cost benefit analysis – pacific example 2
DESCRIPTION
Cost Benefit Analysis – Pacific Example 2. Cost-Benefit Analysis Workshop 23-25 April 2012 Jonathan Bower, Resource Economist, Land Resources Division, Secretariat of the Pacific Community. Example 2: Soil health preservation in Taveuni. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Cost Benefit Analysis – Pacific Example 2](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56816292550346895dd3016d/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Cost Benefit Analysis – Pacific Example 2
Cost-Benefit Analysis Workshop23-25 April 2012
Jonathan Bower, Resource Economist, Land Resources Division, Secretariat of the Pacific Community
![Page 2: Cost Benefit Analysis – Pacific Example 2](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56816292550346895dd3016d/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Example 2: Soil health preservation in Taveuni
• Fictional example but inspired by a set of ACIAR field trials on soil health preservation among taro farmers in Taveuni
• This is an ex-post CBA, using fictional data that would have been collected AFTER field trials
• Trials of 4 different techniques, over a 5 year time period
![Page 3: Cost Benefit Analysis – Pacific Example 2](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56816292550346895dd3016d/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Problem Statement• Taro yields in Taveuni (major taro producer) are
on the way down due to degrading soil health– Natural predators of crop pests/nematodes cannot
work in degraded soil– Nutrient levels become depleted.
• Over time this could eliminate profits for taro farmers and increase poverty
• Also hurts production of an important Fiji export crop
![Page 4: Cost Benefit Analysis – Pacific Example 2](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56816292550346895dd3016d/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Objective
• To preserve taro yield and hence profit at a level that is sustainable, by using techniques that preserve soil health
![Page 5: Cost Benefit Analysis – Pacific Example 2](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56816292550346895dd3016d/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
The “projects”
• Treatment A – e.g. Lime/Macuna/Soil Test Fertilizer/lime recommendations
• Treatment B - Macuna /Fert-NPK(13:13:21) + Biobrew
• Treatment C - Lime/Macuna/Fish manure + Rock P
• Control – no treatment or farmer’s usual tratment
![Page 6: Cost Benefit Analysis – Pacific Example 2](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56816292550346895dd3016d/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
WHAT MIGHT THE BENEFITS OF PRESERVING SOIL HEALTH BE?
![Page 7: Cost Benefit Analysis – Pacific Example 2](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56816292550346895dd3016d/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
“With and without” Analysis• Benefits with each treatment:– Increased taro yield and therefore revenue
![Page 8: Cost Benefit Analysis – Pacific Example 2](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56816292550346895dd3016d/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Is this the case?
![Page 9: Cost Benefit Analysis – Pacific Example 2](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56816292550346895dd3016d/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Benefit of soil health preservation = B - A
![Page 10: Cost Benefit Analysis – Pacific Example 2](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56816292550346895dd3016d/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
WHAT MIGHT THE COSTS OF PRESERVING SOIL HEALTH BE?
![Page 11: Cost Benefit Analysis – Pacific Example 2](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56816292550346895dd3016d/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
“With and without” Analysis
• Costs with each treatment:– Labour– Substances applied to the soil e.g. macuna seed or fertiliser– Any special tools needed for application over and above the
‘control’ • In the short run, revenue could decrease if fallow
periods are used, but in the long run it will be sustained
![Page 12: Cost Benefit Analysis – Pacific Example 2](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56816292550346895dd3016d/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
WHAT DATA DO WE NEED TO MEASURE THOSE COSTS AND BENEFITS?
![Page 13: Cost Benefit Analysis – Pacific Example 2](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56816292550346895dd3016d/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
BENEFIT Data required Source of data
COST Data required Source of data
DATA GENERATION
![Page 14: Cost Benefit Analysis – Pacific Example 2](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56816292550346895dd3016d/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
BENEFIT Data required Source of data
Increase in revenue, sustained over time
Market price of taro, marketable taro yield from both control and all treatment scenarios
Field trial data collection, farmer survey or domestic market survey
COST Data required Source of data
Labour Labour time over and above ‘control’ scenario
Field trial data collection
Inputs Price and quantity of inputs over and above ‘control’ scenario
Field trial data collection, receipts from input purchase
DATA GENERATION
![Page 15: Cost Benefit Analysis – Pacific Example 2](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56816292550346895dd3016d/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
• What discount rate will you use?• What time period is the relevant one?• What assumptions do we need to make?
Calculating Costs and Benefits
![Page 16: Cost Benefit Analysis – Pacific Example 2](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56816292550346895dd3016d/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
• What discount rate will you use?– 7%
• What time period is the relevant one?– All time periods in which data are measured. In our example this
is 5 years.• What assumptions do we need to make?– All differences between control and treatment can be attributed
to the treatment (and not other factors) – requires a sound field trial design
Calculating Costs and Benefits
![Page 17: Cost Benefit Analysis – Pacific Example 2](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56816292550346895dd3016d/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Data - taro yields per hectareY0 Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4
Taro yields (kg)
Control 4000 3000 2500 2100 1900
Treatment A 4000 3000 2500 2100 1900
Treatment B 3500 3500 3500 3500 3500
Treatment C 3500 3500 3500 3500 3500
![Page 18: Cost Benefit Analysis – Pacific Example 2](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56816292550346895dd3016d/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
USING THE DATA, CALCULATE THE UNDISCOUNTED COSTS AND BENEFITS OF EACH SOIL HEALTH PRESERVATION TREATMENT
![Page 19: Cost Benefit Analysis – Pacific Example 2](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56816292550346895dd3016d/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
CALCULATE THE DISCOUNTED NET PRESENT VALUE OF EACH SOIL HEALTH PRESERVATION TREATMENT
![Page 20: Cost Benefit Analysis – Pacific Example 2](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56816292550346895dd3016d/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
![Page 21: Cost Benefit Analysis – Pacific Example 2](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56816292550346895dd3016d/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis• Over what?
– Prices of key inputs– Not much else: a field trial leaves little room for uncertainty
• If we were to extrapolate the benefits of the best treatment to a certain % of Taveuni’s taro industry, there may be uncertainty over– Number of farmers who take up the technique– Extension and training costs– How well the farmers apply the technique– Suitability of soil to the technique compared to the soils used in the field
trial
![Page 22: Cost Benefit Analysis – Pacific Example 2](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56816292550346895dd3016d/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis
• Do a sensitivity analysis of a doubling of all costs– Perhaps due to price increases– In real life we would be more precise – e.g. what if
the price of mucuna seed doubles
![Page 23: Cost Benefit Analysis – Pacific Example 2](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56816292550346895dd3016d/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Conclusion
• Treatment B is the most cost-effective treatment from the perspective of the farmers
• Treatment B is still beneficial even when costs double
![Page 24: Cost Benefit Analysis – Pacific Example 2](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062501/56816292550346895dd3016d/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
TANGIO TUMAS/TENKYU TRU/THANK YOU/VINAKA VAKALEVU/SULANG/KO RABWA/TUBWA KOR/MALO 'AUPITO/FA'AFETAI TELE LAVA/MERCI BEAUCOUP/KIA MANUIA/KIAORA KOE/KOMOL
TATA/FAKAUE LAHI/SI YU'US MA'ÅSE‘/TEKE RAOI/KALANGAN/FAKAFETAI
Thank you
Jonathan BowerResource Economist, Land Resources DivisionSecretariat of the Pacific [email protected]+679 337 0733 – ext 35425
lrdeconomics.wordpress.comAlso available from ‘information and networks’ tab at www.spc.int/lrd