Report No: ICR00036 IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT (Financing agreement D726-GW) ON A GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF SDR 10.7 MILLION (US$ 15 MILLION EQUIVALENT) TO THE Republic of Guinea-Bissau FOR Guinea-Bissau Emergency Food Security Project 12/23/2024 Agriculture and Food Western And Central Africa The World Bank Guinea-Bissau Emergency Food Security Project (P174336) ICR DOCUMENT CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (Exchange Rate Effective June 30, 2024) Currency Unit = XOF XOF 607 = US$1 US$ 1.32 = SDR 1 FISCAL YEAR January 1 - December 31 Regional Vice President: Ousmane Diagana Country Director: Keiko Miwa Regional Director: Chakib Jenane Practice Manager: Elhadji Adama Toure Task Team Leader (s): Aifa Fatimata Ndoye Niane ICR Main Contributor: Benoit Faucheux The World Bank Guinea-Bissau Emergency Food Security Project (P174336) ICR DOCUMENT ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS CERC Contingency Emergency Response Component CPF Country Partnership Framework CPS Country Partnership Strategy CSA Climate Smart Agriculture EFA Economic and Financial Analysis EIRR Economic Internal Rate of Return E&S Environment and Social EX-ACT Ex-Ante Carbon-balance Tool FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FCV Fragility, Conflict and Violence GDP Gross Domestic Product GHG Greenhouse gas Ha Hectares ICR Implementation Completion and Results Report IFR Interim unaudited Financial Report IPC Integrated Food Security Phase Classification IDA International Development Association IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development INPA National Research Institute of Agriculture (Instituto Nacional de Pesquisa Agraria) MAFDR Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Rural Development (Ministerio da Agricultura, Florestas e Desenvolvimento Rural) M&E Monitoring and evaluation NPV Net Present Value PDO Project Development Objective PIU Project Implementation Unit PPP Purchasing Power Standard PUSA Emergency Food Security Project (Programme d’Urgence pour la Sécurité Alimentaire) SRI System of Rice Intensification TOC Theory of Change UN United Nations WOP Without project WP With project The World Bank Guinea-Bissau Emergency Food Security Project (P174336) ICR DOCUMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS DATA SHEET ................................................................................................................................................. i I. PROJECT CONTEXT AND DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................1 II. OUTCOME .................................................................................................................................................5 III. KEY FACTORS AFFECTED IMPLEMENTATION AND OUTCOME ..................................................................... 11 IV. BANK PERFORMANCE, COMPLIANCE ISSUES, AND RISK TO DEVELOPMENT OUTCOME .............................. 12 V. LESSONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................... 15 ANNEX 1. RESULTS FRAMEWORK AND KEY OUTPUTS ........................................................................................ 16 ANNEX 2. BANK LENDING AND IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT/SUPERVISION ....................................................... 22 ANNEX 3. PROJECT COST BY COMPONENT ......................................................................................................... 24 ANNEX 4. EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................ 25 ANNEX 5. BORROWER, CO-FINANCIER AND OTHER PARTNER/STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS ................................. 36 ANNEX 6. GREENHOUSE GAS ACCOUNTING ....................................................................................................... 38 The World Bank Guinea-Bissau Emergency Food Security Project (P174336) ICR DOCUMENT DATA SHEET @#&OPS~Doctype~OPS^dynamics@icrbasicdata#doctemplate BASIC DATA Product Information Operation ID Operation Name P174336 Guinea-Bissau Emergency Food Security Project Product Operation Short Name Investment Project Financing (IPF) Guinea-Bissau Emergency Food Security Operation Status Approval Fiscal Year Closed 2021 Current ESRC Moderate CLIENTS Borrower/Recipient Implementing Agency Republic of Guinea-Bissau Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE Original Development Objective (Approved as part of Decision Package on 30-Sep-2020) (i) to support increased food crop production; and (ii) increase access to food for consumption by food insecure households in Guinea-Bissau s @#&OPS~Doctype~OPS^dynamics@icrfinancing#doctemplate FINANCING Financing Source Original Amount (US$) Revised Amount (US$) Actual Disbursed (US$) World Bank Financing 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 14,437,938.45 IDA-D7260 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 14,437,938.45 Total 15,000,000.00 15,000,000.00 14,437,938.45 i The World Bank Guinea-Bissau Emergency Food Security Project (P174336) ICR DOCUMENT RESTRUCTURING AND/OR ADDITIONAL FINANCING Amount Disbursed Date(s) Type Key Revisions (US$M) • Components • Results 31-Aug-2022 Portal 7.98 • Loan Closing Date Extension • Reallocations • Implementation Schedule • Components • Loan Closing Date Extension 22-Feb-2024 Portal 13.57 • Reallocations • Implementation Schedule @#&OPS~Doctype~OPS^dynamics@icrkeydates#doctemplate KEY DATES Key Events Planned Date Actual Date Decision Review 17-Jun-2020 15-Jun-2020 Authorize Negotiations 16-Jul-2020 30-Jul-2020 Approval 30-Sep-2020 30-Sep-2020 Signing 29-Jan-2021 22-Jan-2021 Effectiveness 22-Apr-2021 14-Apr-2021 ICR/NCO 29-Dec-2024 -- Restructuring Sequence.01 Not Applicable 31-Aug-2022 Restructuring Sequence.02 Not Applicable 22-Feb-2024 Mid-Term Review No. 01 07-Mar-2022 07-Jun-2022 Operation Closing/Cancellation 30-Jun-2024 30-Jun-2024 @#&OPS~Doctype~OPS^dynamics@icrratings#doctemplate RATINGS SUMMARY Outcome Bank Performance M&E Quality ii The World Bank Guinea-Bissau Emergency Food Security Project (P174336) ICR DOCUMENT Satisfactory Satisfactory Substantial ISR RATINGS Actual Disbursements No. Date ISR Archived DO Rating IP Rating (US$M) 01 15-Jan-2021 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 0.00 02 16-Jul-2021 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 5.26 03 03-Jan-2022 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 7.70 04 14-Jul-2022 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 7.88 05 03-Mar-2023 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 12.96 06 03-Nov-2023 Satisfactory Satisfactory 13.44 07 28-Jun-2024 Highly Satisfactory Satisfactory 14.03 @#&OPS~Doctype~OPS^dynamics@icrsectortheme#doctemplate SECTORS AND THEMES Sectors Adaptation Mitigation Major Sector Sector % Co-benefits (%) Co-benefits (%) FY17 - Agricultural Extension, Research, and Other Support 67 45 0 FY17 - Agriculture, Activities Fishing and Forestry FY17 - Crops 10 0 0 FY17 - Public Administration - 6 38 0 Agriculture, Fishing & Forestry FY17 - Social Protection FY17 - Social Protection 17 36 0 Themes Major Theme Theme (Level 2) Theme (Level 3) % FY17 - Environment and Natural Resource FY17 - Climate change FY17 - Adaptation 38 Management FY17 - Pandemic FY17 - Disease Control 93 Response iii The World Bank Guinea-Bissau Emergency Food Security Project (P174336) ICR DOCUMENT FY17 - Human FY17 - Gender 90 Development and Gender FY17 - Nutrition and Food Security FY17 - Food Security 90 FY17 - Social Development and FY17 - Social Protection FY17 - Social Safety Nets 23 Protection FY17 - Urban and Rural FY17 - Rural Development FY17 - Rural Markets 83 Development ADM STAFF Role At Approval At ICR Practice Manager Elhadji Adama Toure Regional Director Chakib Jenane Global Director Shobha Shetty Practice Group Vice President Juergen Voegele Country Director Keiko Miwa Regional Vice President Ousmane Diagana ADM Responsible Team Leader Aifa Fatimata Ndoye Niane Co-Team Leader(s) ICR Main Contributor Benoit Faucheux iv The World Bank Guinea-Bissau Emergency Food Security Project (P174336) ICR DOCUMENT I. PROJECT CONTEXT AND DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES A. CONTEXT AT APPRAISAL Country Context 1. Guinea Bissau is a small, poor country of 2.15 million inhabitants, 26 percent of whom live on less than US$ 2.15/day (2017 PPP). It is characterized by weak institutions and high political fragility: having had four coups and 16 attempted coups from 1974 to 2021. Over 80 percent of the population relies on agriculture for their livelihood, which accounts for 47 percent of GDP. Cashew, which occupies 56 percent of cropped land, is the most predominant crop and generates 95 percent of export revenue. The agricultural sector is characterized by low productivity - with yields of key crops lagging behind those of the country’s regional peers. This poor agricultural performance is exacerbated by climate change. As a result, the country is chronically food insecure and relies heavily on food imports. 2. Guinea-Bissau contends with the following drivers of FCV: (i) Rent-seeking elite fragmentation and the involvement of the security sector in the political sphere, as well as the politicization of the justice sector, contribute to impunity and state institutions’ lack of accountability to the citizenry. (ii) Guinea-Bissau’s economic model is vulnerable to shocks and insecure land tenure, with intermediate steps toward economic diversification—including improved infrastructure and a private sector that can move into nontraditional sectors and activities—being subject to vested interests, which prevents commensurate job creation. (iii) Social exclusion and a rural-urban divide are exacerbated by a weak state presence, sparse service delivery, and limited infrastructure. 3. The combination of the above factors made the country particularly vulnerable to COVID-19 disruptions. As the epidemic unfolded, international demand and prices of cashew nuts plummeted. Locally, cashew harvest was disrupted by the pandemic’s containment restrictions. Pre-financing from exporters became uncertain. Rural families lost their main source of income, while food inflation rose as rice imports had been affected. All this exacerbated the country’s already precarious food security situation. Even without the pandemic, the food situation for 188,000 people was already classified as critical, with an additional 273,000 people under stress. It is against this backdrop that the government of Guinea-Bissau requested support from the World Bank Group (WBG) to assist in mitigating the impact of the pandemic, hence the Guinea-Bissau Emergency Food Security Project (P174336), which sought to strengthen the country’s food and nutrition security, as well as shore up the cashew sector’s resilience. 4. Project preparation faced very difficult conditions: the country was affected by COVID-19 disruptions and by political crisis following December 2019 Presidential election. COVID-19 was officially recognized in Guinea-Bissau in March 2020, and thus the project was exclusively prepared remotely. During that period the country was facing an important political crisis, as the government’s legitimacy was contested until April 2020. 5. The project was fully aligned with the WBG’s Country Partnership Framework (CPF) for 2018 - 2021 (Report No. 114815‐GW). The CPF sought to, among other things, support enhanced food and nutrition as well as economic resilience. In addition, the project contributed to the attainment of the Sustainable Development Goals on ending hunger, achieving food security and improved nutrition, and ending poverty in all its forms. The project was also aligned with the WBG twin goals of reducing extreme poverty and enhancing shared prosperity. With its focus on strengthening food security and increasing incomes for cashew farmers, the project was consistent with Terra Ranka, Guinea-Bissau’s strategy for development, in which agriculture is one of the growth sectors. Finally, it was very well coordinated with other development partners (e.g., the International Fund for Agricultural Development and the African Development Bank) who too had rallied in support of the country to mitigate the pandemic’s impact. Page 1 The World Bank Guinea-Bissau Emergency Food Security Project (P174336) ICR DOCUMENT Theory of Change (Results Chain) 6. The project’s Theory of Change (TOC) which was formulated at appraisal is presented in Figure 1 below . The TOC is premised upon the need for safeguarding rural livelihoods against the negative effects of COVID-19. This is achieved by: (i) forestalling asset decapitalization and food deprivation among the most vulnerable households through financing cash-for-work activities; (ii) stimulating a rapid food supply response through financing agricultural inputs; and (iii) enhancing Guinea-Bissau’s long-term resilience by financing technical assistance for cashew market risk management given cashew’s preeminence in the country’s economy. These interventions were expected to increase food availability and access, as well as reduce the cashew sector’s vulnerability to markets risks. In the long term these interventions would strengthen the country’s food security. Key assumptions included: (i) timely acquisition and distribution of the needed agricultural inputs; (ii) availability of reasonably priced food in the local markets for easy access by cash-for-work beneficiaries; and (iii) government’s ability to undertake measures for strengthening the resilience of the cashew sector against market risks, especially given the country’s low capacity and political fragility. The causal chain leading to the medium -term outcome “increased food availability and access stability “is strong, while it is weaker for the 2nd one “reduced cashew sector vulnerability to market risks”. As there was no consensus on market risk management for cashew, specific activities could not be designed, and their implementations did not well suit with the schedule of an emergency project. Figure 1: Theory of Change for the Guinea-Bissau Emergency Food Security Project (P174336). Project Development Objectives (PDOs) 7. The objectives of the project were to: (i) support increased food crop production; and (ii) increase access to food for consumption by food insecure households in Guinea-Bissau. 8. The PDO indicators were: (i) farmers reached with agricultural assets or services1 (number); (ii) volume of food 1 Defined as production inputs (fertilizer, seed, mechanization etc.) and measured as households Page 2 The World Bank Guinea-Bissau Emergency Food Security Project (P174336) ICR DOCUMENT crops produced (metric ton); (iii) share of target beneficiaries with rating “satisfied” or above on process and impact of project interventions (percentage); (iv) poor households participating in public works (number); and (v) number of direct project beneficiaries – disaggregated by gender. Components 9. The project had five components. 10. Component 1: Support to Agricultural Production (Appraisal Estimate: US$ 10.0 million; Revised: US$ 9.45 million; Actual: US$ 9.28 million). The objective of this component was to support an accelerated supply response focused on preserving/restoring the productive capacity of 50,000 eligible farming households, to enable them to effectively engage in continued and expanded production of key staple foods in the short to medium term (6-24 months). The project financed: (i) procurement and distribution of improved seeds and planting materials, with a major focus on key food crops and vegetables; (ii) access to necessary farm equipment and labor; and (iii) provision of requisite advisory services in support of improved production, productivity, and production system resilience to climate change. Special attention was paid to market gardening, an important farming activity in the urban and peri-urban areas, which is mainly a women’s activity. Where deemed critical to household food security, the project supported livestock services, including vaccination, deworming, and disease management. In addition, support under this component went towards promoting climate-smart agriculture (CSA) techniques and practices, drought-resistant seeds, and capacity-building for the farmers. To facilitate proper targeting, the project would assess the vulnerability of different communities through a rapid Crop and Food Security Assessment Mission. This component was implemented by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), in coordination with the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Rural Development (MAFDR)2. 11. Component 2: Support to Community Safety Nets (Appraisal Estimate: US$ 2.5 million; Revised: US$ 2.3 million; Actual: US$ 2.3 million). Investments under this component were to ensure household food security for sections of the communities affected by job losses, by mitigating the expected shortfalls in their incomes through support for public community-level works. This activity targeted 10,000 beneficiaries, and its focus was on establishing public assets that would contribute to or enhance the impact of support under Component 1, as well as those that foster adaptation to climate change. These could include support to the distribution of inputs, rehabilitation of storage facilities, opening of access roads to agriculturally productive areas, public irrigation infrastructure, construction of local markets, rehabilitation of rice fields, etc. The presence of clear post-operation maintenance mechanisms would be key in the choice of public works to be funded to ensure sustainability. The implementation of this activity considered the activities financed under the then ongoing “Safety Nets and Basic Services Project” (P163901) to ensure complementarity and avoid providing benefits to the same individuals. This component was implemented by the FAO, in coordination with the MAFDR. 12. Component 3: Support to Risk Mitigation (Appraisal Estimate: US$ 1.5 million equivalent; Revised: US$ 0.9 million; Actual: US$ 0.75 million). The proposal was to explore the feasibility, and then pilot the implementation of locally appropriate market risk management measures for the cashew sector. The project would finance technical assistance, as well as the costs related to piloting the identified risk management measures. 13. Component 4: Project Management and Monitoring and Evaluation (Appraisal Estimate: US$ 1.0 million equivalent; Revised: US$ 2.35 million; Actual: US$ 2.32 million) 3. The objective of this component was to support MAFDR in facilitating efficient implementation of project activities and tracking of results. The component would finance activities related to project coordination and management, including developing annual work plans and budgets, financial management and procurement, safeguards compliance, project monitoring and evaluation (M&E), citizen 2 Ministerio da Agricultura, Florestas e Desenvovimento Rural 3 As discussed under “Revised Component”, more resources were needed to fund M&E, farmer training, monitoring environmental and social safeguards, and communication. Page 3 The World Bank Guinea-Bissau Emergency Food Security Project (P174336) ICR DOCUMENT engagement as well as a Grievance Redress Mechanism (GRM). 14. Component 5: Contingent Emergency Response (US$ 0 million). This zero-cost, contingent emergency response component (CERC) would finance eligible expenditures in case of natural or human-made crises, disasters, severe economic shocks, or other crises and emergencies in Guinea-Bissau. The CERC was not triggered during the implementation of this project. B. SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DURING IMPLEMENTATION 15. There were two Level-2 restructurings, one in August 2022, and another in February 2024. The restructurings entailed: (i) adjusting some targets in the Results Framework, (ii) sharpening the focus of some project activities; (iii) reallocating resources across components in August 2022, and (iv) extending the project’s closing date in February 2024. Revised PDOs and Outcome Targets 16. The PDO was not revised throughout project implementation. However, two PDO indicator targets were revised. First, the target for the “Volume of food crops produced (metric ton)” was reduced from 205,000 to 120,000, the principal reason being that the data from the first horticultural campaign could not be collected due to the lack of an M&E team on the ground at the start of the project. This issue was resolved in subsequent agricultural campaigns. Second, the target for the number of “Poor households participating in public works” was corrected from 10,000 to 8,000. This was a correction because the 10,000 included 2,000 beneficiaries of direct cash transfers who were not participants in the public works program per se. In reality, the target for total safety net beneficiaries remained 10,000, i.e. food-for-work (8,000) plus direct cash transfers (2,000). Revised Components 17. There were some minor revisions in the components during each of the two restructurings . These entailed sharpening the focus of some activities and adjusting component costs accordingly (Table 1): • During the first restructuring, new activities were introduced under Component 3 to better support cashew value chain actors including introducing training for cashew producers, and providing technical, organizational, and financial support to micro-enterprises engaged in artisanal cashew processing. This followed robust stakeholder consultations that hadn’t been possible during project preparation because of the project’s emergency nature and COVID-19 containment disruptions. There were also some cost adjustments, mainly an increase of US$ 1.2 million to Component 4 to support M&E activities, training of producers and other stakeholders, communication, and implementation of social and environmental safeguard measures (funds deducted from Components 1 and 2). • During the second restructuring, Component 1 was increased by US$ 0.45 million to complete activities supporting rice and horticultural production (inputs, small-scale irrigation, System of Rice Intensification – SRI), and US$ 0.15 million to Component 4 to cover operational costs (deducted from Component 3). Table 1: Project Costs and Financing by Component Components Appraised First Restructuring Second Restructuring Allocation (US$ M) (US$ M) (US$M) 1. Support to Agricultural Production 10.00 9.00 9.45 2. Support to Community Safety Nets 2.50 2.30 2.30 3. Support to Risk Mitigation 1.50 1.50 0.90 4. Project Management, and Monitoring and Evaluation 1.00 2.20 2.35 Page 4 The World Bank Guinea-Bissau Emergency Food Security Project (P174336) ICR DOCUMENT 5. Contingent Emergency Response 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL 15.00 15.00 15.00 Other Changes 18. Revisions to Intermediate Indicators (Table 2). First, some intermediate indicators were revised upward during the first restructuring as the project was able to secure more agricultural inputs with the available resources thus expand the scope of project activities. Second, a target was introduced for the number of cashew farmers trained and another one for the warehouse that would be constructed for these farmers’ use. Table 2: Revisions to Intermediate Indicators Indicator Name Action Appraisal Revised/New Targets Target Amount of input distributed (Metric ton) Revised 1,500 2,100 Rice seed (Metric ton) Revised 800 1,100 Vegetable seed (Metric ton) Revised 50 90 Cashew producers trained on cashew Good Agricultural Practices (Number) New -- 2,000 A central shop for packaging set up with a trained management committee New -- 1 19. Extension of Closing Date. The project was extended two times, from 31 July 2023 to 31 March 2024, and from 31 March 2024 to 30 June 2024. In both cases, the goal was to facilitate the completion of ongoing project activities (distribution of animals, finalization of the animal vaccination and treatment campaign, and development of a market gardening irrigated land4). Rationale for Changes and Their Implication on the Original Theory of Change 20. As indicated above, reasons for changes to indicator targets included: (i) lowering two targets, the first one as an acknowledgement of unrecorded data prior to the M&E system’s full establishment, and the second as a correction to a multivariate indicator; (ii) increasing targets to reflect the scaling up of some project activities; and (iii) introducing new targets corresponding to additional activities. Other changes included: (iv) reallocations across components to optimize resource use; (v) introducing new cashew nut-related activities upon completion of multi- stakeholder consultations; and (vi) extending the project’s closing date to facilitate completion of ongoing activities. These changes were consistent with the original Theory of Change which remained unchanged. II. OUTCOME Assessment of Relevance of PDOs and Rating Rating: High 21. The PDO remains highly relevant. It is aligned with the 2018-2021 CPF which is still in force, pending completion of a new one. The Concept Note for the new CPF (FY25-28), which is still under development, underscores WBG’s support for the Food and Nutrition Security Global Challenge. The need for this support emanates from the Systematic Country Diagnostic Update for Guinea-Bissau (entitled “Addressing fragility for sustained poverty reduction and shared prosperity, September 2023”) which notes in its 9th Priority Policy Area the importance of supporting “economic diversification by increasing value addition in the cashew sector and promoting the production of rice, cotton, fruit, and horticulture” as part of its 4th High Level Objective of strengthened households’ resilience. 4 Development of 8 ha for market gardening by FAO in Bula, 3 ha in Bissau, 2.22 ha in Katebado (Cacheu), 5.3 ha in Gabu, for a total of 18.52 ha. Page 5 The World Bank Guinea-Bissau Emergency Food Security Project (P174336) ICR DOCUMENT 22. It also remains aligned with Guinea-Bissau's National Agricultural Investment Program 2015-2025, which aims to: (i) improve agricultural growth and food production through the expansion of cultivated areas; (ii) increase productivity using improved agricultural technologies; (iii) strengthen value chains for agricultural products; and (iv) improve market access. The project also remains in line with the Government of Guinea-Bissau's strategy and Operational Plan, in which agriculture and agro-industry are key drivers of economic growth. A. ACHIEVEMENT OF PDOs (EFFICACY) Rating: Substantial Assessment of Achievement of Each Objective/Outcome 23. The PDO was to: “(i) support increased food crop production; and (ii) increase access to food for consumption by food insecure households in Guinea-Bissau.” This ICR assesses the project’s performance against its two principal objectives, namely: (i) increased food crop production; and (ii) increased access to food for consumption by food insecure households in Guinea-Bissau. All PDO indicator targets were attained (see Table 3). There was a significant increase in the production of the targeted crops—up by 135 percent compared to the project target. Access to food for consumption by food insecure households participating in public works was 100 percent of the project target. It also surpassed the target for the share of target beneficiaries with rating “Satisfied” or above on process and impact of project interventions (124 percent) and number of the direct beneficiaries (163 percent). Generally, the PDO indicators were useful in capturing the achievement of the expected outcomes. The M&E system was not fully functional initially due to the emergency nature of the project where the imperative to respond to the population’s pressing needs outpaced the establishment of a full-fledged system for collecting crop production data in the first season. However, once established, the M&E system contained the required information which was based on continuous data collection. It should be noted that although the PDO indicator for the Volume of Food Crops Produced was adjusted from 205,000 to 120,000 tons due to unrecorded production data for the first season, this is not considered a reduction in the project’s ambition since food was actually produced and there is a real possibility that the total amount produced reached or exceeded the original target (based on the number of participating households, national statistics on average acreage per household in the project areas, as well as average productivity). Similarly, the apparent reduction of Poor Households Participating in Public Works was to reflect the 2,000 vulnerable households who did not have to participate in public works but would instead receive a cash transfer. The total number of beneficiaries would remain 10,000. Table 3: Level of attainment of PDO Indicator targets PDO Indicators Appraisal Revised Actual Percentage (Actual/Revised) PDO1: Increased Food Crop Production Volume of food crops produced (Metric ton) 205,000 120,000 161,805 135% Farmers reached with agricultural assets or services (CRI, Number) 50,000 50,000 72,256 145% Farmers reached with agricultural assets or services – Female 25,000 25,000 41,352 165% PDO2: Increased Access to Food for Consumption by Food Insecure Households Poor households participating in public works (Number) 10,000 8,000 8,000 100% Applicable to Both Objectives Share of target beneficiaries with rating “Satisfied” or above on 75 75 93 124% process and impact of project interventions (Percentage) Direct project beneficiaries (Number) 378,000 378,000 615,336 163% Page 6 The World Bank Guinea-Bissau Emergency Food Security Project (P174336) ICR DOCUMENT PDO1: Increased Food Crop Production Rating: Substantial 24. As noted above, the volume of food crops produced surpassed the project’s revised target. 5 This was made possible by successfully providing the needed training and advisory services to beneficiary farmers while improving the quality of the seeds and distributing fertilizers used for some crops. In total, 2,485 metric tons of inputs were distributed, against the project target of 2,100 metric tons (i.e. 118 percent achievement level). This comprised of 1,830 metric tons of rice, vegetables, and other seeds, against the project target of 1,190 metric tons of seeds (i.e., 154 percent achievement level). The project also distributed 655 metric tons of fertilizers, against the project target of 650 metric tons (i.e., 100 percent achievement level). Inputs were distributed on time, except the first year, which allowed cropping six consecutive horticultural off-seasons and rainfed seasons6 across the nine Regional Directorates of Agriculture. Increased food production was also greatly facilitated by farmer training and advisory services. As a result of this training, there were 42,844 households using better cropping and farm management practices, against the project target of 30,000 households (i.e., 143 percent achievement level). This combination of quality seeds, and advisory services led to improved productivity, which drove production up. For example, rice yields increased from an average of 1.5-2.0 tons per hectare to 2.8 – 3.6 tons /hectare depending upon the farming system. Some 72,256 farmers were reached with agricultural assets and services, against the project target of 50,000 (i.e., 145 percent achievement level). The percentage of women reached was slightly higher than projected (50 percent at appraisal, but 57 percent of the total at project’s closing date). Special attention was made to facilitate women in market gardening, which is a very important urban and peri-urban activity for women. 25. In addition to food crop production, the project successfully supported a vaccination campaign which was a first in the country. In smallholder mixed crop-livestock production systems, livestock is important in fostering increased food crop production as source of manure, especially for vegetable gardens thus increasing food crop production. Livestock is also important for facilitating access to food, either as meat or milk, or as a source of cash for food purchase. This component was carried out by MAFDR through its Livestock Department. The project vaccinated and treated 572,278 animals, against the target of 500,000 (i.e., 114 percent attainment rate). Based on the last livestock census (2009), this represents 15 percent of the livestock population nationwide. Improving livestock health contributes to an increase in meat production. Impact studies for this vaccination campaign haven’t been done yet. However, according to the literature from West Africa, vaccinations are estimated to reduce mortality by 5.1 percent for Contagious Bovine Pleuropneumonia, 5.3 percent for Small Ruminant Plague (Pestes des Petits Ruminants), and 5.2 percent for fowl pox.7 These mortality reductions increase herd productivity in as far as the meat available per herd is increased by stopping animal loss. They also increase individual animal productivity by reducing morbidity from these principal diseases which would have otherwise hampered weight gain. 26. However, small ruminant distribution was a failure. To increase beneficiaries’ livestock capital, the project had planned to distribute small ruminants to 1,000 vulnerable households. It was difficult to obtain the required number of animals locally, so the project opted to import them, mainly from Niger. However, of the 4,000 animals imported from Niger, 3,000 died. The causes of death, which require further investigation, include the initial choice of animals, stress due to long and difficult transport conditions (lack of food, water, and rest during the journey), change in their environment, and disease. 27. The activity of rehabilitation or construction of irrigation perimeters has not been completed. Only 63% of 5 It is possible that the total amount produced reached or exceeded the original target as well. Food produced in the first season was not captured in the M&E system as it was not yet fully operational. 6 November 2020 – March 2021 ; June 2021 – November 2021 ; November 2021 – March 2022 ; June 2022 – November 2022, November 2022 – March 2023; and June – November 2023. 7 Entrepôt de données des ressources animales et halieutiques, Burkina Faso Page 7 The World Bank Guinea-Bissau Emergency Food Security Project (P174336) ICR DOCUMENT the 4 planned areas have been completed. The decision to launch this new activity was taken at the mid-term review, which did not leave enough time, particularly in view of the very long clearance times for importing most of the materials. PDO2: Increased Access to Food for Consumption by Food Insecure Households Rating: Substantial 28. Access to food was significantly improved for safety net beneficiaries but with significant delay . All planned activities were successfully carried out in the targeted regions (Oio and Cacheu) but were completed 2 years after the project effectiveness. This activity was implemented by FAO which contracted two NGOs. The contracting and then targeting process took time and the PIU put quality targeting in priority, which delayed the result but guaranteed the right targets were reached. The project was able to reach the maximum target of 8,000 poor households (6,181 men and 1,819 women) participated in public works, which was 100 percent of the project target. In addition, 3,000 households benefited from non-conditional cash transfers (2,363 men versus 637 women)8. Each beneficiary received XOF 85,000 (US$ 140). During field missions, many beneficiaries declared that they were hardly able to earn between XOF 10,000 to 50,000 a month. XOF 85,000 was an important amount for the population of the region. These payments were used by the beneficiaries during the first month after reception to meet their food and other emergency needs such as medical treatment and to pay school fees9. Looking at IPC, it appears that in those two regions the number of people in Phase 3+ decreased from 47,000 to 29,000 before (March-June 2022) and after the distribution (October-December 2023). 29. Prospects for long term access to food by insecure farming households were enhanced by the actions taken to strengthen the cashew sector. As discussed earlier, cashews are a critical source of income for rural households enabling them to meet their food needs. MAFDR and other cashew sector stakeholders agreed on a strategy to manage market risk for cashews, including: (i) increasing orchard productivity, (ii) enhancing national value addition, and (iii) benchmarking with other cashew producing countries. In this regard, the project supported the introduction of good practices and efficient processing equipment to improve the quality and quantity of cashew production. Key project activities included: (i) training and capacity building for beneficiaries for managing and maintaining cashew orchards such as pruning, spacing, and pest management (the project trained 3,014 individuals on cashew production systems, management, and maintenance of cashew plants); (ii) exchange visits to India and Côte d'Ivoire to enrich participants' understanding of value chain management and marketing techniques; (iii) provision of 250 shelling machines, 220 manual machines without pedals, 5 machines with pedals, and 25 semi-automatic machines to improve processing efficiency; (iv) facilitating cashew processors to acquire 200 tons of cashew nuts for transformation and commercialization thus stabilizing the market during this difficult time period; and (v) setting up a central purchasing center for packaging and providing training on business plan development. Justification of Overall Efficacy Rating 30. Overall efficacy is rated substantial. All PDO indicators were exceeded. All activities were successful, except the small ruminant supply activity which was a failure and the irrigation rehabilitation and construction activity which was incomplete. 8 Criteria used for the unconditional transfers were Household headed by an elderly person (aged 60 or over), or Female-headed household (widow, single mother, etc.), or Household with 8 or more children under 5 years of age, or Household where the head of household has a physical handicap or chronic illness (e.g. HIV-AIDS). Criteria used for the conditional transfers were: Not being in the category of unconditional beneficiaries + Household with a disabled member, or Household with a pregnant and/or nursing mother, or Household with children under 5 years of age. 9 FAO report Page 8 The World Bank Guinea-Bissau Emergency Food Security Project (P174336) ICR DOCUMENT B. EFFICIENCY Assessment of Efficiency and Rating Rating: Substantial 31. At appraisal, the Economic and Financial Analysis (EFA) concluded that the project was economically viable. The appraisal EFA focused on the potential benefit stream from the cultivation of 11,000 hectares of key staple foods (rice, maize, cowpea and groundnut) and 1,000 hectares of horticulture benefitting 70,000 smallholder farmers through the support of Component 1. Benefits from the “with project scenario” would derive from the potential increase in yields due to the use of improved seeds, fertilizer and pesticides. Because of data limitations, financial models were only developed for rice whose yield was assumed to increase by 15 percent. For the other crops, conservative financial returns and cash flows were estimated based on the EFAs of other comparable projects in the region. For Component 2, the appraisal EFA considered a return of 15 percent for the component due to the difficulty of measuring the return on cash transfers. No return was estimated for component 3. The Economic Internal Rate of Return EIRR was estimated at 25.5 percent and the Net Present Value (NPV) at US$ 1.7 million. The environmental co-benefit was estimated using the EX- ACT tool. The overall project was estimated to be a net carbon sequestration source with an average net reduction of 1,512 tCO2eq per year. When the environmental co-benefits were included, the projected EIRR increased to 26.3 percent and 27.1 percent using respectively the low and high shadow price of carbon (Table 4). 32. At project completion, the updated EFA confirms the project’s continued profitability. The project has contributed to the production of 161,805 metric tons of food crops by 72,256 smallholder farmers. In addition, through cash transfer activities, the project facilitated access to food by 11,000 vulnerable households for around 3 months. Based on the aggregation of the economic returns from 17 financial models (detailed in Annex 4) representing the different activities financed by the project, the NPV is estimated at US$ 1.4 million, and the EIRR at 19.1 percent for the scenario without the valuation of environmental benefits. When greenhouse gas mitigation is included and valued at the low- market price estimate range, the NPV is estimated at US$ 1.9 million and the EIRR at 23.2 percent. Alternatively, when using the high market price estimate range, the NPV is estimated at US$ 2.5 million and the EIRR at 27.2 percent. Sensibility analysis shows negative profitability only in the case of extreme scenarios with a decrease in benefits and an increase in costs of 25 percent. Table 4: EIRR and NPV Estimates Without ENV Benefits Benefits at Low Benefits High Estimate Estimate Range Range ICR STAGE EIRR (percent) 19.1 23.2 27.2 NPV (US$, Million) 1.4 1.9 2.5 APPRAISAL STAGE EIRR (percent) 25.5 26.3 27.1 NPV (US$, Million) 1.7 -- -- Aspects of Design and Implementation 33. Design and implementation factors which improved efficiency include: (i) Government pre-financing of US$ 2.0 million which facilitated starting up project activities during 6 months prior to the project’s effectiveness; (ii) an 11-month project extension to ensure completion of project activities, and facilitated the use of 95.9 percent of the project financing; (iii) introducing (during the first restructuring) training for cashew producers, and providing technical, organizational, and financial support to micro-enterprises engaged in artisanal cashew processing which sustained the industry during the COVID-19 pandemic; and (iv) opportune reallocations across project activities which allowed optimal resource use. The amount allocated for component 4 Project Management and Monitoring and Evaluation had been underestimated at Page 9 The World Bank Guinea-Bissau Emergency Food Security Project (P174336) ICR DOCUMENT project preparation. Thus, the amount increased to ensure implementation quality. 34. However, there were some factors that undermined efficiency, including : (i) high government turnover (six different officials as heads of the MAFDR) causing disruptions in dialogue; (ii) procurement delays because of bureaucratic requirements/procedures (although the project was tax exempt, the process of exercising those exemptions was onerous). 35. The choice of existing agencies such as FAO to implement the project was motivated by the search for efficiency. This choice was efficient for component 1 (agricultural production), but less for component 2 (cash transfers). This latest reached its targets but two years after the planned delay. More globally, there are major differences in culture and procedures between the WB and UN agencies, especially on planning and meeting deadlines, financial procedures and on social and environmental framework. These differences have made collaboration difficult between the PIU and FAO and were time-consuming. Justification of Overall Efficiency Rating 36. Significant results were achieved under a very difficult context, including COVID-19 disruptions, institutional weaknesses, high turnover among government counterparts, and project start up delays. Despite these challenges, the project was fully implemented and the computed EIRR and NPV are in line with what would be expected for similar projects in the sector. Therefore, project efficiency is rated Substantial. C. JUSTIFICATION OF OVERALL OUTCOME RATING 37. Relevance is rated high, efficacy is rated high, efficiency is rated substantial. This project could have been rated Highly satisfactory if distribution of animals had not been a failure and if the M&E had been more elaborated and had begun at the beginning of the project. Thus, the overall outcome is rated satisfactory. D. OTHER OUTCOMES AND IMPACTS Gender 38. More than half of the household heads (57 percent) reached by project activities were women. The project contributed to women’s empowerment and increased their incomes from agriculture. Household headed by women (widowed or single mother) were targeted for the unconditional cash transfer. Most farmers working in horticulture and lowland rice production were women. The project built stronger and more resilient human capital, greater ownership and use of economic assets and advances in women’s participation in decision-making for those women involved in SRI, Farmer Field Schools and horticulture activities. Nevertheless, the grievance mechanism for Sexual Abuse and Harassment was established with delay. Given the emergency context and local cultural values, it did not initially appear as a priority for the government. Institutional Strengthening 39. The project strengthened government and non-government institutions to improve their effectiveness in service delivery. The project strengthened the technical capacity of MAFDR staff to improve their effectiveness in farmer training/provision of agricultural advisory services, and in agricultural sector monitoring and evaluation. The project supported the establishment of a network of trainers for Farmer Field Schools and of agricultural statistic data collectors. It also financed 13 vehicles, 9 motorbikes, 2 boats, and office (including information technology) equipment and materials. Regarding non-government institutions, the project strengthened the capacity of the National Farmers’ Page 10 The World Bank Guinea-Bissau Emergency Food Security Project (P174336) ICR DOCUMENT Association through training and trips to India and Côte d’Ivoire. Mobilizing Private Sector Financing 40. The project was an emergency operation geared toward the most vulnerable households, and fully funded most of the interventions. However, some funds were mobilized through beneficiary contributions for some activities aimed at commercial activities, such as during the procurement of 250 shelling machines for the Cashew Processing Association where the association contributed 40 percent of the purchase price, although these amounts were not substantial, and were mostly geared to enhancing a sense of ownership. Poverty Reduction and Shared Prosperity 41. The project focused on improving the production capacity of poor farmers and facilitating access to food by vulnerable households. The project targeted the poorest communities where the most vulnerable households live. As indicated earlier, the project reached about 615,336 direct beneficiaries, which is about 28 percent of the country’s 2.2 million inhabitants. III. KEY FACTORS AFFECTED IMPLEMENTATION AND OUTCOME A. KEY FACTORS DURING PREPARATION 42. COVID-19 and political instability strongly affected the preparation of the project. Physical meetings between the World Bank team and the national counterparts were impossible. Furthermore, movements within the country were difficult. For many, this was their first experience engaging in project activities remotely and none of them spoke Portuguese. Additionally, given the emergency nature of the project, the time for its preparation was limited. Furthermore, during the beginning of the preparation, the government’s legitimacy was contested. To minimize any possible negative impact on the quality of project design and implementation, the government chose a UN Agency – the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) – to implement two components of the project, given its past experience in undertaking similar activities in the country. Second, although the cashew value-chain was identified as a key element of food security, the limited time for project preparation and the remote-working conditions did not permit the necessary robust stakeholder consultations needed to build consensus on the appropriate market risk management strategy. So, further consultations were to be held during project implementation, and adjustments made to the project to accommodate actions on the agreed outcomes as needed. B. KEY FACTORS DURING IMPLEMENTATION (a) Factors subject to the control of government and/or implementing entities 43. The role of FAO in project implementation enabled the project’s rapid start up. The project was approved by the World Bank board in September 2020, but project effectiveness occurred in April 2021. To save time, the government prefinanced US$ 2.0 million and signed a contract with FAO before the project’s effectiveness. Thus, despite the belated effectiveness, the government’s prefinancing and FAO’s readiness allowed for quicker project startup than would ordinarily have been the case. The project began before the creation of the PIU. 44. At the beginning, coordination between the PIU and the FAO was difficult, but eventually an efficient modus vivendi was found. By the time that the PIU became fully established to manage, monitor, and evaluate the project, some project activities were already underway. Moreover, FAO’s Environmental and Social standards and reporting Page 11 The World Bank Guinea-Bissau Emergency Food Security Project (P174336) ICR DOCUMENT schedule were not the same as those of the World Bank which became a source of tension between the PIU, the MAFDR and the FAO. However, these issues were eventually ironed out, and the three parties worked harmoniously. 45. Once established, the PIU fostered a very fruitful dialogue among cashew value-chain stakeholders. This resulted in defining a cashew market risk strategy and facilitated the implementation of a series of activities aimed at stabilizing the cashew sector. (b) Factors subject to World Bank control 46. Factors which favorably affected project implementation include: (i) continuous project implementation support coupled with regular biannual detailed review and support missions; (ii) project team stability throughout the project’s implementation; (iii) flexibility during project implementation whereby timely adjustments (such as resource reallocations across components) were made as needed, thus making up for any shortcomings due to the project’s rapid preparation. More factors which positively affected implementation are discussed under “Quality of Supervision”. (c) Factors outside the control of government and/or implementing entities 47. Absence of identification systems for the beneficiaries made checking people's identities difficult. For example, some women gave their husbands' names for payments, for cultural reasons. Others used nicknames, which made it difficult to be precise. Although collaboration with the phone company ORANGE for the issuing of sim cards was tedious, it was beneficial and very efficient. IV. BANK PERFORMANCE, COMPLIANCE ISSUES, AND RISK TO DEVELOPMENT OUTCOME A. QUALITY OF MONITORING AND EVALUATION (M&E) M&E Design 48. The project’s M&E system had indicators to capture outputs from component activities, track progress, and assess impact. The results indicators were aligned with the PDO, and the targets were appropriate and realistic. The link between intermediate results indicators and the PDO outcomes was measurable. However, although certain parameters such as the evolution of livestock mortality or cashew sector market risk management outcomes are observable over a longer time frame and could, therefore, not be monitored during project implementation, the methodology for their monitoring could, nonetheless have been developed. This was mainly due to the emergency nature of the project, which was prepared in a very short amount of time. M&E Implementation 49. The M&E implementation was difficult up to October 2023. At this point the M&E system was sufficiently equipped and was able to monitor implementation progress. Data collection in the field was carried out by a combination of experts, including staff from MAFDR's decentralized services (although they were hampered by their small number and very limited resources), agents recruited by FAO to collect data, and PIU teams. Data collection was facilitated by Kobo toolbox software. M&E Utilization 50. Notwithstanding the belated operationalization of the M&E system, the data generated was useful during project implementation. For example, data from livestock monitoring alerted project management about the difficulties that the small ruminant distribution activity was having at the farm level. As a result, it was halted, and the earmarked resources were applied to other activities. M&E data guided project restructuring, thus enabling optimal resource use. M&E data was used to update the Economic and Financial Analysis to ascertain PUSA’s continued Page 12 The World Bank Guinea-Bissau Emergency Food Security Project (P174336) ICR DOCUMENT feasibility. Similarly, M&E data was used to conduct end-of-project assessments of the project’s performance and the degree to which it had attained its objectives. Justification of Overall Rating of Quality of M&E 51. Despite a slow start-up, the M&E system delivered the data required to monitor and evaluate the project’s efficacy and efficiency. The overall quality of M&E is rated Substantial. B. ENVIRONMENTAL, SOCIAL, AND FIDUCIARY COMPLIANCE 52. Environmental and Social (E&S) Safeguards. The PIU was adequately staffed with social and environmental specialists. However, during the early years of project implementation, there were some issues pertaining to inadequacies in safety protocols for chemical storage, use of personal protective equipment, and waste management. The E&S framework was not part of the contract between MAFDR and FAO, hence E&S issues were not included by FAO in its reporting. When the PIU was finally established, these E&S reporting issues created some tension among the three parties (MAFDR, PIU, FAO), but were ultimately resolved, and the inadequacies in E&S implementation corrected. For instance, since personal protective equipment during the cash-for-work activities was not part of FAO’s contract, it was funded by the PIU instead (part of the reason why the PIU costs increased during the first restructuring). The GBV protection and grievance mechanisms were put in place only two years after the project was effective. The Grievance Redress Mechanism received 44 grievances. There were not enough local committees, and their members were not sufficiently trained. They received 7 grievances, from persons who thought they were to be beneficiaries of cash transfer. After verification it was found to be a misunderstanding, as those persons where not eligible. The free phone line received 36 calls, asking for information or thanking the team for the support. The PIU team received one grievance directly: a woman who had lost her tomato production because of an unknown fungus, as 15 neighbors did. The specialized service of the Ministry gave advice and the problem was solved. 53. Procurement. Procurement was affected by some delays at project start-up and by the difference in procurement rules between FAO and the World Bank. FAO rules provide for payment after full delivery of services, and reporting is on an annual rather than half-yearly basis. Recurrent delays in the delivery of inputs and the failure of agricultural input suppliers affected the implementation of the project, as they led to late distribution of inputs. At the stage of writing this report, the PIU is still waiting for the final FAO report. Furthermore, import of materials for irrigating schemes and cashew processing were delayed by the customs administration, which had a different appreciation of the appliance of the tax exemption. 54. Financial Management. The Project complied with the monthly production of Interim unaudited Financial Reports (IFRs), and project accounts were reconciled on a quarterly basis. Five independent audits were carried out from 2017 to 2021 and were all considered satisfactory in all material matters, except the first one. The auditor was not well informed of the terms of the agreement between the WB and the FAO. Nevertheless, at the beginning of the project the FAO reporting model was not suited to the requirements of a WB project, but this problem was solved. C. BANK PERFORMANCE Quality at Entry 55. The overall quality at entry was generally strong. PUSA was fully aligned with the Government’s strategic plan that prioritized food security. It was well aligned with the World Bank Country Partnership Strategy (CPS)_ FY18 – FY21. It drew lessons from relevant emergency operations. It struck strategic partnerships with FAO given its strong Page 13 The World Bank Guinea-Bissau Emergency Food Security Project (P174336) ICR DOCUMENT experience in the country. The project’s financial and economic analysis had demonstrated strong feasibility. The project had a strong gender focus, with a 50 percent target for reaching farmers with agricultural assets and services. The Environmental and Social Review Summary, Environmental Social Commitment Plan and the Stakeholder Engagement Plan were prepared and disclosed. The risk assessment was thorough and candid. The implementation and M&E arrangements were largely adequate, although they showed some weaknesses, mainly due to the differences in institutional requirements between FAO (the implementer of two principal components) and the World Bank. The discrepancies were corrected during the course of project implementation. They could not be adequately identified and addressed during project preparation as this was an emergency project: very short preparation time, with the entire preparation done remotely, and in a country with very weak institutions. The composition of the Bank project preparation team sufficiently reflected the nature of project activities. All these elements gave PUSA firm technical and institutional grounding. Despite the above shortcomings, the overall quality at entry was generally strong. Quality of Supervision 56. The overall quality of supervision was generally good. The project team maintained an average of two formal implementation support missions per year on top of continuous interactions to resolve implementation issues as they arose. Mission aide-memoirs were candid, with clear action plans. The skills mix of the project implementation support team generally corresponded with project activities and fiduciary requirements. The team was adept in resolving misalignments between FAO and World Bank procedures as well as other shortcomings that arose out of the project’s harried preparation, and in flexibly deploying resources across components (through two restructurings) to maximize resource use efficiency. It arduously monitored eligibility of project actions and rigorously monitored expenditure traceability. The fact that the TTL was the same for the entire duration of the project was an asset. Justification of Overall Rating of Bank Performance 57. Project preparation was timely, quality at entry was strong, and supervision effective. Despite the difficulties encountered at project start-up, close follow-up in supervision assisted Government teams and FAO in reaching and exceeding targets toward the end of the project. The overall rating is satisfactory. D. RISK TO DEVELOPMENT OUTCOME 58. The risk to the development outcome is substantial. PUSA was an emergency project with very narrow objectives of forestalling impoverishment from forced asset disposal and/or preventing serious harm from food deprivation. Apart from cash transfers, the project provided quality seeds, fertilizers, and promoted good agricultural practices which resulted in increased productivity and production among the project beneficiaries. However, Guinea- Bissau’s seed and fertilizer supply chains remain underdeveloped, importing is difficult and faces bureaucratic red tape and the prices of these inputs remain out of the reach of smallholder farmers who will continue to use their own retained seed and no fertilizer. Lack of renewal of the seed stock and use of fertilizer will gradually erode these productivity gains. In the medium term, continued support in the form of structured investment project financing would be recommended in order to capitalize on the gains made under this emergency operation. 59. Regarding other investments supported by the project: (i) the small equipment (such as those supplied to the cashew processors) can be repaired locally; (ii) the 18.52 ha developed for vegetable gardening are simple gravity systems, easy to maintain – but will require monitoring by the government’s agricultural advisory services (the farmers were trained on irrigation maintenance); (iii) the government will need to organize periodic vaccination campaigns to sustain the benefits from the success vaccination campaign supported under the project. Page 14 The World Bank Guinea-Bissau Emergency Food Security Project (P174336) ICR DOCUMENT V. LESSONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 60. In limited capacity environments, partnerships with agencies already present on the ground can expedite project implementation, nevertheless the partnership with FAO presented challenges for the PIU. PIU encountered difficulties to have FAO met deadlines or submit timely reporting. Lessons learned and recommendations from this experience include the importance of: (i) a clear delineation of the roles and responsibilities for each party; (ii) an agreement over which procedures to use. The World Bank could, for example, review its standard agreement with FAO to align the E&S framework and fiduciary reporting arrangements on WB system since there is normally little time to iron out these issues on a country by country basis during emergencies); (iii) according to the specific case of emergency context, and the need to deliver as fast as possible, it would be interesting to develop an E&S emergency framework, which would guarantee a high level of social and environmental standards as well as rapid execution. (iv) Furthermore, exploring different possibilities for implementing emergency operations such NGOs experienced in the sector, should be rigorously analyzed going forward. 61. Given the limited scope and duration of emergency projects, it is important to plan for capitalization on the achievements made. The project was able to stimulate a supply response among poor smallholder farmers and stabilize the cashew sector. However, project activities were limited in scope. The principal lesson learned is the need to plan on how to capitalize on these investments. It would have been opportune, for example, if a new project had picked up from where PUSA left off, investing in quality seed production, continuing to expand the farmer field schools, and take advantage of the knowledge base and momentum generated, before those involved in PUSA demobilize, including the PIU and the impetus wanes. As it was not possible to have a consecutive agricultural project, any following operation will have to try to mobilize the stakeholders and the human resources of PUSA from the identification phase. 62. Acquisition, transportation and distribution of livestock from abroad could be challenging if all necessary conditions are not fully integrated. To increase beneficiaries’ livestock capital, the project has planned to distribute 5,000 small ruminants to 1,000 vulnerable households. It was difficult to locally supply the total number of animals, so they relied on importing animals mainly from Mali. The operation led to a high level of mortality rate. The favor of local purchases, the good transportation conditions and consideration of animals’ adaptability and agro-climatic zone could have contributed to reducing the mortality rate. Further investigations should be conducted to quantify the mortality of existing livestock caused by this operation. The Good Practice Note for E&S Framework for IPF on Animal Health and Related Risks is a valuable tool which would help reduce those risks. For following operations sourcing local animals should be favored. 63. Training farmers and providing them advisory services on good practices, improving the quality of the seeds used and using local resources gives good results in Guinea-Bissau and is sustainable. Importing inputs in Guinea- Bissau faces bureaucratic red tape, and farmers are so poor that they cannot buy them by themselves. Improving the seed used gives an interesting impetus to agriculture production if they are accompanied by extension services on good agricultural practices, using local inputs and materials such as System of Rice Intensification (SRI). Distribution of selected variety but also mass selection can be used to improve the quality of seeds used. 64. Projects in fragile environments may differ from one another, but one constant thing is that capacity weaknesses and emergency situations/disruptions are not entirely avoidable during the project life. Success factors in this case are simple design, stability of the PIU, and of the TTLship, or if not possible dialogue/cooperation with former TTLs. In the case of Guinea-Bissau, it is not possible to address all drivers of FCV but it is possible to reinforce state institutions and the quality of their services such as extension, statistics and animal health and thus contributing to reduce drivers of FCV. Page 15 The World Bank Guinea-Bissau Emergency Food Security Project (P174336) ICR DOCUMENT ANNEX 1. RESULTS FRAMEWORK AND KEY OUTPUTS @#&OPS~Doctype~OPS^dynamics@icrresultframework#doctemplate A. RESULTS FRAMEWORK PDO Indicators by Outcomes To support increased food crop production Indicator Name Baseline Closing Period (Original) Closing Period (Current) Actual Achieved at Completion Result Month/Year Result Month/Year Result Month/Year Result Month/Year 0.00 Jun/2020 50,000.00 Jul/2023 72,256.00 Jun/2024 Comments on achieving targets This indicator measures the number of farmers who were provided with agricultural assets or services as a result of World Bank project support. "Agriculture" or "Agricultural" includes: crops, livestock, capture fisheries, aquaculture, agroforestry, timber, and non-timber forest products. Assets include property, biological assets, and farm and processing equipment. Biological assets may include animal agriculture breeds (e.g., livestock, fisheries) and genetic Farmers reached with agricultural material of livestock, crops, trees, and shrubs (including fiber and fuel crops). Services include assets or services (Number) research, extension, training, education, ICTs, inputs (e.g., fertilizers, pesticides, labor), production-related services (e.g., soil testing, animal health/veterinary services), phyto- sanitary and food safety services, agricultural marketing support services (e.g., price monitoring, export promotion), access to farm and post-harves machinery and storage facilities, employment, irrigation and drainage, and finance. Farmers are people engaged in agricultural activities or members of an agriculture-related business (disaggregated by men and women) targeted by the project. Farmers reached with 0.00 25,000.00 41,352.00 agricultural assets or services - Female (Number) 0.00 Aug/2020 120,000.00 Jul/2023 161,805.53 Jun/2024 Volume of food crops produced Comments on achieving targets This indicator will measure aggregate tonnage of all food crops produced through project support (Metric ton) Page 16 The World Bank Guinea-Bissau Emergency Food Security Project (P174336) ICR DOCUMENT Share of target beneficiaries with 0.00 Jul/2020 75.00 Jun/2023 93.00 Jun/2024 rating “Satisfied” or above on process Comments on achieving targets This indicator is a measure of citizen engagement and impact of project interventions (Percentage) 0.00 Sep/2020 378,000.00 Jul/2023 615,336.00 Jun/2024 Direct project beneficiaries Comments on achieving targets This is an aggregate of beneficiaries across all the project activities (Number) To increase access to food for consumption by food insecure households Indicator Name Baseline Closing Period (Original) Closing Period (Current) Actual Achieved at Completion Result Month/Year Result Month/Year Result Month/Year Result Month/Year 0.00 Sep/2020 8,000.00 Dec/2023 8,000.00 Jun/2024 Poor households participating in Comments on achieving targets This indicator measures the number of households benefiting from the cash-for-work program. Regardless of public works (Number) the number of participants coming from a single household, this number will be recorded as one household Intermediate Indicators by Components Support to Agricultural Production Indicator Name Baseline Closing Period (Original) Closing Period (Current) Actual Achieved at Completion Result Month/Year Result Month/Year Result Month/Year Result Month/Year 0.00 Jun/2020 2,100.00 Dec/2023 2,485.34 Jun/2024 Comments on achieving targets In total 2485 metric tons of inputs of which 1830 metric tons of seeds and 655 metric tons Amount of input distributed (Metric of fertilizers were distributed during the six consecutive horticultural off-seasons and rainfed ton) seasons (november 2020 – march 2021 ; june – november 2021 ; november 2021 – march 2022 ; june – november 2022, november 2022-mars 2023; andjune – november 2023) across the 9 Regional Directorates of Agriculture. The end target is exceeded. Rice seed (Metric ton) 0.00 Jun/2020 1,100.00 Dec/2023 1,371.79 Jun/2024 Fertilizers (Metric ton) 0.00 Jun/2020 650.00 Dec/2023 655.00 Jun/2024 0.00 Jun/2020 90.00 Dec/2023 152.68 Jun/2024 Vegetable seed (Metric ton) Comments on achieving targets Vegetable seeds including cowpea 0.00 Jun/2020 30,000.00 Aug/2021 42,844.00 Jun/2024 Page 17 The World Bank Guinea-Bissau Emergency Food Security Project (P174336) ICR DOCUMENT Number of households using better Comments on achieving targets This indicator measures the effectiveness of the advisory services provided by the project cropping and farm management practices (Number) 0.00 Jun/2020 500,000.00 Jul/2021 572,278.00 Jun/2024 Number of animals vaccinated or treated for common diseases Comments on achieving targets This will measure the absolute number of animals treated for common diseases. To avoid double counting, (Number) cases in which a single animal is vaccinated or treated against more than a one disease, this will count as a single unit 0.00 Sep/2020 10,000.00 Jul/2023 13,338.00 Feb/2023 Women benefiting from kitchen garden inputs (Number) Comments on achieving targets This indicator monitors the absolute number of women accessing any of the inputs that are specific to kitchen gardens Households satisfied with inputs and 0.00 Jun/2020 75.00 Jul/2021 93.00 Jun/2024 services provided by the project Comments on achieving targets This is used as a measure of citizen engagement (Percentage) Support to Risk Mitigation Indicator Name Baseline Closing Period (Original) Closing Period (Current) Actual Achieved at Completion Result Month/Year Result Month/Year Result Month/Year Result Month/Year Cashew producers trained on cashew 0.00 Jun/2022 2,000.00 Dec/2023 3,014.00 Jun/2024 Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) (Number) No Jun/2022 Yes Dec/2023 Yes Jun/2024 A central shop for packaging set up Comments on achieving targets The central shop for packaging is established and being equipped with the initial stock of with a trained management packaging. The management committee is set up the cashew nut processors association. The committee (Yes/No) remaining is the capacity building of the committee in financial and stock management and procurement. Project Management and Monitoring and Evaluation Indicator Name Baseline Closing Period (Original) Closing Period (Current) Actual Achieved at Completion Result Month/Year Result Month/Year Result Month/Year Result Month/Year Grievances received addressed within 0.00 Sep/2020 80.00 Jul/2023 100.00 Jun/2024 the stipulated response time Comments on achieving targets This indicator tracks responses to grievances received. A total of 8 grievances were received (Percentage) and addressed. Page 18 The World Bank Guinea-Bissau Emergency Food Security Project (P174336) ICR DOCUMENT B. KEY OUTPUTS To support increased food crop production 1. Farmers reached with agricultural assets or services 2. Volume of food crops produced PDO Indicators 3. Share of target beneficiaries with rating “Satisfied” or above on process and impact of project interventions 4. Direct project beneficiaries 1. 72,256 farmers reached with agricultural assets or services (initial target 50,000), of which 41,352 are women (initial target 25,000) 2. 161,805 Mt of food crops produced (initial target 205,000 Mt revised at mid Key Outputs term 120,000 Mt) (linked to the achievement of the PDO Outcome) 3. 93 % of target beneficiaries with with rating “Satisfied” or above on process and impact of project interventions (initial target 75%) 4. 615,336 direct project beneficiaries (initial target 378,000) To increase access to food for consumption by food insecure households PDO Indicators 1. Poor households participating in public works Key Outputs 1. 8,000 poor households participating in public works (initial target 8,000) (linked to the achievement of the PDO Outcome) Contingent Emergency Response Intermediate Results Indicators No indicators have been added Key Outputs (linked to the achievement of the Component) Page 19 The World Bank Guinea-Bissau Emergency Food Security Project (P174336) ICR DOCUMENT Project Management and Monitoring and Evaluation Intermediate Results Indicators 12. Grievances received addressed within the stipulated response time Key Outputs 1. 100% of the grievances received were adressed within the stipulated (linked to the achievement of the Component) response time (initial target 80%) Support to Risk Mitigation 1. Cashew producers trained on cashew Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) Intermediate Results Indicators 2. A central shop for packaging set up with a trained management committee 1. 3,014 cashew producers trained on cashew good practices (initial target Key Outputs 2,000) (linked to the achievement of the Component) 2. Yes, a central shop for packaging with a trained management committee has been set up Support to Community Safety Nets Intermediate Results Indicators No indicators have been added Key Outputs (linked to the achievement of the Component) Support to Agricultural Production 1. Amount of input distributed 2. Number of households using better cropping and farm management practices Intermediate Results Indicators 3. Number of animals vaccinated or treated for common diseases 4. Women benefiting from kitchen garden inputs 5. Households satisfied with inputs and services provided by the project Page 20 The World Bank Guinea-Bissau Emergency Food Security Project (P174336) ICR DOCUMENT 1. 2,485.34 Mt of input distributed (initial target 2,100 Mt) 2. 42,844 household using better cropping and farm management practices (initial target 30,000) Key Outputs 3. 572,278 animals vaccinated or treated for common diseases (initial target (linked to the achievement of the Component) 500,000) 4. 13,338 women benefiting from garden inputs (initial target 10,000) 5. 93% households satisfied with inputs and services provided by the project (initial target 75%) Page 21 The World Bank Guinea-Bissau Emergency Food Security Project (P174336) ICR DOCUMENT ANNEX 2. BANK LENDING AND IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT/SUPERVISION A. TASK TEAM MEMBERS Name Role Aifa Fatimata Ndoye Niane Team Leader Fatou Mbacke Dieng Financial Management Specialist Mountaga Ndiaye Procurement Specialist Djibril Diagne Procurement Specialist Souleymane Hussein Seye Environmental Specialist Manuela Ravina da Silva Environmental Specialist Edda Ivan Smith Social Specialist Matthieu Louis Bonvoisin Counsel Sophie Martine Olivia Wernert Counsel Anta Tall Diallo Procurement Team Mohammad Ilyas Butt Procurement Team Nikolai Alexei Sviedrys Wittich Procurement Team Sandra Helena Santos Lima Fonseca Procurement Team Elhadji Adama Toure Team Member Eustacius N. Betubiza Team Member Boury Ndiaye Team Member Abel Lufafa Team Member Salam Hailou Team Member Kadir Osman Gyasi Team Member Ghislaine Kouedi Nombi Team Member Carlos Mondlane Team Member Elizabeth Joana Graybill Do Nascimento Brito Team Member Monika Marta Bakayoko Topolska Team Member Page 22 The World Bank Guinea-Bissau Emergency Food Security Project (P174336) ICR DOCUMENT @#&OPS~Doctype~OPS^dynamics@icrannexstafftime#doctemplate B. STAFF TIME & COST Staff Time & Cost Stage of Project Cycle No. of Staff Weeks US$ (including travel and consultant costs) Preparation FY20 8.236 39,282.20 FY21 32.901 185,896.09 FY22 4.943 23,491.53 Total 46.08 248,669.82 Supervision/ICR FY22 11.089 49,232.15 FY23 8.181 50,119.81 FY24 17.979 97,821.24 FY25 2.990 23,975.82 Total 40.24 221,149.02 Page 23 The World Bank Guinea-Bissau Emergency Food Security Project (P174336) ICR DOCUMENT ANNEX 3. PROJECT COST BY COMPONENT Component Amount at Approval (US$M) Actual at Project Closing (US$M) Support to Agricultural Production 9.4 9.286 Support to Community Safety Nets 2.3 2.3 Support to Risk Mitigation 0.9 0.746 Project Management and Monitoring 2.4 2.106 and Evaluation Contingent Emergency Response 0.0 0.0 Page 24 The World Bank Guinea-Bissau Emergency Food Security Project (P174336) ICR DOCUMENT ANNEX 4. EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS Preamble 65. This annex resumes the ex-post Economic and Financial Analysis (EFA) of the Guinea-Bissau Emergency Food Security Project (PUSA). The analysis is based on two approaches: it uses a cost-benefit analysis to estimate the net additional benefits attributable to the project’s intervention and it performs a basic cost analysis to assess the efficiency in the use of Project funds. 66. PUSA has been implemented from April 2021 to June 2024 with a total budget of USD 15 million. On June 27, 2024, the total disbursement rate for the project was estimated at 96%, corresponding to a total amount of USD 14.4 million. The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, the project Implementation Unit and the FAO office of Guinea-Bissau have worked in partnership to achieve the PUSA development objective (PDO) of supporting increased food crop production and increased access to food for consumption by food-insecure households. The project includes 5 components: Component 1. Support to Agricultural Production with an initial budget of USD 10.0 million revised to USD 9 million; Component 2. Support to Community Safety Nets with an initial budget of USD 2.5 million revised to USD 2.3 million; Component 3. Support to Risk Mitigation with a budget of USD 1.5 million; Component 4. Project Management and Monitoring and Evaluation with an initial budget of USD 1.0 million revised to USD 2.2 million; and Component 5. Contingent Emergency Response (not activated). 67. The project has targeted at national-level vulnerable households, headers and smallholder farmers groups involved in staple foods, horticulture and cashew production and transformation to increase their food security and incomes. Thus, the total number of people who have benefited directly from PUSA intervention is estimated to be 448,062 people. The project has financed new production infrastructures and contributed to the rehabilitation and development of existing rice and horticultural perimeters. The project has provided improved inputs, equipment and working capital for production and processing activities. In addition, the project has been involved in training, supervision, advice and monitoring of farming activities for the adoption of best agricultural practices. The project also supported the ministry and partners’ institutional capacity development with the provision of vehicles and computer equipment. 68. This ICR efficiency analysis presents an Economic Internal Return Rate (EIRR) of 19.1% and a Net Present Value of USD 1.3 million over 10 years, slightly below the appraisal EIRR (25.5%) and NPV (USD 1.7 million). Based on the results of the analysis, and the implementation performance, the overall project efficiency is rated as Substantial. 69. This annex has five sections. The first section discusses the results of the EFAs prepared at project appraisal. The second section presents the financial analysis of a broad range of investments financed by PUSA to improve agricultural production and productivity through direct support to farmers’ organizations (Component 1), analyses the impact of the cash transfers to the most vulnerable households (Component 2) and elaborate on the interventions for the cashew value chain development. The third section compares the efficiency of actual project costs with estimates made at appraisal. The final section describes the economic analysis, summarizes the overall results of the EFA, and discusses the project’s efficiency rating. Note on data collection: 70. The main sources of information used to prepare the current EFA are the information from the project M&E system and some studies conducted and prepared by the project, including surveys, supervision missions, and advancement reports. We have also analyzed the EFA prepared for the appraisal. However, we could not fully rely on the M&E data because it had some limitations that impacted the accuracy of the analysis, for example, we do not have the details costs of activities from components 1 and 2. In addition, because of the delay in operations, the monitoring system could not collect information on all the beneficiaries, especially those who had not yet Page 25 The World Bank Guinea-Bissau Emergency Food Security Project (P174336) ICR DOCUMENT started the activities or had not reached full operations. Therefore, we have completed some models using major assumptions. Moreover, this EFA has benefited from information collected in June 2024 during field visits of a sample of project beneficiaries and implementation partners. For the investments that have not been exploited yet, the EFA used secondary data from similar projects in the region to estimate the expected return of the activities. I. Efficiency Analyses during the project appraisal 71. During the project preparation mission, an EFA was prepared to support the project appraisal document. The appraisal EFA focused on the potential benefits stream from the cultivation of 12.000 Hectares of staple foods (rice, maize, cowpea and groundnut) and horticulture benefitting 70.000 small farmers with the support of Component 1. The benefits of the “with project scenario” were derived from the potential increase in yields due to the use of improved seeds, fertilizer and pesticide. Because of the limitations of the data, financial models were only developed for rice including a 15% increase in yield. For the other crops, conservative financial returns and cash flow were estimated from the EFAs of other comparable projects in the region. For Component 2, due to the difficulty of measuring the return of cash transfer the appraisal EFA has considered a return of 15% for the component. No return was estimated for component 3. 72. Over a 5-year period, the analysis presented an EIRR of 25.5% and an NPV of USD 1.7 million. The environmental co-benefit has been estimated in the appraisal using the EX-ACT tools. The overall project was estimated to be a net carbon sequestration source with an average net reduction of 1,512 tCO2eq per year. Including the environmental co-benefits, the EIRR of the project would have increased to 26.3% and 27.1% using respectively the low and high shadow price of carbon. II. Financial analysis Methodology 73. The methodological approach of the economic and financial analysis (EFA) follows the guiding principles of Gittinger (1982) and is in line with more recent guidelines published on economic and financial analysis by IFAD and the World Bank. The financial discount rate used is 10%. The duration is 1 year for the vaccination campaign, 5 years for inputs provision activities, 10 years for the horticulture production from the new perimeters, the activities with the motor pumps distributed and the activities from the cashew value chain. The models’ financial indicators include the Net Present Value (NPV), the financial Internal Rate of Return (IRR), and the Benefit-Cost ratio (B/C). 74. The financial analysis was performed from the perspective of beneficiary households, producer groups or MSMEs. Based on data provided by the M&E system, financial models have been developed to capture the benefits of the project’s main investments. This allowed to develop 17 financial models, fitted to the different activities, most of them “with” and “without” project (WP and WOP) situations to analyze the financial performance of the investments. The models estimate the average expenditures and benefits of each type of activity, including the required labor (family and hired labor) and the expected lifespan of equipment (4 years) and infrastructure (10 years). Results Component 1: 75. Component 1 activities focused on restoring and strengthening farmers’ productive capacity. The activities include capacity building of farmers and their associations, access to mechanized and extension services, distribution of improved inputs for crop production and livestock dotation, and veterinaries service. To facilitate the activities implementation and monitoring in the field, the project has also strengthened the partners, including the ministries, technical capacity and provided 13 vehicles, 09 motorbikes, 2 boats, and office and IT materials. Table A4.1: Financial models for component 1 Page 26 The World Bank Guinea-Bissau Emergency Food Security Project (P174336) ICR DOCUMENT NPV (@10%, NPV (@10%, NPV (@10%, Model IRR B/C '000 FCFA) USD) USD), by unit Lowland rice 108% 452 725 145 1.51 Mangrove rice 165% 875 1404 702 1.85 Irrigated rice SRI 105% 3576 5741 2870 1.54 Irrigated rice: seed multiplication 51% 1049 1684 842 1.28 Motor pump for irrigated rice 20% 3150 5055 2528 1.19 Groundnut 155% 265 426 426 1.44 Sesame 121% 422 677 677 1.44 Cowpea 82% 383 615 615 1.65 Sorghum 60% 112 180 180 1.02 Maize 137% 505 811 811 1.31 Existent Horticulture 4548 7300 456 2.17 New Horticulture 40% 29317 47058 2941 1.17 Vaccination 533858 856914 Small ruminants 28444 45657 57 cccc Crops production: 76. Rice: Rice production is very important for food security in Guinea-Bissau. Rice is the staple food in the country with an average per capita consumption of 130 Kg (Coalition for Africa Rice Development, 2019). Farmers produce rice mainly for self-consumption. But, because of the low productivity, most of them could not produce the quantity required for their annual household consumption. They sell other crops to buy rice if needed. The project has supported mangrove, lowland, and irrigated rice production with the distribution of certified rice seeds, small agricultural materials and equipment, facilitated access to mechanization and purchased 10 motor pumps for irrigation (750 m3/hour capacity). The project has also trained farmers on best agronomy practices and has organized farmers’ fields schools (FFS) on rice seed multiplication and System of Rice Intensification (SRI). 77. Mangrove rice: The mangrove areas are suitable land for rice production during the rainy season and do not need a high quantity of fertilizer. However, farmers rehabilitate the dikes (made with soil) each year because most of them are not in concrete material. PUSA has provided mangrove rice producers with 760 tons of certified seeds during 3 years, for the cultivation of around 1,612 Ha. In the situation with the project, farmers reduced the application of quantity of seeds from around 125Kg/Ha to 60 Kg/Ha. With the improved seeds and good practices, their yield increased from 1.5 to 3.1 tons/Ha. The financial analysis shows a positive result with an IRR of 165%, an NPV of USD 1,404 and a benefit costs ratio of 1.85. 78. Lowland rice: Lowland rice is mainly produced by women in rainfed culture. Their productivity is usually low, and farmers do not use fertilizer to increase their yield. The project has distributed 649.3 tons of certified seeds for lowland rice production to cover 1,372 Ha. Although the project has advised the use of 60 Kg/Ha of seeds, farmers continue to apply more than 100 Kg/Ha. The high quality of seeds has allowed farmers to increase their productivity from less than 1.3 to 2.4 tons/Ha. The activities are profitable with an IRR of 108%, an NPV of USD 725 and a benefit- cost ratio of 1.51. 79. Irrigated rice: The project has distributed 9 tons of certified seeds for irrigated rice production. The production practices promoted by the project include SRI (116.3 Ha) and rice seed multiplication. The SRI technique consists of the reduction of the duration of nursery preparation and transplantation and the sowing based on specific alignment and spacing. It leads to reduce the quantity of seeds from 90 to 10 Kg/Ha and an increase in productivity Page 27 The World Bank Guinea-Bissau Emergency Food Security Project (P174336) ICR DOCUMENT from 2.2 to 4.66 tons/Ha. The use of certified seeds without the SRI increases the productivity to 3.21 tons/Ha. The irrigated rice production is a profitable activity. It presents an IRR of 51%, an NPV of USD 1,684 and a benefit-cost ratio of 1.28 without SRI. With SRI, the financial returns are higher with an IRR of 105%, an NPV of USD 5,741 and a benefit-cost ratio of 1.54. 80. Motor pumps: Pusa has acquired 10 motor pumps valued at USD 127 331.74 of 750 m3 capacity each for the production of irrigated rice. The motor pumps were transmitted to the ministry for distribution to farmers. A financial analysis has been added to estimate the potential benefits of the investment in the production of rice on 250 hectares using the SRI model. The financial returns include an IRR of 20%, an NPV of USD 5,055 and a benefit- cost ratio of 1.19. 81. Maize: PUSA has supported maize production with the distribution of 60 tons of certified seeds over 3 years for the cultivation of around 425 hectares of land. In addition, 436 farmers were also trained on best maize production practices through farmers’ field school: preparation of farm, plant alignment and separation, and measure of the appropriate quantities of fertilizer. Farmers also learned how to protect and treat plants against the attack of insects, mainly using traditional methods with neem plants. The project also supported the ploughing costs. This intervention improved farmers’ organization and collaboration and led to an increase in yield from 1 to 2 tons/Ha. The production is used for self-consumption and marketing. The activity presents a profitable financial return with an NPV of USD 811, an IRR of 137% and a benefit-cost ratio of 1.31 for a cultivation on 1 Ha of land. 82. Cowpea: The project has provided 150 tons of certified cowpea seeds to cover around 400 Ha of land under cultivation. A new variety of seeds with a short maturity period was introduced (1.5 months compared to 3 months). With the technical advice and the improved seeds, farmers were able to increase their yield from 0.6 to 1 ton/Ha. However, the production suffers from a high loss rate (more than 30%) due mainly to insect attacks. The crop is produced without the use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides. The financial analysis shows a positive return of the farming activities on 1 Ha with an NPV of USD 615, an IRR of 82% and a benefit-cost ratio of 1.65. 83. Sorghum: The project has also financed the purchase of 30 tons of certified sorghum seeds for the cultivation of around 513 Ha. In the situation with the project, the farmers applied improved farming practices with an increase of productivity from 0.4 to 0.7 tons/Ha. The farmers used only organic fertilizer. The activities lead to a positive financial analysis with an NPV of USD 180, an IRR of 60% and a benefit-cost ratio of 1.02. 84. Groundnut: PUSA has distributed 190 tons of certified groundnut seeds for the cultivation of around 222 Ha. Compared with the traditional seeds with a yield of less than 1 ton/ha, the certified seeds could lead to a yield of 1.2 ton/ha. The residual groundnut stem is also sold and used as animal fodder. The analysis shows profitable farm activities with an NPV of USD 426, an IRR of 155% and a benefit-cost ratio of 1.44. 85. Sesame: The project has financed the purchase and distribution of 33.4 tons of certified sesame seeds, that could have served to the cultivation of 1,542 Ha. The quality of the seeds and the good agricultural itineraries led to an increase in yield from 0.3 to 0.6 tons/Ha. The financial analysis presents a profitable investment with an NPV of USD 677, an IRR of 121% and a benefit-cost ratio of 1.44. 86. Existing horticulture: The project has supported existent horticulture farmers with 3.4 tons of diversified improved seeds, including lettuce, onion, tomatoes, carotte, pepper, cabbage, watermelon, etc. The total horticulture area supported could reach around 587 Ha. The project has supported farmers with fertilizers such as NPK and Urea. In addition, the project has trained farmers and monitored the activities for better production. Most horticulture farmers use wells as the main source of water and do not have a proper barrier (fence) to protect the farm leading to a high production loss of around 30%. They have one horticulture production cycle during the lean season and one food crop production during the rainy season. The activities are dominated by women (in association) and could be a suitable source of income. It also contributes to food diversification with high nutritive values. The activities could be very profitable with an NPV of USD 7,300 and a benefit-cost ratio of 2.17. 87. New horticulture investment: The project is developing in total of 19 hectares of modern horticulture farming Page 28 The World Bank Guinea-Bissau Emergency Food Security Project (P174336) ICR DOCUMENT system with a fenced and modernized perimeter with a drip irrigation system through solar pumping. The installation work is not finalized yet but the project expects to complete it by its closure. The financial analysis shows that the investment could generate a profitable return if it is well managed with 3 production cycles, loss reduction and at least 10 years of exploitation. The results present an NPV of USD 47,058, an IRR of 40% and a benefit-cost ratio of 1.17. Livestock production 88. Livestock is very important for farmers because it can help to cope with an emergency. It is considered as the Bank of the farmers. 89. Vaccines and treatments: The allocated national budget for livestock is insufficient to deliver livestock health services and monitoring in the entire country. With the support from PUSA, the country has undertaken the first vaccination campaign at the national level. The project in collaboration with animal health service has identified drugs and vaccines needed to fight diseases and treat animals in the country. The project has acquired and administrated the vaccine of bacterial and symptomatic anthrax, pasteurellosis of small ruminants, new castle for poultry and rabies vaccines. Thus, more than 572,278 animals were vaccinated or treated including 221,825 cattle, 132,975 goats, 72,015 sheep, 139,166 poultry, 1,954 dogs, 59 cats and 4,284 other animals. The project also trained laboratories and technical officers on good practices for the management of drugs and waste. Then the project has provided the vaccine materials and support the vaccination campaign and monitoring. Tests on the animal samples collected revealed a significant level of immunization of the animals. The economic analysis includes the reduction of animals’ mortality rate with an NPV of USD 856,914. 90. Small ruminants’ distribution: To increase vulnerable households’ assets in livestock and diversify their source of revenue, the project has distributed 3995 goats and sheep to 796 beneficiaries (over a target of 5000 animals, to be distributed to 1000 beneficiaries). Each beneficiary should have received 5 animals including a male and 4 females. The beneficiaries have reported a high mortality rate of the livestock they have received from the project. A short survey conducted by the FAO, concludes find a mortality rate of around 90% of the livestock distributed. The main causes of the mortality could be explained by inadequate transportation and agro-climatic conditions. The financial return has been estimated for the distribution of 400 animals, generating USD 45,657 additional benefit for 5 years of activity. Component 2: 91. Under this component, the project aimed to improve access to food for the most vulnerable households to alleviate the impact of Covid-19. Indeed, the project has provided 11,000 vulnerable beneficiaries with cash transfers in 2 regions of the country: Oio and Cacheu. Each beneficiary household has received a single-time transfer of 85,000 FCFA. The project has recruited 2 local NGOs to coordinate the participative mobilization and identification of eligible households, and the communication network Orange to proceed with secure transfers via mobile money and manage the financial risk. 92. Unconditional cash transfer: A total of 3,000 vulnerable households (over an initial target of 2,000 households) have received a direct transfer if they were selected for the activities. The eligible criteria include households with old or female heads, households with head leaving disabilities or chronic illness and households with 8 or more children aged less than 5 years old. The NGOs have selected the most vulnerable and food insecure villages in each region based on a nutrition survey done by NGOs and the confirmation with local authorities. The project then informed and sensitized people in the targeted villages about the project activities and formed a selection committee with the support of village heads. The committee identified the most vulnerable households based on the eligibility criteria. The list of vulnerable households was confirmed through a short survey including the contact information for the mobile transfer. The list was transferred to Orange for verification, assignment of a new number if missing and opening of an active mobile account. After validation by Orange and the FAO, the payments are done directly in the mobile accounts. 93. Conditional cash transfer: To support regular social activities performed by the community, the project has Page 29 The World Bank Guinea-Bissau Emergency Food Security Project (P174336) ICR DOCUMENT distributed small equipment to the beneficiary communities and has selected 8,000 vulnerable households to receive cash for work. The activities included mainly rehabilitation of rice farms (dykes) and access roads to production areas. The selection criteria include households with a member with a disability, with a pregnant and breastfeeding woman and with children aged 5 or less. The steps for the selection and payment are like those of the unconditional transfer subject to the completion and participation of a member of the beneficiary households in the selected public work. 94. Beneficiary households reported that the cash transfer was very useful and available at a critical period with low cashew nuts productivity and price. A study using a sample of direct cash transfer beneficiaries (5%) has concluded that the transfer was mainly used respectively for the acquisition of food (96%), children’s school fees payment (95%), acquisition of medicine (91%), reimbursement of loan (8.5%) and acquisition of livestock (4%). The result also showed that more than 75% of beneficiaries used the transfer during the first 3 months of the reception. The transfer was very useful for the vulnerable households to cope with the Covid-19 impact and ensure food availability for a few months. Component 3: 95. Component 3 activities focus on the development of the cashew values chain including the production, processing, packaging and marketing of the cashew products. TableA4.2: Financial models for component 2 NPV (@10%, NPV (@10%, NPV (@10%, Model IRR B/C '000 FCFA) USD) USD), by unit Improved cashew production 77% 356 571 571 1.52 Processing 22% 3281 5267 527 1.15 Packaging 15348 24635 2463 1.08 Source: Author calculations 96. Cashew nuts production: Most cashew farms of project beneficiaries are developed in planting (tree density) and management conditions that do not favor full tree development and high productivity. The project has trained 3,014 farmers on the best cashew farming practices to boost their productivity. The project has also promoted improved cashew farming practices through optimal spacing and tree density (around 100 trees/Ha) techniques and pruning tree branches. The techniques allow the association of food crops such as maize or tubers for at least 2 years before trees fully develop. Around 1 hectare of farming has been selected for testing the improved farming practices. The results have not yet been evaluated. But it is expected to double the production. Currently, the average productivity is estimated to be 400-500 kg/ha. The project intended to improve 80 ha of farms. It is expected to reach 500 ha of improved cashew in the 2 coming years if the results are convincing. The project also shared 5,000 tarpaulins and 40,000 improved bags (pics and jute) for the drying and conservation of the cashew nuts. The economic model includes the increase in productivity with the situation with the project and better preservation of nuts in the improved bags. This shows profitable results with an NPV of 571, an IRR of 77% and a benefit-cost ratio of 1.52. 97. Cashew transformation units: In 2022 the project provided 200 tons of cashew nuts to the cashew processing association to boost their processing capacity and ensure an operating capital for their activities. The project has also supported a cashew transformation association with the purchase of 250 shellers from India at 300,000 FCFA (manual) and 700,000 FCFA (automatic) as unit price: the association financed 50% of the machines costs and the project supported the remaining 50% plus the transportation costs. The association, including 12 units of processing, has already sold 50 machines to their members at full price if paid cash, and with an additional 5% interest if paid by credit. The association is expected to sell out the remaining machines to existing or new members Page 30 The World Bank Guinea-Bissau Emergency Food Security Project (P174336) ICR DOCUMENT by the end of the year 2024. 98. The new machine has a capacity of transformation of 160 kg/day (8 hours working) of cashew nuts with around 99% of full shelling rate. This has increased the association’s production to 32 tons per year. Before the project, the processing units have low productivity of 75 kg/day (8 hours working) and full shelling rate of 75%. Compared to the situation without project where the units’ employees work in precarious conditions with the risks of injury, the investment in machinery brought more efficiency to the work of the units. With the project, the association was able to negotiate a contract with an exporter. With the project, the units also have started producing cashew juice with a production capacity estimated at 250 packages of 24 bottles of juice. The results of the financial analysis present a profitable investment with an NVP of USD 5,267, an IRR of 22% and a ratio benefit cost of 1.15. 99. Packaging units: To respond to the lack of packaging units in the country, and improve the final cashew product marketing, the project has supported the cashew farmers’ association for the establishment of a packaging center. The project has financed the renovation of the office and has provided an operating fund for the first purchase of packaging materials. The activities of the central started in April 2024 (only 2 months of operations). The price is fixed with a 5% increase from the total expenditure costs. Buying over a 2-month credit is available for association members with an additional interest of 5%. The association is expected to cover the packaging needs of all of its members and other small and medium units around their location. If well managed the activities could lead to a profitable result with an NPV of USD 24635 and a benefit-cost ratio of 1.08. III. Efficiency of Project Expenditure 100. The project was approved on September 30, 2020, and became effective on April 14, 2021, for an IDA Grant equivalent to USD 15 million. PUSA was initially designed for a 3-year implementation period and was expected to close on July 31, 2023. However, the project began with more than 6 months delay. The government had anticipated the delay and had prefinanced the activities with USD 2 million allocated to the FAO for a quick start of the activities under components 1 and 2. The project was restructured and extended for 8 months until Mars 31, 2024. The project had benefited from an additional 3-month extension to conclude the activities. During the restructuring phase, the initial PDO of the project remained unchanged. The activities under component 3 were reoriented to technical capacity development activities and direct financial support to boost cashew farmers’ productivity and artisanal processing capacity. Funds (USD 1.2 million) were reallocated from Component 1 and 2 to Component 4 to strengthen project PIU supervision activities. The project was implemented at the national level targeting all 8 regions of the country. 101. As of June 27, 2024, compared to the total approved budget of USD 15 million, the project had achieved a cumulative disbursement rate of 95.9% considered satisfactory, especially as the payments of executed contracts could be performed until September 30, 2024. The main activities not yet delivered included the horticulture perimeters and the packaging material for the cashew processing association. Table A4.3: Costs and expenditures, PUSA Design Cost (USD Restructuring Cost Disbursement Rate Component M) (USD M) (USD M) (%) 1. Support to Agricultural Production 10 9 2. Support to Community Safety Nets 2.5 2.3 3. Support to Risk Mitigation 1.5 1.5 4. Project Management and Monitoring and Evaluation 1 2.2 5. Contingent Emergency Response 0 0 0 TOTAL 15 15 14.4 95.9 Source: Restructuring paper and PUSA financial department. Page 31 The World Bank Guinea-Bissau Emergency Food Security Project (P174336) ICR DOCUMENT 102. Because of the lack of detailed information, the actual disbursement rate by component and the expenditure ratio by component over the total project expenditure were not calculated. However, there was not a large fluctuation between the plan and the actual disbursed budget. 103. The project identified several constraints that affected disbursement performance and implementation. First, during PUSA lifespan, the PIU experienced 6 different officials as heads of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. The high turnover of government officials impacted the project implementation and priorities. Second, the project was exempted from taxes. However, the procedures to benefit from the tax exemption created some additional delays in the procurement of goods. Third, the project experienced a decrease in operation funds due to high fluctuation in the exchange rate (SDR and USD versus FCFA). Fourth, although the institutional arrangement “tripartite FAO, PIU, Ministry” was successfully implemented, it demonstrated some limitations. In the beginning, there was a coordination problem to identify the exact role of each party. In addition, the PIU, in charge of the project fiduciary, was operating under the World Bank procedures while the FAO which was responsible for components 1 and 2 operated under its own procedures, creating complications when there were divergencies. Also, while the FAO activated special emergency procedures for the project activities, the ministry still found it to be still constraing and lengthy. Indeed, some activities under components 1 and 2, including the vaccination campaign, the procurement and distribution of small ruminants and the cash transfer experienced some delays. Finally, the monitoring of the activities was challenging for the PIU and the ministry because of limited financial resources. To overcome the activities’ supervision issues, the budget for component 4 was increased by USD 1.2 million and the FAO recruited consultants to support, monitor and collect information about the activities of the beneficiaries in each region. The project also initiated local purchases to support the local economy and microenterprises. It was recommended to have unique procedures followed by all parties to facilitate collaborations. Figure A4.1: AWPB vs disbursements (FCFA 100 million), PUSA, 2021-2024 50 40 30 20 10 0 2021 2022 2023 2024 AWPB Disbursement Source: Author’s calculations. IV. Economic Analysis Methodology and Assumptions of the Economic Analysis 104. Economic benefits and costs. Benefits and costs from the financial models described above were converted into economic values and aggregated using incremental net benefit streams and the number of beneficiaries for all activities under the Project interventions and assuming realistic adoption rates (50% for farming and livestock activities and 70% for processing and packaging businesses). The conservative and low adoption rate Page 32 The World Bank Guinea-Bissau Emergency Food Security Project (P174336) ICR DOCUMENT was applied to account for the emergency with vulnerable actors. Benefits were phased progressively for all types of interventions based on the realization of the project during its implementation. The period of analysis is 10 years to account for the benefits of the motor pumps and the horticulture perimeters. Adjustments have been made to avoid double counting. 105. Economic prices. The analysis used constant prices. Financial prices were converted into economic prices by applying the standard conversion factors (SCFs), presented in the below table, to better reflect the economic value to society of goods and services. In conformity with the World Bank Technical Note on Discounting Cost and Benefits in Economic Analysis, an 8 percent discount rate has been used to reflect the social opportunity cost of capital in Guinea-Bissau. This discount rate has been applied to calculate the economic NPV. Table A4.4: Factor conversion Economic Conversion CONVERSION FACTOR Financial price price Factor Exchange rate 623 677 1.1 Importations: fuel 800 611 0.8 Importations: vehicles 25,000 18,611 0.7 Importations: computer and IT equipment 100 85 0.9 Importations: agricultural inputs (fertilizer, treatment, equipment) 300 302 1.0 Importations: Others 100 81 0.8 Labor 1,750 1,346 0.8 Importations: agricultural substitution products (rice, maize) 100 91 0.9 Exportations: Cashew nuts 100 106 1.1 Non-exchangeable: others 100 100 1.0 Non-exchangeable with taxes 100 80 0.8 Source: Author’s calculations. 106. The Project’s economic cash flow has been derived through the aggregation of the incremental benefits of the project activities’ economic models. The economic costs have then been deducted from the overall economic benefit stream to obtain the Project’s net incremental benefit stream. Environmental externalities 107. The environmental externalities were estimated using EX-ACT, a tool developed by the FAO, to quantify the volume of GHGs mitigated by the Project: the carbon balance. It is defined as the net balance across all GHGs expressed in CO2 equivalents (CO2e) that will be emitted or sequestered due to Project implementation (WP), as compared to a business-as-usual scenario (WOP). The economic value of the mitigated GHG was included in the economic analysis. 108. The result shows a marginal carbon emission savings for the Project of 19,961 tCO2eq over 10 years, equivalent to 1,996 tCO2eq per year (see details in a separate annex). Results of Economic Analysis 109. PUSA has contributed to mitigating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and has improved the food and nutrition security in Guinea-Bissau. The project has ensured an increase in production and processing capacities Page 33 The World Bank Guinea-Bissau Emergency Food Security Project (P174336) ICR DOCUMENT of more than 50,000 beneficiaries. Indeed, the project has contributed to the production of more than 150.000 tons of crops and horticulture production. In addition, through the cash transfer activities, the project has ensured access to food for 11,000 vulnerable households. In general, the project has improved the quality of life in rural areas and derived social benefits including improvement in nutrition, health, education and gender equality (more than 50% female beneficiaries). 110. The results of the economic analysis conclude that the project is profitable under all scenarios, without and with a valuation of environmental benefits. The scenario without a valuation of environmental benefits is considered the baseline scenario; in this scenario, the net present value (NPV) is estimated to be USD 1.4 million, and the economic rate of return (EIRR) is estimated to be 19.1 percent. Including the GHG mitigation valued at the low-market price estimate range (increasing from 51 US$/tCO2eq in 2021 to 63 US$/tCO2eq in 2031), the Project return presents an NPV of USD 1.9 million and an EIRR of 23.2%. When using the high market price estimate range (assuming the high range pricing – increasing from 102 US$/tCO2eq in 2021 to 126 US$/tCO2eq in 2031), the Project reaches an NPV of USD 2.5 million and an EIRR of 27.2%. Sensitivity analysis 111. Results were tested for sensitivity to variations in benefits, and costs and for various lags in the realization of benefits. The most impactful scenario is when there is a simultaneous decline of benefits and an increase in cost by 25%, compared to the base scenario, which would reduce the EIRR to 0.2% and the NPV to USD - 1.13 million respectively. However, all other scenarios show robust results under all hypothetical situations. Including the environmental benefits, the profitability of the Project investments is very robust. TableA4.5: Sensibility analysis SENSIBILITY ANALYSIS 10 years NPV (8%) NPV (8%) ∆% Risks matrix (USD IRR (FCFA millions) millions) Scenario de base 875.5 1.41 19.1% Costs + 10% Inflation, increase of 602.9 0.97 15.1% exchange rate, limited access on Costs + inputs and 25% transportation 193.9 0.31 10.0% Benefits - 10% Decrease of 515.3 0.83 14.6% production with rain Benefits - 25% variability - 25.0 - 0.04 7.7% 1 year delay in benefits Delay or of 442.6 0.71 12.5% shutdown of activities due to 2 years delay in benefits insecurity or political event 40.2 0.06 8.5% Costs and Benefits + 25% - 706.7 - 1.13 0.2% Environmental benefits + Low value 1,339.5 2.15 24.8% Environmental benefits + High value 1,800.3 2.89 30.5% Source: Author’s calculation Project Efficiency Rating 112. Considering the results achieved and given the relatively difficult context of the project's implementation, Page 34 The World Bank Guinea-Bissau Emergency Food Security Project (P174336) ICR DOCUMENT including COVID-19 impact, institutional changes, the delay in the start of the Project, and the not quantifications of some project's advantages, the efficiency of the PUSA is considered satisfactory. especially since some of them could not be considered. The benefits not quantified in the economic analysis include the benefits related to institutional support, capacity development of the various actors and the implementation of social actions. We have also not included the probable extension of production areas due to the lack of data. Page 35 The World Bank Guinea-Bissau Emergency Food Security Project (P174336) ICR DOCUMENT ANNEX 5. BORROWER, CO-FINANCIER AND OTHER PARTNER/STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY of the Government PUSA Implementation and Completion Results Report 113. This document constitutes the completion report of the Emergency Project for Food Security in Guinea- Bissau (PUSA-GB), which was set up in response to the alarming post COVID-19 food crisis. The development objective is to support increased food crop production and improve access to food for food-insecure households. Specific objectives include (i) supporting agricultural and pastoral production, (ii) strengthening technical capacities, (iii) reducing the risks associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, and (iv) setting up social safety nets for vulnerable households. 114. The PUSA-GB is structured around three (3) technical components: (i) Support for agricultural production; (ii) Support for community safety nets; (iii) Support for risk mitigation. There are two additional components: (iv) Project management and monitoring-evaluation; (v) Contingency emergency response. Each component targets specific results and activities to be implemented by the project to achieve them. 115. The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Rural Development (MAFRD) is responsible for project implementation, supervised by a Project Implementation Unit (PIU) which manages funding and coordinates with partners. A Steering Committee, chaired by the Minister, meets at least every six months to monitor the project. FAO supports the PIU by providing technical support and co-managing the project, in particular components 1 and 2, in collaboration with local NGOs and a financial service provider to identify beneficiaries and manage cash transfers. 116. The main beneficiaries are small-scale farmers, food-insecure households and market gardeners. The project aimed to reach 50,000 farmers with agricultural assets or services and 378,000 direct beneficiaries. 117. The agreement between the Government of Guinea-Bissau and the FAO, signed on August 4, 2020, with a total budget of 15.0 million USD and initially scheduled for 16 months was extended to December 31, 2023 after three extensions. A rider in March 2021 increased the development objectives to five. The mid-term review led to a second extension and restructuring of the project, revising the results framework and reallocating resources. The third extension compensated for delays and met new demands, such as the distribution of cashew processing equipment and animal vaccination, and the development of a market gardening perimeter. 118. In terms of achievements, all the final targets of the Project Development Objectives (PDO) indicators have been reached or even exceeded, with 615,336 direct beneficiaries of the project, i.e. 163% of forecasts. Implementing agencies and beneficiaries are satisfied with the Project's design, which has taken their concerns into account and enabled them to participate in reducing household vulnerability. They are also satisfied with the interesting results achieved, despite the difficulties (slowness and coordination) encountered in implementing commissioned projects. 119. The PUSA, as an “emergency project”, has achieved a large part of its objectives in just three years, offering Guinea-Bissau tangible opportunities to strengthen the agricultural sector and combat poverty. PUSA assessed beneficiary satisfaction via surveys supervised by UCP, reaching 3,661 people out of a target of 32,666 (52% men and 48% women). The results show that 93% of beneficiaries are satisfied, with 58% very satisfied and only 0.71% not satisfied. Most beneficiaries would like the project to continue, with improvements such as support for fences Page 36 The World Bank Guinea-Bissau Emergency Food Security Project (P174336) ICR DOCUMENT and water points, and the organization of rice training fields. In short, the PUSA is widely appreciated, with a visible positive impact. 120. In view of the slowness and delays in implementation, Component 1 has been the most affected. In terms of agriculture, at the start of the project, a delay was noted in the supply of the first inputs during the 2020-2021 winter season, due to administrative red tape and seed certification. However, the other years of the PUSA's life have seen success in several areas. In terms of livestock breeding, there have been heavy losses through the “small ruminant distribution” activity, whose numbers have not reached their target, and even purchased animals have suffered mortalities of over 90% (on arrival, during quarantine or at the recipient's premises). Compensation to the households concerned is recommended. 121. The risk mitigation measures undertaken within the framework of the PUSA have enabled considerable support to be given to the cashew nut production sector, with the use of good production practices and efficient processing, with the provision of important machinery and equipment for shelling, storage and marketing. 122. A major capacity-building and training program has also been implemented at all levels (producers, technical services and processors for the various crops (food and cash crops). 123. Within the framework of the PUSA, Guinea-Bissau has been able to strengthen its operating resources at the level of the MAFDR's central and decentralized services, its operating resources with logistics and various equipment and materials. 124. Our recommendations include a continuation of the project, focusing on finalizing the development of market gardening perimeters and the institutional organization of producers to optimize and sustain the gains made. For future projects, it is crucial to strengthen the coordination unit by increasing its budget and resources, and by including a unit specializing in procurement to guarantee input quality and certification for the various sectors concerned. Farmers affected by the contamination of imported animals must be compensated, with priority given to purchasing animals on local or regional markets. The State of Guinea-Bissau should perpetuate the gains made by strengthening decentralized services, for example by recruiting more young people and improving their means of travel and training to ensure the sustainability of the good practices learned among producers. It is also important to improve the collection of quality statistical data, particularly for cashew production, and to integrate research as a key partner with enhanced resources in future projects. Page 37 The World Bank Guinea-Bissau Emergency Food Security Project (P174336) ICR DOCUMENT ANNEX 6. GREENHOUSE GAS ACCOUNTING 125. Motivation. The quantification of GHG emissions is useful for the managing and reduction of emissions as it provides an understanding of the project’s GHG mitigation potential and can support sectoral strategies toward low-carbon development. 126. GHG accounting methodology. The EX-ACT was developed by the FAO to estimate the impact of agricultural investment intervention on GHG emissions and carbon sequestration in the project area. EX-ACT allows the assessment of a project’s net carbon balance in CO2 equivalents that will be emitted or sequestered due to project implementation (with project situation), as compared to a business-as-usual scenario (without project situation). The tool was designed mostly using data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (2006), which furnishes EX-ACT with recognized default values for emission factors and carbon values in soils and biomass. 127. Assumptions in the EX-ACT model. The project proposes several activities that were captured with the GHG accounting tool EX-ACT. The assumptions for this analysis are aligned with the EFA developed for the ICR. The climate and moisture regime for the project area was assumed to be Tropical Moist. The dominant soil type is Low Activity Clay. The project implementation duration is 4 years, and the capitalization period is assumed to be 6 years. The dynamics of implementation are assumed to be linear over the project period. Default Tier 2 coefficients are used. 128. The GHG calculation is based on the following elements, which are derived from the EFA: (a) increased livestock productivity and more economic management; (b) incremental production from productivity increases (rice, maize, cowpea, sesame, groundnut, sorghum, horticulture and cashew), with a shift from traditional cultivation to improved agronomic practices and water conservation and (c) a slightly increased use of fertilizer and agrochemicals. 129. The assumptions for the GHG calculation are summarized in the bellow table. Table: EX-ACT assumptions Activities Without-Project Scenario With-Project Scenario Livestock population growth Sheep – 0 Sheep – 2,000 Goats – 0 Goats – 2,000 We have only considered the small ruminants distribution activities. We have not included the potential GHG mitigation effect of the vaccination campaign since it was only 1 year and we do not have details data on its impact. Crops improved practices and 588 Ha of horticulture under traditional cultivation: 607 Ha of horticulture under improved agronomic practices (19 Ha productivity increases of new perimeter): • Horticulture 9 ton/Ha • Horticulture 28 ton/Ha 3,483 Ha under irrigation and water conservation practices 3,483 Ha with no water conservation practices • rice 1,304 kg/ha • Rice 680 kg/ha 580 ha of cashew farm under improved agronomic practices 580 ha of cashew farm under traditional cultivation • Cashew nuts 800 kg/ha • Cashew nuts 400 kg/ha 3,114 ha of other foods crops with improved inputs 3,114 ha of other foods crops with traditional inputs Livestock No national vaccination campaign and distribution of National vaccination campaign and distribution of small ruminants small ruminants • 2,000 sheep • 2,000 goats Page 38 The World Bank Guinea-Bissau Emergency Food Security Project (P174336) ICR DOCUMENT Activities Without-Project Scenario With-Project Scenario Consumption of fertilizer and Use (ton/year): Use (ton/year): agrochemicals (insecticides, herbicides) on a total area of 7,774 Urea :152 ton/year Urea :101 ton/year ha of improved annual crops. Other N- fertilizers: 96 ton/year Other N- fertilizers: 64 ton/year Phosphorus: 184 ton/year Phosphorus: 123 ton/year Potassium: 96 ton/year Potassium: 64 ton/year Compost: 340 ton/year Compost: 681 ton/year Herbicide: 0 ton/year Herbicide: 0.25 ton/year Source: Author’s calculations 130. The investment has generated environmental benefits. Results show that the investment activities constitute a net carbon sink of -14,262 tCO2eq over 10 years, equivalent to -1,426 tCO2eq annually, due to the introduction of improved agricultural management practices and water conservation techniques. The improved annual and perennial farming constitutes an absolute carbon sink with a carbon balance of -2,454 tCO2eq per year in the with-project scenario. However, the flooded rice cultivation, the livestock practices and the increase in the use of inputs are sources of additional emissions of 1028 tCO2eq per year. Table: Detailed Results EX-ACT Project name PUSA Continent Western Africa Project duration (in years) Total area (ha) 7,774 Global warming potential Country Guinea-Bissau Implementation Phase 4 Mineral soil 7,774 CO2 1 Climate Tropical Capitalization Phase 6 Organic soil 0 CH4 28 Moisture Moist Total Duration of Accounting 10 Waterbodies 0 N2 O 265 Tier 2 Specific GHG GROSS FLUXES SHARE PER GHG OF THE BALANCE fluxes AVERAGE ANNUAL EMISSIONS In tCO2-e over the whole period analysis In tCO2-e over the whole period analysis In tCO2-e/yr ALL NON- PROJECT COMPONENTS WITHOUT WITH BALANCE CO2 BIOMASS CO2 SOIL N 2O CH4 AFOLU WITHOUT WITH BALANCE EMISSIONS* Deforestation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Land use Afforestation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 changes Other land-use 0 -98 -98 1 97 -195 0 0 0 -10 -10 Annual 5,887 -13,880 -19,767 1 0 -28,180 1,657 6,755 589 -1,388 -1,977 Cropland Perennial -70,628 -75,307 -4,679 1 -1,903 -2,716 -60 0 -7,063 -7,531 -468 Flooded rice 180,963 184,895 3,932 1 0 0 775 3,157 18,096 18,489 393 Grasslands & Grasslands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Livestock Livestock 3,801,844 3,806,770 4,925 1 339 4,586 380,184 380,677 493 Forest mngt. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inland wetlands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Coastal wetlands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fisheries and aquaculture 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inputs & Invest. 24,444 25,869 1,426 1 0 4,293 -2,867 2,444 2,587 143 Total emissions, tCO2-e 3,942,511 3,928,249 -14,262 ↓ Check issue -1,806 -31,091 7,004 14,498 -2,867 394,251 392,825 -1,426 Total emissions, tCO2-e/ha 507.1 505.3 -1.8 ↓↓ -0.2 -4.0 0.9 1.9 -0.4 Total emissions, tCO2-e/ha/yr 50.7 50.5 -0.2 ↓↓↓ 0.0 -0.4 0.1 0.2 0.0 + = Source / - = Sink ↓↓↓↓ Results presented here include GHG fluxes on mineral and organic soils Check issue Uncertainty level tCO2-e/yr Percent See further down for detailed results on organic soils Check issue WITHOUT 394,251 33% * Includes fisheries, acquaculture and inputs & investments that are not included in the AFOLU definition. Check issue WITH 392,825 33% Check issue BALANCE -1,426 40% Source: Author’s calculations 131. The monetary value of the GHG balance has been estimated and taken into account as economic benefits of the Project in the Economic and Financial Analysis (EFA). Page 39