Document of

The World Bank

Report No: ICR00003837

IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT

ON A

GRANT

IN THE AMOUNT OF

SDR 1.3 MILLION (US$1.95 MILLION EQUIVALENT)

TO THE

REPUBLIC OF GUINEA-BISSAU

FOR A

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION PROJECT (BCP)

November 29, 2016

Environment and Natural Resources Global Practice

Africa Region

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS

(Exchange Rate Effective May 31, 2016)

Currency Unit = Franc CFA

FCFA 592.0011 = US$ 1.00

US$ 1.00 = SDR 1.00

FISCAL YEAR

January 1 – December 31

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

BCP Biodiversity Conservation Project

BT Board of Trustees (the FBG Board) CAFÉ Consortium of African Environmental Funds CAIA Environmental Impact Assessment Unit

(Célula de Avaliação de Impactos Ambientais)

CB Cost Benefit

CBADP Community-based Avoided Deforestation Project in Guinea-Bissau

CBMP Coastal and Biodiversity Management Project

CC Consultative Committee

CDD Community Driven Development

CE Cost Effectiveness

CPAR Country Procurement Assessment Report

CTF Conservation Trust Fund

DC Donors’ Circle (FBG)

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

ES Executive Secretariat/Secretary

ESMF Environmental and Social Management Framework

ESMP Environmental and Social Management Plan

FIAL Fund for Local Environmental Initiatives

FBG BioGuinea Foundation (Fundação BioGuine)

FCV Fragility Conflict and Violence

FFEM French Global Environment Fund

FISCAP Fisheries Monitoring and Control Institution

FUNBIO Biodiversity Foundation (Brazil)

GA General Assembly

GAC Governance and Anti-Corruption

GCCA Global Climate Change Alliance

GEF Global Environment Facility

G-B Guinea-Bissau

HIPC Heavily-indebted Poor Country

IBAP Institute for Biodiversity and Protected Areas

ICB International Competitive Bidding

ICR Implementation Completion and Results Report

IDA International Development Association

IDF International Development Fund

IFR Interim Financial Report

IMET Institute of Marine and Environmental Technology

IMPAC III International Marine Protected Areas Congress III

ISN Interim Strategy Note

IUCN International Unit for Conservation of Nature

LDCF Least Developed Countries Fund

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

METT Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool

MRV Monitoring, Reporting and Verification

MSP Medium Size Project

NCB National Competitive Bidding

OP/BP Operational Policy / Bank Policy

PA Protected Area

PNB Boé National Park

PNC Cantanhez National Park

PND Dulombi National Park

PNLC Lagoa de Cufada Natural Park

PNMJVP João Vieira and Poilão Marine National Park

PNO Orango National Park

PNTC Rio Cacheu Natural Park

RAMPAO Regional Network of Marine Protected Areas in West Africa

RAPPAM Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Area Management

REDD Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation

REDLAC Latin America and Caribbean Network of Environmental Funds

RF Results Framework

RPF Resettlement Policy Framework

SCD Systematic Country Diagnosis

SISRI Small Island States Resilience Initiative

SNAP National System of Protected Areas

(Sistema Nacional de Áreas Protegidas)

STAR System for the Transparent Allocation of Resources

UEMOA West African Economic and Monetary Union

(Union Economique et Monétaire Ouest Africaine)

UK United Kingdom

UNDP United Nations Development Program

VCS Verified Carbon Standard

WACA West Africa Coastal Areas Initiative

WARFP West Africa Regional Fisheries Program

Senior Global Practice Director: Julia Bucknall

Practice Manager: Benoit Bosquet

Project Team Leader: Maman-Sani Issa

ICR Team Leader: Maman-Sani Issa

Republic of Guinea-Bissau

Biodiversity Conservation Project

CONTENTS

Data Sheet

A. Basic Information

B. Key Dates

C. Ratings Summary

D. Sector and Theme Codes

E. Bank Staff

F. Results Framework Analysis

G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs

H. Restructuring

I. Disbursement Graph

1. Project Context, Development Objectives and Design ............................................... 1

2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes .............................................. 4

3. Assessment of Outcomes .......................................................................................... 12

4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome ......................................................... 20

5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance ..................................................... 21

6. Lessons Learned ....................................................................................................... 23

7. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners .......... 25

Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing .......................................................................... 26

Annex 2. Outputs by Component ................................................................................. 27

Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis ................................................................. 50

Annex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes ............ 60

Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results ........................................................................... 62

Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results ................................................... 63

Annex 7. Summary of Borrower's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR ..................... 64

Annex 8. Comments of Cofinanciers and Other Partners/Stakeholders ....................... 67

Annex 9. List of Supporting Documents ...................................................................... 68

MAP: IBRD 42532

A. Basic Information

Country: Guinea-Bissau Project Name:

Guinea-Bissau

Biodiversity

Conservation Project

Project ID: P122047 L/C/TF Number(s): IDA-H6700

ICR Date: 11/29/2016 ICR Type: Core ICR

Lending Instrument: SIL Borrower: GOVERNMENT OF

GUINEA-BISSAU

Original Total

Commitment:

XDR 1.30M (USD1.95

M equivalent) Disbursed Amount:

XDR 1.30M (USD 1.95

M equivalent)

Revised Amount: N/A

Environmental Category: B

Implementing Agencies: Guinea-Bissau Institute for Biodiversity and Protected Areas (IBAP)

Co-financiers and Other External Partners:

BioGuinea Foundation

B. Key Dates

Process Date Process Original Date Revised / Actual

Date(s)

Concept Review: 07/19/2010 Effectiveness: 07/29/2011 06/21/2011

Appraisal: 01/19/2011 Restructuring(s): 12/03/2014

Approval: 03/17/2011 Mid-term Review: 03/31/2013 10/26/2013

Closing: 05/31/2015 05/31/2016

C. Ratings Summary

C.1 Performance Rating by ICR

Outcomes: Satisfactory

Risk to Development Outcome: Substantial

Bank Performance: Satisfactory

Borrower Performance: Satisfactory

C.2 Detailed Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance (by ICR)

Bank Ratings Borrower Ratings

Quality at Entry: Satisfactory Government: Satisfactory

Quality of Supervision: Satisfactory Implementing

Agency/Agencies: Highly Satisfactory

Overall Bank

Performance: Satisfactory

Overall Borrower

Performance: Satisfactory

C.3 Quality at Entry and Implementation Performance Indicators

Implementation

Performance Indicators

QAG Assessments

(if any) Rating

Potential Problem Project

at any time (Yes/No): No

Quality at Entry

(QEA): None

Problem Project at any

time (Yes/No): No

Quality of

Supervision (QSA): None

DO rating before

Closing/Inactive status: Highly Satisfactory

D. Sector and Theme Codes

Original Actual

Sector Code (as % of total Bank financing)*

General agriculture, fishing and forestry sector 100 --

-- Other Agriculture, Fishing and Forestry -- 100

Theme Code (as % of total Bank financing)

Biodiversity

Environment and Natural Resources Management

--Climate Change

----Mitigation

100

--

--

--

50

Renewable Natural Resource Asset Management

--Biodiversity 100 50

*The Bank changed Sector and Theme Code taxonomies as of November 4, 2016. Taxonomy for BCP is

inaccurate - omitting public sector management/institutional development codes – but cannot be changed

E. Bank Staff

Positions At ICR At Approval

Vice President: Makhtar Diop Obiageli K. Ezekwesili

Senior Global Practice

Director/Country Director Julia Bucknall Habib M. Fetini

Practice

Manager/Manager: Benoit Bosquet Idah Z. Pswarayi-Riddihough

Project Team Leader: Maman-Sani Issa John Virdin

ICR Team Leader: Maman-Sani Issa

ICR Primary Author: Anna Roumani

F. Results Framework Analysis

Project Development Objectives (from the Legal Agreement)

The Project Development Objectives (PDO) were to: (i) strengthen the Institute for Biodiversity

and Protected Areas' (IBAP) management of Guinea-Bissau’s national parks; and, (ii) pilot the

operation of a sustainable financing mechanism for the national parks.

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

The PDO was not revised.

(a) PDO Indicator(s)

Indicator Baseline Value

Original Target

Values (from

approval

documents)

Formally

Revised

Target

Values

Actual Value

Achieved at

Completion or

Target Years

Indicator 1 : Aggregated Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) scores for

the 5 existing parks

Value

quantitative or

qualitative)

433 (2009 baseline

aggregate METT score of

which: João Vieira e

Poilão 104; Orango 111;

Cacheu 102; Cufada 67;

Cantanhez 49)

468 507

Date achieved 03/17/2011 05/31/2015 05/31/2016

Comments

(incl. %

achievement)

Exceeded: 108.3% METT scores were 108.3% of the target and 117% of the

2009 baseline. Disaggregated by Protected Area (PA), the 2015 scores were:

João Vieira e Poilão 116; Orango 119; Cacheu 129; Cufada 83; and, Cantanhez

60. See Main Text 3.2 and Annex 2 for discussion of these results. Of the 5

parks, Cantanhez was the newest and its results were affected by several years

without a Park Director.

Indicator 2 :

BioGuinea Foundation (FBG) legally established and operational in

accordance with the minimum requirements for receiving GEF funds in the

endowment

Value

quantitative or

qualitative)

Not

established/operational

Established and

operational

FBG legally

established and

operational in

accordance with

GEF minimum

requirements.

Date achieved 03/17/2011 05/31/2015 05/31/2016

Comments

(incl. %

achievement)

Achieved: 100% The FBG was given official non-profit status in both the

United Kingdom (UK) and Guinea-Bissau in 2012. (It was actually legally

established/registered in the UK under the Coastal and Biodiversity Management

Project (CBMP)). The FBG’s executive, management and governance units

became operational under BCP: Executive Secretariat, Board of Trustees,

General Assembly, Consultative Committee and Donors’ Circle. The Investment

Committee is in place and functioning with an approved Investment Policy

Statement. An Investment Manager was appointed for the FBG’s Endowment

Fund. The above meet all minimum requirements for receiving GEF funds in the

endowment. These requirements are detailed in Annex 2.

(b) Intermediate Outcome Indicator(s)

Indicator Baseline Value

Original Target

Values (from

approval

documents)

Formally

Revised

Target Values

Actual Value

Achieved at

Completion or

Target Years

Indicator 1 :

Component 1:

Number of surveillance and control missions covering the five parks

conducted per year

Value

(quantitative

or qualitative)

Zero (CBMP did not

report # surveillance

missions in parks by

EOP, to establish a

baseline).

300 (12

surveillance and

control missions

per year/park –

60/year for 4

years, extended to

5)

709

Date achieved 03/17/2011 05/31/2015 05/31/2016

Comments

(incl. %

achievement)

Exceeded: 236% Surveillance and control missions and related events and

activities on the ground involving IBAP staff, institutional partners and

community members/guards totaled 709: 2012 (109); 2013 (134); 2014 (164);

2015 (302).

Indicator 2 : Internal regulations and park-specific Business Plans developed/updated

Value

(quantitative

or qualitative)

Zero (regulations and

business plans)

2 internal

regulations, 3

Business Plans

5 Internal

Regulations; 5

Business Plans

Date achieved 03/17/2011 05/31/2015 05/31/2016

Comments

(incl. %

achievement)

Exceeded: 250% and 167% Five parks have fully updated internal

regulations subject to further revision/updating by the Park Management

Councils; and five parks each have a Business Plan valid to 2020, subject to

periodic updating.

Indicator 3 : Direct project beneficiaries (of which female)

Value

(quantitative

or qualitative)

Zero

Target was 70,000

(of which 50.6%

female).

43,000 people. See

Comments below

Female

beneficiaries were

estimated at 65% of

direct financing.

Date achieved 03/17/2011 05/31/2015 05/31/2016

Comments

(incl. %

achievement)

Partially achieved/exceeded: 61% (and 128.5% female) This Core Indicator

was mandatory at appraisal even though the Bank team realized that its

measurement might be difficult as it was not an ideal fit with activities directly

under BCP control. (A Bank-sponsored census of the PA population in 2007

counted about 70,000 people living in/around the parks). Therefore, the Team’s

basic premise at appraisal was that IBAP’s burgeoning capacity to conserve,

protect and stabilize the nation’s biological resources represented a direct benefit

to this population. Based on actual implementation, IBAP conservatively

estimates that the BCP directly benefited around 43,000 people, some 61% of the

target. These included training for 786 IBAP personnel at Headquarters and in

the PAs, plus an estimated 42,200 people who received biodiversity-related

sensitization training, and training targeted at the beneficiaries of IBAP’s micro-

investment financing (leveraged from other donors) under IBAP’s BCP-financed

communications/awareness-building outreach and training programs. An

estimated 65% were women, 128.5% of total. See Main Text Section 3.2,

footnote 29 and Annex 2.

Indicator 4 : Number of protected area staff and community co-managers trained in key

species, protected areas field monitoring and ecotourism guide skills

Value

(quantitative

or qualitative)

Zero 25 (PAD). IBAP

target was 200. 786

Date achieved 03/17/2011 05/31/2015 05/31/2016

Comments

(incl. %

achievement)

Exceeded: 393% The PAD cumulative target was 25 but this was likely an

error. IBAP’s Final Report defines an annual target of 50/year over 4 years (200)

and this is applied here. The BCP financed training events in a wide range of

relevant subjects including species monitoring, PA field monitoring and

ecotourism guide skills for 786 people (IBAP staff, Park Management Councils,

park communities and partner institutions) from 2012 to 2015. Main Text 3.2 and

Annex 2 matrix.

Indicator 5 :

Component 2:

FBG Board and executive secretariat established and meeting in accordance

with TORs and timetable defined in the Statutes

Value

(quantitative

or qualitative)

Zero

FBG Board

established and

meeting

FBG Board of

Trustees and

Executive

Secretariat were

established and are

meeting based on

TORs and

timetable/Statutes.

Date achieved 03/17/2011 05/31/2015 05/31/2016

Comments

(incl. %

achievement)

Achieved: 100% Executive Secretariat, Board of Trustees, General Assembly

(a UK governance body), Consultative Committee and Donors’ Circle were

established and are meeting/acting based on TORs, official timetables and

Statutes. (The first FBG Board Meeting occurred on February 18, 2012, attended

by two Trustees, the EC Observer, World Bank as Facilitator and IBAP as

Secretary). Work Plans, annual budgets, annual financial reports are prepared and

presented by the Executive Secretary to the Board of Trustees for approval.

Institutional links are in place between Government and FBG donors. The

Consultative Committee (multi-stakeholder forum) meets annually and ad hoc if

needed. Board meetings coincide with the Donors’ Council annual meetings,

providing IBAP opportunities for joint planning and strategy formulation. See

Annex 2.

Indicator 6 : Comprehensive capitalization strategy under implementation

Value

(quantitative

or qualitative)

Zero (strategy document

does not exist)

Capitalization

strategy under

implementation

Capitalization

strategy under

implementation

Date achieved 03/17/2011 05/31/2015 05/31/2016

Comments

(incl. %

achievement)

Achieved: 100% Intensive fund-raising efforts have resulted so far in firm

donor pledges to the FBG endowment totaling EUR 4.6 million (G-B

Government EUR 1.00 m, MAVA Foundation EUR 1.3 m, GEF V USD 1.20 m,

equivalent to between EUR 1.00 and 1.20 depending on exchange rate) and,

EUR 1.0 m from FFEM). The VCS-REDD+ pilot is underway and expected to

result in carbon credit sales from emission reductions (ER) averaging 900,000

tCO2/year over 20 years due to avoided deforestation (from Cacheu and

Cantanhez parks) valued at an average US$3.04 m/year/20 years. See Annex 3.

Indicator 7 : Management systems (including fiduciary systems) in place and operational,

producing satisfactory annual and quarterly reports

Value

(quantitative

or qualitative)

Management systems

already in place from

CBMP and GEF

projects.

Management

systems in place

Management

systems are in

place, operational

and producing

satisfactory annual

and quarterly

reports

Date achieved 03/17/2011 05/31/2015 05/31/2016

Comments

(incl. %

achievement)

Achieved: 100% BCP financed the continuation and upgrading of existing

management systems.

Indicator 8 :

Component 3:

Monitoring systems in place and operational, producing satisfactory annual

and quarterly reports

Value

(quantitative

or qualitative)

Monitoring systems

already in place from

CBMP and GEF

projects.

Monitoring

systems in place

Monitoring systems

established and

operational,

producing

satisfactory annual

and quarterly

reports

Date achieved 03/17/2011 05/31/2015 05/31/2016

Comments

(incl. %

achievement)

Achieved: 100% BCP financed the continuation and upgrading of existing

monitoring systems. BCP also financed design of a SNAP-wide

Monitoring System to track the biological and socio-economic health of

the PAs, an activity not contemplated at appraisal.

G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs

No. Date ISR

Archived DO IP

Actual

Disbursements

(USD millions)

1 09/25/2011 Satisfactory Satisfactory 0.43

2 03/19/2012 Satisfactory Satisfactory 0.44

3 10/10/2012 Satisfactory Satisfactory 0.44

4 04/24/2013 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 0.59

5 11/23/2013 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 0.88

6 05/18/2014 Satisfactory Satisfactory 1.13

7 12/03/2014 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 1.29

8 06/08/2015 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 1.70

9 12/20/2015 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 1.95

10 05/31/2016 Highly Satisfactory Satisfactory 1.95

H. Restructuring (if any)

Restructuring

Date(s)

Board

Approved

PDO Change

ISR Ratings at

Restructuring

Amount

Disbursed at

Restructuring

in USD

millions

Reason for Restructuring &

Key Changes Made DO IP

12/03/2014 MS MS 1.29

Closing Date extended 12

months to compensate for the

Bank’s coup-related suspension

of project activities and

disbursement, and to permit

achievement of PDO.

I. Disbursement Profile

1

1. Project Context, Development Objectives and Design 1.1 Context at Appraisal 1.1.1 Guinea-Bissau is a small West African nation of about 1.45 million people with an

economy based primarily on farming and fishing, which represents some 55 percent of gross

domestic product (GDP).1 At the time of appraisal, agriculture generated about 80 percent of

employment and 90 percent of exports (mainly raw cashew nut). Fishing represented from seven

to ten percent of GDP and 25-40 percent of public revenue. Infrastructure was - and remains –

poor, and social indicators weak: life expectancy of 48 years, 70 percent of the population living

below US$2/day, and 20 percent enduring extreme poverty. Some 60 percent of the population

were <25 years old at that time. The fragility of the state and its institutions has undermined

development of the country’s economic and social infrastructure and its prospects for reducing

widespread poverty. Civil war in 1988-89, a series of military coups, repeated political turmoil

and government turnover have stifled the country’s ability to thrive.

1.1.2 Sector and institutional context: Despite this situation, Guinea-Bissau has enormous

potential. It has the human and natural resources and the geography to grow and provide diverse

sources of income: abundant, high quality land, favorable rainfall, mineral deposits, biodiversity

of global importance, and fishing and tourism potential especially in the coastal zone which is

home to about 80 percent of the population. This unique coastal zone comprising mangroves,

sandbanks and mudflats, shallow estuarine waters and sub-humid Guinean forests, is among the

richest in West Africa for biodiversity: globally significant species of sea-turtles, manatee, goliath

grouper, bottlenose skate, ocean-going hippos, chimpanzees and migratory birds. The João

Vieira and Poilão Marine Protected Area (PA) is a major green turtle nesting site, the third largest

in the Atlantic. Cufada Lakes Natural Park is a designated Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar) site

(while the Bijagós Biosphere Reserve also achieved official Ramsar status in January 2013).

Guinea-Bissau now has four Ramsar sites totaling 1.2 m ha. Such biodiversity and the cultural

tradition it supports are a significant natural asset around which a viable tourism industry could

be built. The coastal zone already provides important ecosystem services: nursery/breeding

grounds for commercial fish stocks, carbon stocks and a buffer against climate change.

1.1.3 Government and its partners, including local and international NGOs such as the

International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) have, since the 1990s, been working

to conserve and manage the coastal zone upon which the country’s biodiversity depends. The

Coastal and Biodiversity Management Project (CBMP, 2004-2010) financed by the Global

Environment Facility (GEF), the European Union (EU), IUCN and the World Bank, helped the

Government to establish five national parks covering almost 450,000 ha and some 70,000 people,

along with a financially and administratively autonomous agency, the Institute for Biodiversity

and Protected Areas (IBAP).2 Staff and infrastructure were supported for a national headquarters

as well as local park management offices in the five parks, along with awareness-building of local

communities and the development of park management plans. In order for these parks/PAs to

1 At appraisal, Guinea-Bissau ranked 173 out of 182 countries on the United Nations Human Development

Index (2009). 2 The five national parks targeted at appraisal were: Parque Nacional Marinho João Vieira e Poilão

(PNMJVP); Parque Nacional de Orango (PNO); Parque Nacional dos Tarrafes do Rio Cacheu (PNTC);

Parque Natural das Lagoas de Cufada (PNLC); and, Parque Nacional de Cantanhez (PNC). Other parks not

covered by the BCP are also IBAP-managed, e.g., the Urok Community Marine Protected Area.

2

conserve biodiversity and eco-system functions, and to serve as sustainable development poles,

the Government established – under the CBMP – the Fund for Local Environment Initiatives

(FIAL), a mechanism for providing pro-environment block grants to local communities for

initiatives including schools, wells, rice-field rehabilitation, beekeeping, palm oil extraction and

fish processing. Both the strategy and rationale for the CBMP in 2004 entailed Guinea-Bissau

also establishing a private Foundation for Biodiversity in Guinea-Bissau (Fundação BioGuinea -

FBG) with the mandate to manage an expanding endowment fund, sinking funds and revolving

revenue streams to secure financing in perpetuity for, at minimum, management of core recurrent

activities of the country’s network of protected areas and biodiversity conservation efforts.

1.1.4 Rationale for Bank involvement: Sustaining and consolidating these institutions and

achievements have become critical drivers of new Bank-supported operations.3 Two “sister”

Bank-supported projects were conceived to directly capitalize/consolidate IBAP and the FBG and

sustain park management activities during this process: (i) a GEF medium-sized project (MSP)

approved in July 2010 (Guinea-Bissau Biodiversity Conservation Trust Fund Project - BCTF)

supported final steps to secure tax exempt status (in the UK and Guinea-Bissau) for the FBG, its

key operating instruments – a governing Board, executive staff, operational manual, business plan

and capitalization strategy – as well as limited, short-term transition funding for IBAP’s activities

in up to three parks; and, (ii) the IDA-financed Biodiversity Conservation Project (BCP) analyzed

by this ICR, designed to build upon the GEF MSP by financing the core recurrent costs of all five

parks – known as the National System of Protected Areas (SNAP) - until the FBG could be

operationalized and its endowment at least partially capitalized. The goal was to avoid a cessation

of IBAP’s conservation activities and the parks during the near-term transition period which

could reverse a decade’s gains and, to pilot operation of the FBG.4 See Section 2.1.

1.1.5 The BCP would assist Guinea-Bissau to develop/demonstrate capacity to effectively and

transparently manage conservation funds, promoting donor confidence; support initial FBG fund-

raising efforts; and, provide a baseline for a GEF V follow-on in FY12 conceived as seed capital

for the FBG endowment and designed to encourage contributions from other donors. (See para

1.5.1 for Component 1 financing arrangements). Other sources of funding for the FBG

endowment were also envisaged: carbon credits under a REDD (Reduced Emissions from

Deforestation and Degradation) program envisaged to begin in 2013, future park entry fees and

tourism taxes, and debt-for-nature swaps with government creditors. The then recently-approved,

Bank-supported Guinea-Bissau Community Driven Development Project (CDD) was also a

critical part of the picture, designed to continue supporting local communities in/around the parks,

further boosting overall sustainability of the conservation framework.

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

1.2.1 The PDO (as per the Grant Agreement) was to support the Recipient to: (i) strengthen

IBAP’s management of the Recipient’s National Parks; and (ii) pilot the operation of a

3 Design of the FBG was formulated in 2009 by a diverse working group, supported by international

partner institutions, and took global lessons into account. The FBG was legally registered as a private

foundation for public utility under United Kingdom Law in 2011. 4 An endowment of around US$20.0 m was estimated sufficient to finance IBAP and the PAs if financed

solely from investment returns and more modestly, around US$5.0 m would be needed to finance the core

management of at least the two priority PAs in the Bijagós Archipelago (PNO and PNMJVP). Transitional

donor financing however, was still essential.

3

sustainable financing mechanism for the National Parks. The PAD notes that this PDO would

build upon and was consistent with the GEF MSP (approved in 2011).5

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

reasons/justification

1.3.1 Neither the PDO nor the Key Indicators were revised.

1.4 Main Beneficiaries

1.4.1 The PAD describes the project’s primary target group (in the Results Framework

described as “direct” beneficiaries) as including over 70,000 people living in/around the parks

and dependent on park resources for their livelihoods. Longer-term, other beneficiaries – given

the then-current and expected contribution of the PA network to national and regional economic

growth – were national and local authorities (including IBAP), sector ministries, NGOs and the

private sector. The SNAP would also benefit the national population at large by providing the

backbone of a future tourism industry capable of generating substantial public revenue, and

international stakeholders through investment in the existence value of the country’s biodiversity.

Section 2.3 discusses the characterization of beneficiaries.

1.5 Original Components (as approved)

1.5.1 The BCP comprised three components:

Component 1: Consolidation and strengthening of capacity for management of coastal and

marine protected areas and biodiversity (IDA US$1.27 m, 65 percent of total project costs)

financed strengthening of the management of five coastal and marine parks and increasing the

monitoring and conservation of globally significant biodiversity.

Component 2: Pilot the operation of the BioGuinea Foundation (IDA US$0.39 m, 20 percent

of total project costs) supported pilot operationalization of the FBG as a mechanism capable of

financing the core management activities of at least two existing national parks.

Component 3: Project management and monitoring and evaluation (IDA US$0.29 m, 15

percent of total project costs) financed the effective and efficient implementation of project

activities and their coordination with other, related donor initiatives.

1.6 Revised Components

1.6.1 Components were not officially revised (i.e., via restructuring) but as recommended by a

Bank monitoring and evaluation (M&E) specialist conducting an M&E Review of the BCP in

2011, IBAP added activities under Component 3 designed to establish a SNAP-wide Monitoring

System for the longer-term monitoring of the biological and socio-economic health of the parks.

The BCP financed the system’s design, and other donors its implementation (ongoing). See

Section 3.2 and Annex 2.

5 GEF MSP PDO: (i) strengthen the ongoing management and conservation of the Recipient’s selected

National Parks; and, (ii) pilot the establishment of a sustainable financing mechanism for such parks.

4

1.7 Other significant changes

1.7.1 Project design, scope and scale were not changed. However, as a direct result of a

political/military coup on April 12, 2012 which overthrew the Government, the Bank triggered

OP/BP 7.30 (“Dealing with de facto Governments and World Bank Missions”), suspending until

further notice disbursements, Bank missions and the processing of new lending. On December 13,

2012, following the election of a new government, Bank Senior Management authorized the

resumption of all three elements. Also, a Level two restructuring (December 3, 2014), extended

the project closing date by 12 months to May 31, 2016 to compensate for the effects of the eight-

month suspension including to permit further evolution/consolidation of the FBG and its

endowment.

2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes

2.1 Project Preparation, Design and Quality at Entry

2.1.1 Soundness of the background analysis: The project was consistent with the Bank’s

assistance strategy for Guinea-Bissau at appraisal. It supported the two pillars of the Interim

Strategy Note (ISN): (i) strengthen economic management and lay the foundation for

improvement in the productive sectors; and, (ii) increase access to basic services, especially for

the rural population. It also supported the ISN’s cross-cutting theme of capacity development and

partnership-building. Specifically, the BCP supported improved management of the natural

resources base on which both then-current livelihoods and future economic development

depended, as well as the enhanced financial capacity to sustain such management into the future.

As such, the BCP responded to the potential of the country’s biodiversity assets to provide the

backbone of a future tourism industry, as outlined in the then-upcoming Country Economic

Memorandum (CEM). It also complemented the then-proposed Bank support for the national and

regional fisheries sector as part of the West Africa Regional Fisheries Program (WARFP).

2.1.2 Assessment of project design: Project objectives were, prima facie, realistic and

achievable in the engagement period, although minor deficiencies in the Results Framework

limited a more ample appreciation of BCP results/achievements (see Section 2.3). The

components supported the PDO but it was agreed with IBAP following effectiveness that

activities would be included under Component 3 to design and establish a SNAP-wide

Monitoring System. This would be an essential complement to the METT scorecard, which was

starting to be regarded in the conservation community as insufficient (on its own) to gauge the

health of ecosystems and species on the ground (Section 2.3). The project’s organizational

framework – as with the CBMP - saw IBAP in the lead, leveraging financial/other support from

many partners and donors (see Annex 2). This was consistent with a strategy using a

programmatic approach involving a spectrum of sector entities, each contributing – in an

organized manner – to achievement of the end-goal. In parallel, the BCP financed the structuring

and staffing of the FBG to take over the financial support of the SNAP from IBAP.

Organizational (and operational) aspects of project design were strengthened by the institutional

continuity, capacity and experience of IBAP’s core leadership/professionals whose continued

growth the BCP financed. The PDO’s social goals were expressed through the expected impact –

direct and indirect - of increasingly more effective and efficient PA management on the socio-

economic and biological health of the parks, which had both local and national implications, and

via the Safeguards triggered: OP/BP 4.01(Environmental Assessment) and OP/BP 4.12

(Involuntary Resettlement).

5

2.1.3 The BCP was another piece of a larger framework – governed by the same over-arching

vision and logic – intended to advance IBAP and the FBG closer to the ultimate goal of a well-

managed and sustainable SNAP. This is and always has been, a process made more difficult by

the short supply of funding. Efforts have been focused on catalyzing, coordinating and

harmonizing all donor projects – including Bank-supported – so that each contributes to

achieving the big picture even if only addressing a portion of it.6 As example, the IDA-financed

BCP and the GEF-financed BCTF were two separate but very similar, closely-coordinated and

mutually reinforcing operations with parallel financing, similar/consistent PDOs and Results

Frameworks and joint supervision. The GEF was a two-year project (as designed) effective in

March 2011, and the BCP was a four-year project (as designed) effective in June 2011. Their

monitoring and evaluation (M&E) was coordinated by IBAP within an integrated MIS, structured

to distinguish clearly between the two operations. The BCP and GEF had separate budgets and

procurement plans but were coordinated through a joint planning process since both operations

were under the IBAP umbrella. Under their respective PDOs: GEF would “pilot the establishment

of a sustainable financing mechanism for such parks” and the BCP “pilot the operation of a

sustainable financing mechanism for the national parks”.7

2.1.4 To avoid overlapping disbursements under Component 1, the BCP Legal Agreement

included a covenant (Schedule 2, Section IV, B1) whereby Component 1 would initially be

financed exclusively by the GEF grant (under its own rubric, not to cost-share the BCP). Only

when Government had fully-disbursed the GEF funds designated for Component 1 (US$613,000

– see Implementation Completion Memorandum (ICM)) would the IDA funds start disbursing.

This situation evolved when the Bank project team saw an opportunity for GEF financing to

follow-on from the successful CBMP and, while the amount was small (US$950,000), it would

provide continuity. Soon after, additional IDA funds became available and the team prepared the

complementary BCP operation. The GEF was to be “limited, transitional, short-term financing

for core park management activities”. The IDA BCP would build upon and complement the GEF-

funded activities by “extending the transition funding for the management of the parks and

supporting the second pilot operational phase of the FBG”.

2.1.5 Lessons from previous operations: Due to the earlier timing of BCP preparation, the

lessons of the CBMP ICR were not yet available so the PAD relied more on observed events and

experiences8 which strongly suggested the need to continue supporting IBAP to manage the parks

successfully and, to collaborate with the Environmental Impact Assessment Unit (CAIA) on the

environmental monitoring of surrounding areas. Viewed retroactively, BCP design foreshadowed

the ICR’s lessons, including: (i) the benefits of multiple, donor-supported interventions over time

for the sustainability of such projects; (ii) the advantages of stable Bank and Borrower/Client

teams especially for technically difficult projects in troubled environments; and, (iii) the fact that

intensive supervision can still be maintained/conducted without a physical presence, i.e., using

electronic means during periods of civil unrest. In the case of the FBG, its concept and design

were informed by the lessons of Bank and external studies of global experiences with

conservation and protected areas trust funds, including in the West Africa Region.

6 At BCP closing, IBAP was managing/executing seven projects totaling EUR 6.5 million, the largest

being the EU-financed, Protected Areas and Climate Change Project (EUR 4.0 million). Two additional

operations totaling EUR 0.5 million had been submitted for approval by the financial entity involved, and

another two projects were at the conceptual stage. See Table 5, Annex 2. 7 “Operation” was not intended to include actual grant-making by the FBG but rather the establishing of

structures/units, staffing, policies and processes and initiation of scheduled meetings and decision-making. 8 See ICR, Report No. 001684 of October 26, 2011.

6

2.1.6 Assessment of risk: Aside from the country risk (political instability and weak macro-

economic situation) which was beyond the scope of the project to address, the two critical risks

identified at appraisal were: (i) that additional donor contributions would not materialize and the

FBG would not secure sufficient funds to sustain even the management of core recurrent

activities of the two marine parks in the Bijagós Archipelago (a risk rated High);9 and, (ii) that

external impacts (e.g., from mining or petroleum exploitation) would compromise or threaten

conservation objectives of one or more of the five parks in the PA network (not rated).10

Efforts

to mitigate the first risk were initiated early on by securing/fostering active involvement of the

donor community in designing the FBG, by piloting the FBG’s operations over the course of the

project, and by launching a financial capitalization strategy for its endowment. For the second

risk cited, mitigation measures were developed under the previous CBMP: preparation of a

national law governing environmental impact assessments and establishing the Environmental

Impact Assessment Unit (CAIA - Célula de Avaliação de Impactos Ambientais) based in the

Prime Minister’s Office, to oversee implementation of the law.

2.1.7 Adequacy of Government’s commitment: Governments in power have consistently

backed IBAP and the SNAP despite the political situation. The BCP grew out of government’s

ongoing commitment to the PAs as the means to conserve biodiversity and eco-system functions

and to serve as “sustainable development poles”. During BCP preparation, the Cufada Park

experience (opening of roads and land clearing inside the park for construction of a future port,

with no Environmental Impact Assessment, EIA) was a milestone in the Government’s

relationship with the Bank, becoming a national governance issue rather than a side-story, and

creating a discussion on how to balance sustainability, safeguards compliance and development,

which government clearly came to own.11

Government also: (i) allocated budget in 2010 for

fisheries surveillance activities – a positive signal of intention to sustain the then-newly-

established system - but was unable to follow through;12

(ii) approved a national Environmental

Impact Assessment Law as the legal basis for mainstreaming environmental and social

considerations into future development and economic growth while legally reinforcing the role of

associated national institutions; and, (iii) successfully designed and piloted – within the CBMP -

the Fund for Local Environmental Initiatives (FIAL – Fundo para Iniciativas Ambientais Locais)

to complement biodiversity conservation and demonstrate tangible benefits to communities

in/around the parks using a participatory approach. A special Bank M&E Support Mission in

2011 found that government’s “ownership of the overall objective and commitment to its

effective implementation are exemplary”.

2.1.8 Participatory processes: Participation has been a hallmark of the Bank-supported,

biodiversity conservation projects. The BCP was founded on an exceptional level of stakeholder

participation, especially by local communities in/around the PAs. Sustainability of the SNAP

depends on it, just as the communities themselves depend on the parks for their livelihoods.

Dialogue and awareness-building have been ongoing for 25 years, paving the way for the creation

and participatory management of the PA system. The national park plans existing at the time of

9 Orango National Park and João Vieira e Poilão Marine National Park

10 See ICR for CBMP, Report #1684 of October 26, 2011 describing such events and their resolution.

11 Ibid. The port was needed to make bauxite extraction in the Boe region viable. To date, this project

has not advanced and cleared forest has been regenerating. 12

Government was unable to honor its promise to allocate regular budget to IBAP due to the fiscal

constraints of maintaining Highly-indebted Poor Country (HIPC) program triggers and the EU’s

unexpected suspension of budget support following political violence in 2010.

7

BCP appraisal resulted from a multi-year participatory process, and their implementation at the

time of CBMP closure was being overseen by Park Management Councils, 50 percent of whose

members were/still are drawn from resident communities and resource users. The BCP saw their

involvement, along with local authorities and technical ministries, as a way to ensure their

continued engagement in the PA system, and their adherence to the idea of the PAs as

development focal points.

2.2 Implementation

2.2.1 The factors affecting project implementation were primarily related to political

instability:

The political/military coup in 2012 and its aftermath affected IBAP’s ability to implement

the project but partner/donor collaboration and commitment mitigated its effects. Guinea-

Bissau’s technical and financial cooperation with its principal development partners (Bank and

GEF) was ruptured. The Bank suspended BCP disbursements (and other Bank projects including

the BCTF/GEF) from April to December 2012 due to the uncertain legitimacy of the transition

government. National fiscal revenues declined and, due to the State’s absence, greater pressure

was exerted on fisheries and forest resources, the latter through the illegal logging and trading of

wood in PA border zones and some attempted incursions into Cantanhez - fended off by the local

population.13

Even so, important activities made progress in this period, importantly because the

EU, MAVA Foundation and UNDP sustained their support to IBAP/SNAP even while

suspending all other portfolio activities. Also, the Designated Account had been replenished right

before the coup, enabling sufficient cash flow to continue key activities. Another positive factor

was proactive Bank supervision, collaborating with IBAP via frequent online and skype

guidance/troubleshooting. The project’s programmatic approach to achieving the higher-level

goals, and IBAP/Bank efforts to harmonize donors and activities, were also positive elements.

FBG’s fund-raising and operational status specifically, were hampered by these same

conditions. Several factors were important: (i) Fund raising/capitalization of the FBG

endowment proved challenging and time-consuming due to donor unwillingness to commit

resources in the aftermath of the coup; (ii) expectations at appraisal under-estimated the time

potentially required to meet fund-raising goals, a lesson for similar projects (but difficult to gauge

at appraisal); and, (iii) salaries could not be paid (most public employees went unpaid in this

period including within IBAP) deterring potential FBG recruits. The resulting delays in launching

the FBG operationally were beyond the BCP’s control, affecting constitution of the Board,

recruitment of the Executive Secretary and Financial Officer, and the transfer of responsibilities

for implementing Component 2 from IBAP to the FBG. Difficulties in finding qualified

candidates for FBG Executive Secretary (ES) saw the Board recruit a consultant as interim ES to

permit a long-term, suitable candidate to be located and groomed without time pressure. This

interim arrangement was subsequently converted to a longer contract.

Presidential and legislative elections in April/May 2014 and the swearing in of a new

government, re-established a fragile normality. Government sponsored in March 2015, an

International Conference of Donors at EU Headquarters in Brussels, presenting a new Strategic

Operational Plan (Terra Ranka, 2015-2020) with an investment program and multi-year action

plan. Biodiversity and natural capital were presented as a “foundation”, and the major cross-

13 Client Completion Report, IBAP, July 2016.

8

cutting sector and development instrument for the entire strategy. From mid-2014 to June 2016

however, political crises had become cyclical with challenges in 2014, the President’s dismissal

of the elected government in 2015 and multiple, unsuccessful attempts since then to put a new

government in place, affecting BCP execution. At the time of ICR preparation, the Government’s

program was still awaiting approval by the National Popular Assembly resulting in partial

paralysis of the state. This recurrent instability impinged upon IBAP’s functionality and growth

due to its partner public agencies in the Government being virtually moribund for extended

periods, and leadership of the State Secretariat of Environment changing repeatedly. Delays

occurred in key operations including the IBAP-managed Global Climate Change Alliance Project

(GCCA+) and the official establishment of the new Boé National Park and Dulombi National

Park under the SNAP.

Surveillance activities in the Cantanhez, Cufada and Orango parks were also affected, even

though the METT scores and SNAP surveillance results indicate that IBAP did regain and

maintain control in affected parks. Cantanhez Park was quite new, lacked operational resources

(suspension-related) for adequate enforcement and control missions from 2012 to 2013, took

three years to recruit a new Park Manager/Director (although Cantanhez did have a director in the

period), and was as a result slower to evolve/consolidate. Management of Cufada Park was also

affected by the suspension, lack of a surveillance vessel and the absence of its new

Manager/Director. In Orango Park, surveillance missions were hampered by burdensome

bureaucratic procedures limiting fuel purchases for public vehicles. Surveillance by 2015

however, had fully recovered and was exceptionally strong for two reasons: (i)

intensive/extensive BCP-financed communications/outreach activities were paying off, prompting

widespread local community involvement/collaboration in park management; and, (ii) IBAP’s

increasing skill in creating financial synergies with institutional partners. This included the

BCP/IDA in cooperation with FISCAP and the Rias do Sul Project (IUCN-UEMOA) enabling

302 missions in six PAs (including AMPC-Urok) of the 312 programmed and, achievement of

96.8 percent of the marine/coastal surveillance program due to the acquisition of new vessels.

Government commitment to the SNAP resulted in substantial budget support for IBAP at a

critical point in the BCP’s final year. The BCP faced a financing constraint from August 2015

because the project contribution to IBAP salaries and operational costs was ending. IDA funds

under Component 1 were fully-disbursed and the costs associated with an additional year of

operations had not been anticipated. The FBG was not yet sufficiently capitalized or mature to

contribute, although at that time three potential sources of funding had been identified/promised.

The Bank team urged the Government to provide support from the national budget, starting in

2016. Government came through, allocating CFA 60.0 million (about US$100,000) for core

IBAP salaries and activities, although this was an exceptional, one-time injection of transitional

funds not associated with a permanent budget line. IBAP confirmed that these promised

resources were released.

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

2.2.3 Mid-term Review (MTR): The MTR was conducted in October 2013 in the post-

coup/pre-election period, a challenging environment both for maintaining regular PA

management activities and the momentum of fund-raising for the FBG endowment. The Bank

team found that IBAP had kept the project largely on track, with some delays: (i) IBAP’s

capacity to manage the SNAP was steadily strengthening and tangible results were being

achieved in the parks – METT scores had already exceeded appraisal targets; (ii) FBG

operationalization was gaining momentum and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

transferring implementation responsibilities for Component 2 from IBAP to the FBG, had been

9

signed; and, (iii) project management continued to be satisfactory with an exemplary degree of

project ownership and fiduciary control at all levels. No major changes were proposed.

2.2.4 Project at Risk status: The Project was not a potential problem project or actual

problem project at any time. However, the country-level risk remained significant throughout,

associated with the unstable political situation and weak macro-economic environment.

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

2.3.1 Design: M&E design was built around a Results Framework (RF) comprising two PDO

Indicators and eight Intermediate Outcome Indicators. Project achievement would be measured

primarily by: (i) annual assessment of the management efficiency of the five PAs (continuing the

use of the World Bank/World Wildlife Fund Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT)

scorecards begun under the CBMP);14

and, (ii) legal establishment and operation of the FBG in

accordance with “minimum requirements for receiving GEF funds” (although technically, the

FBG was already legally established under the CBMP and what the BCP planned was to structure

and staff the entity and pilot its operations).15

The RF was generally adequate but had some

deficiencies, noted below. The basic capacity to implement planned M&E activities was already

established in IBAP and would be boosted by specialized technical assistance. As noted earlier,

IBAP used a joint BCTF/BCP Management Information System (MIS) with clear separation of

the two operations. The PAD also notes that key indicators were designed taking into account not

only the information they would provide but also the costs and feasibility of any additional

required data collection, given the small size of the IDA grant.16

IBAP would have primary

responsibility, continuing to monitor national park management activities based on indicators

identified in individual Park Management Plans.

2.3.2 Design deficits were few. The RF included a Core Sector Indicator: “Direct project

beneficiaries (of which female)” with a target of 70,000 people (based on a 2007 CBMP-specific

census of the parks’ population) of which 50.6 percent were expected to be women. The Team

decided that this indicator - which was obligatory but not considered optimal for activities

directly under BCP control - would signal that IBAP’s increasingly strong and astute

management of the PAs had direct (and indirect) short and long-term socio-economic benefits for

the parks’ total population, including female, by stabilizing the physical conditions for their long-

term social and economic survival in place.17

As it turned out, the target was probably the bigger

issue: the BCP actually did finance activities with direct beneficiaries but was never likely to

reach all 70,000 directly. After effectiveness, the need for a more sophisticated system which

14 METT questionnaires were completed by the Park Management Councils every six months and the

IBAP Coordinator and the Monitoring and Planning Unit reviewed the data for quality and consistency.

Training in the use of these instruments was/is continuous. PA directors/staff were also trained to use the

RAPPAM (Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Area Management, a methodology designed

for broad-level comparison among multiple PAs comprising a PA system or network), and instruments

developed by IMET (Institute of Marine and Environmental Technology, University of Maryland, USA),

for measuring improvements in PA planning and management. 15

See Annex 2 for the minimum requirements for receiving GEF funds. 16

The additional cost burden to the Project of implementing M&E activities was around US$150,000. 17

Small-scale investments became the focus of other CBMP follow-ons: the IDA-financed Rural

Community-driven Development Project (P090712, US$5.0 million equivalent) and the SPF-financed

Participatory Rural Development Project (P117861, US$5.0 million equivalent). The BCP was clearly

expected to catalyze, but not finance, such investments.

10

monitored the long-term biological and socio-economic health of the PAs was acknowledged and

activities were added. See below.

2.3.3 Implementation: An analysis in 2011 concluded that IBAP needed to develop a SNAP-

wide Monitoring System for biodiversity trends in each park.18

While the METT was considered

an adequate proxy for project purposes, at the big picture scale an institution like IBAP needed to

be able to monitor the evolution of the status/health of PA resources in terms of biodiversity

conservation and ecosystem protection on the ground to determine if its management approaches

were/are achieving the desired results or not, i.e., the basis of an adaptive management approach.

This required both a more comprehensive, long-term monitoring system for tracking trends in

biodiversity and socio-economic indicators, established in line with park objectives, combined

with specific research programs to investigate and answer key questions, all well beyond the

scope of the BCP. It was recommended that IBAP: (i) define a set of key indicators relevant to

the monitoring of endangered and threatened species and/or park health status (e.g., population

size, habitat ranges, habitat area); (ii) develop a consistent M&E method with clear data

collection protocols, including standardized forms and measurement schedules for each

species/ecosystem indicator; and (iii) establish an easily accessible database, updated periodically

and harmonized with similar databases in the West Africa region. A BCP-financed, SNAP

Monitoring System was designed and other donors are financing its implementation. Para 3.2.3.

2.3.4 An early proposal to restructure the RF, allowing for a period of implementation, did not

proceed. Subsequent analysis of indicators and targets suggested that formal revision of the RF

was unnecessary due to the minor nature of the few changes proposed, mostly the refining and

clarification of some intermediate indicators to improve measurability. Surprisingly, the issue of

the Core Sector Indicator did not come up, i.e., reducing the target or clarifying its meaning and

measurement. Finally, IBAP prepared a good quality Client Completion Report, reviewed by the

Bank.

2.3.5 Utilization: IBAP prepared reports for domestic and external consumption which were

shared with all project partners/donors – especially for FBG fund-raising campaigns - and clearly

contributed to biodiversity becoming the central, cross-cutting theme of Government’s new 10-

year plan, “Terra Ranka” (English: lift-off, fresh start). The BCP monitored a range of activities

and functions used on an ongoing basis to improve the performance of IBAP and the BCP itself.

2.4 Safeguard and Fiduciary Compliance

2.4.1 Safeguards compliance: The BCP was classified as a Category B operation and

triggered OP/BP 4.01 (Environmental Assessment) and OP/BP 4.12 (Involuntary Resettlement).

The Project was designed explicitly to continue and strengthen a participatory process for the

management and conservation of parks and biodiversity. None of its activities were expected to

produce significant, negative environmental or social impacts and no construction or

rehabilitation/civil works were envisaged. But, to minimize and mitigate any potentially adverse

impacts, an Environmental Assessment (EA) and Environmental and Social Management Plan

(ESMP) were prepared in line with OP 4.01. Similarly, even though the highly participatory

approach to PA management involving multiple stakeholders ensured their engagement in the

parks’ evolution and reinforced the view that the risk of conflict was inherently low, the BCP

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

11

triggered OP 4.12 and preparation of a Process Framework - widely disseminated and consulted

in the parks - to ensure that any potential risk of restricted resource use would be addressed.

2.4.2 Compliance with the ESMP was satisfactory throughout and no issues emerged. Further,

no issues arose requiring action under OP 4.12. As planned at appraisal, a set of safeguards tools

was included in the FBG’s Operational Manual to ensure that FBG-supported activities explicitly

took into account potential environmental and social impacts, as well as the provisions of the

Resettlement Policy Framework. Further, safeguards provisions were also built into the park

regulations and business plans. The ICR assesses safeguards compliance as Satisfactory.

2.4.3 Financial management/audit: IBAP established and maintained strong financial

management (FM) performance throughout project execution without indications of fraud or

corruption. Internal controls were strengthened, the accounting information system was updated

regularly, compliance with Bank standards and the FM manual was satisfactory throughout, and

financial reporting was regular and of generally good quality. Independent external audits were

uniformly unqualified and any issues detected by auditors were resolved promptly. A Bank

fiduciary mission in 2013 coinciding with a limited re-engagement of the Bank post-coup and

designed to assess the fiduciary capacity of the Bank’s Guinea-Bissau portfolio of active projects

and determine the need for technical assistance, praised IBAP’s FM performance during the risky

aftermath of the coup. The Bank review found that expenditures were well-supported with no

irregularities detected, noting: “This is remarkable and needs to be credited to the (BCP) teams

and authorities”.

2.4.4 Procurement: Procurement performance was supervised regularly by the Bank

Specialist. Procurement management by IBAP was rated Moderately Satisfactory throughout.

Clearly the performance under the BCP was an improvement over the CBMP where IBAP’s lack

of experience with Bank procurement rules and processes, and the Bank’s regional institutional

arrangements for procurement, created issues. Record-keeping under the BCP was good with

some issues in regard to information on payments (actually available in the FM system),

archiving of procurement dossiers, non-publication of contract awards, and delayed procurement

under some activities. Procurement was especially affected by the suspension of disbursements

as most activities foreseen in the Procurement Plan could not be financed, a situation beyond

IBAP’s control. A Procurement Risk Assessment post-coup (March 2012) rated the risk for

procurement processes and contract administration as Substantial and Moderate, respectively,

with overall risk rated Moderate and country risk rated High. There were no outstanding

procurement issues at closing.

2.5 Post-completion Operation/Next Phase

2.5.1 The primary financial instrument to sustain reforms, investments and institutional

capacity is intended to be the FBG - complemented by ongoing donor support - and this is

discussed in detail in Section 3.2 and Annex 2. In terms of follow-on operations, and maintaining

the over-arching vision and logic, a range of options and opportunities was discussed with the

Government prior to closing, including: (i) continued actions to multiply financing for the FBG to

sustain the SNAP in perpetuity; (ii) specific actions in biodiversity protection; (iii) local

economic development through support to artisanal fishing, eco-tourism and other income

generating activities; and, (iv) exploring the theme of the increasing pressure on forest resources.

Following BCP closure, the Bank passed the baton to UNDP/GEF 5 to continue support for FBG

fundraising activities. A separate Global Climate Change Alliance (GCCA+)/EU project is

funding on-the-ground management activities in several SNAP PAs, while other donor-funded

12

projects are supporting different elements of FBG/IBAP operations. This overall approach, led

by the Bank/IBAP is consistent with the long-term vision, realities on the ground and broad

stakeholder agreement/collaboration. See Table 5, Annex 2.

2.5.2 Given the importance and vulnerability of the coastal zone, the Bank recommended that

Government explore potential linkages with the Bank’s coastal resilience efforts under the West

Africa Coastal Areas (WACA) initiative to which Guinea-Bissau could adhere, complemented by

the West Africa Regional Fisheries Program (WARFP) financed by the Bank and GEF in which

Guinea-Bissau already participates. Government has actually requested that the Bank be

implementing agency for a GEF 6 of at least US$ 2.0 million allocated to biodiversity – and a

direct follow-on to BCP activities - under their national STAR (System for the Transparent

Allocation of Resources) allocation and as part of the second phase of the WARFP. The Bank

advised Government to consider preparing a global operation rather than multiple, small projects.

IDA resources could potentially be brought in with GEF resources, while STAR funds could be

combined with other sources such as the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) under its

climate change adaptation window; or, the Small Island States Resilience Initiative (SISRI). A

strategic choice to integrate with SISRI could be justified because a large part of Guinea-Bissau’s

territory is situated in the coastal region with strong biological diversity and marked vulnerability

to climatic variation.

2.5.3 Institutional capacity/growth is considered likely to be sustained but needs ongoing

support from the Bank and other partners. As noted earlier, IBAP has operated for 12 years, has

survived significant instability, is maturing into a skilled and well-organized institution with a

global profile, and has developed notable capacity to leverage donor support for diverse needs of

the SNAP. Much work remains to be done to shore up the SNAP and political instability is

unlikely to end. Therefore, “sustaining reforms and institutional capacity” does not end with the

activation of the FBG but will require sustained Bank leadership and support to ensure that the

institutional framework created thus far is not eroded by the exceptionally difficult political

context. See also Section 4.

3. Assessment of Outcomes

3.1 Relevance of Objectives, Design and Implementation

Rated: High

3.1.1 The relevance of objectives to current country and global priorities remains high.

Protecting, conserving and managing Guinea-Bissau’s biodiversity and immense natural wealth is

a critical determinant of the nation’s growth potential, and a top priority for the Government as

reflected in its pivotal cross-cutting status in Government’s new National Development Strategy

2020 (Terra Ranka), and in IBAP’s National Strategy for Protected Areas.19

Official ownership is

high. Economically and socially, the country’s abundant natural resources provide diverse

sources of income for a large portion of the country’s population, dependent on them for survival.

Of equal importance, given the globally and regionally significant biodiversity and eco-systems

hosted by Guinea-Bissau, especially in its marine and coastal areas, project objectives remain

relevant and rational, i.e., a two-pronged approach supporting IBAP’s on the ground management

of the parks as the repository of national wealth (carbon stocks, regional fisheries, rare species,

19 Estratégia Nacional para as Áreas Protegidas e a Conservação da Biodiversidade na Guinea-Bissau,

2014-2020, IBAP 2014.

13

mangroves, climate change mitigation through coastal flood control), while constructing a formal

mechanism for self-financing its long-term continuity/survival.

3.1.2 The fundamental thrust of Government’s strategy is echoed in recent Bank strategies. At

the time of project preparation, there was an Interim Strategy Note (ISN) governing the Bank’s

engagement in the country. The project supported the two pillars of the 2009 ISN, namely to: (i)

strengthen economic management and laying the foundations for improvements in the productive

sectors; and, (ii) increase access to basic services, especially for the rural population, as well as its

cross-cutting themes of capacity development and building partnerships. In more recent

documents, among the pillars of the Country Economic Memorandum (CEM, 2015)20

,

strengthening the public sector - and in particular public financial management - is of primary

importance, consistent with the BCP’s objectives for strengthening IBAP and seeking to make the

SNAP self-sustaining through the FBG. The CEM calls for strengthening environmental and

enforcement agencies, citing IBAP and CAIA; and, mobilizing additional fiscal revenue

including by preserving the country’s natural wealth and promoting its efficient management,

specifically fisheries (halting illegal activities, increasing license fees and promoting sustainable

fishing), forests (timber, carbon credits), and natural habitats and ecosystems as sources of

sustainable income. The CEM asserts that securing the ongoing conservation efforts for the

SNAP is critical to preserving ecosystem services and economic opportunities. Second, the

ongoing relevance of BCP objectives to the Systematic Country Diagnostic (SCD, 2016) is strong,

reflected most prominently under the SCD’s challenge of “fragility and weak governance” where

the proposed responses include reforming the management of natural resources as the key to a

more prosperous and sustainable future. This would be effected through: halting forest loss

resulting from cashew and rice expansion, as well as illegal felling; optimal management of

fisheries resources; and, ensuring sustained financing for the SNAP, stressing explicitly the

urgency of capitalizing the FBG. The SCD also concludes that medium-term, policies and

investments geared to harnessing the value of a nature-based economy are key, e.g. eco-tourism.21

3.1.3 The relevance of project design is rated substantial: Design was based on global best

practice and on the lessons of the CBMP, and acknowledged the immense value of Guinea-

Bissau’s natural endowment both nationally and to other regions.22

Government – with Bank

support - has created a national parks system, incorporated coastal and biodiversity management

principles and practices nationally, and supported and approved the tax-exempt status of the FBG.

The FBG is the result of a national strategy and priorities adopted by IDA, GEF and the

Government since 2004 – consistent with the broad, multi-donor approach adopted to achieve an

efficiently managed SNAP, and its design is consistent with the best practice recommendations of

the GEF and Conservation Finance Alliance. It was entirely relevant and essential – through the

BCP (and its sister operation the BCTF/GEF) - to further secure the gains of the CBMP and to

strengthen IBAP’s institutional and human resource capacity to manage the SNAP “under one

roof” while shoring up its financial status long-term by bringing the FBG to operational status.

Project design has, since the beginning, been framed by the modest amounts of financing

accessible to Guinea-Bissau – mandating an incremental approach - and each operation is

designed to consolidate and further advance/expand what already exists.

20 Guinea-Bissau – Country Economic Memorandum – Terra Ranka! A Fresh Start, World Bank Report

# 58296-GW, January 12, 2015. Note that a Country Partnership Framework (CPF) was recently initiated. 21

Guinea-Bissau – Turning Challenges into Opportunities for Poverty Reduction and Inclusive Growth:

Systematic Country Diagnostic (SCD), World Bank Report #106725-GB, 2016. 22

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

14

3.1.4 Project components and implementation arrangements were appropriate, given the small

size of the IDA Grant and the sound, successful institutional structure already established.

Components were logical: (i) further boosting IBAP’s institutional capacity to manage the SNAP

and monitor species on the ground (Component 1), reinforced after effectiveness by the inclusion

of activities to design/establish a higher-level, longer-term monitoring system harmonized with

the systems of regional countries; (ii) moving FBG into its operational phase (Component 2); and

(iii) Component 3 was the “anchor” supporting the all-important programmatic approach built

into project design, multi-source budgeting and uniting stakeholders around the table.

Implementation arrangements established under the CBMP remained stable. IBAP maintained its

leadership role and autonomous identity, while the FBG got up and running. The rating of

Substantial takes account of minor flaws in the RF, bringing the rating below High.

3.1.5 The relevance of implementation is rated high. Implementation was flexible depending

on circumstances, much of which under the BCP were completely beyond its control and required

patience and resourcefulness. Component 3 was the window through which the programmatic

approach was consistently pushed. Continuous efforts to harmonize donors and activities proved

crucial during the coup-related suspension of disbursements and activities. The new Government

was fully-supportive,23

with the Bank working with the Client to promote understanding of the

project vision, and with donor partners in national and international fora to always keep them

abreast of where they fit in the big picture and what this entails. Project support helped connect

Guinea-Bissau to the global ecological network and this was effected through many specific

activities/events accessed opportunistically and always with the long-term goal front and center.

3.2 Achievement of Project Development Objectives

Rated: Substantial

3.2.1 The BCP was designed to improve the planning, execution, management and financing of

activities affecting a large geographic area - on the ground - complemented by a significant

portfolio of other donor projects/activities all of which were/are IBAP-managed and moving in

the same direction. IBAP has survived political turbulence, remained stable in its management

and core professional staff, demonstrated strong capacity to expand and improve its technical and

financial management of the SNAP, and is building an international reputation in the sector. The

BCP represented about 80% of IBAP/SNAP’s staff and operational costs but it is important to

bear in mind that IBAP of necessity and in the context of its overall, longer-term strategy receives

multi-donor, integrated, inter-dependent financial/other support. Thus, determining attribution in

the pure sense is not always feasible. The BCP financed all activities planned at appraisal, fully

achieved its two PDO Indicators and, of eight Intermediate Outcome Indicators, three were

exceeded, four fully achieved and one partially achieved. The sustainability outlook is positive

with certain caveats. This is a remarkable achievement in the circumstances. On this basis,

achievement of the PDO is rated Substantial, as evidenced below.

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

Rated: Substantial

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

15

3.2.2 The BCP’s transitional financing provided the bulk of the core operational funding for

IBAP (including salaries, fuel, park management committee meetings, surveillance patrols, and

extensive communications/outreach and training activities) without which the management of the

SNAP would have declined significantly both in terms of PA protection and community

sensitization and engagement. The main instrument for measuring the effects on IBAP’s

management of the SNAP was the METT, complemented by other achievements demonstrating

that IBAP’s management of the parks continued to improve throughout BCP execution. METT

score-card results are reported below, along with additional evidence.

METT aggregate Score Card results by end-2015 were 507, 108.3% of the project target

(448), and 117% of the 2009 baseline (433). See footnote 18.

Year PNMJVP PNO PNTC PNLC PNC

2011 106 113 105 74 56

2012 107 115 109 75 56

2013 111 121 122 77 59

2014 114 119 124 81 54

2015 116 119 129 83 60 Source: IBAP/METT Scorecards 2011-2015

Numbers of annual surveillance and control missions covering the five parks exceeded

the 60 missions projected/targeted (12 per park/year). Annual missions increased

steadily: 109 in 2012, 134 in 2013, 164 in 2014, and 302 missions in 2015.

This result is attributed to the following: (i) the 2015 surge in surveillance activities by

organized, resident park communities motivated by IBAP’s effective, BCP-financed

communication, outreach and awareness-building program in the parks. Surveillance

activities became more frequent with the communities’ involvement, and with a new

dynamism associated with stakeholders’ “ownership” of the management and control

instruments/methods; (ii) IBAP’s demonstrated commitment to implementing its PA

Action Plans;24

and, (iii) effective collaboration and synergy among IBAP’s institutional

partners: BCP, the Fisheries Monitoring and Control Institute (FISCAP) and the Rias do

Sul Project (IUCN/West African Economic and Monetary Union -UEMOA). Section 2.2.

Year PNMJVP PNO PNTC PNLC PNC Total

2012 31 45 31 2 0 109

2013 34 64 24 12 0 134

2014 39 39 37 42 13 164

2015 53 53 90 57 24 302 Source: IBAP Surveillance Data, 2012-2015

All five parks received updated Internal Regulations – validated and signed by the

representative PA Management Councils - and Business Plans, exceeding project targets.

Other achievements indicative of IBAP’s growing capacity/influence included the

participatory preparation of clear/simple responsible fishing plans, working with fishing

24 IBAP’s acquisition of four new coastal/marine surveillance vessels (financed by the Life Web Project)

also contributed to its surveillance of the PNO, PNMJVP and PNTC PAs, covering updating of the

maritime zones, coastal enforcement activities, and monitoring of threatened species and habitats.

16

communities in Orango, Cacheu and Cufada PAs; and, the integration of social and

environmental safeguards into the internal regulations for Cufada and Cacheu PAs.

786 IBAP staff, institutional partners and community managers were trained from 2011-

2015, 314.4% based on an aggregated annual target of 50/year defined at appraisal.

Numbers trained annually steadily increased, and training covered a wide range of

relevant subjects, tailored to the needs of each PA.25

IBAP estimates that the BCP directly benefited around 43,000 people, some 61% of the

targeted 70,000 under IBAP’s BCP-financed communications/awareness-building and

direct training activities. These included training for 786 IBAP personnel at Headquarters

and in the PAs, plus an estimated 42,200 people who received biodiversity-related

sensitization training, and training targeted at the beneficiaries of IBAP’s micro-

investment financing (leveraged from other donors) for ecologically-appropriate

technologies and alternative livelihoods. An estimated 65 percent were women.

Sensitization impacts were not formally-studied but anecdotal evidence suggests they

could be substantial. For example, communities: (i) intervened to deter outside interests

from illegal felling/logging of forest on the periphery of several PAs, especially in the

unstable, post-coup period; (ii) sought ways to protect rice fields from hippopotamus

incursions without harming the invaders; (iii) asked Park Rangers for guidance on

humane removal of snakes and other invasive species; (iv) demanded ecologically-

appropriate ovens/fire pits; (v) reported illegal settlements within the PAs to Park

authorities; and, (vi) consulted Park Rangers about saving an injured manatee.

3.2.3 Monitoring of key species: Effective tracking of species on the ground was recognized as

an obvious product of improved SNAP management. Due to the need for a deeper, more global

approach than the plan for species monitoring envisaged at appraisal, and insufficient BCP/IDA

funds for such larger effort, a more encompassing, two-stage plan thinking beyond the project

boundaries and with a different “product” was negotiated with IBAP/donors: a SNAP-wide

Monitoring System tracking the overall biological and socio-economic health of the PAs. The

BCP/IDA would be the catalyst financing the first stage and donors would finance the second

stage under collaborative arrangements. Under Stage I, the BCP/IDA financed the

development/design of the overall approach including databases/indicators on emblematic species

working with forestry, species and social specialists. Participatory diagnoses helped identify key

indicators for each PA, and measurement protocols which could be harmonized with other

regional databases in West Africa. Baselines became the foundation for adaptive management.

IBAP consulted with sub-regional institutions to integrate and harmonize this database with

regional and international systems. Stage I was completed by closing. Stage II – co-financed by

MAVA and the EU – is ongoing, consisting of training in data collection, GIS

design/implementation and equipment. See also 2.3.3.

3.2.4 Under its regular species monitoring, the BCP/IDA financed Action Plans for marine

turtles, mangroves and hippopotamus; and, National Integrated Action Plans for 4 bird species of

national and sub-regional importance: Balearica pavonina; Limosa limosa; Phoenicopterus

minor; and Platalea alba. Marine turtle and mangrove Action Plans were finalized and under

25 Training covered: monitoring of protected/threatened species; PA management (enforcement and

vigilance; conservation of humid zones; Logiciel MIRADO for S&A; the laws governing PAs; and

environmental education); eco-tourism; conservation and transformation of halieutic products; local

products and sanitary standards; forest management including inventories, nursery management, fire

prevention and protection, strategic planning and reforestation methods; construction of eco-friendly

stoves; aerial photography, GIS and GPS management; local development and communication.

17

implementation since 2013; the Hippopotamus Action Plan was finalized/validated in 2014 and is

now under execution; and, a monitoring strategy was designed for aquatic/migratory birds as well

as a National Integrated Action Plan for the four bird species named above. Routine monitoring

of marine turtles, marine hippopotamus, and grey parrot in Orango and João Vieira e Poilão parks

show steady increase in numbers, nesting/ovation and sightings (see Table 3, Annex 2).

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

Rated: Substantial

3.2.5 The following demonstrates substantial advancement of the FBG’s operational status:

The FBG was physically established and its operations piloted (in accordance with the

minimum requirements for receiving GEF funds in the endowment – see Annex 2, para

2.7). The FBG Board of Directors was established and was meeting in accordance with

its TORs and the timetable defined in its Statutes; its fourth annual session was conducted

in 2016. An interim Executive Secretary (ES) was converted to full-time for 4-5 years.

The plan is to recruit/train a grants officer to take over the ES position.

FBG management systems (including fiduciary) are in place and operational, producing

satisfactory annual and quarterly reports. The FBG’s Operational Manual (OM) and

manual of procedures were adopted by the FBG Council. The OM includes

environmental and social safeguards instruments.

Formal Board approval was received for the FBG’s Investment Policy Statement and to

competitively appoint a UK-based asset Investment Manager for the FBG’s endowment

fund, with guidance from a BCP-financed, independent, investment management

consultant.26

The SNAP and FBG financing strategy was prepared with support from consultants from

the Brazilian Biodiversity Fund (FUNBIO), also involved in a pilot arrangement to

mentor the FBG.

Government signed a protocol with the FBG giving it full legal rights to operate as a

charity in Guinea-Bissau, with tax-exempt status. The UK also conceded charity status to

the FBG. Actual grant flows have not started. Once the UK bank account is established,

and the funds deposited, investment will start and revenues will start to flow. Annex 2.

A comprehensive capitalization strategy is under implementation. Donor pledges as at

May 31, 2016 totaled some EUR 4.6 m, from: MAVA Foundation (EUR 1.3 m); GEF

V/UNDP (USD 1.22 m, equivalent to around EUR 1.0 – 1.2 million depending on

exchange rate); Government of Guinea-Bissau (EUR 1.0 m); and, EUR 1.0 m from

FFEM. The VCS-REDD+ pilot is underway and expected to result in carbon credit sales

from an average avoided deforestation of 900,000 tCO2/year over 20 years (Cacheu and

Cantanhez PAs) valued at an average US$3.04 m/year over 20 years, a portion of which

will go to the FBG endowment (and portions to monitoring, reporting and verification

(MRV), forest management and community benefits). See Annex 3.

3.2.6 Finally, in regard to the objective of reducing dependence on ad hoc financing/projects,

the strategic choice to use the UNDP/GEF funds to support FBG operations over the next four

years will allow the FBG to apply 100 percent of the revenues to be generated from its

endowment to visible biodiversity conservation activities on the ground. Further, the EUR 1.0

26 See Bio Guinea Foundation Investment Manager Selection and Appointment, August 27, 2016. See also,

Bio Guinea Foundation Investment Policy Statement, August 27, 2016. Finalization of this work will be

co-financed by UNDP/GEF under their follow-on project.

18

million government contribution is for endowment capital, not FBG operating costs, and has been

earmarked within the EU Fisheries Accord. It is not drawn from central government budget and

is thus insulated from the general fiscal situation. Further, 50 percent of that amount has already

been transferred to FBG, and transfer of the balance is considered likely.

3.3 Efficiency

Rated: Substantial

3.3.1 Methodology: A classic economic and financial analysis (cost-benefit (CB) or cost-

effectiveness (CE)) was not conducted at appraisal and remained inappropriate at closing, given

the country context, nature of the BCP and small size of the IDA credit. Based on country

conditions in particular, any quantitative measure to value project benefits (for a CB analysis) or

project effectiveness (CE analysis) would likely be unable to show a true benefit, value or cost

due to systemic distortions and/or conditions of under-financing. The PAD noted that – pending a

concrete assessment of the current and future economic and financial benefits attributable to the

PA network and the ecosystem services it provides - the importance of those benefits could be

inferred. Some positive, updated information is available for several sectors from the World

Bank’s Natural Wealth Study for Guinea-Bissau (Edmundson, 2014) and other sources, with

caveats concerning data reporting, availability and reliability (see Annex 3).

The wealth study conservatively estimates total fishing “potential” at 120,000 tons/year

and total wealth per capita from fishing at some US$305. Further, data shows that the

Government took in public revenue of US$20.0 million in 2015 from fishing activities –

about 25 percent of total government revenues in 2015 - of which US$9.25 million were

license fees from the industrial fishing sector and the remainder were access agreement

payments, mainly from the EU. IBAP continues to monitor/protect the country’s vital

fish breeding and nursery areas lying within the SNAP.

In regard to carbon, the PAD estimated that carbon storage by some 60,000 ha of

protected mangroves in three PAs exceeded 298,000 tons of avoided CO2 emissions/year

with potential to generate around US$5.0 million over seven years. At BCP closing, and

based on the REDD+ Project, this estimate has increased significantly. Carbon credit

sales for just two PAs (Cacheu and Cantanhez) could potentially produce revenues

exceeding US$3.0 million per year, averaged over 20 years. See Annex 3, Box 1.

The potential for eco-tourism noted in the PAD remains high, with solid comparative

advantage resting on its biodiversity and cultural assets. While reaping the benefits

remains well in the future, the BCP’s efforts to further shore up the SNAP’s sustainability

was further “down payment” on that future tourism economy.

Annex 3, Table 1 shows a range of other important benefits flowing from the BCP.

3.4 Justification of Overall Outcome Rating

Rating: Satisfactory

3.4.1 The overall rating of Satisfactory is based on the following:

Relevance: High The PDO was a straightforward statement of well-diagnosed priorities

aligned with past and current Bank and Government policies and strategies.27

Project

design - with minor caveats - was appropriate for achieving those priorities and

27 Country Economic Memorandum: Guinea-Bissau, Terra Ranka! A Fresh Start, World Bank Report No.

58296 Vol. I and II, January 12, 2015; and, Guinea-Bissau 2025: Strategic and Operational Plan for 2015-

2020 – Terra Ranka, Republic of Guinea Bissau, March 2015.

19

thoughtfully complemented other donor-financed and IBAP-executed operations

addressing inter-related portions of the overall vision.

Efficacy: Substantial This rating takes into account the substantial achievement under

both major elements of the PDO and all Intermediate outcome elements, the positive

sustainability outlook (noting country risk), as well as BCP-financed, successful piloting

of FBG operations.

Efficiency: Substantial Many benefits resulted from a modest investment (see Section

3.3 and Annex 3 matrix). All planned project activities were financed (and a vital

monitoring activity was added), and the IDA grant was fully-disbursed. The one-year

extension of the closing date was essential to compensate for the Bank’s coup-related

suspension of disbursements and was not related to inefficient project management.

3.5 Overarching Themes, Other Outcomes and Impacts

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

3.5.1 The BCP had no explicit poverty objectives, activities or financing. The BCP’s

complementary alliance with the GEF/BCTF and the CDD project, the latter financing small-

scale socio-economic investments for park and peripheral communities, was part of a broad

vision of the many benefits – including socio-economic - of a well-managed SNAP. Further, as

already noted, while the BCP did not directly finance eco-friendly, alternative livelihood

investments in the PAs, it did finance the training and awareness-building associated with these

investments, as well as the ongoing strengthening of IBAP’s institutional capacity to leverage the

requisite resources. IBAP estimates female beneficiaries at 65 percent of direct beneficiaries.

(b) Institutional Change/Strengthening

3.5.2 IBAP: With BCP support, IBAP demonstrated further institutional growth. IBAP made

significant advances in adopting a programmatic approach via the piloting of integrated, multi-

year planning tools to improve capacity to manage and monitor the SNAP in a coordinated

fashion across diverse financing sources and projects. Further, even though individual donors

generally require that their reporting requirements be met, the move towards an integrated

information management system was designed to improve transparency in the use of funds and to

empower IBAP to manage various funding sources more proactively. Further integration of

project activities into a codified system continued to progress and was finalized in 2014, to

improve the overall efficiency of how SNAP management is implemented and monitored. Its

outreach to PA communities and participatory methods for garnering their engagement in park

management and especially the surveillance effort was increasingly confident and effective, and

the institution acquired a global profile in the conservation sector. It was especially effective in

leveraging financial support from multiple donors. At closing for example, IBAP was managing

eight operations and processing another four (see Annex 2, Table 5). Astute resource leveraging

has become a hallmark of IBAP’s survival strategy, not only plugging financing gaps but helping

to crowd in donors. IBAP, as a maturing, experienced agency benefiting from BCP training and

mentoring, successfully advocated for and managed the incorporation of two new PAs and three

associated biological/wildlife corridors within the SNAP. These parks/corridors were not

financed directly by the BCP but were an indirect benefit of the project through IBAP’s

burgeoning institutional capacity and donors’ growing sense that the SNAP is well-managed.

3.5.3 BioGuinea Foundation (FBG): BCP support enabled the FBG to successfully pilot its

operations, a project objective. Further, human resource and institutional capacity-building of the

FBG Team, its participation in international fora for knowledge exchange and learning, as well as

20

collaboration with and mentoring from other Conservation Trust Funds (CTF) in Africa and

Brazil helped build a transparent, modern institution operating in line with international best

practice and in compliance with UK law. This helped the FBG establish its visibility and

credibility, with multiplier effects vis-à-vis the establishment of collaborative relationships and

support for its endowment which currently stands at EUR 4.6 million (within the parameters

mentioned at appraisal), with strong potential for additional financing from carbon credit sales.

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

3.5.4 Several unexpected and/or noteworthy developments include:

More regular and frequent park surveillance missions in collaboration with local

communities, and a new dynamism resulting from local ownership of the instruments for

control and management.

Donor/institutional synergies going beyond regular surveillance to other key activities,

e.g., the dismantling by IBAP of unauthorized/illegal settlements within the southern

borders of the Cantanhez and Cufada Parks.

IBAP’s participatory preparation with fishermen in the marine zone, of clear and simple

rules for responsible fishing in Orango and Cacheu Parks.

An easily-managed database, and the valuation and interpretation of field data via GIS

resulted in some reduction of illegal fishing and hunting. Evidence suggests that the

clandestine cutting of large trees was also reduced on the periphery of several PAs.

IBAP assumed managerial responsibility for over 319,400 ha of new PAs and fauna

corridors, expanding the SNAP from 15 percent to 26 percent of the national territory,

and ensuring that it now represents all marine and terrestrial zones. The Bank Team’s adaptation to evolving knowledge and circumstances and going

beyond the original project activities/objectives in promoting the formulation and design

– with IBAP – of the SNAP-wide Monitoring System.

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

3.6.1 Within a very small financing envelope, surveys and workshops were not feasible. That

said, the annual METT score card exercise can be considered a proxy for “beneficiary survey,”

asking respondents for their views on a range of indicators of good management performance in

the PAs. Annual and special meetings of donors and other international and national partners

(NGOs, private sector, other government departments) solicited views on SNAP management, the

way forward and their “fit” within the main themes/priorities. Donor/partner recommendations

were influential in guiding IBAP’s approach and evolution. While PA communities were not

formally surveyed, the meetings of the representative Park Management Councils,

communications and dissemination activities in the PAs and the cultural tradition of PA

communities freely voicing their opinions, influenced the cycle of feedback and improvement.

4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome Rating: Significant

4.1 The primary justification for rating risk to development outcome as Significant remains

the likelihood of further political unrest and the possibility that this could, over time, erode

IBAP/SNAP, i.e. country risk. This is beyond the control of IBAP, donors or projects. The Bank

has been the lead donor and instigator of annual donor/partner management meetings, creating

synergies. The Bank has facilitated – in cooperation with and through IBAP – specific lines of

21

action designed to mainstream and sustain IBAP and SNAP, with the funding being provided by

other sources, i.e., a continuous process of leveraging financing for a resource-poor state with a

well-defined, high-value endeavor. Such financing is undeniably “drip feeding” but this is the

reality and the Bank has consistently sought to ensure that the donor community understands

where its contributions fit rationally in the overall picture, to avoid duplication and overlap.

Another important sustainability issue is the engagement of a new generation in the SNAP vision

– IBAP has recently taken on younger staff, and maintains a proactive communications outreach

agenda in the PAs which inter alia, targets younger community members. Overall, the

sustainability outlook is quite positive due to the following:

The FBG endowment has secured firm pledges for around EUR4.6 million and, US$3.04

million/year can potentially be obtained from the sale of carbon credits.28

Part of the

former is government’s EUR 1 million, indicating its ownership of the SNAP endeavor,

which has not wavered despite repeated turmoil/turnover. IBAP has consistently demonstrated its ability to navigate this political and operational

environment and is now entering its 12th year. There is strong Bank and donor/partner

awareness of the risks to the SNAP; all parties seek to mitigate those risks through

collaboration, explaining the unusual resilience of the BCP under adverse conditions.

Government followed through on its commitment to keep a portion of IBAP’s core staff

salaries afloat during the transition to FBG financing, transferring some CFA 60.0 million

to IBAP (about US$100,000 equivalent) to help carry it through into 2016.

Medium-term sustainability of IBAP and the SNAP is there. Many donors have come to

the table and there is broad agreement on the importance of the end-goal. Donors are

aware that government has stepped up to assist, signaling its commitment.

Government’s pending parliamentary approval of the expanded SNAP and IBAP’s

demonstrated commitment to managing the new parks/corridors, boosts confidence that

the SNAP is sustainable. Stakeholders are well aware that expansion implies further,

aggressive fund-raising for FBG’s endowment and sustained Bank/donor support.

Longer-term sustainability of IBAP, the FBG and the SNAP is likely, although

vulnerable to donor financing choices and availability, and implying continuing time and

effort to look for funding opportunities.

Biodiversity and natural resource conservation have been successfully inserted and

mainstreamed in national and sector strategies, and feature prominently in new Bank

strategies underpinning its lending priorities for Guinea-Bissau and the region.

Sustainability also translates into replicability, i.e., testing and consolidating the

successful IBAP/SNAP model and its multi-source, programmatic methodology in other

parts of Africa and beyond.

5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance

5.1 Bank Performance

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

28 A portion of the USD 3.04 million is intended for the FBG endowment (see 3.2.5). Avoided emission

flows in the first year are actually low, increasing over time. Carbon prices may vary widely, as could

IBAP’s ability to manage PA forests, so current numbers are hypothetical and subject to variation. Box 1,

Annex 3.

22

5.1.1 The BCP was prepared rapidly and efficiently by an experienced Bank team to take

advantage of financing unexpectedly available for maintaining the momentum of and

consolidating an important endeavor in a small, poor country. It provided essential

bridge/transitional financing for IBAP’s core operations without which management of the SNAP

could have deteriorated rapidly. Its similarity to the BCTF/GEF was deliberate, designed to apply

additional funding to sets of activities carefully calculated to keep building out each essential part

of the long-term vision for a self-sustaining SNAP. Care was taken to ensure that for essential

activities under Component 1, GEF resources were exhausted before the IDA funds kicked in.

Project design heeded the lessons of the CBMP, was well-aligned to the Bank’s assistance

strategy and country needs, and financed international expertise to ensure that the technical

strategy was correct, which continued throughout the implementation phase. Quality at entry was

enhanced by IBAP’s burgeoning knowledge of Bank requirements, its successful execution of the

CBMP, and its stability as an autonomous public agency, which facilitated the Bank’s preparation

efforts. Project objectives and the Results Framework were well-designed and straightforward

with minor exceptions, and aligned to the modest financing available.

(b) Quality of Supervision Rating: Satisfactory

5.1.2 Bank supervision of the BCP was effective, regular and enhanced by an established

practice of constant online and skype communication with IBAP and project partners. This stood

the project (and IBAP) in good stead generally but especially during the many political upheavals

in the project period. Fiduciary supervision, including safeguards, was regular, comprehensive

and well-reported, with a more intensive focus post-coup. There was a strong effort after

effectiveness to establish systematic data collection and storage and, separate from regular project

monitoring activities, to create an integrated, harmonized database to measure the impact of

modern park management techniques on biodiversity, the ecology and the socio-economic status

of park residents. This was an example of strong project management by the Bank Team,

adapting to evolving knowledge and circumstances and going beyond the original project concept.

The Bank’s decision to suspend disbursements following the coup was correct in the

circumstances, but not without repercussions on timely project execution. The Bank supervision

team worked hard to maintain momentum during this period, and to help the project recover once

the suspension was lifted, which entailed a one-year extension of the closing date. The stability

and experience of the Bank Team undoubtedly contributed to the project’s success and to the

evolution and longer-term sustainability of the IBAP/SNAP vision.

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

5.1.2 The rating of Satisfactory is justified by the consistently strong performance of the Bank

team during preparation and supervision, to exploit a programmatic, incremental approach -

attuned to the realities of the country and the modest financing available - to build sustainable,

modern and transparent institutions capable of managing a uniquely valuable natural resource.

5.2 Borrower Performance

(a) Government Performance Rating: Satisfactory

5.2.1 As discussed earlier, the BCP encountered a high degree of political instability during the

course of its implementation with a political/military coup in 2012 and subsequent repeated

turnovers of the national government even after free and fair elections in 2014. Even so,

23

successive, newly-installed administrations supported IBAP, its associated public institution

CAIA, and the SNAP. Government: (i) supported IBAP’s autonomy which in turn catalyzed an

enabling operational environment; (ii) financed a portion of IBAP’s salaries/operational costs

when the BCP essentially ran out of money/was fully-committed in August 2015, the first time

IBAP had received any government funds; (iii) contributed - through a positive dialogue with the

Ministry of Environment and Fisheries - EUR 1.0 million to the FBG endowment from the EU

Fisheries Accord, stimulating hesitant donors to step forward and participate; (iv) showed strong

commitment to the SNAP technically, politically and conceptually, evidenced in biodiversity’s

prominent cross-cutting role in the National Development Strategy (Terra Ranka); (v) convened

an International Donors’ Conference in 2015 to inter alia, galvanize support for the SNAP/FBG;

(vi) acknowledged IBAP’s sector leadership, global profile and demonstrated ability to garner

international support not only for the SNAP but for Guinea-Bissau; and, (vii) supported the

creation of new PAs and biological corridors totaling well over 300,000 ha.

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

5.2.2 IBAP: This institution now has an impressive record of project management in a

complex sector and against high odds. Its performance under the BCP is summarized as follows:

(i) fully-executed all planned project activities and fully-disbursed the credit with a one-year

extension needed to compensate for the Bank’s suspension of disbursements; (ii) exemplary

fiduciary performance throughout the project engagement period drawing special commendation

from the Bank for its FM in the risky post-coup period; (iii) impressive ability to leverage donor

financing for SNAP needs, including immense effort to secure pledges for the FBG; (iv) absolute

commitment to the SNAP vision including the additional parks which represented a high,

unforeseen cost burden. IBAP brought them under the SNAP umbrella to ensure standardized

approaches to their future conservation/protection on the understanding that the SNAP now

represents all ecological areas of Guinea-Bissau, including terrestrial; (iv) skillful use of

communications tools to garner stakeholder support in the parks, nationally and in global forums

among donors, sector partners and NGOs, and to establish and maintain an inclusive, productive

dialogue; and, (v) stable, productive and responsive working relationship with the Bank.

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

5.2.3 The justification for the Satisfactory rating lies in IBAP’s consistently good performance

and sustained commitment – including exemplary financial management – under pressure. This

was complemented by positive actions by government to support IBAP and the SNAP – again,

despite extreme instability – and clear evidence of policy buy-in to the national importance of the

country’s unique natural endowment.

6. Lessons Learned

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

Establishing a conservation foundation is a participatory process the pace of which is

beyond a project’s control. It is overly ambitious to set targets that assume certain

donors/projects will come to the table on time and experience showed that the project was, in any

case, just one part of a longer-term effort. Fund raising takes time and is unpredictable, involving

many steps, decisions and interests. Events can intervene especially in unstable environments.

24

The institutional and administrative structure can be established but securing and formalizing the

funding might take added years. It is recommended that attention be paid to interim financing

needs based on a conservative assessment of how long specific fund-raising targets might take to

materialize.

Related to the above, there is a transitional, “dormant” period when a foundation is

structurally, legally and administratively established but its endowment is insufficient to

support financial outflows. Again, given the realistic time-line for a fully-endowed foundation,

this is more likely to happen under negative conditions when donor pushback can be expected

and is complicated by over-optimistic expectations of fund-raising velocity at appraisal, political

factors and the global economy. There is a vulnerable transition period of securing capital for the

endowment, getting the foundation up/running while also funding ongoing management of the

PA system. Donor/partner collaboration in such environments rests on the political context in-

country, not just the technical merits, the former beyond a project’s control. The flow of funds

will always require that donor pledges are honored and in the account, and have reached a

threshold sufficient to generate significant revenues. Even then, they need to be wisely invested

and start generating returns, which may be modest initially and require that transitional donor

financing be sustained.

IBAP’s status as a protected areas management agency – an administratively and

financially autonomous public institution under the jurisdiction of the State Secretariat of

Environment - has sustained it through repeated unrest and government turnover. This

institutional design has been critical to IBAP’s success and credibility. All IBAP staff including

its Director are competitively-recruited and well-qualified for their roles, and not affected by

government turnover. This contrasts with the instability of the more typical project

implementation unit embedded in a responsible agency, with its top echelon politically-appointed.

Acknowledging that not all projects can or should establish a new public agency, it is

recommended that similar projects seek at minimum, to embed the coordination body within a

stable sector agency and include a strategy for institutionalizing its functions and staffing, in situ.

Related to the above, the success of the BCP – in a fragile, politically unstable state – was

not an aberration. The factors which insulated IBAP and the SNAP included: stable Bank

support since the beginning; a sense of solidarity and commitment to the endeavor; IBAP’s

institutional autonomy, and established framework of donors/partners who have stayed involved;

prudent, conservative fiduciary performance despite pervasive governance issues; stable,

communicative relationships with the right entities/people able to get things done, including in

government; and, open, transparent and organized opportunities for planning and trouble-shooting

- stakeholders understood and agreed on their roles. It is recommended that this model be

sustained in Guinea-Bissau, and extended to other African FCV (fragility, conflict and violence)

countries with globally-important biodiversity and potential to supply environmental services.

Stability of the Bank and Client core teams and the depth/mutual trust of their engagement

have been highly advantageous. Such stability can have major advantages over time especially

for technically challenging projects in difficult country conditions. The Bank and Client teams

remain largely in place with a strong commitment to the over-arching vision, an excellent

working relationship based on trust, and the benefit of institutional memory. It is recommended

that this stability be preserved to the extent possible through continued Bank financial support

until IBAP and the FBG are clearly able to walk on their own.

Multi-donor support and an integrated, programmatic approach over a significant time

period are essential to realize/finance “big picture” objectives in fragile countries. Country

25

conditions suggest that donor contributions to this overall effort are likely to remain small but

they can be crucial for securing sustainability. Long-term donor commitment is needed to achieve

the end-goal. While there are disproportionate costs to the Bank (relative to the small size of the

project), the development impact of such interventions can be large. Economies of scale may not

be favorable but on a country basis, the impact justifies the cost to the Bank. It is recommended

that this approach be continued to consolidate the major gains already made and that the end-goal

be carefully defined to support strategy formulation and planning in the interim.

Intense and sustained supervision is appropriate for high-risk environments but does not

need to be costly or always direct, face-to-face encounters with country counterparts and

stakeholders. Regular online/skype contact provides many opportunities for timely

troubleshooting and reassures the Borrower Team that the Bank Team is committed to the joint

resolution of ongoing issues despite the situation on the ground. It is recommended that even for

projects not under pressure from political/civil disturbance, a regular agenda of online/related

consultation can effectively complement the Bank’s standard six-monthly physical supervision

and lead to more timely joint definition and resolution of problems/issues.

METT scorecard results are an important proxy for impact but complementary monitoring

to verify actual impact is essential. Appropriate expertise was included in early supervision

missions to propose an integrated and harmonized SNAP Monitoring System. Designing and

implementing such systems takes time and resources, as shown under the BCP. It is

recommended that projects planning to use the METT, also plan for and ensure the financing of

the more comprehensive system, which is separate from and complementary to standard project

monitoring activities, having a longer-term perspective, wider goals, a science-based approach

and cross-border linkages/implications.

The project demonstrated how to ensure sustainable financing for the conservation of

globally-important biodiversity in a situation of fiscal constraints. Guinea-Bissau is an

emblematic example of uniting donor collaboration around a longer-term vision with the Bank as

catalyst, providing relatively small financing with technical assistance to leverage the

commitment and resources of diverse entities to achieve a weightier result. It is recommended

that the Guinea-Bissau case be used to promote discussion in the Bank on how to ensure

minimum financing for protected areas management in the many African countries where this

continues to be a struggle despite the significant environmental services such areas provide. It is

also recommended, as a product of the ICR management and peer review process, that linking

biodiversity conservation to other agendas receiving more attention, (e.g., climate change and

land restoration), could attract more financing to the former.

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

7.1 The Client’s letter dated November 23, 2016 commenting on the Bank’s draft ICR was

received and inserted in Annex 7. The Client concurred with the ICR’s major findings and ratings.

(b) Co-financiers N/A (c) Other partners and stakeholders N/A

26

Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing

(a) Project Cost by Component (in USD Million equivalent)

Components Appraisal Estimate

(USD millions)

Actual

(USD millions)

Percentage of

Appraisal

1. Consolidation and strengthened

capacity for management of

coastal and marine protected areas

and biodiversity

1.27 1.27 100.00

2. Pilot operation of the

BioGuinea Foundation 0.39 0.39 100.00

3. Project management, and

monitoring and evaluation 0.29 0.29 100.00

Total Baseline Cost 1.95 1.95 100.00

Physical Contingencies

0.00

0.00

0.00

Price Contingencies

0.00

0.00

0.00

Total Project Costs 1.95 1.95 100.00

Front-end fee PPF 0.00 0.00 .00

Front-end fee IBRD 0.00 0.00 .00

Total Financing Required 1.95 1.95 100.00

(b) Financing

Source of Funds Type of Co-

financing

Appraisal

Estimate

(USD

millions)

Actual/Latest

Estimate

(USD

millions)

Percentage of

Appraisal

Client N/A 0.00 0.00 0.00

International Development

Association (IDA) Grant 1.95 1.95 100.00

27

Annex 2. Outputs by Component 2.1 The following discussion under each Component is intended to complement the output

matrix which shows achievements under all activities slated in the PAD for financing by the BCP.

Component 1: Consolidation and strengthening of capacity for management of coastal and

marine protected areas and biodiversity (US$1.27 m)

2.2 This component, in coordination with donor partners, sought to strengthen the

participatory management and conservation of the existing network of five parks (Protected

Areas) comprising the SNAP during its transition to more permanent, sustainable financing

sources. It would finance the implementation of selected elements of existing Park Management

Plans, as needed:29

Expenditures for Component 1 would be financed by IDA resources only after

the GEF/BCTF resources (US$613,000) for very similar activities were fully-disbursed.

2.3 The METT methodology is a rapid assessment based on a scorecard questionnaire. The

scorecard includes all six elements of management identified in the IUCN-WCPA Framework

(context, planning, inputs, process, outputs and outcomes) with emphasis on the first four items.

It is basic, simple to use and provides a mechanism for monitoring progress towards more

effective management over time. It is used to enable park managers and donors to identify needs,

constraints and priority actions to improve the effectiveness of Protected Area management.

Tracking Tool Indicators/Variables are extensive and have undergone changes over time. The

main assessment form has 30 questions, each with a 4-point scale (0, 1, 2 and 3). This scale

forces respondents to choose whether the situation is acceptable or not. Generally, 0 is equivalent

to no/negligible progress; 1 is some progress; 2 is quite good but with room for improvement; and,

3 is approaching the optimum situation. Four alternative answers are provided for each question

to help assessors judge the level of score given. In addition, three groups of supplementary

questions expand on key themes in the previous questions and provide additional information.

Questions not relevant to the Protected Area are omitted and the scores are adjusted. Scores are

then totaled and the percentage of the possible score is calculated. The Tool’s sponsors are aware

that the “scoring” process is open to distortion, e.g., the assumption that all questions cover issues

of equal weight. Scores provide a better assessment of effectiveness if calculated as a percentage

for each of the six elements of the IUCN-WCPA Framework.

Table 1: Park Management Effectiveness - METT Scores by Protected Area, 2011-201630

Protected

Area31

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Score % Score % Score % Score % Score %

PNMJVP 106 63.3 107 66.2 111 76.9 114 77.7 116 79.8

PNO 113 56.1 115 61.8 121 61.8 119 69.8 119 73.4

PNTC 105 56.3 109 48.9 122 59.4 124 64.6 129 69.8

PNLC 74 64.7 75 65.5 77 71.9 81 72.7 83 74.8

PNC 56 n.a. 56 58.3 59 61.5 54 56.3 60 62.5

29 Based on priorities identified during IBAP’s annual work program and budget exercise.

30 Does not include the newest parks/corridors created during BCP implementation as their formal

management was still being established. 31

Respectively: Parque Nacional Marinho João Vieira e Poilão (PNMJVP); Parque Nacional de Orango

(PNO); Parque Natural dos Tarrafes do Rio Cacheu (PNTC); Parque Natural das Lagoas de Cufada PNLC);

and, Parque Nacional de Cantanhez (PNC).

28

2.3 Creation of new parks: Two new terrestrial parks and three biological corridors were

added to the SNAP and are under IBAP management: the national parks of Dulombi and Boé as

well as the three biological corridors of Tchetche, Cuntabane-Quebo and Salifo, established with

GEF/UNDP financing of EUR 1.22 million under the Consolidation of Land-based Protected

Areas Project (2011-2016). While the initial decision to create these new parks was largely

donor-driven with little/no consultation with IBAP, upon discovery IBAP insisted that they

become part of the SNAP even though this presented a major challenge. Total national territory

under the SNAP increased by over 319,000 ha from 15% to 26%. On the positive side, by

creating these terrestrial parks, the SNAP now represents all major national eco-systems. Within

the big picture, this representative SNAP required BCP support to help IBAP think through the

implications of their creation - planning in human and physical terms for the future - although no

BCP financing went directly into establishing the new PAs. Multi-donor budgets and IBAP’s

financial strategy now include these PAs. However, on the negative side, the estimated cost of

managing this larger area – the technical, human resource and financial capacity needs - over the

next 20 years has increased from an estimated EUR 20.0 million to EUR 37.0 million,

underscoring the urgency of the fund-raising effort for the FBG endowment and the challenge

faced by IBAP to establish quality management of these new areas. Expectations have also been

created among the populations living in the new areas.

Table 2: Protected Areas under IBAP Management by end-Project Type of

Area

Protected

Name International

Designation

Area

(ha)

Area

(km2)

% of

Territory

Institution

Responsible

Legal

Statute

National

Park

Parque

Nacional do

Grupo de Ilhas

de Orango

Biosphere

Reserve

158,205 1,582.05 4.4% IBAP Decreto-

Lei

#11/2000

National

Park

Parque Natural

dos Mangais do

Rio Cacheu

Biosphere

Reserve

80,000 800.00 2.2% IBAP Decreto-

Lei #1000

National

Park

Parque Natural

das Lagoas de

Cufada

Local Ramsar 89,000 890.00 2.5% IBAP Decreto-

Lei

#13/2000

National

Park

Parque

Nacional

Marinho João

Vieira e Poilão

Biosphere

Reserve

49,500 450.00 1.4% IBAP Decreto-

Lei #6-

A/2000

Marine

Protected

Area

Area Protegida

Marinha

Comunitaria

das Ilhas de

Urok32

Biosphere

Reserve

54,500 545.00 1.5% IBAP Decreto-

Lei

#8/2005

National

Park

Florestas de

Cantanhez

Biosphere

Reserve

105,767 1,057.67 2.9% IBAP Decreto-

Lei

#8/2011

32 The Project directly-created Cantanhez National Park in parallel with NGO support for the country’s first Marine

Community Protected Area in the UROK Islands, which came to be included in the SNAP. The Urok PA was not financed by the BCP but was managed by IBAP, using the Project methodology, within the SNAP.

29

Type of

Area

Protected

Name International

Designation

Area

(ha)

Area

(km2)

% of

Territory

Institution

Responsible

Legal

Statute

Total: 536,972 5,369.72 14.9%

Additional Protected Areas (Terrestrial) established by IBAP from 2011-2016

National

Park

Dulombi Being defined 98,951 IBAP To be

published

National

Park

Boé Being defined 95,280 IBAP To be

published

Biological

Corridors

Tchetche,

Cuntabane-

Quebo and

Salifo

Being defined 33,604

55,003

36,604

IBAP To be

published

Total: 319,442 3,194.42 10.0%

Source: IBAP/METT, 2016

2.4 Species Monitoring: It became evident that to build IBAP’s institutional capacity,

exploit its collaborative and catalytic potential, and have a longer-term impact, the BCP needed to

think beyond the basic species action plans and monitoring databases/activities, to SNAP-wide,

comprehensive species conservation and monitoring, the results of which would not likely be

evident during the course of one project. Baselines were needed to enable basic, adaptive

management and the project needed to think about how to track the health of and achieve the

objectives – biological and socio-economic – for each PA over time, develop adaptive

management tools and adjust management strategies and approaches accordingly. It was agreed

with IBAP to establish a SNAP-wide Monitoring System and strategy with core indicators

(biological and socio-economic) by PA. Terms of Reference and the overall approach were

developed, working with specialist TA. This was an ambitious goal for which the BCP lacked

adequate resources, so that the original more limited monitoring plan/routine moved ahead in

parallel with the more encompassing, global approach with a different “product” being developed

in two stages. The BCP was the catalyst but with inadequate funds, IBAP had to think beyond

the boundaries of the project - other donors were needed. Stage I (BCP-financed) contracted

forestry, species and social specialists to identify, through participatory diagnoses, core/key

indicators for each PA, and a protocol for their measurement which needed to be harmonized with

other regional species databases. Stage II involves training for data collection, GIS

implementation and equipment, and is still ongoing, financed by other donors. See Table 6.33

33 Some 20 Ecological Indicators and 9 Social Indicators designed under the 1

st Stage, BCP-financed

SNAP Monitoring System include (depending on PA): Abundance and capture of marine turtles on PNO

beaches; Fishing: apprehension by surveillance missions and encounters with resident fishermen; Counting

of hippopotamus in Angor (PNO) lakes and on beaches; Number of resident fishermen, jetties and fishing,

and economic situation; Aquatic birds: Monitoring of Acapa/Imbone (PNO), Imbone lakes and rivers

(during surveillance missions); Counting of Timneh African Grey Parrots at specific points; Marine turtles:

counting in João Vieira e Poilão, Meio and Cavalos; Regular re-survey of people present in PNMJVP

islands and their activities; On-ground measurement and mapping via GPS in PNMJVP; Fishing:

monitoring via “fishing clubs” in Bubaque (size, measurement, photography); Participatory counting of

species (combe, lingron, gandi and oysters); Demographic dynamics in all Parks; Burning-off: number of

fires and area involved; Social facilities in all PA settlements; and, Classification of soil cover. Detailed

matrix available in WB Docs.

30

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

Table 3: BCP-financed Routine Species Monitoring by IBAP PA Indicator Objective Frequency Annual

Estimate

Comment

Marine Turtle: 5 most abundant species of Chelonia mydas

PNMJVP Abundance of

marine turtle

(Chelonia

Mydas).

Number of

sightings

To obtain

data on

long-term

tendency of

turtles to

come to the

4 islands of

PNMJVP to

lay eggs/nest

Campaign

of daily

monitoring

over 5

months

Abundance

.

Index of

night

observation

s: 2000

(7400),

2007

(29,000),

2011-2014

(30,000)

Poilao Island is the 3rd

most

important site for this species

in the Atlantic Region; most

important in Africa; and

among the 12 largest nesting

sites globally.

PNO Abundance of

marine turtle

To obtain

data on

long-term

tendency of

turtles to

come to

PNO to lay

eggs/nest

8 beaches

monitored

once/week

Abundance

. Index of

night

observation

s:

2012/2013:

630

2013/2014:

1279

2014/2015:

1580

Populations of 4 species of

marine turtle lay their eggs in

PNO. This is also the only

known area in Guinea-Bissau

of regular egg-laying/nesting

of Lepidochelys olivacea.

Hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibius)

PNO Total number

of

hippopotamus

(adults and

young)

To estimate

the number

of

hippopotam

us that live

in Orango

National

Park

7 beaches,

every 2

years

Minimum

size of

population:

2009 - 109;

2014-114

(average

observation

s per

month)

Monitoring of the

hippopotamus population

seeks to detect (i) changes in

the total number of

individuals; (ii) changes in

the proportion of

males/females; and (iii)

percentage of young

individuals. Monitoring of

this species in Orango Park

is a pre-requisite for

understanding population

dynamics necessary for their

long-term preservation.

Timneh African Grey Parrot (Psittacus erithacus)

PNMJVP Total number

of individuals

and number

of young

To obtain an

index of the

evolution of

parrot

numbers in

the islands

of João

Vieira e

Poilão Park

2 islands

(Meio and

Joao

Vieira),

November-

May on

annual

basis

Population

(Meio-Joao

Vieira):

300

The Timneh Grey Parrot is

one of the few species of

birds nesting in Guinea-

Bissau actually on the IUCN

Red List, where it is

classified under the statute of

Globally Vulnerable.

31

PA Indicator Objective Frequency Annual

Estimate

Comment

Aquatic Birds (Limicola, Group of Species)

PNMJVP

PNO

AMPC

PNLC

PNTC

PNC

Total number

of individual

birds of a

certain

species of

Limicolas and

Aquatic Birds

in PNMJVP

To obtain

indices of

the

evolution of

aquatic bird

numbers and

specific

diversity

Once

annually

(January)

Various

species

counted:

2012:

35,730

individuals

(27

families, 8

species);

2013:

24,527

individuals

(27

families, 8

species);

2014:

19,327

individuals

(30

families, 8

species).

The methodology used today

is polygon-based, where

different areas are estimated

but not counted/included.

These data from just the

PNMJVP islands are under

review according to zone.

The data have been sent to

Birdlife International/

Wetlands for review,

approval of the estimate, and

integration in a global

database. The numbers for

2014 represent only

polygons in PNMJVP/PNO,

and do not include

Cantanhez/Cufada/Cacheu

PAs. Monitoring is

continuing based on the

strategy prepared and agreed.

IBAP has determined that

the birds utilize other

habitats outside the PAs, but

according to expert opinion,

this is a normal dynamic.

Source: IBAP, 2016

2.6 Small-scale community investments: An increasingly stronger IBAP, with BCP

support, leveraged financing from diverse partners/donors for micro-projects in food security,

biodiversity conservation and environment, education and other types (see Table 6), to improve

quality of life in the PAs and peripheral areas. While the BCP did not include direct financing for

small-scale socio-economic and conservation-friendly investments in the parks – and the ICR is

not claiming direct attribution – it did finance an extensive, SNAP-related community outreach

campaign, and training supporting those specific investments, as an essential component of good

SNAP management. It was tacitly-assumed by IBAP and the Bank BCP team that IBAP would

continue these types of investments (mainstreamed under the CBMP) during BCP

implementation by leveraging the needed financing. Such activities were/are considered an

essential component of the parks as “development poles”, enabling people to continue to live and

sustain a livelihood - the socio-economic objectives of the SNAP strategy - in a manner that

protects and conserves park biodiversity. Investment resources were leveraged from the following

projects/donors: (i) Sustainable Management of Forest Resources Project in the Cacheu Park

(EU); Shared Wealth Project (MAVA/IUCN); Rias do Sul Project (UEMOA/IUCN) and national

NGOs (Tiniguena, Palmeirinha). These investments are examples of a larger portfolio of micro-

investments which benefited over 22,000 people living inside and on the periphery of the PAs.

See Table 7 for examples of these investments.

32

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

2.7 While the FBG had already been legally established in the United Kingdom under the

Bank-supported Coastal and Biodiversity Management Project, it had no operational framework,

premises, established policies or staff, all of which were put in place under the BCP. The FBG

became operational in accordance with the minimum requirements for receiving GEF funds into

the conservation endowment. These requirements are defined in the request for a waiver of the

application of disbursement and trust fund policies to GEF-supported conservation funds

approved by the Bank’s Managing Director in March 2002. These conditions are: (i) the Bank

should have a right to request audits of the conservation fund throughout the duration of the

Bank’s supervision of the GEF-financed project, in accordance with standard Bank practice; (ii)

the conservation fund should be subject to the Bank’s procurement and financial management

guidelines throughout the duration of the Bank’s supervision of the GEF-financed project; (iii)

the selection of the Executive Director and/or the composition of the Board of Directors of the

fund (or comparable organ(s)/officer(s) for the administration of the fund) throughout the

duration should be satisfactory to the Bank; (iv) the Bank should be consulted before any changes

regarding the selection of the Executive Director and/or the composition of the Board of Directors

of the fund (or comparable organ(s)/officer(s) for the administration of the fund) throughout the

duration of the Bank’s supervision of the GEF-financed project, and, in any event, for a period of

not less than three years after the latest capitalization of the fund with GEF proceeds, with the

understanding that the Bank should have a right to exercise remedies (or not declare the relevant

GEF Grant Agreement effective) if such changes negatively impact project execution in the

reasonable opinion of the Bank; and (v) the Board of Directors and/or Executive Director of the

fund (or comparable organ(s)/officer(s) for the administration of the fund) should exercise control

over the use of the fund.34

2.8 FBG Structure and Responsibilities: The FBG was piloted in the expectation that it

would, in the medium-term, generate sufficient revenues to sustainably finance the recurrent

management costs of at least two marine national parks in the Bijagos Archipelago, or their

equivalent.35

The following organigram shows the internal structure/organization of the FBG as

at the time of ICR preparation; this may change depending on circumstances and future needs.

The status of each unit of the FBG is then explained in the table following the organigram below.

34 The terms Board of Director and Executive Director in the GEF requirements are synonymous with

Board of Trustees and Executive Secretary. 35

It should be noted that the concept of the FBG is one of flexibility. The idea is that the funding should

go where it is needed, not be locked into a pre-existing commitment. If the two PAs in the Bijagos

Archipelago have sufficient funding, then the FBG funds could theoretically be directed to another PA

which has a financing gap.

33

Organigram: BioGuinea Foundation

Table 4: Structure and Functions of the BioGuinea Foundation (October, 2016)

Key Units and

Functions

Status Responsibilities

General Assembly of

Members (GA)

In place:

1 founding member is in

place and the decision was

made to expand to a

minimum 2 members.

This is the FBG’s highest office. This

body is a UK governance requirement. Its

members have limited but potent powers

including the ability to dismiss Trustees or

to close down the FBG. It is designed to

provide a counterbalance and check on the

institution. It guarantees the integrity of the

FBG.

Board of Trustees In place:

4 Members

This is the FBG’s apex executive

governance body, responsible for

approving all work plans and budgets. It

ensures that the FBG is administered

according to its statutes, and defines the

FBG’s strategies and policies and their

execution/compliance. It also protects the

FBG against risks which could constrain

execution of its mission and the FBG’s

evolution. It also recruits and supervises

34

Key Units and

Functions

Status Responsibilities

key personnel in the Executive Secretariat.

Executive

Secretariat/Secretary

In place:

The ES drives the FBG functionally and

assures its strategic and day-to-day

operational management; institutional

relations; Board materials; funding levies

(with the Board); human resource

management; marketing and

communications.

Investment

Committee (IC)

In place:

Terms of reference (TOR)

were adopted in July 2016

and IC is in place. This

body supervised the

recruitment of the

Investment Managers.

Its role is to prepare and supervise the

FBG’s investment policy and put into

action the financial resources of the FBG

with Board guidance. This function

includes supervision, and evaluation of the

management of the FBG’s financial

placements by professionals in this field.

Grant Committee To be put in place:

Donors’ Circle In place with TORs adopted:

Actual members: World

Bank (to hold 1st

Presidency); European

Union (Bissau); UNDP

(Bissau); Secretary of State

for Fisheries and Maritime

Resources for Guinea-

Bissau; French World

Environment Fund (FFEM);

Swiss MAVA Foundation.

This unit groups together all donors to the

FBG, permitting them to be updated on the

FBG’s situation, to have exchanges

regarding the vision and strategies with

FBG’s other units and to provide

appropriate counsel in regard to their

experiences and the evolution at their level

and on the international plan.

Consultative

Committee

Informal structure in place: This body is a multi-stakeholder forum

which meets at least once/year – but can be

called on more often if needed - convening

stakeholders from different sectors of

interest to FBG: private sector,

international development agencies and

international and local NGOs. Role is to

keep stakeholders informed and solicit

advice/guidance on specific issues.

Grant Officer (GO) To be recruited.

Part of the Executive

Secretariat. Will be recruited

within the financing of the

GEF V/UNDP and the

French Global Environment

This unit proposes the FBG’s financing

programs and ensures that they are

activated in accordance with the FBG’s

strategic direction/vision.

35

Key Units and

Functions

Status Responsibilities

Fund (FFEM) which is

financing the start of

grant/subsidy activities.

Administrative and

Financial Officers

(AO, FO)

In place

Part of the Executive

Secretariat. Administrative

and Fiduciary Officers/staff

were appointed.

These ensure the management of financial

operations, accounting, administration and

takes into account the development of

internal procedures.

Other functions To be determined based on

needs and resources raised

by the FBG.

Other executive functions might be created

later on (short- and long-term) based on

needs and the FBG’s evolution: e.g.,

monitoring and evaluation; marketing and

communications. Further, consultants

might be contracted as a function of

emerging needs in specific areas. Source: FBG/IBAP, 2016

2.9 Formal FBG Board approval was received for the FBG’s Investment Policy Statement

and recruitment/appointment of an Investment Manager for the FBG’s endowment fund. The

Investment Committee was established to oversee this recruitment process (tender preparation,

short list review and interviews).36

The Foundation Board of Trustees has four members (three

international, one national) none of which represents the Government or is a government official.

The Bank heads a Donor’s Circle which interfaces directly with the Board. Signatories of the

FBG Bank account are Board members and all proceedings are recorded. FBG received its

statute as a UK-registered charity in February 2012 (No. 1146130) and establishing the UK bank

account will occur when the investment advisor agreement is signed. At that point, the account

will receive the funds, invest them and revenues will start to flow.37

There has been experience-

sharing with African Conservation Trust Funds registered in the UK. Meanwhile, the

Government’s contribution is held in the Eco-Bank in Bissau.

2.10 The FBG is entrusted with holding the endowment and will transfer/release funds to

IBAP based on an annual budget proposal. According to the Articles, IBAP is one of many

potential recipients but the SNAP/PAs are identified as the priority for funding. The grant

process has not yet been tested because FBG has not had sufficient funds and currently, is

awaiting the opening of a current account in the UK. Testing may begin soon under follow-on

projects, e.g. the FFEM, which has a specific budget line for this and the GEF V/UNDP if its

disbursement procedures can be revised to permit such transfers through a foundation. IBAP will

be free to continue to leverage other donor and government support. FBG is just one potential

source of financing – it is designed as an instrument to ensure stable, secure flows of financing. It

36 See Bio Guinea Foundation Investment Policy Statement, August 27, 2016; Minutes for approval and

adoption of the Investment Policy Statement; and, Bio Guinea Foundation Investment Manager Selection

and Appointment, August 27, 2016. 37

The accounts needed to service FBG needs are: (i) a Guinea-Bissau-based account for daily

expenditures (established); (ii) a UK charity bank account which could hold cash, make transfers to the

Guinea-Bissau account, receive revenues from the investment account for onward distribution (not yet

established); (iii) the investment account (almost established).

36

does not replace donor projects but complements them to ensure that core activities are financed

so as to reduce the SNAP’s vulnerability to financing gaps.

Component 3: Project Management and Monitoring and Evaluation

2.11 This component was to ensure the effective and efficient implementation of project

activities linked to strengthening the planning and management of IBAP’s protected areas

program, in coordination with other related donor initiatives. Component 3 was of pivotal

importance to the programmatic approach, the place where the Bank could foment “big picture”

thinking, and it financed many intangible activities supporting this. IBAP has to be opportunistic

in terms of where it secures financing but also needs a big vision with clear priorities. The

component financed for example, the annual donor/partner meetings where all could see in a

transparent manner where they fit in this overall vision. It was also a window for the Bank –

working with IBAP – to keep the overall enterprise moving, not just the individual project as

“destination”. It financed essential communications and sensitization activities to promote

commitment to the vision, as well as training and services to support IBAP’s operations and the

consolidation of the FBG. Component 3 enabled the BCP to organize and leverage the financing

needed for many aspects of the core strategy. Part of the programmatic approach is to help IBAP

finance its new, 5-year strategy, avoiding duplication and overlap, and promoting synergies

between donors. The following table shows IBAP’s primary partners and the projects either

under execution during BCP implementation (and since), nearing approval or at the concept

review stage.

Table 5: IBAP’s Main Partners/Donors and Projects

Donor/Financier Projects under Implementation Cost (EUR)

MAVA Foundation Project to finalize the status of the Bijagos

Archipelago as a World Heritage Site (2014-

2015)

10,000

MAVA Foundation Conservation and Research in the PNMJVP

(2013-2016)

497,713

EU/UNDP

WWF/WAMER

Policy and Governance, Wamer Eco-Region (to

2017)

900,000

US Fish and Wildlife

Service

USFWS Marine Turtle Project (2016) 14,000

GEF/UNDP Strengthening the Financial and Operational

Framework of the National PA System in

Guinea-Bissau (2015-2018)

915,700

EU Protected Areas and Climate Change Project

(2016-2020)

4,000,000

FFEM FFEM Support to the Functioning of the PNO

and Urok PAs (2016)

200,000

Total: 6,537,413

Projects pending Approval

Government of

Guinea-Bissau

Budget allocation of the Government of Guinea-

Bissau

100,000

MAVA Foundation Project to Re-launch RBBB in the World

Heritage Site

400,000

Total: 500,000

Projects at Concept Review Stage

IBAP/World Bank Community-Based Avoided Deforestation

Project in Guinea-Bissau

N/A

37

Donor/Financier Projects under Implementation Cost (EUR)

EU Project to Calculate the Macroeconomic Value of

Biodiversity in Guinea-Bissau

245,177

Total: 245,177 (to date)

37

2.13 The following matrix shows project achievements/outputs by Component

Table 6: Outputs by Component at End-Project (May 31, 2016)

Activity by

Component (PAD)

Target Achieved by

End of Project

Description/Observations

Component 1: Consolidation and Strengthening of capacity for management of coastal and marine protected areas and biodiversity This component, in coordination with donor partners, sought to strengthen the participatory management and conservation of the existing

network of Guinea-Bissau’s five national parks and biodiversity during this phase of its transition to more sustainable financing sources.

1. Participatory

surveillance and

monitoring of

compliance with

park regulations by

IBAP staff and

community guards

Supervision

Target of 12

supervision

missions per year

in 5 PAs

(60/year) for 4

years (extended

to 5).

Total by EOP:

300

METT Target:

PNMJVP - 111

Orango – 118

Cacheu – 109

Cufada – 74

Cantanhez – 56

Total: 468

Supervision

2012 - 109

2013 -134

2014 - 164

2015 - 302

Total by EOP:

709

METT Actual:

PNMJVP – 116

Orango – 119

Cacheu – 129

Cufada – 83

Cantanhez – 62

Total: 509

Executed:

-- The Project exceeded its surveillance target (236%) and its METT target

(109%)

-- The BCP carried out its planned management and surveillance activities, the

results of which are evident in IBAP/SNAP METT scores.

-- Park management activities included: regular supervision; surveillance

activities in forests and coastal waters; all planned meetings of the Park

Management Councils; discussion and approval of internal regulations; training

and instruction of IBAP personnel and partner entities; adoption of the species

Action Plans and monitoring of targeted species; implementation of

communication and awareness-building instruments/tools.

2. Development or

updates of park

regulations and

park-specific

Business Plans

1 set of internal

regulations per

park

1 Business Plan

per park

1 set of internal

regulations per

park

1 Business Plan

per park

Executed:

-- 5 parks have an updated set of Internal Regulations subject to continuous

revision/updating by meetings of the Park Management Councils.

-- 5 parks have a Business Plan valid to 2020, to be updated annually by the

Park Directors/IBAP when necessary.

38

Activity by

Component (PAD)

Target Achieved by

End of Project

Description/Observations

-- In addition, IBAP, with the participation of fishing communities in Orango,

Cufada and Cacheu parks, formulated new, simple/clear rules for responsible

fishing.

3. Meetings of Park

Management

Councils

Two meetings

per park/year

were projected at

appraisal: 1

general meeting

and 1 internal (10

meetings per year

or 40 meetings

over the course of

the planned 4-

year Project)

2012 - 8

2013 - 9

2014 - 12

2015 - 15

Total: 44

Executed:

-- Park Management Councils met 44 times compared to the 40 planned (110%

but 88% based on a 5-year project with 50 meetings).

-- Note that in 2012 and 2013 the number of meetings fell below target due to

the delayed contracting of the Cantanhez Park Director (see Main Text). Once

the director was contracted, regular meetings started. Also, the Project closing

date was extended one year (notionally increasing the target to 50 meetings).

4. Dissemination of

information within

and about the parks

(incl. improved

signage and

communications

materials)

Yes Yes Executed:

IBAP contracted a Director of Communications, resulting in the following:

-- New IBAP website (www.ibapgbissau.org), more accessible, user-friendly,

adaptable for new technologies and for creation of sub-sites.

-- Launch/distribution of communications materials (brochures and folders on

IBAP and FBG; notes and calendars in partnership with Bank of West Africa

(BAO) in 2013 and with the Orange Telecommunications Company in 2016).

-- National radio and TV bulletins about IBAP activities and reporting on

national environmental law, law on PAs, as well as the laws and regulations

affecting forests, hunting and fishing.

-- Organized debates in the PNO, PNTC parks concerning biodiversity

conservation.

-- Environmental education for children and adults; and, training for community

radio operators in PNO and PNTC.

-- Conferences and participation in international forums.

-- Regular publication of IBAP’s “Bemba de Vida” bulletin designed to

39

Activity by

Component (PAD)

Target Achieved by

End of Project

Description/Observations

demonstrate to national and international partners and donors the activities

conducted by IBAP in conservation and sustainable management of biological

diversity and natural resources.

-- Article in National Geographic/Portugal on the Bolama Bijagós Archipelago

Biosphere Reserve (author Pedro Narra). See:

http://www.nationalgeographic.pt/ind.../ng-revista/507-bijagos.

-- Signage installed in PNLC to mark the limits of the durable development

zone and zona tampão, and logos designed for new Boé and Dulombi National

Parks.

5. Awareness-

raising and

dialogue with

communities and

other resource

users living in and

around the parks

vis-à-vis park

management

activities and

biodiversity-

friendly alternative

technologies and

alternative

livelihoods

Yes Yes Executed:

-- Awareness-raising and dialogue with park resident communities occurred

regularly in all 5 parks through consultative forums involving all stakeholders

associated directly or indirectly with park services, including resident

communities.

-- Creation of these spaces for consultation served to reinforce and consolidate

the overall management structure, improving its coordination, consistency, and

operations.

-- Among the many subjects addressed, notable aspects include those

guaranteeing the parks’ functionality through the use and sustainable

exploitation of park resources and the form of improvements in living

conditions of the park population resident within and around the parks.

6.

Implementation

of endangered

and threatened

species Action

Plans

3 species

Action Plans

4 species

Action Plans

Executed:

Project outputs exceeded expectations. The BCP financed:

-- Action Plans for marine turtles; mangroves; hippopotamus.

-- National Integrated Action Plans for 4 bird species of national and sub-

regional importance: Balearica pavonina; Limosa limosa; Phoenicopterus

40

Activity by

Component (PAD)

Target Achieved by

End of Project

Description/Observations

minor; and, Platalea alba.

-- Chimpanzee, marine turtle and mangrove Action Plans were finalized and

under implementation since 2013; -

-- Hippopotamus Action Plan was finalized/validated in 2014 and is now under

execution.

-- Monitoring strategy was designed for aquatic/migratory birds as well as a

National Integrated Action Plan for the 4 species named above.

-- Databases now exist for marine turtles and hippopotamus in Excel format,

with appropriate variables for statistical analysis and conversion to electronic

format (planned).

-- Monitoring is continuous and species research is underway but requires a

longer-term approach which is unlikely to show measurable species

conservation trends over the course of a single project.

7. Design and

operation of

consolidated

endangered and

threatened species

databases

Yes Yes Executed:

-- IBAP now has a consolidated database on all emblematic species (through its

SNAP-wide Monitoring System).

-- The integrated, cross-border, harmonized system contemplated is still being

negotiated/established. IBAP has had exchanges of knowledge with sub-

regional institutions to harmonize this database with regional and international

systems. The planned integration elements have a high likelihood of being

established.

-- The strategy changed. Due to the need for a deeper, more global approach

than the more limited plan for species monitoring envisaged at appraisal, and

insufficient BCP funds for such larger effort, an additional, more encompassing,

two-stage plan thinking beyond the project boundaries was negotiated with

IBAP/donors. The BCP/IDA would be the catalyst financing the first stage and

donors would finance the second stage under collaborative arrangements.

IBAP’s institutional growth and maturation were key drivers of this process.

41

Activity by

Component (PAD)

Target Achieved by

End of Project

Description/Observations

-- Under Stage I, the BCP/IDA financed design of TORs and development of

the overall approach working with specialist TA (forestry, species and social).

Participatory diagnoses helped identify key indicators for each PA, and

measurement protocols which could be harmonized with other regional

databases. Baselines were established as the foundation for adaptive

management. Stage I was completed by EOP.

-- Stage II – co-financed by MAVA and the EU – was launched and is ongoing.

It consists of training for data collection, GIS design and implementation, and

purchase of equipment.

8. Targeted

training, capacity-

building for IBAP

staff and other

stakeholders (e.g.,

training in

participatory

species and

protected area

monitoring

techniques, eco-

tourism guiding

and learning

exchanges between

parks for IBAP

staff, Park

Management

Councils and

community

members

PAD target (see

RF) was 25 staff.

(IBAP’s target

was 100 training

events planned/

projected through

EOP for IBAP

staff, institutional

partners and

community co-

managers).

Some 786

technical staff

and project

partners were

trained during

the Project

period.

2012 -108

2013 - 161

2014 - 221

2015 - 296

Total: 786

Executed/exceeded:

-- The PAD cumulative target was 25, all of which were to be achieved in the

first year, but this was likely an error. IBAP’s final report defines an annual

target for people trained of 50/year over 4 years (200).

-- The BCP financed training events in a wide range of skills for 786 people -

exceeding expectations (393%) – including IBAP staff, Park Management

Councils and park communities. Topics included: participatory species and PA

monitoring techniques; PA supervision and enforcement; PA law; forest

protection and practices; strategic planning; eco-tourism. See Main Text,

footnote 19.

42

Activity by

Component (PAD)

Target Achieved by

End of Project

Description/Observations

Technical

assistance for the

development of

annual business

planning tools for

IBAP, and training

in their use

Yes Yes Executed:

-- All updating of the park Business Plans was done by the Park Directors with

collaboration of IBAP Headquarters staff and contracted technical assistance,

and training was provided in the use of the planning tools.

Collaboration and

participation in

regional and

international fori

for biodiversity and

protected area

management issues

Yes Yes Executed:

-- The SNAP/IBAP institutional structure/partners participated regularly

throughout the Project period in regional/international biodiversity and PA

management events, e.g., World Parks Conference in Sydney/Marseille;

IMPAC III Conference (International Congress for Marine Protected Areas,

Marseille, 2013); REDLAC; CAFÉ (Consortium of African Environmental

Funds); Regional Marine Conservation Program meetings; RAMPAO meeting.

Component 2: Pilot the Operation of the BioGuinea Foundation This component sought to support the pilot operation of the FBG, as a mechanism that could, in the medium-term, sustainably finance the

recurrent management costs of at least two marine national parks in the Bijagos Archipelago.

Operational support

to the FBG Board

of Trustees and the

FBG General

Assembly,

including annual

and biannual

meetings, travel,

and communication

Yes Yes Executed:

-- The FBG Executive Secretary, Board of Trustees, General Assembly,

Donors’ Circle and the informal Donors’ Committee received operational

support from IBAP and the Bank Team.

-- All scheduled meetings were conducted, and travel and communications were

facilitated by the BCP.

-- See above table showing structure and functions of the FBG

Support to

Executive

Secretariat to

conduct ongoing

local, national and

Yes Yes Executed:

-- The BCP supported the FBG Executive Secretariat in conducting local,

national and international consultations designed to strengthen the FBG strategy

and priorities, and ensure that the FBG will achieve its objectives.

-- The final draft of the SNAP and FBG financing strategy was prepared by

43

Activity by

Component (PAD)

Target Achieved by

End of Project

Description/Observations

international

stakeholders

consultations to

ensure that the

FBG strategy and

priorities were

well-targeted and

achieving desired

objectives

consultants from the Brazilian Biodiversity Fund (FUNBIO), which was also

involved in a pilot mentoring arrangement for the FBG.

-- Specialists in establishing and managing biodiversity foundations supported

the Executive Secretariat as needed for consultation and strategy-formulation.

Design and

preparation of

FBG-specific

communication

materials to raise

awareness of

FBG’s mission and

give visibility to its

activities

Yes Yes Executed: IBAP contracted a Communications Officer to conduct systematic campaigns

in/outside the PAs:

-- Designed an FBG Webpage;

-- Prepared briefing notes, e.g., on the Blue Carbon pilot work; presentations to

international specialist forums including IMPAC III; materials for Bank

presentations on the FBG to leverage donor support.

-- Materials were prepared for presentation at the annual meetings of FBG

partners (Consultative Group meeting with donors, partners, other government

departments, NGOs).

-- The IBAP/FBG teams prepare updates on FBG and its work program as part

of the stakeholder communications strategy.

Travel and

operational costs

for an experienced

conservation

foundation

specialist to

provide ongoing

training and

mentoring support

Yes Yes Executed: -- FUNBIO specialists from Brazil were funded to develop the FBG financing

strategy;

-- Experienced conservation foundation specialists have accompanied FBG

evolution since the beginning and are now supporting the FBG Executive

Secretariat.

-- FBG staff have also travelled to meet and learn from other conservation trust

funds especially the financial side/FM of other similar funds, e.g., Cote d’Ivoire

and Cameroon.

44

Activity by

Component (PAD)

Target Achieved by

End of Project

Description/Observations

to the FBG -- CAFÉ and REDLAC trips, designed for learning and knowledge exchange

between other Conservation Trust Funds (CTF)

Technical and legal

assistance as

required in support

of FBG’s day to

day operation

Yes Yes Executed:

-- FBG has on retainer the UK’s top charity legal firm (Bates, Wells and

Braithwaite - BWB). The firm provides legal advice regarding UK law/policies,

issues related to conflict of interest, inputs into grant and policy-making and the

FBG Operational Manual, e.g., compliance issues.

-- For strictly local issues, local legal expertise is contracted as needed.

Technical

assistance and

operating costs for

the development of

key FBG

operational policies

as needed

Yes Yes Executed: -- BWB handled (and still handles) specific aspects of the FBG policy work,

e.g., conflict of interest policy.

-- Senegalese consultant developed the Operational Manual.

-- UK specialist developed the Investment Policy Statement.

-- TA was contracted to prepare recruitment/tender documents.

-- FUNBIO developed the FBG financial strategy.

-- All of the above conducted in consultation with the FBG Secretariat, and

other key partners/IBAP in the case of the financial strategy.

Recruitment of a

UK-registered

agent (responsible

for preparing and

filing required

documentation with

the UK Charity

Commission and

Tax Authorities on

an ongoing basis)

Yes Yes Executed:

-- BWB was recruited for this function as Company Secretary (a UK

legal/administrative function)

Technical Yes Yes Executed:

45

Activity by

Component (PAD)

Target Achieved by

End of Project

Description/Observations

assistance and

operating costs for

the development

and implementation

of a monitoring and

evaluation program

for the FBG

-- An M&E program was developed/operational for the then-current level of

activities but the grant-making stage needed a more complex system.

-- While no FBG grants had been made by closing, FM and audit M&E systems

for the FBG are in place.

-- Design of another layer of M&E was underway at closing for the active grant

stage.

Technical

assistance and

operating costs to

support ongoing

FBG fund-raising

efforts

Yes Yes Executed: -- The FBG endowment fund-raising effort, with BCP TA and operational

support, has been successful so far with firm pledges totaling EUR 4.3 m and an

average US$3.20 million/year expected from carbon credit sales (averaged over

the 20 year project period). Annex 3.

-- Fund-raising is done through the Executive Secretariat, and annual partner

meetings which define opportunities moving forward, project proposals (FFEM,

MAVA etc). TA supports all such efforts.

-- FUNBIO (Brazilian Biodiversity Fund) consultants conducted a financial

analysis of IBAP/SNAP to identify the main elements of a financing strategy to

mobilize long-term funding. The strategy was concluded and presented to the

FBG Consultative Committee, Board of Trustees, other partners.

-- BCP also financed TA for the pilot carbon financing effort.

Participation in

international

conservation trust

fund meetings,

including Africa

Conservation Trust

Fund Working

Group, REDLAC

etc.

Yes Yes Executed: (See also Component 1 above: similar activity)

-- The SNAP/IBAP institutional structure/partners participated regularly

throughout the Project period in regional/international biodiversity and PA

management events, e.g., World Parks Conference in Sydney/Marseille;

IMPAC III Conference (International Congress for Marine Protected Areas,

Marseille, 2013); REDLAC; CAFÉ (Consortium of African Environmental

Funds); Regional Marine Conservation Program meetings; RAMPAO meeting.

46

Activity by

Component (PAD)

Target Achieved by

End of Project

Description/Observations

Component 3: Project management, and monitoring and evaluation This component sought to ensure effective and efficient implementation of project activities, in coordination with the other related donor

activities.

Recruitment of a

full-time IBAP

Procurement

Officer

Yes Yes Executed:

Procurement Officer recruited for IBAP and operating according to the

Operational Manual.

Technical

assistance to

monitor the

implementation of

environmental and

social safeguards in

collaboration with

CAIA

Yes Yes Executed:

-- Safeguards were triggered to be conservative/cautious. The preparation of

internal regulations for the PAs was the only activity, in reality, which could

potentially have had an impact.

-- IBAP prepared a report, in collaboration with CAIA, to analyze the situation

on the ground in the PAs

Operating costs of

donor and partner

coordination

meetings

Yes Yes Executed:

-- The Project financed annual coordination meetings between IBAP and its

strategic donor partners to analyze progress including on the FBG and its

endowment, and agree on future strategy.

-- Donors also provided valuable feedback to IBAP on the format and content

of these meetings to increase their utility to all stakeholders.

Recruitment of an

Operations and

Monitoring Officer

Yes Yes Executed:

-- An Operations and Monitoring Officer was recruited for IBAP to head

IBAP’s Department of Monitoring and Evaluation, a permanent, functioning

unit involved in planning and monitoring IBAP’s activities and

operations/projects, production of quarterly and annual reports/other.

Technical

assistance and

operating costs to

develop and

implement an

Yes Yes Executed/ongoing:

-- BCP financed the regular monitoring of emblematic species and habitats

considered threatened whether locally or globally: Action Plans for marine

turtles and mangroves were updated and are under implementation, and for

hippopotamus were finalized and validated in 2014; strategy for migratory birds

47

Activity by

Component (PAD)

Target Achieved by

End of Project

Description/Observations

M&E program for

the protected areas

network (SNAP)

was developed in 2013 and an integrated Action Plan covering 4 species was

also prepared. Databases now exist for all key species in Excel, suitable for

research work.

-- In 2015, IBAP/BCP initiated the conceptualization and development of a

separate SNAP Monitoring System, an integrated system with key indicators for

monitoring ecological, social and sustainable development of the SNAP.

-- The initial proxy is the METT – measuring management effectiveness – but

IBAP needs to go beyond the METT to measure what is happening on the

ground, and had by end-Project and with BCP financing/TA, identified a set of

indicators and objectives for each PA within the SNAP.

-- A 1st stage/system tracks the health of a particular species population and

steps needed to avert/avoid its extinction, looking at anthropogenic or natural

causes of death or simple illness. The system would track the population to

assess whether it is growing, shrinking, and/or changing behavior as the basis

for adaptive management. BCP financed the design and capacity-building

aspects (training people to execute system requirements), participatory selection

of core indicators, protocol formation and definition. All work planned under

the 1st stage was completed by closing.

-- Harmonization efforts have started, with IBAP participating in knowledge

exchanges with regional institutions. Consolidation and further development of

this system is ongoing.

-- An inter-linked 2nd

stage/system – financed by other donors and well

underway before closing - will measure whether the PAs are achieving their

objectives - ecological, social (related to local communities in the parks).

Measurement of the achievement of PA objectives becomes more complex and

involves longer-term monitoring to detect declines or improvements over time.

48

2.14 Table 7 shows examples of small-scale investments in the PAs, using financing leveraged

by IBAP during the life of the BCP. As noted earlier, it was understood that IBAP would

continue to develop its role as lead agency for the SNAP by sustaining the activities initiated

under the CBMP to engage local populations in the PAs in a long-term commitment to the parks’

ecological and socio-economic health. The BCP financed extensive outreach campaigns and

training within and around the PAs, and IBAP leveraged the financing for direct micro-

investments on-the-ground which benefited from IBAP’s training.

Table 7: Local Development Initiatives implemented within SNAP, 2012 to 2015

Initiatives Developed by IBAP with Leveraged Funds Park Financier/Donor

2012

In 2012 (January to September), the PNMJVP brought

together 9 groups from Canhabaque Island, comprising 73

young people, 47 women and 81 children. The manufacture

of fiber mats, harvesting of tubers and forest fruits and

extraction of palm oil were reinstated as the main activities

of these temporary migrants. They produced around 2,250

liters of palm oil, 82 fiber mats, 7 50 kg sacks of inhame

and 6 sacks of cabaceira for sale.

PNMJVP IBAP, NOÉ-

Conservation

To minimize the damage caused by hippopotamus in rice

fields, a program financed the fencing off of fields in the

mangrovebolanhas of Cubampor and Suzana (PNTC),

Bissorã in the Oio region and the agriculture center of

Carantaba in the east of the country, zones where

hippopotamus are common. In Cubompor about 10.6 ha

were fenced and in Suzana about 49 ha. This initiative

financed/supported by CBD-Habitat sought to replicate

successful experiences in the Orango park as well as to

contribute to reducing conflicts between man and animals,

and reduce rural poverty.

PNO

PNTC

Bissorã

(outside

the PA)

CBD-Habitat, IBAP

With the support of NOÉ-conservation, basic informatics

training was administered for Park Rangers in Orango park.

This training allowed a better understanding of informatics

and its functions and introduced Rangers to Microsoft

software. Discussion of texts in Word and of Excel tables

was accompanied by practical exercises. The 11 Rangers

trained are now expected to prepare their reports and create

databases on their surveillance/enforcement missions in

Orango park.

PNO NOÉ-Conservation

An agreement was signed between IBAP and WFP to

promote learning activities in the regions of Bafatá and

Gabu, namely: Promotion of Ecologically appropriate

Stoves, Improved Food/Diet, and Fruit Development.

PNB PND World Food Program

(WFP) and IBAP

A partnership between IBAP, ECOBANK, DGFF and DGA

resulted in the preparation and financing of a micro-project

to protect (54 ha) and re-constitute (2 ha) degraded forest

ecosystems in the Bissorá sector.

Bissorã ECOBANK, IBAP,

Director General for

Forests and Wildlife

and Director General

for Agriculture.

49

Initiatives Developed by IBAP with Leveraged Funds Park Financier/Donor

2013

Construction of a community radio station in Cacheu Park PNTC MAVA, IUCN

Rehabilitation of a Health Post in Orango Park PNO N/A

Electrical fencing to resolve human-hippopotamus conflict. PNO

PNTC

CBD-Habitat, IBAP

Construction of a plant nursery in Cacheu Park. PNTC EU, Monte Ace,

IBAP

2014

Rehabilitation of 215 ha of bolanhas (mangrove ricefields)

in Apilho, Djendem

PNTC EU, Monte Ace,

IBAP

Support for extraction of solar salt saw 42 women trained

and provided with required materials and equipment. The

women’s group has already produced 560 kg of salt for sale

and is building a fund for future expenditures.

PNTC AD, IBAP, IUCN

Supporting fishing activities, the Rias do Sul Project

provided materials and equipment at a reasonable price for

responsible fishing in the Cacheu, Cufada and Orango

Parks.

PNO,

PNLC

PNTC

IUCN, UEMOA

(Rias do Sul Project)

Micro-project to aid transportation: acquisition of a canoe

for crossing the Ambuduco River

PNO IBAP

Support to a “Knowledge Exchange for Youth” program in

Orango Park.

PNO IBAP

Under a basic sanitation investment, a well for potable

water was constructed in An-or.

PNO IBAP

Under a micro-project for basic health, in partnership with

CBD-Habitat, a Basic Sanitation Unit in Ambuduco was

rehabilitated and equipped with medications.

PNO CBD-Habitat

2015

Installation of 2 Ice-making Plants to support fish

conservation in Cacheu, Buba.

PNLC

PNTC

UEMOA, UICN

Rehabilitation of a primary school in Djopá, Cacheu Park PNTC IBAP

Rehabilitation of an Advanced Enforcement Post in

Imbone, Orango Park

PNO IBAP

Rehabilitation of wells in three PAs PNO

PNLC

PNTC

IBAP

Provision of materials for sustainable fishing under the Rias

do Sul Project

PNLC

PNC

PNTC

UEMOA, IUCN

Community Hostel in Anhôr was put into operation with

capacity to host 16 people, with 8 double rooms, interior

sanitation, and 24-hour electricity and water supply. Such

investments can potentially support eco-tourism.

PNO MAVA, IUCN

50

Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis 3.1 A classic economic and financial analyses (e.g., cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness) was

not conducted at appraisal and remained inappropriate at closing, given the country context –

summarized in the Main Text Section 1 and spelled out in recent Bank strategies - the nature of

the Project and the small size of the IDA credit. Based on the country conditions in particular, any

quantitative measure to value the project benefits (for a cost-benefit analysis) or the project

effectiveness (for a cost-effectiveness analysis) is likely to be under-estimated and unable to show

a true benefit, value or cost due to systemic distortions and/or conditions of under-financing.

3.2 In the case of e Cost-Benefit (CB) analysis, it is highly unlikely that the substantial

benefits derived from the project could be valued. For example, it is difficult to associate an

economic value to the Project as enabler or catalyst for conservation initiatives. Without the

project financing, it is more likely that the areas intended for conservation would have

experienced persistent degradation of high-value, unique biodiversity and natural resources and a

subsequent loss of opportunities for sustainable coastal and forest management. Likewise, it is

also challenging to provide a value regarding the Project’s role in keeping the protected area

system up/running within a context of political instability and severe resource limitations. The

country is and has been for some time characterized by weak governance, grossly inadequate

provision of basic public goods and services and limited economic opportunities. Public

institutions are geared towards providing private goods to elites – political and military – rather

than public goods to citizens (see Guinea-Bissau Country Economic Memorandum (CEM) and

Systematic Country Diagnostic (SCD)). Even more difficult is attributing apparent benefits to the

Bank’s project in some cases, especially where some achievements represent cases where benefits

derive from a number of different factors catalyzed by the Project.

3.3 In the case of a Cost-Effectiveness (CE) analysis, under an extremely constrained

budgetary situation, any analysis might indicate substantial results when compared to comparable

projects from other countries/realities with similar conservation objectives, due to the extreme

budget constraints in the Guinea-Bissau case. The project implementation agency IBAP

submitted annual requests for budget support from 2012 through 2015 totaling EUR 1.371

million, and only in 2015 was the Government able to allocate resources to IBAP (EUR

100,000).38

Yet, despite this situation, and the very small size of the BCP Grant, the Project

substantially achieved its objectives. Taking into account the project background/context, a Cost-

Effectiveness analysis would require a set of heroic assumptions since it would be virtually

impossible to measure all the elements necessary for such analysis. The cost-effectiveness of the

analysis itself, given search and processing costs under such conditions, is also an important

consideration in this case.

3.4 The PAD economic and financial analysis did not include a CE or CB assessment. At

appraisal, it was noted that while a concrete assessment of the current and future economic and

financial benefits attributable to the PA network and the ecosystem services it provides had yet to

be undertaken, the importance of these benefits could be inferred. Some positive, updated

38 IBAP requested an aggregate EUR 1.371 million over four years, as follows: 2012 EUR 275,000; 2013

EUR 228,000; 2014 EUR 299,000; and 2015 569,000. Only in 2015 was government able to allocate some

part of the request - EUR 100,000.

51

information/data is available for several sectors from the World Bank’s Natural Wealth Study for

Guinea-Bissau (Edmundson, 2014) and other sources, but caveats apply regarding data reporting,

availability and reliability:

First, the potential for eco-tourism noted in the PAD – especially in the PAs of the

Bijagos Archipelago - remains high, with solid comparative advantage resting on its

biodiversity and cultural assets. IBAP’s income from touristic activities in the PAs is still

modest – around EUR 10,000 – 11,000/year. Deficient infrastructure and political

instability means reaping the expected benefits remains well in the future but BCP’s

efforts to shore up the PA’s sustainability was a further “down payment” on that future

tourism economy.

Second, in regard to fishing, the PAD estimated total annual fish production as 250,000

tons (based on Economic and Sector Work in 2003) with an estimated gross value of

between US$60-90 million and if managed well, a projected future value of US$119

million. The wealth study does not re-estimate current fish production nor attempt to

assign a gross value. However, with the caveat that fishing data is commonly under-

reported and outdated, the study conservatively estimates total fishing “potential” at

120,000 tons/year, and total wealth per capita from fishing at around US$305. A World

Bank report still under preparation shows that the Government of Guinea-Bissau took in

public revenue of US$20.0 million in 2015 from fishing activities, of which US$9.25

million were license fees from the industrial fishing sector (converted at USD1=578.31 F

CFA) and the remainder were access agreement payments, mainly from the EU.39 IBAP

continues to protect the country’s vital fish breeding and nursery areas lying within the

SNAP.

Third, in regard to carbon, at appraisal it was estimated that carbon storage by some

60,000 ha of protected mangroves in three of the PAs equaled 298,126 tons of avoided

CO2 emissions per year with potential to generate around US$5.0 million over seven

years at an average price (at that time) of US$3.50/ton of CO2. At BCP closing, and

based on the REDD+ Project, this estimate has increased significantly. Carbon credit

sales for just two PAs (Cacheu Mangrove Forest National Park and Cantanhez Forest

National Park) could potentially produce revenues of just over US$3.0 million per year

averaged over 20 years at US$3.30/ton of CO2, the 2015 average market price for carbon

(see Box 1).

3.5 At a broader level, the wealth study suggests that the total natural wealth in Guinea-

Bissau could be up to US$ 3,874 per capita (in 2010 prices) where US$305 per capita comes from

biodiversity/Protected Areas, not including mangrove ecosystem services. Likewise, the 2011

natural wealth valuation for Cacheu Protected Area (a coastal and marine PA) alone is in the

order of US$ 190 per capita. If 70,000 people live in and on the periphery of the PAs, the total

conservative value associated with the PAs alone represents around US$21.35 million, about 8%

of the total valuation of Guinea-Bissau’s natural wealth.40

39 West Africa’s Coastal Bottom-Trawl Fishery: The Case of Trade in Foreign Fishery Services, World

Bank, report pending. 40

Wealth accounting is a larger number than GDP because it includes the valuation of non-tradable goods

or goods which lack market prices (e.g., carbon storage, flood protection). In the case of Guinea-Bissau,

there is a very strong dependence on natural resources (e.g., fishing, cashew nut). GDP per capita is

US$563.70 (current USD), but comparing monetary values over time (Power Purchase Parity or PPP) it is

52

3.6 Table 1 presents a comprehensive accounting of BCP benefits, while Box 1 discusses the

expected benefits of the World Bank ESSD Trust Fund and BCP-financed Reduced Emissions

from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) Project.

US$1,367.30. While the natural wealth valuation is US$3,874/per capita (in 2010 prices) - or three times

GDP- for the PAs alone it is US$190/per capita.

53

Table 1: Project Characteristics, Identified Benefits and Achievements

Project

Components Objective Main Activities

Identified

Direct/

Indirect

Benefits

Achievements by BCP

Component 1:

Consolidation

and

strengthened

capacity for

management

of coastal and

marine

protected areas

and

biodiversity

(US$1.27 M).

Enable IBAP to

continue the

participatory

management and

conservation of

Guinea-Bissau’s

protected areas

and biodiversity

during the first

phase of the

transition to

more sustainable

financing

sources. It will

focus on

strengthening the

management of

five coastal and

marine national

parks and

increasing the

monitoring and

conservation of

globally

significant

biodiversity.

Support and

finance, in each

of the five

national parks

as needed,

operating costs,

development of

park

regulations,

dissemination

activities and

awareness-

campaigns,

implementation

of endangered

and threatened

species actions

plans; design

and operation of

consolidated

endangered and

threatened

species

databases,

among others.

Effective

conservation

of globally

important

ecosystem and

threatened

species.

The project has served as key enabler and corner stone for upcoming

conservation initiatives. Bank support via the BCP could be regarded as the

‘keystone’, enabling project support from other donors to be leveraged and around

which other donors designed and harmonized their activities. The larger scale

follow on GEF 5 (UNDP), GCCA+ (EU), and FFEM projects all build upon the

activities and achievements of the BCP, seeking to complement and further

consolidate these. There were also other, smaller scale activities such as those

financed through MAVA and other NGOs which complemented the BCP.

Guinea Bissau’s natural capital is substantial with solid comparative advantages.

Its comparative advantage in tourism rests with its biodiversity and cultural assets.

The World Bank’s Guinea-Bissau Natural Wealth study (Edmundson, 2014)

provides an estimate of the potential wealth per capita of natural resources

(estimated at US$ 3,874) of which biodiversity/protected areas is US$ 305 per

capita, without including mangrove ecosystem services (and based on a 50%

opportunity cost for agriculture). Likewise, the 2011 natural wealth valuation for

Cacheu Protected Area (a coastal and marine PA) alone is in the order of US$ 190

per capita (based on a different methodology with actual values for PA goods).

Based on these estimates, the BCP has effectively managed to maintain Guinea

Bissau’s natural capital (and valuation), despite chronic political instability.

Effective

development

and fostering

economic

activities in

line with

conservation

efforts.

Bank support via the BCP has contributed to preserving and enhancing future

economic opportunities for the country at a national and local level. The SNAP

is regarded as the backbone of a future tourism industry for the country. Nature-

based tourism is identified as the core element of one of the four growth poles

identified in Terra Ranka – the country’s 10-year development strategy. Guinea

Bissau’s tourism potential rests on its rich, globally significant biodiversity and

ecosystems, its varied and attractive landscapes, and on its cultural diversity

(cuisine, festivals, traditional dance and music, and handcrafts). Therefore,

conserving the SNAP and its globally significant biodiversity, preserves this option

for future development by the private sector and communities alike.

Guinea Bissau is endowed with considerable natural capital and it is important

for its economy. The economy of Guinea-Bissau today is based entirely on this

natural capital, which represents 47% of per capita wealth, the highest proportion in

West Africa.

54

Project

Components Objective Main Activities

Identified

Direct/

Indirect

Benefits

Achievements by BCP

It has significant water resources, a rich maritime territory, and exceptional

biodiversity, which provides significant ecosystem services to the whole of West

Africa (e.g., almost 10% of the land mass is covered in mangroves, the highest

proportion in the world; 13% of the land and sea territory is under conservation to

protect biodiversity – a proportion which is in process of increasing to 26% due to

the recent inclusion of new parks and biological corridors).

Strengthened

institutions at

regional,

national, and

local levels

through

targeted

capacity

building for

planning,

management

of national

biodiversity

conservation.

The project has provided important management tools and strengthened national

institutions. Bank support via BCP has strengthened institutions at different levels

(local, regional, national) building capacity and fostering the ongoing dialogue and

partnership with local stakeholders. The project has also supported specific

investments in improving the management of the PAs such as training, the

participatory preparation of the PA’s Internal Regulations and Business Plans, and

the design of a SNAP-wide Monitoring System. Similarly, the Project financed the

bulk of the core operational costs for IBAP (including salaries, fuel, park

management committee meetings, surveillance patrols, communications campaigns

and training). Without this finance, the management of the SNAP would have

declined significantly both in terms of PA protection and community sensitization

and engagement, the latter essential to PA sustainability.

Strengthened

monitoring and

conservation

of specific

endangered

and threatened

species.

Bank support via the BCP contributed to preserving and enhancing conservation

of endangered and threatened species. Guinea-Bissau hosts biodiversity and

ecosystems of global significance, particularly those in the coastal and marine areas

(mangroves, green turtles, sawfish, migratory birds, chimpanzees, carbon stocks

and regional fisheries, among others). Bank support through the BCP ensured the

core functioning of IBAP and progressively increased effectiveness of the

management of coastal and marine PAs, especially those where endangered and

threatened species live.

Strengthened

partnerships at

all levels,

providing

opportunities

to better

collaborate and

communicate

Bank support via the BCP strengthened IBAP’s programmatic management of

the SNAP and catalyzed and facilitated dialogue and the building of partnerships

between the stakeholders. IBAPs communications materials and efforts

(participation in international meetings, brochures, publications, websites and

community meetings, radio shows, among others) helped to share knowledge

internationally, and to raise awareness both nationally and locally.

The BCP further strengthened IBAP’s institutional capacity and reputation to

55

Project

Components Objective Main Activities

Identified

Direct/

Indirect

Benefits

Achievements by BCP

the exchange

of good

practices.

leverage funding from a wide range of donors/partners and to proactively

coordinate where it is spent. IBAP established and maintained strong financial

management performance without indications of fraud and corruption, and it also

has an impressive record of project management in a complex and usually under-

funded sector. With Bank support, IBAP leveraged significant donor financing for

the SNAP, developed the capacity to coordinate multiple donor projects

simultaneously, and took on the responsibility of new parks within the national

system.

Strengthened

conservation

of mangrove

forests

Bank support via the BCP contributed to preserving and enhancing conservation

of mangrove forests. Nearly 10% of Guinea Bissau’ land mass is covered in

mangroves and approximately 70 percent of the population lives in the low-lying

coastal area which is highly vulnerable to storm surges and rising sea levels. In the

context of climate change, for which Guinea Bissau ranks second only to

Bangladesh on the 2014 Climate Change Vulnerability Index (CCVI), mangroves

have great relevance due to their capacity to protect against storms and sea level

rise, making them indispensable for coastal communities in their fight against

climate change. Mangroves may be particularly effective in rural areas where

populations are widely dispersed and the construction of hard infrastructures like

seawalls may not be economically feasible over long coastlines.

Component 2:

Pilot the

operation of

the BioGuinea

Foundation

(US$0.39 M).

Support the pilot

operation of the

BioGuinea

Foundation in

Guinea-Bissau

(FBG) as a

mechanism that

would eventually

be capable of

financing the

core

Support and

finance

operational

support to the

FBG Board of

Directors, its

members, and

the Executive

Secretariat to

conduct

stakeholders

Leverage

resources and

sustainable

financing for

conservation

BCP through its focus on building and operationalizing the FBG and fund

raising efforts, helped to secure seed capital totaling around EUR 4.60 million

for the endowment.41

BioGuinea was designed to manage various funding

mechanisms (sinking, revolving, and endowment) but the key to sustainability lies

with securing an endowment capital with sufficient revenue streams to meet SNAP

recurrent costs. So far, the project has directly secured seed capital commitments to

the endowment fund from GOGB (EU Fisheries Accord and future REDD+

revenues), MAVA Foundation, GEF5, FFEM.

Strengthened

capacity

building at all

BCP support has enabled human resource and institutional capacity building of

the FBG team. The project has improved FBG capacity, and has enabled

participation in international fora for knowledge exchange and learning,

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

56

Project

Components Objective Main Activities

Identified

Direct/

Indirect

Benefits

Achievements by BCP

management

activities of at

least two of the

country’s

existing national

parks.

consultations;

technical

assistance and

operating costs

to support

ongoing

fundraising

efforts of the

foundation

levels,

providing

opportunities

to leverage

resources for

conservation.

collaboration and mentoring with other CTFs in Africa and Brazil, helping build a

transparent institution operating in line with international best practice and in full

compliance with UK law, which has helped increase the FBG’s visibility and

credibility with knock-on effects vis-à-vis establishment of collaborative

relationships and project and endowment support.

Increase global

awareness for

conservation

finance.

BCP support enabled the operationalization of BioGuinea as an example of

conservation finance. Taking into account political instability in Guinea-Bissau,

conservation finance is a central opportunity to achieve long term goals for the

sustainable financing of the SNAP. BioGuinea was created under English law and

legally recognized in Guinea-Bissau as a private, secular, non-profit organization

established for public benefit. BioGuinea represents a significant illustration/model

of conservation finance at the country level.

57

Box 1: Conservation Financing and the REDD+ Project

The BioGuinea Foundation (FBG) was established in March 2011 as an instrument for the sustainable financing

of biodiversity conservation, with an emphasis on the management of the National System of Protected Areas

(SNAP) and the promotion of sustainable social development. The FBG is designed to manage various funding

mechanisms (sinking, revolving and endowment) with its key strategy for sustainability lying with gradually

securing an endowment capital with sufficient revenue streams to meet SNAP’s recurrent costs.

An innovative financing option relates to REDD+ (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation)

through the sale of carbon credits (currently priced at an average US$ 3.30 per ton)42

. With this in mind, IBAP

and the FBG are piloting and initiative to explore the potential role which carbon finance can play in supporting

broader biodiversity conservation. With support from the World Bank ESSD Trust Fund and the BCP, a

Reduced Emissions from Deforestation (REDD) project was developed to help secure financing to protect the

forest and biodiversity in Cacheu and Cantanhez National Parks. This innovative blue carbon REDD project,

entitled the Community Based Avoided Deforestation Project in Guinea-Bissau (CBADP) seeks to demonstrate

how carbon finance can contribute to Guinea-Bissau’s short, medium and longer-term conservation financing

strategy, helping finance ongoing forest management in the short and medium-term and to gradually build up the

endowment resources needed to mitigate financial uncertainties in the medium and long-term.

The CBADP was independently validated under the Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) with a baseline year of

2011. The carbon emissions reduction potential for the two Protected Areas, i.e., Cacheu Mangrove Forest

National Park (74,700 ha) and Cantanhez Forest National Park (106,500 has) is estimated to average 920,426 ton

per year over 20 years43

, (approximately 18 million tCO2e) which at an average price of US$ 3.30/ton, could

potentially create long-term revenues of approximately US$60.0 million. (See table below.) Taking into account

Guinea-Bissau’s political instability, finding a buyer might be challenging, nevertheless the pilot and the

estimates indicate that the coastal forests have significant economic and financial potential that could potentially

finance the FBG, the management of protected areas by IBAP, community sustainable development activities

and help build the FBG’s endowment for future protected areas.

Now, five years into the pilot, FBG and IBAP need to undertake the first monitoring to quantify the actual

avoided emissions, complete the verification audit and issue the first VCUs. FFEM (confirmed) and MAVA (in

the approval process) propose to finance this process, enabling the monitoring and independent third party

verification required to be able to quantify and issue the VCUs. It will additionally build IBAP and FBG's

capacity to manage carbon projects, and prepare them to engage with the carbon market. At the end of this

process FBG is expected to be able to engage in the carbon market, commercialize these VCUs and realize its

carbon revenues.

Expected Impacts:

The first direct impacts expected of completing the first Independent Verification of the blue carbon REDD

project are that FBG and IBAP will have a verified carbon asset (VCU) that can be traded. While actual

emissions reduction over the past five years will depend upon the degree to which IBAP and its partners have

managed to reduce deforestation in the two designated Protected Areas, the CBADP Project Document (PD)

nevertheless indicated a potential for avoiding 785,921 tCO2e by 2016. Using the 2015 average VCU market

price of USD 3.30 (Hamrick and Goldstein, 2016), this could potentially generate USD 2.50 million. These

resultant carbon revenues would trigger a package of relevant social, environmental, economic and institutional

impacts that are further detailed below. The second direct expected impact relates to building FBG's capacity to

trade carbon, operate a carbon registry and perform the required bureaucratic steps. The project will provide

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

58

FBG and IBAP staff with the necessary knowledge, training and materials to perform deals in the carbon market.

Carbon finance revenues will be distributed in accordance with a benefit-sharing arrangement, the broad

principles of which are already agreed, namely, funds would be provided to: (i) IBAP in support of immediate,

ongoing management of these two PAs, including for monitoring, verification and issuance of VCUs: (ii) local

communities (via a sinking fund managed by the FBG) in support of participatory sustainable development

initiatives, e.g., similar to those developed under the FIAL; (iii) the FBG endowment fund, to build up the

capital base for generating future sustainable revenue flows after the end of the CBADP; and, (iv) to other

implicated partners, like the State Secretariat for Environment and NGOs.

The increased flow of funds from the sale of VCUs is also expected to have the following impacts:

Environmental: The project will materialize the conservation efforts in Cacheu and Cantanhez National Parks,

delivering emission reductions estimated at around 785,921 tCO2e in the first monitoring period. This

demonstrates the global impact of forest and biodiversity conservation on climate change mitigation, reinforcing

the role of local communities. Furthermore, the project supports a broader national climate policy (National

Determined Contribution - NDC) and the national development strategy (“Terra Ranka”) by supporting the

protection of 145,698 ha of forest and the biodiversity it contains. Finally, in a country that is considered to be

the second most vulnerable to climate change after Bangladesh (Maplecroft, CCVI 2015), the preservation of

these biomes guarantees the maintenance of a natural infrastructure that provides double dividends for the

country and the communities, delivering both emissions mitigation and climate adaptation returns.

Social: The project demonstrates how participatory management and sustainable local development can work

together to support forest and biodiversity conservation. The carbon revenues will permit small grants and

microfinance initiatives, based on the lessons derived from the Fund for Local Environmental Initiatives (FIAL),

to be operationalized. Such programs can impact over 50,000 people living inside the project area. More

importantly, sharing the benefits from REDD will provide communities with a clear message of how they can

benefit from changes in behavior by assessing tangible returns from forest conservation. This supports a

paradigm change since PAs should not be seen as a constraint on their livelihoods, reinforcing their buy-in into

protected areas as whole. Finally, the REDD project is a milestone and basis for a virtuous cycle for future

generations, in which the relationship between community and natural resources is mutually beneficial.

Economic: The main economic impact relates to a new financial source for FBG and IBAP, both for short and

long term conservation financing. From a broader perspective, the project is the first of its kind in Guinea-Bissau

and will allow the country to be inserted into an international carbon payment mechanism. Another relevant

impact relates to supporting capitalizing the endowment and the overall FBG sustainable financing strategy. The

project further demonstrates to the Government of Guinea-Bissau and other West African countries how smart

climate financing that supports tangible social and environmental positive impacts is a reality, providing an

economic value for maintaining standing forests.

Institutional: The experience gained through implementation of this demonstration project is expected to build

institutional capacity in IBAP, FBG and other local partners. The practical experience and lessons learned with

both implementing carbon projects, and operating in carbon markets will also help reinforce the Government's

participation in the ongoing high-level debate on climate issues and related international negotiations.

The ultimate goal of the project is to avoid deforestation in two protected areas of Guinea Bissau (GB), thus

reducing carbon emissions and improving the protection of globally important biodiversity sites. The CBAD

project aims to contribute to the realization of Guinea Bissau's long term vision of sustainable financing for

conservation of biodiversity by leading pilot activities that, while autonomous, can later be nested into national

level developments. To this end, the proposed Independent Verification project activities seek to enable FBG

and IBAP to take the next step in the implementation of the overarching pilot VCS CBAD project, supporting

the first verification of carbon emission reductions (ERs) and issuance of associated VCUs, facilitating benefit-

sharing arrangements and strengthening the capacity to market carbon credits. See table of estimated carbon

credit revenues below.

59

Estimated Revenues from Carbon Credit Markets

Years

Estimated GHG

Emission Reductions

or Removals (tCO2e)

Value (US$) at 2015

Average Price

2013 75,251 248,328

2014 153,844 507,685

2015 235,776 778,061

2016 321,050 1,059,465

2017 409,664 1,351,891

2018 501,619 1,655,343

2019 596,914 1,969,816

2020 695,550 2,295,315

2012 797,527 2,631,839

2022 902,845 2,979,389

2023 978,096 3,227,717

2024 1,056,688 3,487,070

2025 1,138,621 3,757,449

2026 1,223,895 4,038,854

2027 1,312,509 4,331,280

2028 1,404,464 4,634,731

2029 1,499,759 4,949,205

2030 1,598,395 5,274,704

2031 1,700,372 5,611,228

2032 1,805,690 5,958,777

Total Estimated 18,408,529 60,748,146

Total Years 20

Average per

year 920,426 3,037,407

60

Annex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes

(a) Task Team members

Names Title Unit Responsibility/

Specialty

Lending

John Virdin Sr. Natural Resource Management

Specialist/TTL AFTEN Task Team Leader

Liba Feldblyum Operations Officer AFTEN Task Team Leader

Tanya Yudelman Consultant/Environment Specialist AFTEN Environment and

Biodiversity

Virginie Vaselopoulos Program Assistant AFTEN Team member

Osval Rocha Romao Sr. Financial Management Specialist AFTFM Financial

Management

Cheick Traore Procurement Specialist AFTPC Procurement

Wolfgang Chadab Sr. Finance Officer LOAFC Financial

Management

Luz Meza-Bartrina Sr. Counsel LEGAF Legal Counsel

Daniela Junqueira Counsel LEGAF Legal Counsel

Gayatri Kanungo Global Environment Facility (GEF) AFTEN Environment

Barry Spergel Consultant AFTEN Conservation Trust

Funds

Alberto Ninio Lead Counsel LEGEN Environmental Law

Amadou Konare Environmental Safeguard Specialist AFTEN Environmental

Safeguards

Cheikh Sagna Social Safeguard Specialist AFTCS Social Safeguards

Supervision/ICR

Liba Feldblyum Operations Officer/TTL AFTEN Task Team Leader

Maman-Sani Issa Regional Safeguards Advisor/TTL OPSPF Safeguards

Tanya Yudelman Consultant/Environment Specialist GEN07 Environment and

Biodiversity

Jayne Angela Kwengwere Program Assistant GEN07 Team member

Cheik Traore Sr. Procurement Specialist GGO07 Procurement

Fatou Fall Samba Financial Management Specialist GGO25 Financial

Management

Anna Roumani Consultant GSULN Rural Development

Juan Jose Miranda Montero Environmental Economist GENGE Environmental

Economics

61

(b) Staff Time and Cost

Stage of Project Cycle

Staff Time and Cost (Bank Budget Only)

No. of staff weeks USD Thousands (including

travel and consultant costs)

Lending

FY10 3.60 27.80

FY11 2.87 34.64

Total: 6.47 62.44

Supervision/ICR

FY12 16.74 92.90

FY13 15.68 81.88

FY14 16.03 103.24

FY15 12.55 88.89

FY16 4.38 53.67

FY17 7.00 18.03

Total: 72.38 438.61

62

Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results 5.1 The METT Scorecard involved annual interviews with stakeholders including

communities residing in/on the periphery of the parks. Scores are reported in this ICR and the

full questionnaires can be obtained from IBAP. No other beneficiary surveys were conducted.

63

Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results

N/A

64

Annex 7. Summary of Borrower's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR A. Executive Summary of Client’s final Completion Report (Informal Translation)

The Biodiversity Conservation Project - (BCP) was financed by IDA Credit HH 6700 for an

amount of SDR 1.3 million, equivalent to USD 1.90 million. The BCP was executed in five years,

between June 2011 and May 2016. The Project Development Objectives were to reinforce the

management of IBAP in the five Protected Areas (PA), and operationalize the BioGuinea

Foundation, for which three components were implemented.

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

protected areas and biodiversity

The five parks are more effective and efficient in their participatory management according to the

METT scores which totaled 507 compared to 454 at the beginning of the project (2011): PMJVP

went from 106 to 116; PNO from 113 to 119; PNTC from 105 to 129, PNLC from 74 to 83, and

PNC from 56 to 60. The participatory management plans, and the Business Plans and internal

regulations were updated and approved by the Park Management Councils in all five parks.

Participatory surveillance exceeded 60 missions per year in all five parks: 2012-109 missions;

2013-134; 2014-164 and in 2015- 302 including the AMPC Urok. Thanks to the BCP and

complementary activities of IBAP partners, illegal encampments on the maritime/coastal limits

of the PNC and PNLC were dismantled, infiltration of the parks by non-resident fishermen was

reduced, along with the use of single-line nets and consequently reduction in illegal and

irresponsible fishing practices. During the BCP’s four years, the capacity of 786 people was

strengthened both domestically and through overseas training visits, including IBAP staff,

technicians from partner institutions, community co-managers and the communities themselves,

exceeding the target of 200 for the four years. About 43,000 people were trained overall

including through the project’s communications and awareness-building campaigns and other

diverse types of training.

Component 2: Pilot the operation of the BioGuinea Foundation

The BioGuinea Foundation is operational with its governance organs instituted and functioning,

with operational manuals and procedures adopted. Fund-raising activities, institutional linkages

and negotiations with the Government and Donors are permanent/ongoing for capitalization of

the FBG. The Government provided EUR 1.0 million through its Fisheries Accord with the EU,

and with strategic partners such as the MAVA Foundation (EUR 1.3 million), FFEM (EUR 1.0

million), and GEF 5 contributed USD 1.3 million.

Component 3: Project management and monitoring and evaluation

The management, coodination and monitoring of the projec was conducted under the direction of

IBAP and its technical and financial team, through the operationalization of a monitoring and

evaluation system, through the presentation of plans, reports, the application of performance

measurement instruments, to assess management effectiveness in the Protected Areas, and

through the utilization of software - Hi Project - for accountability/fiduciary. Bank supervision

missions were always timely and useful.

The most prominent negative factor not under the control of IBAP was the recurrent

political/military and government instability which influenced the implementation of various

activities on the ground. Other factors were managed in a positive way by IBAP due to its

65

institutional autonomy and the stability of its management, the culture of being results-driven, by

its rigorous and transparent management of allocated resources, and by the overall quality of its

interventions in managing the PAs, with the strong involvement of the communities and by the

diversity and quality of the activities/interventions of IBAP’s partners: the gains and successes

and the growth of the PAs in effectiveness and efficiency; in the strengthened capacity of their

human resources including community agents; in the greater involvement, participation and

decision-making of the communities; and the complementary and synergistic actions of IBAP’s

various strategic partners.

Lessons Learned: The importance of the following: participatory, transparent and democratic

governance; co-management of resources in terms of ownership and responsibility; strengthening

the capacities of IBAP’s technical and administrative personnel, partner institutions and the

communities in the PAs, creating greater “horizontality” in the dialogue among

stakeholders/actors; proactive communication concerning the execution of activities in the PAs,

contributing to constructing a positive image and visibility for IBAP and its activities; and, in the

operationalization of the BioGuinea Foundation, that a medium to long-term perspective is

needed to guarantee/ensure a mechanism for the sustainable financing of activities in the PAs.

66

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

67

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

N/A

68

Annex 9. List of Supporting Documents Project Appraisal Document (PAD)

Financing Agreement, Grant #H670-GW

Supervision Aide Memoires

Implementation Supervision Reports (ISR)

Procurement Post Reviews

Financial Management Supervision Reports

Annual Reports of Client

Correspondence

Client Contacts

Restructuring Documents

Systematic Country Diagnosis (SCD): “Turning Challenges into Opportunities for Poverty

Reduction and Inclusive Growth”, World Bank Report #106725-GB, June 2016

Country Economic Memorandum – Guinea-Bissau: Terra Ranka! A Fresh Start, World Bank,

Report # 58296, Vols. I and II, January 12, 2015

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

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

Republic of Guinea Bissau, March 2015

Estratégia Nacional para as Áreas Protegidas e a Conservação da Biodiversidade na Guiné-Bissau,

2014-2020, Instituto da Biodiversidade e das Áreas Protegidas (IBAP), 2014

Progress Report: Validation Audit of the Community-based Avoided Deforestation Project in

Guinea-Bissau, World Bank/SCS Global Services, May 24, 2013 (REDD study)

Relatório Final: Projeto da Conservação da Biodiversidade (PCB), Unidade de Gestão do

Projeto/IBAP, October 2016

Implementation Completion and Results Report: Guinea-Bissau Coastal Biodiversity

Management Project, Report # 00001684

Implementation Completion Memorandum (ICM): Guinea-Bissau Biodiversity Conservation

Trust Fund (BCTF), Trust Fund # TF098994, July 2, 2014

69

Map: Guinea-Bissau Biodiversity Conservation Project (P122047)