In August, Jameel postgraduate student Puff Mukwaya completed his MSc thesis on ‘Assessing the effectiveness of drought anticipatory action in Uganda’s agro-pastoral drylands: a cost-benefit analysis.’
His research originated in the Observatory’s challenge questions of 2022 that sought insights into the costs and benefits of anticipatory action (AA).
His study conducted an ex-ante cost-benefit analysis of commonly proposed AA interventions, particularly drought-tolerant seeds and livestock vaccination, in the Napak and Moroto districts of the Karamoja region in Uganda.
Given the stochastic behaviour of drought, stochastic benefit-cost models were set up to assess whether the benefits of implementing the two anticipatory interventions based on a drought return period of five years would outweigh the costs.
The findings provide insights into the cost-benefit profiles of drought-tolerant seeds and anticipatory livestock FMD vaccination interventions under different conditions, and identify the key factors influencing their outcomes.
The drought-tolerant seed intervention demonstrated limited economic viability when assessed solely on direct benefits, with a negative mean NPV of -712,597 USD and a BCR of 0.76. This aligns with existing literature which suggests that interventions in vulnerable communities cannot be justified on narrow economic grounds alone. However, incorporating indirect social and health benefits transformed the economic outlook, yielding a positive mean NPV of 864,767 USD and a mean BCR of 1.30. This underscores the need for comprehensive valuation approaches that capture broader societal non-monetary or intangible benefits when evaluating AA interventions in climate-vulnerable regions.
The FMD vaccination campaign exhibited stronger baseline economic performance, with a mean NPV of 628,451 USD and a mean BCR of 1.44, consistent with comparable studies in pastoral East African endemic contexts.
Sensitivity analyses identified critical variables affecting intervention outcomes: adoption rates in non-drought years, training costs for drought-tolerant seed interventions, and milk loss, vaccine costs and vaccine effectiveness for FMD vaccination interventions.
Scenario or risk analyses demonstrated that economic viability varied significantly under different conditions. The drought-tolerant seed intervention requires consideration of indirect benefits to achieve viability in worst-case scenarios, whereas the livestock vaccination interventions maintain positive returns even under challenging circumstances.
Testing for Foot and Mouth disease in Karamoja, Uganda. Photo: FAO Uganda