COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS-KITCHEN GARDENS INTERVENTION

“Women and Children/Infants Improved Nutrition in Sindh”- WINS WINS is EU funded four years initiative. Overall objective to improve the nutrition status of children and pregnant/lactating women. The specific objective is to address the high rates of malnutrition. These objectives will be achieved through a combination of direct nutrition interventions and nutrition-sensitive actions. Cost benefit analysis-Kitchen Gardens intervention 14 November 2016

01 03 02 04 CBA Methodology Learning Agenda Step Step 3 Step Step Data Analysis – Monetizing Benefits Outcome Mapping (Proxy indicators) Step Step 3 01 03 Calculations of Returns on Investment- Step Data collection – Survey Step 02 04 Cost benefit analysis-Kitchen Gardens intervention 14 November 2016

Outcome mapping and development of proxy indicators 1 2 3 4 5 Increased Income Savings Food security Women Empowerment Improved skills Total KG Produce by HH Proportion of KG produce utilized at HH Food Consumption Score Ownership of Produce Cost of learning same skills from any other institute % saving in healthcare costs % produce Sold Ownership of Income Average Price Average Price Saving because of KG Baseline v/s KG study Linkages with market Cost benefit analysis-Kitchen Gardens intervention 14 November 2016

Costs to SC and Beneficiaries Tools and input cost - $11571 Trainers cost, Trainees per diem - $3219 Inputs Travel cost to sell produce in market - $119 Trainings Opportunity cost in term of paid work ($13.2/month/ beneficiary) HR and follow up cost (not included) Travel HR cost Labor Cost incurred by SC Cost incurred by the households Cost benefit analysis-Kitchen Gardens intervention 14 November 2016

Returns to Beneficiaries: Production & Income Yield from KG per week Average yield 10 kg per week 44% sold the surplus at local market The average monthly income from kitchen gardens was USD 14 Yield from KG per week Cost benefit analysis-Kitchen Gardens intervention 14 November 2016

Household vegetable consumption & saving 89% of the all household members used KG vegetables 56% consumed produce domestically from their kitchen gardens and did not sell in the market The average household savings because of kitchen gardens was USD 10 per month Own grown vegetables usage in a week Cost benefit analysis-Kitchen Gardens intervention 14 November 2016

Translating increased consumption to health outcomes Health expenses reduced to 23% due to KG intervention CoD model estimated a positive impact on quality of the diet as a result of KG: The average meal frequency for 2-17 years of boys and girls is three . Cost benefit analysis-Kitchen Gardens intervention 14 November 2016

Sustainability of KG Reasons for discontinuity: Lack of interest Not enough yield Affordability Short term benefits Are you practicing kg Now? Cost benefit analysis-Kitchen Gardens intervention 14 November 2016

Women’s empowerment 81% women own the production of KG but only 37% can decide about the utilization of the income earned through the sale of vegetables 26% of women are directly selling the produce in market and are primary owners of the income they get from KG. Improving access of women to markets and intra household decision making remains a challenge ; Cost benefit analysis-Kitchen Gardens intervention 14 November 2016

Returns on Investment Returns to Beneficiaries with SC support $14 : $24/ month/ beneficiary Returns to Beneficiaries without SC Support. $ 45 ; $ 24 / month/ beneficiary Returns to SC (overall benefits to beneficiaries) $ 1 : $0.32 Kitchen Gardens are only profitable to beneficiaries with Save the children Support. Looking at the present cost/benefits calculated in this study, if SC invest $ 1 , it only generate benefits equivalent to $.30. Cost benefit analysis-Kitchen Gardens intervention 14 November 2016

Limitations Additional stages to the analysis that could have strengthened the findings did not take place due to limitations in time and resources In this analysis some important costs and benefits could not be monetized As field data was collected by program staff who have implemented the kitchen gardens activity, so element of biasness is present Cost benefit analysis-Kitchen Gardens intervention 14 November 2016

Recommendations Kitchen Gardens Programming: Need to carefully consider whether supporting Kitchen Gardening is an effective approach for food security and nutrition, and outcomes it produces for children. Develop a cost-effective KG model for beneficiaries to continue without SC inputs Form a home producers/farmers group that should be linked with relevant government line department for technical support and establish community owned business centers Need to consider additional approaches to enhance women empowerment e.g. linking women with markets, financial inclusion, skills development, intra-household control of resources; Women empowerment could be used as a key strategy to address child poverty on longer term. Lessons for Wider Programming: Future projects should develop Value For Money indicators at the start of intervention and continue to track them over the project period Save the Children should apply this modeling approach at the design stage to ensure that interventions are scrutinized for their potential economic and social viability and sustainability in the longer term Develop Learning agenda at the onset of projects Cost benefit analysis-Kitchen Gardens intervention 14 November 2016

Cost benefit analysis-Kitchen Gardens intervention 14 November 2016