**Table 14. Welfare Effects in Guinea-Bissau: Complementarities**

|**Policy**|**(I) Base**<br>**Scenario -**<br>**no FUNPI**|**(II) = (I) +**<br>**FUNPI**|**(V) = (I) + FUNPI**<br>**+ 10% reduction**<br>**in exporters**<br>**costs**|**(VI) = (I) + FUNPI**<br>**+ 10% reduction**<br>**in traders costs**|**(VII) = (I) + FUNPI**<br>**+ 10% reduction in**<br>**exporters and**<br>**traders costs**|**(IX) = (I) + FUNPI**<br>**+ 2 efficent**<br>**exporters**|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|_All Households_|--|-5.30|-4.53|-5.00|-4.23|-4.26|
|_Urban Households_|--|-1.65|-1.41|-1.55|-1.32|-1.32|
|_Rural Households_|--|-8.46|-7.24|-7.98|-6.76|-6.80|
|_Poor Households_|--|-7.89|-6.75|-7.44|-6.30|-6.34|
|_Non-Poor Households_|--|-4.40|-3.77|-4.16|-3.52|-3.54|
|_Urban Poor Households_|--|-3.24|-2.78|-3.06|-2.59|-2.61|
|_Rural Poor Households_|--|-9.39|-8.04|-8.86|-7.50|-7.54|
|_Urban Non-Poor Households_|--|-1.39|-1.19|-1.31|-1.11|-1.12|
|_Rural Non-Poor Households_|--|-7.92|-6.78|-7.48|-6.33|-6.37|
|_Cashew Producers_|--|-11.03|-9.44|-10.41|-8.81|-8.86|
|_Poor Cashew Producers_|--|-12.28|-10.51|-11.59|-9.81|-9.87|
|_Non-Poor Cashew Producers_|--|-10.38|-8.88|-9.79|-8.29|-8.34|

Source: QUIBB 2010 and price changes from the simulations of Section 4. The numbers are expressed in percent.

**Table 15. Welfare Effects in Guinea-Bissau: Complementarities**

|**Policy**|**(II) = (I) +**<br>**FUNPI**|**(XI) = (I) + FUNPI**<br>**+ 10% additional**<br>**exporters**|**(XII) = (I) + FUNPI**<br>**+ 10% additional**<br>**traders**|**(XIII) = (I) + FUNPI**<br>**+ 10% additional**<br>**exporters and**<br>**traders**|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|_All Households_|-5.30|-4.84|-5.06|-4.60|
|_Urban Households_|-1.65|-1.50|-1.57|-1.43|
|_Rural Households_|-8.46|-7.73|-8.07|-7.34|
|_Poor Households_|-7.89|-7.21|-7.53|-6.84|
|_Non-Poor Households_|-4.40|-4.03|-4.20|-3.82|
|_Urban Poor Households_|-3.24|-2.96|-3.10|-2.81|
|_Rural Poor Households_|-9.39|-8.58|-8.96|-8.15|
|_Urban Non-Poor Households_|-1.39|-1.27|-1.33|-1.21|
|_Rural Non-Poor Households_|-7.92|-7.24|-7.56|-6.87|
|_Cashew Producers_|-11.03|-10.08|-10.53|-9.57|
|_Poor Cashew Producers_|-12.28|-11.23|-11.72|-10.66|
|_Non-Poor Cashew Producers_|-10.38|-9.49|-9.91|-9.01|

Source: QUIBB 2010 and price changes from the simulations of Section 4. The numbers are expressed in percent.

Finally, similar conclusions emerge from the results in Table 16, where we compare the FUNPI contribution coupled with increases in the cashew processing capacity as well as with policies oriented to reduce farmer producing costs. An increase of cashew processing capacity of 200 tons in 4 processing plants has negligible impacts on prices. In fact, the welfare losses are almost the same as in the baseline. Clearly, the introduction of one large processor (20,000 tons) has larger impacts on the welfare effects. Farm-gate prices still decline, but the decline is lower than in the baseline (FUNPI with tax). The loss for the average household is 4.58 percent (5.30 in the baseline) and the loss for the cashew producers is 9.53 percent (11.03 in the baseline). Note that these impacts are similar to those reported in Scenario XIII which consisted of FUNPI coupled with an increase of 10 percent in the number of exporters and traders simultaneously. Once again, in the 30