Findings from the cost effectiveness analysis

Clare Narrod, on behalf of the team

International Food Policy Research Institute International Center for the Improvement of Maize

and Wheat International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics University of Pittsburgh

Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences ACDI/VOCA/Kenya Maize Development Program Kenya Agricultural Research Institute Institut d’Economie Rurale The Eastern Africa Grain Council

• CEA evaluates the cost effectiveness of possible control decisions (options) on risk and health impacts

• Interested the least costly way to

reduce aflatoxin risk

Cost per unit

% Risk

Reduction

A

C

D

B

.

We estimate probability of aflatoxin contamination at each stage effectiveness of each technology

cost of each technology

When budgets are limited, keeping everything else equal, technologies that abate the greatest risks: are more effective

should be adopted first

Procedure Interventions Purpose/status/application

Pre-harvest Timing: planting and harvest Drought and pest resistant varieties Good agricultural practices

Avoid insect infestation which can serve as vectors for mould invasion; avoid plant stresses such as drought and other growth stress

Harvesting & Post harvest: drying and storage

Hand sorting-sun drying; storing bags on wooden pallets or elevated off ground; insecticides; rodent control

Reduce moisture levels and exposure to toxigenic moulds

Post-Harvest: food preparation

Physical separation of damaged, immature and mould-infested kernels, nuts, seeds etc

Effective in reducing aflatoxin levels in final product;

Effectiveness of these measures in practice under developing country conditions is not well understood.

In 2009 we implemented a 2-stage Delphi expert elicitation via email with a panel of experts to provide guidance on the effectiveness of selected aflatoxin control measures for maize and groundnut producers in the study countries.

Augmented information on effectiveness from literature.

Technique

Effectiveness (%)

Duration of effectiveness of method (years) Price**

Capacity (# of 90 kg bags)

Drying 50 1 4.5 0.28

Tarpaulin 50 5 6,2000 4000

Postharvest intervention *69 2 *61 5.00

Plastic Silos S 60 10 4,600 3.00

Plastic containers M 60 10 11,132 12.00

Plastic containers L 60 10 17,020 20.00

Metal Silos Small 60 20 8667 3.00

Metal Silos Medium 60 20 17833 12.00

Metal Silo Large 60 20 24883 20.00

* from Turner et al, rest from expert elicitation, ** from CIMMYT survey/ ACDI/VOCA

Present value of reduction in aflatoxin prevalence

Cost per bag of maize (Ksh/90 kg)

Cost per unit of reduction in risk (Cost-effectiveness)

Drying 50.00 16.07 0.32

Tarpaulin 226.22 155.00 0.69 Postharvest intervention 134.55 12.20 0.09

Plastic Silos S 481.52 1533.33 3.18

Plastic containers M 481.52 927.67 1.93

Plastic containers L 481.52 851.00 1.77

Metal Silos Small 769.82 2889.00 3.75

Metal Silos Medium 769.82 1486.08 1.93

Metal Silo Large 769.82 1244.15 1.62

Biocontrols 60.00 369.34 6.16

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

Pre

sen

t va

lue

of

red

uct

ion

in a

fla

tox

in

pre

vale

nce

Cost per bag of maize (Ksh/90 kg)

D

Tarp

Metal silos

Biocontrols

Plastic Silos

Post harvest

Drying

Technologies with similar costs and effectiveness Keeping everything else equal, technologies that abate the greatest risks

should be adopted first.

Technologies with similar costs and contamination risks Keeping everything else equal, more effective technologies should be

adopted first.

Technologies with similar effectiveness and contamination risks Keeping everything else equal, cheaper technologies should be adopted

first.

Technologies with differing levels of effectiveness and exhibit economies of scale properties Education efforts need to be directed at getting small holders to adopt

those measures most cost-effective for them; subsidies may be needed.

Governments may chose to intervene when the conditions required to achieve market efficient disease control outcomes through the use of subsidies.

From a public policy point of view, the key challenge is to identify the optimal subsidy or varying subsidies to achieve the greatest net social gain, which should be driven by and understanding of the cost effectiveness associated with a singular or combination of risk reduction activities.

WTP analysis suggest which technologies need subsidies;.

Difficult to identify the level of effectiveness in real world situation; relying on the experts;

Levels of effectiveness assume correct application of methods;

Estimates for cost of risk reduction technologies still in development highly uncertain;

Cross-contamination and further growth can occur further up the value chain; need to evaluate the cost/effectiveness of applicable interventions

Small-scale farmers (< 3

acres )

Producers

Agro-input shop

Town market

International NGOs

Extension services

Large-scale

farmers (> 3 acres)

Input providers

COLLECTORS

Large buyers at market

Large scale traders (incl

NCPB)

Traders

Small local informal traders

Aflatoxin risk at

storage

Aflatoxin risk at

transportation

Industrial processors

Aflatoxin risk at

transportation

Local Markets

Export (Sudan,

Somalia)

Supermarkets

Distributors/Consumers

Schools, hospitals, & other

institutions

Urban markets

Aflatoxin risk at

storage

Aflatoxin risk at

storage

Application point Procedure

Trader/WH/Processor Awareness building

Trader/WH/Processor Monitor mycotoxin levels in stores, remove damage corn, promote

the dry corn to optimal moisture content before storage

WH/storage Frequent cleaning of feed delivery systems and short-term storage

areas; drying techniques to achieve adequate storage moisture and

store product on dry clean surface, promote appropriate storage

structures for different size producers, and monitor for pest,

moisture levels

WH/storage/ Processor Separation of damaged and mould-infested kernels, (can be done

by one or a combination of several methods (farmer selection, belt

separator, gravity table, colour sorting, use of BGYF light)

Processor Enterosorption – based on the approach of adding a binding agent

to prevent the absorption of the toxin while the food is in the

digestive tract; Chemical inactivation by ammonization,

Nixtamalization with addition of hydrogen peroxide and sodium

bicarbonate, Thermal processing