a World Heritage Site (2014- 2015) MAVA Foundation Conservation and Research in the PNMJVP 497,713 (2013-2016) EU/UNDP Policy and Governance, Wamer Eco-Region (to 900,000 WWF/WAMER 2017) US Fish and Wildlife USFWS Marine Turtle Project (2016) 14,000 Service GEF/UNDP Strengthening the Financial and Operational 915,700 Framework of the National PA System in Guinea-Bissau (2015-2018) EU Protected Areas and Climate Change Project 4,000,000 (2016-2020) FFEM FFEM Support to the Functioning of the PNO 200,000 and Urok PAs (2016) Total: 6,537,413 Projects pending Approval Government of Budget allocation of the Government of Guinea- 100,000 Guinea-Bissau Bissau MAVA Foundation Project to Re-launch RBBB in the World 400,000 Heritage Site Total: 500,000 Projects at Concept Review Stage IBAP/World Bank Community-Based Avoided Deforestation N/A Project in Guinea-Bissau

36

Donor/Financier Projects under Implementation Cost (EUR) EU Project to Calculate the Macroeconomic Value of 245,177 Biodiversity in Guinea-Bissau Total: 245,177 (to date)

37

2.13 The following matrix shows project achievements/outputs by Component

Table 6: Outputs by Component at End-Project (May 31, 2016) Activity by Target Achieved by Description/Observations Component (PAD) End of Project Component 1: Consolidation and Strengthening of capacity for management of coastal and marine protected areas and biodiversity This component, in coordination with donor partners, sought to strengthen the participatory management and conservation of the existing network of Guinea-Bissau’s five national parks and biodiversity during this phase of its transition to more sustainable financing sources. 1. Participatory Supervision Supervision Executed: surveillance and Target of 12 2012 - 109 monitoring of supervision 2013 -134 -- The Project exceeded its surveillance target (236%) and its METT target compliance with missions per year 2014 - 164 (109%) park regulations by in 5 PAs 2015 - 302 IBAP staff and (60/year) for 4 Total by EOP: -- The BCP carried out its planned management and surveillance activities, the community guards years (extended 709 results of which are evident in IBAP/SNAP METT scores. to 5). Total by EOP: METT Actual: -- Park management activities included: regular supervision; surveillance 300 PNMJVP – 116 activities in forests and coastal waters; all planned meetings of the Park Orango – 119 Management Councils; discussion and approval of internal regulations; training METT Target: Cacheu – 129 and instruction of IBAP personnel and partner entities; adoption of the species PNMJVP - 111 Cufada – 83 Action Plans and monitoring of targeted species; implementation of Orango – 118 Cantanhez – 62 communication and awareness-building instruments/tools. Cacheu – 109 Total: 509 Cufada – 74 Cantanhez – 56 Total: 468 2. Development or 1 set of internal 1 set of internal Executed: updates of park regulations per regulations per -- 5 parks have an updated set of Internal Regulations subject to continuous regulations and park park revision/updating by meetings of the Park Management Councils. park-specific Business Plans 1 Business Plan 1 Business Plan -- 5 parks have a Business Plan valid to 2020, to be updated annually by the per park per park Park Directors/IBAP when necessary.

37

Activity by Target Achieved by Description/Observations Component (PAD) End of Project -- In addition, IBAP, with the participation of fishing communities in Orango, Cufada and Cacheu parks, formulated new, simple/clear rules for responsible fishing. 3. Meetings of Park Two meetings 2012 - 8 Executed: Management per park/year 2013 - 9 -- Park Management Councils met 44 times compared to the 40 planned (110% Councils were projected at 2014 - 12 but 88% based on a 5-year project with 50 meetings). appraisal: 1 2015 - 15 -- Note that in 2012 and 2013 the number of meetings fell below target due to general meeting Total: 44 the delayed contracting of the Cantanhez Park Director (see Main Text). Once and 1 internal (10 the director was contracted, regular meetings started. Also, the Project closing meetings per year date was extended one year (notionally increasing the target to 50 meetings). or 40 meetings over the course of the planned 4- year Project) 4. Dissemination of Yes Yes Executed: information within IBAP contracted a Director of Communications, resulting in the following: and about the parks (incl. improved -- New IBAP website (www.ibapgbissau.org), more accessible, user-friendly, signage and adaptable for new technologies and for creation of sub-sites. communications -- Launch/distribution of communications materials (brochures and folders on materials) IBAP and FBG; notes and calendars in partnership with Bank of West Africa (BAO) in 2013 and with the Orange Telecommunications Company in 2016). -- National radio and TV bulletins about IBAP activities and reporting on national environmental law, law on PAs, as well as the laws and regulations affecting forests, hunting and fishing. -- Organized debates in the PNO, PNTC parks concerning biodiversity conservation. -- Environmental education for children and adults; and, training for community radio operators in PNO and PNTC. -- Conferences and participation in international forums. -- Regular publication of IBAP’s “Bemba de Vida” bulletin designed to

38

Activity by Target Achieved by Description/Observations Component (PAD) End of Project demonstrate to national and international partners and donors the activities conducted by IBAP in conservation and sustainable management of biological diversity and natural resources. -- Article in National Geographic/Portugal on the Bolama Bijagós Archipelago Biosphere Reserve (author Pedro Narra). See: http://www.nationalgeographic.pt/ind.../ng-revista/507-bijagos. -- Signage installed in PNLC to mark the limits of the durable development zone and zona tampão, and logos designed for new Boé and Dulombi National Parks. 5. Awareness- Yes Yes Executed: raising and -- Awareness-raising and dialogue with park resident communities occurred dialogue with regularly in all 5 parks through consultative forums involving all stakeholders communities and associated directly or indirectly with park services, including resident other resource communities. users living in and -- Creation of these spaces for consultation served to reinforce and consolidate around the parks the overall management structure, improving its coordination, consistency, and vis-à-vis park operations. management -- Among the many subjects addressed, notable aspects include those activities and guaranteeing the parks’ functionality through the use and sustainable biodiversity- exploitation of park resources and the form of improvements in living friendly alternative conditions of the park population resident within and around the parks. technologies and alternative livelihoods

6. 3 species 4 species Executed: Implementation Action Plans Action Plans Project outputs exceeded expectations. The BCP financed: of endangered and threatened -- Action Plans for marine turtles; mangroves; hippopotamus. species Action -- National Integrated Action Plans for 4 bird species of national and sub- regional importance: Balearica pavonina; Limosa limosa; Phoenicopterus Plans

39

Activity by Target Achieved by Description/Observations Component (PAD) End of Project minor; and, Platalea alba. -- Chimpanzee, marine turtle and mangrove Action Plans were finalized and under implementation since 2013; - -- Hippopotamus Action Plan was finalized/validated in 2014 and is now under execution. -- Monitoring strategy was designed for aquatic/migratory birds as well as a National Integrated Action Plan for the 4 species named above. -- Databases now exist for marine turtles and hippopotamus in Excel format, with appropriate variables for statistical analysis and conversion to electronic format (planned). -- Monitoring is continuous and species research is underway but requires a longer-term approach which is unlikely to show measurable species conservation trends over the course of a single project. 7. Design and Yes Yes Executed: operation of -- IBAP now has a consolidated database on all emblematic species (through its consolidated SNAP-wide Monitoring System). endangered and threatened species -- The integrated, cross-border, harmonized system contemplated is still being databases negotiated/established. IBAP has had exchanges of knowledge with sub- regional institutions to harmonize this database with regional and international systems. The planned integration elements have a high likelihood of being established.

-- The strategy changed. Due to the need for a deeper, more global approach than the more limited plan for species monitoring envisaged at appraisal, and insufficient BCP funds for such larger effort, an additional, more encompassing, two-stage plan thinking beyond the project boundaries was negotiated with IBAP/donors. The BCP/IDA would be the catalyst financing the first stage and donors would finance the second stage under collaborative arrangements. IBAP’s institutional growth and maturation were key drivers of this process.

40

Activity by Target Achieved by Description/Observations Component (PAD) End of Project -- Under Stage I, the BCP/IDA financed design of TORs and development of the overall approach working with specialist TA (forestry, species and social). Participatory diagnoses helped identify key indicators for each PA, and measurement protocols which could be harmonized with other regional databases. Baselines were established as the foundation for adaptive management. Stage I was completed by EOP.

-- Stage II – co-financed by MAVA and the EU – was launched and is ongoing. It consists of training for data collection, GIS design and implementation, and purchase of equipment. 8. Targeted PAD target (see Some 786 Executed/exceeded: training, capacity- RF) was 25 staff. technical staff -- The PAD cumulative target was 25, all of which were to be achieved in the building for IBAP (IBAP’s target and project first year, but this was likely an error. IBAP’s final report defines an annual staff and other was 100 training partners were target for people trained of 50/year over 4 years (200). stakeholders (e.g., events planned/ trained during training in projected through the Project -- The BCP financed training events in a wide range of skills for 786 people - participatory EOP for IBAP period. exceeding expectations (393%) – including IBAP staff, Park Management species and staff, institutional 2012 -108 Councils and park communities. Topics included: participatory species and PA protected area partners and 2013 - 161 monitoring techniques; PA supervision and enforcement; PA law; forest monitoring community co- 2014 - 221 protection and practices; strategic planning; eco-tourism. See Main Text, techniques, eco- managers). 2015 - 296 footnote 19. tourism guiding Total: 786 and learning exchanges between parks for IBAP staff, Park Management Councils and community members

41

Activity by Target Achieved by Description/Observations Component (PAD) End of Project Technical Yes Yes Executed: assistance for the -- All updating of the park Business Plans was done by the Park Directors with development of collaboration of IBAP Headquarters staff and contracted technical assistance, annual business and training was provided in the use of the planning tools. planning tools for IBAP, and training in their use Collaboration and Yes Yes Executed: participation in -- The SNAP/IBAP institutional structure/partners participated regularly regional and throughout the Project period in regional/international biodiversity and PA international fori management events, e.g., World Parks Conference in Sydney/Marseille; for biodiversity and IMPAC III Conference (International Congress for Marine Protected Areas, protected area Marseille, 2013); REDLAC; CAFÉ (Consortium of African Environmental management issues Funds); Regional Marine Conservation Program meetings; RAMPAO meeting. Component 2: Pilot the Operation of the BioGuinea Foundation This component sought to support the pilot operation of the FBG, as a mechanism that could, in the medium-term, sustainably finance the recurrent management costs of at least two marine national parks in the Bijagos Archipelago. Operational support Yes Yes Executed: to the FBG Board -- The FBG Executive Secretary, Board of Trustees, General Assembly, of Trustees and the Donors’ Circle and the informal Donors’ Committee received operational FBG General support from IBAP and the Bank Team. Assembly, -- All scheduled meetings were conducted, and travel and communications were including annual facilitated by the BCP. and biannual -- See above table showing structure and functions of the FBG meetings, travel, and communication Support to Yes Yes Executed: Executive -- The BCP supported the FBG Executive Secretariat in conducting local, Secretariat to national and international consultations designed to strengthen the FBG strategy conduct ongoing and priorities, and ensure that the FBG will achieve its objectives. local, national and -- The final draft of the SNAP and FBG financing strategy was prepared by

42

Activity by Target Achieved by Description/Observations Component (PAD) End of Project international consultants from the Brazilian Biodiversity Fund (FUNBIO), which was also stakeholders involved in a pilot mentoring arrangement for the FBG. consultations to -- Specialists in establishing and managing biodiversity foundations supported ensure that the the Executive Secretariat as needed for consultation and strategy-formulation. FBG strategy and priorities were well-targeted and achieving desired objectives Design and Yes Yes Executed: preparation of IBAP contracted a Communications Officer to conduct systematic campaigns FBG-specific in/outside the PAs: communication materials to raise -- Designed an FBG Webpage; awareness of -- Prepared briefing notes, e.g., on the Blue Carbon pilot work; presentations to FBG’s mission and international specialist forums including IMPAC III; materials for Bank give visibility to its presentations on the FBG to leverage donor support. activities -- Materials were prepared for presentation at the annual meetings of FBG partners (Consultative Group meeting with donors, partners, other government departments, NGOs). -- The IBAP/FBG teams prepare updates on FBG and its work program as part of the stakeholder communications strategy. Travel and Yes Yes Executed: operational costs -- FUNBIO specialists from Brazil were funded to develop the FBG financing for an experienced strategy; conservation -- Experienced conservation foundation specialists have accompanied FBG foundation evolution since the beginning and are now supporting the FBG Executive specialist to Secretariat. provide ongoing -- FBG staff have also travelled to meet and learn from other conservation trust training and funds especially the financial side/FM of other similar funds, e.g., Cote d’Ivoire mentoring support and Cameroon.

43

Activity by Target Achieved by Description/Observations Component (PAD) End of Project to the FBG -- CAFÉ and REDLAC trips, designed for learning and knowledge exchange between other Conservation Trust Funds (CTF)

Technical and legal Yes Yes Executed: assistance as -- FBG has on retainer the UK’s top charity legal firm (Bates, Wells and required in support Braithwaite - BWB). The firm provides legal advice regarding UK law/policies, of FBG’s day to issues related to conflict of interest, inputs into grant and policy-making and the day operation FBG Operational Manual, e.g., compliance issues. -- For strictly local issues, local legal expertise is contracted as needed. Technical Yes Yes Executed: assistance and -- BWB handled (and still handles) specific aspects of the FBG policy work, operating costs for e.g., conflict of interest policy. the development of -- Senegalese consultant developed the Operational Manual. key FBG -- UK specialist developed the Investment Policy Statement. operational policies -- TA was contracted to prepare recruitment/tender documents. as needed -- FUNBIO developed the FBG financial strategy. -- All of the above conducted in consultation with the FBG Secretariat, and other key partners/IBAP in the case of the financial strategy.

Recruitment of a Yes Yes Executed: UK-registered agent (responsible -- BWB was recruited for this function as Company Secretary (a UK for preparing and legal/administrative function) filing required documentation with the UK Charity Commission and Tax Authorities on an ongoing basis)

Technical Yes Yes Executed:

44

Activity by Target Achieved by Description/Observations Component (PAD) End of Project assistance and -- An M&E program was developed/operational for the then-current level of operating costs for activities but the grant-making stage needed a more complex system. the development -- While no FBG grants had been made by closing, FM and audit M&E systems and implementation for the FBG are in place. of a monitoring and -- Design of another layer of M&E was underway at closing for the active grant evaluation program stage. for the FBG Technical Yes Yes Executed: assistance and -- The FBG endowment fund-raising effort, with BCP TA and operational operating costs to support, has been successful so far with firm pledges totaling EUR 4.3 m and an support ongoing average US$3.20 million/year expected from carbon credit sales (averaged over FBG fund-raising the 20 year project period). Annex 3. efforts -- Fund-raising is done through the Executive Secretariat, and annual partner meetings which define opportunities moving forward, project proposals (FFEM, MAVA etc). TA supports all such efforts. -- FUNBIO (Brazilian Biodiversity Fund) consultants conducted a financial analysis of IBAP/SNAP to identify the main elements of a financing strategy to mobilize long-term funding. The strategy was concluded and presented to the FBG Consultative Committee, Board of Trustees, other partners. -- BCP also financed TA for the pilot carbon financing effort. Participation in Yes Yes Executed: international (See also Component 1 above: similar activity) conservation trust -- The SNAP/IBAP institutional structure/partners participated regularly fund meetings, throughout the Project period in regional/international biodiversity and PA including Africa management events, e.g., World Parks Conference in Sydney/Marseille; Conservation Trust IMPAC III Conference (International Congress for Marine Protected Areas, Fund Working Marseille, 2013); REDLAC; CAFÉ (Consortium of African Environmental Group, REDLAC Funds); Regional Marine Conservation Program meetings; RAMPAO meeting. etc.

45

Activity by Target Achieved by Description/Observations Component (PAD) End of Project Component 3: Project management, and monitoring and evaluation This component sought to ensure effective and efficient implementation of project activities, in coordination with the other related donor activities. Recruitment of a Yes Yes Executed: full-time IBAP Procurement Officer recruited for IBAP and operating according to the Procurement Operational Manual. Officer Technical Yes Yes Executed: assistance to -- Safeguards were triggered to be conservative/cautious. The preparation of monitor the internal regulations for the PAs was the only activity, in reality, which could implementation of potentially have had an impact. environmental and -- IBAP prepared a report, in collaboration with CAIA, to analyze the situation social safeguards in on the ground in the PAs collaboration with CAIA Operating costs of Yes Yes Executed: donor and partner -- The Project financed annual coordination meetings between IBAP and its coordination strategic donor partners to analyze progress including on the FBG and its meetings endowment, and agree on future strategy. -- Donors also provided valuable feedback to IBAP on the format and content of these meetings to increase their utility to all stakeholders. Recruitment of an Yes Yes Executed: Operations and -- An Operations and Monitoring Officer was recruited for IBAP to head Monitoring Officer IBAP’s Department of Monitoring and Evaluation, a permanent, functioning unit involved in planning and monitoring IBAP’s activities and operations/projects, production of quarterly and annual reports/other. Technical Yes Yes Executed/ongoing: assistance and -- BCP financed the regular monitoring of emblematic species and habitats operating costs to considered threatened whether locally or globally: Action Plans for marine develop and turtles and mangroves were updated and are under implementation, and for implement an hippopotamus were finalized and validated in 2014; strategy for migratory birds

46

Activity by Target Achieved by Description/Observations Component (PAD) End of Project M&E program for was developed in 2013 and an integrated Action Plan covering 4 species was the protected areas also prepared. Databases now exist for all key species in Excel, suitable for network (SNAP) research work.

-- In 2015, IBAP/BCP initiated the conceptualization and development of a separate SNAP Monitoring System, an integrated system with key indicators for monitoring ecological, social and sustainable development of the SNAP. -- The initial proxy is the METT – measuring management effectiveness – but IBAP needs to go beyond the METT to measure what is happening on the ground, and had by end-Project and with BCP financing/TA, identified a set of indicators and objectives for each PA within the SNAP. -- A 1st stage/system tracks the health of a particular species population and steps needed to avert/avoid its extinction, looking at anthropogenic or natural causes of death or simple illness. The system would track the population to assess whether it is growing, shrinking, and/or changing behavior as the basis for adaptive management. BCP financed the design and capacity-building aspects (training people to execute system requirements), participatory selection of core indicators, protocol formation and definition. All work planned under the 1st stage was completed by closing. -- Harmonization efforts have started, with IBAP participating in knowledge exchanges with regional institutions. Consolidation and further development of this system is ongoing. -- An inter-linked 2nd stage/system – financed by other donors and well underway before closing - will measure whether the PAs are achieving their objectives - ecological, social (related to local communities in the parks). Measurement of the achievement of PA objectives becomes more complex and involves longer-term monitoring to detect declines or improvements over time.

47

2.14 Table 7 shows examples of small-scale investments in the PAs, using financing leveraged by IBAP during the life of the BCP. As noted earlier, it was understood that IBAP would continue to develop its role as lead agency for the SNAP by sustaining the activities initiated under the CBMP to engage local populations in the PAs in a long-term commitment to the parks’ ecological and socio-economic health. The BCP financed extensive outreach campaigns and training within and around the PAs, and IBAP leveraged the financing for direct micro- investments on-the-ground which benefited from IBAP’s training.

Table 7: Local Development Initiatives implemented within SNAP, 2012 to 2015 Initiatives Developed by IBAP with Leveraged Funds Park Financier/Donor 2012 In 2012 (January to September), the PNMJVP brought PNMJVP IBAP, NOÉ- together 9 groups from Canhabaque Island, comprising 73 Conservation young people, 47 women and 81 children. The manufacture of fiber mats, harvesting of tubers and forest fruits and extraction of palm oil were reinstated as the main activities of these temporary migrants. They produced around 2,250 liters of palm oil, 82 fiber mats, 7 50 kg sacks of inhame and 6 sacks of cabaceira for sale. To minimize the damage caused by hippopotamus in rice PNO CBD-Habitat, IBAP fields, a program financed the fencing off of fields in the PNTC mangrovebolanhas of Cubampor and Suzana (PNTC), Bissorã Bissorã in the Oio region and the agriculture center of (outside Carantaba in the east of the country, zones where the PA) hippopotamus are common. In Cubompor about 10.6 ha were fenced and in Suzana about 49 ha. This initiative financed/supported by CBD-Habitat sought to replicate successful experiences in the Orango park as well as to contribute to reducing conflicts between man and animals, and reduce rural poverty. With the support of NOÉ-conservation, basic informatics PNO NOÉ-Conservation training was administered for Park Rangers in Orango park. This training allowed a better understanding of informatics and its functions and introduced Rangers to Microsoft software. Discussion of texts in Word and of Excel tables was accompanied by practical exercises. The 11 Rangers trained are now expected to prepare their reports and create databases on their surveillance/enforcement missions in Orango park. An agreement was signed between IBAP and WFP to PNB PND World Food Program promote learning activities in the regions of Bafatá and (WFP) and IBAP Gabu, namely: Promotion of Ecologically appropriate Stoves, Improved Food/Diet, and Fruit Development. A partnership between IBAP, ECOBANK, DGFF and DGA Bissorã ECOBANK, IBAP, resulted in the preparation and financing of a micro-project Director General for to protect (54 ha) and re-constitute (2 ha) degraded forest Forests and Wildlife ecosystems in the Bissorá sector. and Director General for Agriculture.

48

Initiatives Developed by IBAP with Leveraged Funds Park Financier/Donor 2013 Construction of a community radio station in Cacheu Park PNTC MAVA, IUCN Rehabilitation of a Health Post in Orango Park PNO N/A Electrical fencing to resolve human-hippopotamus conflict. PNO CBD-Habitat, IBAP PNTC Construction of a plant nursery in Cacheu Park. PNTC EU, Monte Ace, IBAP 2014 Rehabilitation of 215 ha of bolanhas (mangrove ricefields) PNTC EU, Monte Ace, in Apilho, Djendem IBAP Support for extraction of solar salt saw 42 women trained PNTC AD, IBAP, IUCN and provided with required materials and equipment. The women’s group has already produced 560 kg of salt for sale and is building a fund for future expenditures. Supporting fishing activities, the Rias do Sul Project PNO, IUCN, UEMOA provided materials and equipment at a reasonable price for PNLC (Rias do Sul Project) responsible fishing in the Cacheu, Cufada and Orango PNTC Parks. Micro-project to aid transportation: acquisition of a canoe PNO IBAP for crossing the Ambuduco River Support to a “Knowledge Exchange for Youth” program in PNO IBAP Orango Park. Under a basic sanitation investment, a well for potable PNO IBAP water was constructed in An-or. Under a micro-project for basic health, in partnership with PNO CBD-Habitat CBD-Habitat, a Basic Sanitation Unit in Ambuduco was rehabilitated and equipped with medications. 2015 Installation of 2 Ice-making Plants to support fish PNLC UEMOA, UICN conservation in Cacheu, Buba. PNTC Rehabilitation of a primary school in Djopá, Cacheu Park PNTC IBAP Rehabilitation of an Advanced Enforcement Post in PNO IBAP Imbone, Orango Park Rehabilitation of wells in three PAs PNO IBAP PNLC PNTC Provision of materials for sustainable fishing under the Rias PNLC UEMOA, IUCN do Sul Project PNC PNTC Community Hostel in Anhôr was put into operation with PNO MAVA, IUCN capacity to host 16 people, with 8 double rooms, interior sanitation, and 24-hour electricity and water supply. Such investments can potentially support eco-tourism.

49

Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis

3.1 A classic economic and financial analyses (e.g., cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness) was not conducted at appraisal and remained inappropriate at closing, given the country context – summarized in the Main Text Section 1 and spelled out in recent Bank strategies - the nature of the Project and the small size of the IDA credit. Based on the country conditions in particular, any quantitative measure to value the project benefits (for a cost-benefit analysis) or the project effectiveness (for a cost-effectiveness analysis) is likely to be under-estimated and unable to show a true benefit, value or cost due to systemic distortions and/or conditions of under-financing.

3.2 In the case of e Cost-Benefit (CB) analysis, it is highly unlikely that the substantial benefits derived from the project could be valued. For example, it is difficult to associate an economic value to the Project as enabler or catalyst for conservation initiatives. Without the project financing, it is more likely that the areas intended for conservation would have experienced persistent degradation of high-value, unique biodiversity and natural resources and a subsequent loss of opportunities for sustainable coastal and forest management. Likewise, it is also challenging to provide a value regarding the Project’s role in keeping the protected area system up/running within a context of political instability and severe resource limitations. The country is and has been for some time characterized by weak governance, grossly inadequate provision of basic public goods and services and limited economic opportunities. Public institutions are geared towards providing private goods to elites – political and military – rather than public goods to citizens (see Guinea-Bissau Country Economic Memorandum (CEM) and Systematic Country Diagnostic (SCD)). Even more difficult is attributing apparent benefits to the Bank’s project in some cases, especially where some achievements represent cases where benefits derive from a number of different factors catalyzed by the Project.

3.3 In the case of a Cost-Effectiveness (CE) analysis, under an extremely constrained budgetary situation, any analysis might indicate substantial results when compared to comparable projects from other countries/realities with similar conservation objectives, due to the extreme budget constraints in the Guinea-Bissau case. The project implementation agency IBAP submitted annual requests for budget support from 2012 through 2015 totaling EUR 1.371 million, and only in 2015 was the Government able to allocate resources to IBAP (EUR 100,000).38 Yet, despite this situation, and the very small size of the BCP Grant, the Project substantially achieved its objectives. Taking into account the project background/context, a Cost- Effectiveness analysis would require a set of heroic assumptions since it would be virtually impossible to measure all the elements necessary for such analysis. The cost-effectiveness of the analysis itself, given search and processing costs under such conditions, is also an important consideration in this case.

3.4 The PAD economic and financial analysis did not include a CE or CB assessment. At appraisal, it was noted that while a concrete assessment of the current and future economic and financial benefits attributable to the PA network and the ecosystem services it provides had yet to be undertaken, the importance of these benefits could be inferred. Some positive, updated

38 IBAP requested an aggregate EUR 1.371 million over four years, as follows: 2012 EUR 275,000; 2013 EUR 228,000; 2014 EUR 299,000; and 2015 569,000. Only in 2015 was government able to allocate some part of the request - EUR 100,000.

50

information/data is available for several sectors from the World Bank’s Natural Wealth Study for Guinea-Bissau (Edmundson, 2014) and other sources, but caveats apply regarding data reporting, availability and reliability:

 First, the potential for eco-tourism noted in the PAD – especially in the PAs of the Bijagos Archipelago - remains high, with solid comparative advantage resting on its biodiversity and cultural assets. IBAP’s income from touristic activities in the PAs is still modest – around EUR 10,000 – 11,000/year. Deficient infrastructure and political instability means reaping the expected benefits remains well in the future but BCP’s efforts to shore up the PA’s sustainability was a further “down payment” on that future tourism economy.

 Second, in regard to fishing, the PAD estimated total annual fish production as 250,000 tons (based on Economic and Sector Work in 2003) with an estimated gross value of between US$60-90 million and if managed well, a projected future value of US$119 million. The wealth study does not re-estimate current fish production nor attempt to assign a gross value. However, with the caveat that fishing data is commonly under- reported and outdated, the study conservatively estimates total fishing “potential” at 120,000 tons/year, and total wealth per capita from fishing at around US$305. A World Bank report still under preparation shows that the Government of Guinea-Bissau took in public revenue of US$20.0 million in 2015 from fishing activities, of which US$9.25 million were license fees from the industrial fishing sector (converted at USD1=578.31 F CFA) and the remainder were access agreement payments, mainly from the EU.39 IBAP continues to protect the country’s vital fish breeding and nursery areas lying within the SNAP.

 Third, in regard to carbon, at appraisal it was estimated that carbon storage by some 60,000 ha of protected mangroves in three of the PAs equaled 298,126 tons of avoided CO2 emissions per year with potential to generate around US$5.0 million over seven years at an average price (at that time) of US$3.50/ton of CO2. At BCP closing, and based on the REDD+ Project, this estimate has increased significantly. Carbon credit sales for just two PAs (Cacheu Mangrove Forest National Park and Cantanhez Forest National Park) could potentially produce revenues of just over US$3.0 million per year averaged over 20 years at US$3.30/ton of CO2, the 2015 average market price for carbon (see Box 1).

3.5 At a broader level, the wealth study suggests that the total natural wealth in Guinea- Bissau could be up to US$ 3,874 per capita (in 2010 prices) where US$305 per capita comes from biodiversity/Protected Areas, not including mangrove ecosystem services. Likewise, the 2011 natural wealth valuation for Cacheu Protected Area (a coastal and marine PA) alone is in the order of US$ 190 per capita. If 70,000 people live in and on the periphery of the PAs, the total conservative value associated with the PAs alone represents around US$21.35 million, about 8% of the total valuation of Guinea-Bissau’s natural wealth.40

39 West Africa’s Coastal Bottom-Trawl Fishery: The Case of Trade in Foreign Fishery Services, World Bank, report pending. 40 Wealth accounting is a larger number than GDP because it includes the valuation of non-tradable goods or goods which lack market prices (e.g., carbon storage, flood protection). In the case of Guinea-Bissau, there is a very strong dependence on natural resources (e.g., fishing, cashew nut). GDP per capita is US$563.70 (current USD), but comparing monetary values over time (Power Purchase Parity or PPP) it is 51

3.6 Table 1 presents a comprehensive accounting of BCP benefits, while Box 1 discusses the expected benefits of the World Bank ESSD Trust Fund and BCP-financed Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) Project.

US$1,367.30. While the natural wealth valuation is US$3,874/per capita (in 2010 prices) - or three times GDP- for the PAs alone it is US$190/per capita. 52

Table 1: Project Characteristics, Identified Benefits and Achievements Identified Project Direct/ Objective Main Activities Achievements by BCP Components Indirect Benefits Component 1: Enable IBAP to Support and Effective The project has served as key enabler and corner stone for upcoming continue the finance, in each conservation conservation initiatives. Bank support via the BCP could be regarded as the Consolidation participatory of the five of globally ‘keystone’, enabling project support from other donors to be leveraged and around and management and national parks important which other donors designed and harmonized their activities. The larger scale strengthened conservation of as needed, ecosystem and follow on GEF 5 (UNDP), GCCA+ (EU), and FFEM projects all build upon the capacity for Guinea-Bissau’s operating costs, threatened activities and achievements of the BCP, seeking to complement and further management protected areas development of species. consolidate these. There were also other, smaller scale activities such as those of coastal and and biodiversity park financed through MAVA and other NGOs which complemented the BCP. marine during the first regulations, protected areas phase of the dissemination Guinea Bissau’s natural capital is substantial with solid comparative advantages. and transition to activities and Its comparative advantage in tourism rests with its biodiversity and cultural assets. biodiversity more sustainable awareness- The World Bank’s Guinea-Bissau Natural Wealth study (Edmundson, 2014) (US$1.27 M). financing campaigns, provides an estimate of the potential wealth per capita of natural resources sources. It will implementation (estimated at US$ 3,874) of which biodiversity/protected areas is US$ 305 per focus on of endangered capita, without including mangrove ecosystem services (and based on a 50% strengthening the and threatened opportunity cost for agriculture). Likewise, the 2011 natural wealth valuation for management of species actions Cacheu Protected Area (a coastal and marine PA) alone is in the order of US$ 190 five coastal and plans; design per capita (based on a different methodology with actual values for PA goods). marine national and operation of Based on these estimates, the BCP has effectively managed to maintain Guinea parks and consolidated Bissau’s natural capital (and valuation), despite chronic political instability. increasing the endangered and Effective Bank support via the BCP has contributed to preserving and enhancing future monitoring and threatened development economic opportunities for the country at a national and local level. The SNAP conservation of species and fostering is regarded as the backbone of a future tourism industry for the country. Nature- globally databases, economic based tourism is identified as the core element of one of the four growth poles significant among others. activities in identified in Terra Ranka – the country’s 10-year development strategy. Guinea biodiversity. line with Bissau’s tourism potential rests on its rich, globally significant biodiversity and conservation ecosystems, its varied and attractive landscapes, and on its cultural diversity efforts. (cuisine, festivals, traditional dance and music, and handcrafts). Therefore, conserving the SNAP and its globally significant biodiversity, preserves this option for future development by the private sector and communities alike.

Guinea Bissau is endowed with considerable natural capital and it is important for its economy. The economy of Guinea-Bissau today is based entirely on this natural capital, which represents 47% of per capita wealth, the highest proportion in West Africa.

53

Identified Project Direct/ Objective Main Activities Achievements by BCP Components Indirect Benefits It has significant water resources, a rich maritime territory, and exceptional biodiversity, which provides significant ecosystem services to the whole of West Africa (e.g., almost 10% of the land mass is covered in mangroves, the highest proportion in the world; 13% of the land and sea territory is under conservation to protect biodiversity – a proportion which is in process of increasing to 26% due to the recent inclusion of new parks and biological corridors). Strengthened The project has provided important management tools and strengthened national institutions at institutions. Bank support via BCP has strengthened institutions at different levels regional, (local, regional, national) building capacity and fostering the ongoing dialogue and national, and partnership with local stakeholders. The project has also supported specific local levels investments in improving the management of the PAs such as training, the through participatory preparation of the PA’s Internal Regulations and Business Plans, and targeted the design of a SNAP-wide Monitoring System. Similarly, the Project financed the capacity bulk of the core operational costs for IBAP (including salaries, fuel, park building for management committee meetings, surveillance patrols, communications campaigns planning, and training). Without this finance, the management of the SNAP would have management declined significantly both in terms of PA protection and community sensitization of national and engagement, the latter essential to PA sustainability. biodiversity conservation. Strengthened Bank support via the BCP contributed to preserving and enhancing conservation monitoring and of endangered and threatened species. Guinea-Bissau hosts biodiversity and conservation ecosystems of global significance, particularly those in the coastal and marine areas of specific (mangroves, green turtles, sawfish, migratory birds, chimpanzees, carbon stocks endangered and regional fisheries, among others). Bank support through the BCP ensured the and threatened core functioning of IBAP and progressively increased effectiveness of the species. management of coastal and marine PAs, especially those where endangered and threatened species live. Strengthened Bank support via the BCP strengthened IBAP’s programmatic management of partnerships at the SNAP and catalyzed and facilitated dialogue and the building of partnerships all levels, between the stakeholders. IBAPs communications materials and efforts providing (participation in international meetings, brochures, publications, websites and opportunities community meetings, radio shows, among others) helped to share knowledge to better internationally, and to raise awareness both nationally and locally. collaborate and communicate The BCP further strengthened IBAP’s institutional capacity and reputation to

54

Identified Project Direct/ Objective Main Activities Achievements by BCP Components Indirect Benefits the exchange leverage funding from a wide range of donors/partners and to proactively of good coordinate where it is spent. IBAP established and maintained strong financial practices. management performance without indications of fraud and corruption, and it also has an impressive record of project management in a complex and usually under- funded sector. With Bank support, IBAP leveraged significant donor financing for the SNAP, developed the capacity to coordinate multiple donor projects simultaneously, and took on the responsibility of new parks within the national system. Strengthened Bank support via the BCP contributed to preserving and enhancing conservation conservation of mangrove forests. Nearly 10% of Guinea Bissau’ land mass is covered in of mangrove mangroves and approximately 70 percent of the population lives in the low-lying forests coastal area which is highly vulnerable to storm surges and rising sea levels. In the context of climate change, for which Guinea Bissau ranks second only to Bangladesh on the 2014 Climate Change Vulnerability Index (CCVI), mangroves have great relevance due to their capacity to protect against storms and sea level rise, making them indispensable for coastal communities in their fight against climate change. Mangroves may be particularly effective in rural areas where populations are widely dispersed and the construction of hard infrastructures like seawalls may not be economically feasible over long coastlines. Component 2: Support the pilot Support and Leverage BCP through its focus on building and operationalizing the FBG and fund operation of the finance resources and raising efforts, helped to secure seed capital totaling around EUR 4.60 million Pilot the BioGuinea operational sustainable for the endowment. 41 BioGuinea was designed to manage various funding operation of Foundation in support to the financing for mechanisms (sinking, revolving, and endowment) but the key to sustainability lies the BioGuinea Guinea-Bissau FBG Board of conservation with securing an endowment capital with sufficient revenue streams to meet SNAP Foundation (FBG) as a Directors, its recurrent costs. So far, the project has directly secured seed capital commitments to (US$0.39 M). mechanism that members, and the endowment fund from GOGB (EU Fisheries Accord and future REDD+ would eventually the Executive revenues), MAVA Foundation, GEF5, FFEM. be capable of Secretariat to Strengthened BCP support has enabled human resource and institutional capacity building of financing the conduct capacity the FBG team. The project has improved FBG capacity, and has enabled core stakeholders building at all participation in international fora for knowledge exchange and learning,

41 GEF contribution is USD 1.22 million, valued in EUR between EUR1.00 and EUR1.20 million, depending on the rate of exchange.

55

Identified Project Direct/ Objective Main Activities Achievements by BCP Components Indirect Benefits management consultations; levels, collaboration and mentoring with other CTFs in Africa and Brazil, helping build a activities of at technical providing transparent institution operating in line with international best practice and in full least two of the assistance and opportunities compliance with UK law, which has helped increase the FBG’s visibility and country’s operating costs to leverage credibility with knock-on effects vis-à-vis establishment of collaborative existing national to support resources for relationships and project and endowment support. parks. ongoing conservation. fundraising Increase global BCP support enabled the operationalization of BioGuinea as an example of efforts of the awareness for conservation finance. Taking into account political instability in Guinea-Bissau, foundation conservation conservation finance is a central opportunity to achieve long term goals for the finance. sustainable financing of the SNAP. BioGuinea was created under English law and legally recognized in Guinea-Bissau as a private, secular, non-profit organization established for public benefit. BioGuinea represents a significant illustration/model of conservation finance at the country level.

56

Box 1: Conservation Financing and the REDD+ Project

The BioGuinea Foundation (FBG) was established in March 2011 as an instrument for the sustainable financing of biodiversity conservation, with an emphasis on the management of the National System of Protected Areas (SNAP) and the promotion of sustainable social development. The FBG is designed to manage various funding mechanisms (sinking, revolving and endowment) with its key strategy for sustainability lying with gradually securing an endowment capital with sufficient revenue streams to meet SNAP’s recurrent costs.

An innovative financing option relates to REDD+ (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) through the sale of carbon credits (currently priced at an average US$ 3.30 per ton)42. With this in mind, IBAP and the FBG are piloting and initiative to explore the potential role which carbon finance can play in supporting broader biodiversity conservation. With support from the World Bank ESSD Trust Fund and the BCP, a Reduced Emissions from Deforestation (REDD) project was developed to help secure financing to protect the forest and biodiversity in Cacheu and Cantanhez National Parks. This innovative blue carbon REDD project, entitled the Community Based Avoided Deforestation Project in Guinea-Bissau (CBADP) seeks to demonstrate how carbon finance can contribute to Guinea-Bissau’s short, medium and longer-term conservation financing strategy, helping finance ongoing forest management in the short and medium-term and to gradually build up the endowment resources needed to mitigate financial uncertainties in the medium and long-term.

The CBADP was independently validated under the Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) with a baseline year of 2011. The carbon emissions reduction potential for the two Protected Areas, i.e., Cacheu Mangrove Forest National Park (74,700 ha) and Cantanhez Forest National Park (106,500 has) is estimated to average 920,426 ton per year over 20 years43, (approximately 18 million tCO2e) which at an average price of US$ 3.30/ton, could potentially create long-term revenues of approximately US$60.0 million. (See table below.) Taking into account Guinea-Bissau’s political instability, finding a buyer might be challenging, nevertheless the pilot and the estimates indicate that the coastal forests have significant economic and financial potential that could potentially finance the FBG, the management of protected areas by IBAP, community sustainable development activities and help build the FBG’s endowment for future protected areas.

Now, five years into the pilot, FBG and IBAP need to undertake the first monitoring to quantify the actual avoided emissions, complete the verification audit and issue the first VCUs. FFEM (confirmed) and MAVA (in the approval process) propose to finance this process, enabling the monitoring and independent third party verification required to be able to quantify and issue the VCUs. It will additionally build IBAP and FBG's capacity to manage carbon projects, and prepare them to engage with the carbon market. At the end of this process FBG is expected to be able to engage in the carbon market, commercialize these VCUs and realize its carbon revenues.

Expected Impacts: The first direct impacts expected of completing the first Independent Verification of the blue carbon REDD project are that FBG and IBAP will have a verified carbon asset (VCU) that can be traded. While actual emissions reduction over the past five years will depend upon the degree to which IBAP and its partners have managed to reduce deforestation in the two designated Protected Areas, the CBADP Project Document (PD) nevertheless indicated a potential for avoiding 785,921 tCO2e by 2016. Using the 2015 average VCU market price of USD 3.30 (Hamrick and Goldstein, 2016), this could potentially generate USD 2.50 million. These resultant carbon revenues would trigger a package of relevant social, environmental, economic and institutional impacts that are further detailed below. The second direct expected impact relates to building FBG's capacity to trade carbon, operate a carbon registry and perform the required bureaucratic steps. The project will provide

42 Forest Marketplace (2016). Raising Ambition – State of the Voluntary Carbon Market 2016. 43 Community Based Avoided Deforestation Project in Guinea-Bissau (2015): Winrock International, IICT, and the World Bank. 57

FBG and IBAP staff with the necessary knowledge, training and materials to perform deals in the carbon market. Carbon finance revenues will be distributed in accordance with a benefit-sharing arrangement, the broad principles of which are already agreed, namely, funds would be provided to: (i) IBAP in support of immediate, ongoing management of these two PAs, including for monitoring, verification and issuance of VCUs: (ii) local communities (via a sinking fund managed by the FBG) in support of participatory sustainable development initiatives, e.g., similar to those developed under the FIAL; (iii) the FBG endowment fund, to build up the capital base for generating future sustainable revenue flows after the end of the CBADP; and, (iv) to other implicated partners, like the State Secretariat for Environment and NGOs. The increased flow of funds from the sale of VCUs is also expected to have the following impacts: Environmental: The project will materialize the conservation efforts in Cacheu and Cantanhez National Parks, delivering emission reductions estimated at around 785,921 tCO2e in the first monitoring period. This demonstrates the global impact of forest and biodiversity conservation on climate change mitigation, reinforcing the role of local communities. Furthermore, the project supports a broader national climate policy (National Determined Contribution - NDC) and the national development strategy (“Terra Ranka”) by supporting the protection of 145,698 ha of forest and the biodiversity it contains. Finally, in a country that is considered to be the second most vulnerable to climate change after Bangladesh (Maplecroft, CCVI 2015), the preservation of these biomes guarantees the maintenance of a natural infrastructure that provides double dividends for the country and the communities, delivering both emissions mitigation and climate adaptation returns. Social: The project demonstrates how participatory management and sustainable local development can work together to support forest and biodiversity conservation. The carbon revenues will permit small grants and microfinance initiatives, based on the lessons derived from the Fund for Local Environmental Initiatives (FIAL), to be operationalized. Such programs can impact over 50,000 people living inside the project area. More importantly, sharing the benefits from REDD will provide communities with a clear message of how they can benefit from changes in behavior by assessing tangible returns from forest conservation. This supports a paradigm change since PAs should not be seen as a constraint on their livelihoods, reinforcing their buy-in into protected areas as whole. Finally, the REDD project is a milestone and basis for a virtuous cycle for future generations, in which the relationship between community and natural resources is mutually beneficial. Economic: The main economic impact relates to a new financial source for FBG and IBAP, both for short and long term conservation financing. From a broader perspective, the project is the first of its kind in Guinea-Bissau and will allow the country to be inserted into an international carbon payment mechanism. Another relevant impact relates to supporting capitalizing the endowment and the overall FBG sustainable financing strategy. The project further demonstrates to the Government of Guinea-Bissau and other West African countries how smart climate financing that supports tangible social and environmental positive impacts is a reality, providing an economic value for maintaining standing forests. Institutional: The experience gained through implementation of this demonstration project is expected to build institutional capacity in IBAP, FBG and other local partners. The practical experience and lessons learned with both implementing carbon projects, and operating in carbon markets will also help reinforce the Government's participation in the ongoing high-level debate on climate issues and related international negotiations. The ultimate goal of the project is to avoid deforestation in two protected areas of Guinea Bissau (GB), thus reducing carbon emissions and improving the protection of globally important biodiversity sites. The CBAD project aims to contribute to the realization of Guinea Bissau's long term vision of sustainable financing for conservation of biodiversity by leading pilot activities that, while autonomous, can later be nested into national level developments. To this end, the proposed Independent Verification project activities seek to enable FBG and IBAP to take the next step in the implementation of the overarching pilot VCS CBAD project, supporting the first verification of carbon emission reductions (ERs) and issuance of associated VCUs, facilitating benefit- sharing arrangements and strengthening the capacity to market carbon credits. See table of estimated carbon credit revenues below.

58

Estimated Revenues from Carbon Credit Markets Estimated GHG Value (US$) at 2015 Years Emission Reductions Average Price or Removals (tCO2e) 2013 75,251 248,328 2014 153,844 507,685 2015 235,776 778,061 2016 321,050 1,059,465 2017 409,664 1,351,891 2018 501,619 1,655,343 2019 596,914 1,969,816 2020 695,550 2,295,315 2012 797,527 2,631,839 2022 902,845 2,979,389 2023 978,096 3,227,717 2024 1,056,688 3,487,070 2025 1,138,621 3,757,449 2026 1,223,895 4,038,854 2027 1,312,509 4,331,280 2028 1,404,464 4,634,731 2029 1,499,759 4,949,205 2030 1,598,395 5,274,704 2031 1,700,372 5,611,228 2032 1,805,690 5,958,777 Total Estimated 18,408,529 60,748,146 Total Years 20 Average per year 920,426 3,037,407

59

Annex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes

(a) Task Team members Responsibility/ Names Title Unit Specialty Lending Sr. Natural Resource Management John Virdin AFTEN Task Team Leader Specialist/TTL Liba Feldblyum Operations Officer AFTEN Task Team Leader Environment and Tanya Yudelman Consultant/Environment Specialist AFTEN Biodiversity Virginie Vaselopoulos Program Assistant AFTEN Team member Financial Osval Rocha Romao Sr. Financial Management Specialist AFTFM Management Cheick Traore Procurement Specialist AFTPC Procurement Financial Wolfgang Chadab Sr. Finance Officer LOAFC Management Luz Meza-Bartrina Sr. Counsel LEGAF Legal Counsel Daniela Junqueira Counsel LEGAF Legal Counsel Gayatri Kanungo Global Environment Facility (GEF) AFTEN Environment Conservation Trust Barry Spergel Consultant AFTEN Funds Alberto Ninio Lead Counsel LEGEN Environmental Law Environmental Amadou Konare Environmental Safeguard Specialist AFTEN Safeguards Cheikh Sagna Social Safeguard Specialist AFTCS Social Safeguards

Supervision/ICR Liba Feldblyum Operations Officer/TTL AFTEN Task Team Leader Maman-Sani Issa Regional Safeguards Advisor/TTL OPSPF Safeguards Environment and Tanya Yudelman Consultant/Environment Specialist GEN07 Biodiversity Jayne Angela Kwengwere Program Assistant GEN07 Team member Cheik Traore Sr. Procurement Specialist GGO07 Procurement Financial Fatou Fall Samba Financial Management Specialist GGO25 Management Anna Roumani Consultant GSULN Rural Development Environmental Juan Jose Miranda Montero Environmental Economist GENGE Economics

60

(b) Staff Time and Cost Staff Time and Cost (Bank Budget Only) Stage of Project Cycle USD Thousands (including No. of staff weeks travel and consultant costs) Lending FY10 3.60 27.80 FY11 2.87 34.64

Total: 6.47 62.44 Supervision/ICR FY12 16.74 92.90 FY13 15.68 81.88 FY14 16.03 103.24 FY15 12.55 88.89 FY16 4.38 53.67 FY17 7.00 18.03

Total: 72.38 438.61

61

Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results

5.1 The METT Scorecard involved annual interviews with stakeholders including communities residing in/on the periphery of the parks. Scores are reported in this ICR and the full questionnaires can be obtained from IBAP. No other beneficiary surveys were conducted.

62

Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results

N/A

63

Annex 7. Summary of Borrower's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR

A. Executive Summary of Client’s final Completion Report (Informal Translation)

The Biodiversity Conservation Project - (BCP) was financed by IDA Credit HH 6700 for an amount of SDR 1.3 million, equivalent to USD 1.90 million. The BCP was executed in five years, between June 2011 and May 2016. The Project Development Objectives were to reinforce the management of IBAP in the five Protected Areas (PA), and operationalize the BioGuinea Foundation, for which three components were implemented.

Component 1: Strengthen and consolidate the capacity for management of coastal and marine protected areas and biodiversity

The five parks are more effective and efficient in their participatory management according to the METT scores which totaled 507 compared to 454 at the beginning of the project (2011): PMJVP went from 106 to 116; PNO from 113 to 119; PNTC from 105 to 129, PNLC from 74 to 83, and PNC from 56 to 60. The participatory management plans, and the Business Plans and internal regulations were updated and approved by the Park Management Councils in all five parks. Participatory surveillance exceeded 60 missions per year in all five parks: 2012-109 missions; 2013-134; 2014-164 and in 2015- 302 including the AMPC Urok. Thanks to the BCP and complementary activities of IBAP partners, illegal encampments on the maritime/coastal limits of the PNC and PNLC were dismantled, infiltration of the parks by non-resident fishermen was reduced, along with the use of single-line nets and consequently reduction in illegal and irresponsible fishing practices. During the BCP’s four years, the capacity of 786 people was strengthened both domestically and through overseas training visits, including IBAP staff, technicians from partner institutions, community co-managers and the communities themselves, exceeding the target of 200 for the four years. About 43,000 people were trained overall including through the project’s communications and awareness-building campaigns and other diverse types of training.

Component 2: Pilot the operation of the BioGuinea Foundation

The BioGuinea Foundation is operational with its governance organs instituted and functioning, with operational manuals and procedures adopted. Fund-raising activities, institutional linkages and negotiations with the Government and Donors are permanent/ongoing for capitalization of the FBG. The Government provided EUR 1.0 million through its Fisheries Accord with the EU, and with strategic partners such as the MAVA Foundation (EUR 1.3 million), FFEM (EUR 1.0 million), and GEF 5 contributed USD 1.3 million.

Component 3: Project management and monitoring and evaluation

The management, coodination and monitoring of the projec was conducted under the direction of IBAP and its technical and financial team, through the operationalization of a monitoring and evaluation system, through the presentation of plans, reports, the application of performance measurement instruments, to assess management effectiveness in the Protected Areas, and through the utilization of software - Hi Project - for accountability/fiduciary. Bank supervision missions were always timely and useful.

The most prominent negative factor not under the control of IBAP was the recurrent political/military and government instability which influenced the implementation of various activities on the ground. Other factors were managed in a positive way by IBAP due to its 64

institutional autonomy and the stability of its management, the culture of being results-driven, by its rigorous and transparent management of allocated resources, and by the overall quality of its interventions in managing the PAs, with the strong involvement of the communities and by the diversity and quality of the activities/interventions of IBAP’s partners: the gains and successes and the growth of the PAs in effectiveness and efficiency; in the strengthened capacity of their human resources including community agents; in the greater involvement, participation and decision-making of the communities; and the complementary and synergistic actions of IBAP’s various strategic partners.

Lessons Learned: The importance of the following: participatory, transparent and democratic governance; co-management of resources in terms of ownership and responsibility; strengthening the capacities of IBAP’s technical and administrative personnel, partner institutions and the communities in the PAs, creating greater “horizontality” in the dialogue among stakeholders/actors; proactive communication concerning the execution of activities in the PAs, contributing to constructing a positive image and visibility for IBAP and its activities; and, in the operationalization of the BioGuinea Foundation, that a medium to long-term perspective is needed to guarantee/ensure a mechanism for the sustainable financing of activities in the PAs.

65

B. Client’s Letter commenting on the Bank’s draft ICR

66

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

N/A

67

Annex 9. List of Supporting Documents

Project Appraisal Document (PAD)

Financing Agreement, Grant #H670-GW

Supervision Aide Memoires

Implementation Supervision Reports (ISR)

Procurement Post Reviews

Financial Management Supervision Reports

Annual Reports of Client

Correspondence

Client Contacts

Restructuring Documents

Systematic Country Diagnosis (SCD): “Turning Challenges into Opportunities for Poverty Reduction and Inclusive Growth”, World Bank Report #106725-GB, June 2016

Country Economic Memorandum – Guinea-Bissau: Terra Ranka! A Fresh Start, World Bank, Report # 58296, Vols. I and II, January 12, 2015

Optimizing Guinea-Bissau’s Natural Wealth, H. Edmundson, World Bank, September 2014

Guinea Bissau 2025: Strategic and Operational Plan for 2015-2020 – Terra Ranka (Eng), Republic of Guinea Bissau, March 2015

Estratégia Nacional para as Áreas Protegidas e a Conservação da Biodiversidade na Guiné-Bissau, 2014-2020, Instituto da Biodiversidade e das Áreas Protegidas (IBAP), 2014

Progress Report: Validation Audit of the Community-based Avoided Deforestation Project in Guinea-Bissau, World Bank/SCS Global Services, May 24, 2013 (REDD study)

Relatório Final: Projeto da Conservação da Biodiversidade (PCB), Unidade de Gestão do Projeto/IBAP, October 2016

Implementation Completion and Results Report: Guinea-Bissau Coastal Biodiversity Management Project, Report # 00001684

Implementation Completion Memorandum (ICM): Guinea-Bissau Biodiversity Conservation Trust Fund (BCTF), Trust Fund # TF098994, July 2, 2014

68

Map: Guinea-Bissau Biodiversity Conservation Project (P122047)

69