the namibian school feeding programme: cost...
TRANSCRIPT
1
En
ab
lin
g V
uln
era
ble
Ch
ild
ren
to
Lea
rn
The Namibian School Feeding Programme: Cost Analysis September 2012
Republic of Namibia Ministry of Education
2
Republic of Namibia Namibian School Feeding Programme Cost Analysis was conducted with technical assistance from World Food Programme Cover image by Justin Ellis: A primary school learner preparing to have his mid- morning meal at one of the schools benefiting from the school feeding programme
Enquiries:
Directorate of Programmes and Quality Assurance Private Bag 13186
Windhoek, NAMIBIA Tel: (+264-61) 293 3220 Fax: (+264-61) 293 3219
3
Table of Contents
Abbreviations ................................................................................................................. 4
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 5
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 6
2. Methodology .............................................................................................................. 7
2.1 Central Level ............................................................................................................ 7
2.2 Regional Level .......................................................................................................... 8
2.3 School Level ............................................................................................................. 8
3. Financial Implementation of NSFP ............................................................................. 9
4. Current Expenditures for NSFP ................................................................................ 11
5. Assessment of NSFP Costs ....................................................................................... 15
6. Comparison with Other Countries Distributing CSB Rations ................................... 16
7. Future and Better ..................................................................................................... 18
8. Recommendations ................................................................................................... 23
9. Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 24
Annex I. Procurement Costs by Region and Term ....................................................... 25
Annex II. Ration Differentiation Options ..................................................................... 26
4
Abbreviations
CSB Corn Soy Blend
MAWF Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry
MOA Ministry of Agriculture
MOE Ministry of Education
MOF Ministry of Finance
MOL Ministry of Labour
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
NAB Namibian Agronomic Board
NSFP Namibian School Feeding Programme
OVC Orphans and Vulnerable Children
PQA Programmes and Quality Assurance
WFP World Food Programme
5
Executive Summary
The Namibia School Feeding Programme (NSFP) is a nationally-run and funded government programme providing meals to approximately 270 000 school children across the country. The meal consists of 125 grams (475 kilocalories or 1,988 kilojoule) of fortified maize blend that is cooked at schools and served as a mid-morning meal.
The Ministry of Education (MOE) at head office is charged with the implementation of the NSFP. NSFP is a highly centralized programme. Through the national tendering process, funds are disbursed to three tenders. School feeding operations occur through funding flows at three levels: central, regional, and school-level.
This analysis assesses the actual costs for school feeding based on 2011 expenditures.1 The cost of school feeding borne by MOE at all levels is estimated at NAD 242 per child per year. The total cost of school feeding including community level contributions at the school level, is NAD 282 per child per year based on six school visits. Expenditures are presented for each level of implementation (central, regional, and school) and are broken down by cost category: commodities, logistics and storage, management and administration, staff costs, and capital costs. The program is very centralized: 79% of costs occur at central level.
In addition, this analysis assesses the projected budget of implementing school feeding incorporating the minimal recommendations outlined in the operational review. The operational review provides an in-depth assessment of the strengths and challenges of the NSFP. It makes recommendations for improving program quality as the program considers future expansion. The minimal recommendations include supplying schools with cooking equipment and primary school learners with eating utensils, compensating cooks in cash, and increasing staffing. The total projected budget given the addition of these minimal recommendation ranges from approximately NAD 83.5 million to NAD 85.2 million. However, many of these costs may in fact yield cost-savings, as the provision of fuel efficient stoves, for example, may save on cooking-time and fuel costs.
Finally, this analysis sets forth recommendations for further analysis into ways to contain costs. This objective should be considered in parallel with other objectives, such as supporting national production, ensuring food quality, and diversifying the food basket. In addition, it sets forth a recommendation for conducting a study of school level cooking arrangements. Such a study can assist the MOE with ascertaining where and how to focus its financial resources to the greatest benefit.
1 The calendar year and school year in Namibia coincide.
6
1. Introduction
The Namibia School Feeding Programme (NSFP) is a nationally-run and funded
government programme providing meals to approximately 270,000 primary school
learners across the country. The World Food Programme (WFP) initiated school
feeding in Namibia in 1991. Since 1997, school feeding has been completely taken
over by the Government.
Currently, the school feeding programme reaches approximately 270,000
beneficiaries at primary-level in more than 1,200 state and private schools. The
programme provides a mid-morning meal to learners at participating schools. The
meal consists of 125 grams (475 kilocalories or 1 988 kilojoule) of fortified maize
blend that is cooked at schools.
WFP and the Ministry of Education (MOE) signed a two-year Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) in May, 2012 for WFP to provide technical assistance on the
school feeding programme. As part of this MOU, the Government of Namibia
requested that WFP conduct an operational review of the Namibian School Feeding
Programme and a historical analysis of the transition to national ownership. This
paper presents an analysis of the cost of the school feeding programme in Namibia
that complements the findings of the school feeding review.
This cost analysis provides the MOE with information it can use in its management
decisions in relation to the planned expansion of the Namibian School Feeding
Programme. Specifically, it provides information on the following aspects of the cost
of school feeding:
1. An estimation of the actual costs for school feeding based on 2011
expenditures.2 The cost of school feeding borne by MOE at all levels is estimated
at NAD 242 per child per year. The total cost of school feeding including
community level contributions at the school level, is NAD 282 per child per year.
Expenditures are presented for each level of implementation (central, regional,
and school) and are broken down by cost category.
2. An evaluation of the efficiency of Namibian school feeding as compared to other
countries providing similar rations.
3. An estimation of how much it would cost to better implement NSFP in the future
by incorporating the minimal recommendations identified in the operational
review.3
2 The calendar year and school year in Namibia coincide. 3 Justin Ellis, “The Namibian School Feeding Programme: A Case Study,” forthcoming 2012.
7
2. Methodology
Costs were estimated at each level of NSFP implementation. Costs are based on
2011 expenditures, and divided into five cost categories: commodities, logistics and
storage, management and administration, staff costs, and capital costs. Costs are
also aggregated by cost category to show total expenditures on each category for all
levels of implementation.
For items that are one time expenses (i.e. are not recurrent but are paid once and
last for a certain number of years), the cost of the item was divided by its lifespan to
determine the annual expenditure. In cases when the cost of the item was unknown
(such as the cost of the office building construction), the rental rate was used as a
proxy. In instances when individuals did not know the cost of a given item (such as
the costs incurred for electricity), the cost incurred by another comparable region or
school was used as an estimate.
As many of the cost categories include items that are not wholly used for NSFP, the
share of the cost that is attributable to NSFP was extracted by multiplying the total
cost by the NSFP share. For example, although there are four posts for NSFP at the
central level, only two staff members work full-time on NSFP. The share of the time
the other two staff members devote to NSFP was multiplied by their salary plus
benefits, to identify the central-level costs for NSFP staff. Similarly, the share of
offices used by NSFP staff, of total offices in the building, was multiplied by MOE’s
utilities bill to extract the NSFP utilities costs.
2.1 Central Level
Costs at the central level were assessed through interviews with human resources
personnel, staff implementing NSFP, and other staff that are responsible for relevant
payments (e.g. utilities, vehicles, etc.). Data on the cost of the tenders were provided
by MOE staff although the original source is the suppliers. At the central level, the
following costs were assessed:
Commodity costs – costs for the tender to provide protein blend, maize meal,
sugar and salt.
Logistics and storage – costs for transportation and storage to regional
warehouses, and from warehouses to schools.
Management and administration – costs for training events and utilities
(water, electricity, phones).
Staff costs – costs for salary plus benefits of all individuals implementing
school feeding.
8
Capital costs – costs for office equipment (computers, cell phones, laptops,
and printers), vehicle lease, and office building construction (or rental rate).
2.2 Regional Level
Costs at the regional level are partially based on estimates. Regional level staff costs
were provided by the human resources personnel at central level. However data on
the regional cost of capital, management and administration for NSFP are not
maintained at the central level – only data for total MOE budget for the regions are
maintained. Therefore, capital, management and administration costs were
identified through phone and in-person interviews with hostel officers and / or their
clerical assistants. Four regions were able to provide information on the cost of
NSFP in their regions: Khomas, Omaheke, Kavango, and Hardap. Regional level costs
presented in this analysis are thus based on the experience of implementing NSFP in
these four regions. As such, regional level costs should be considered an estimate of
the cost of school feeding at the regional level. At the regional level, the following
costs were assessed:
Management and Administration – costs for utilities and school visits
(mileage plus fuel).
Capital – costs for office equipment, vehicle lease, and office building
construction (or rental rate).
Staff - costs for salary plus benefits of all individuals implementing school
feeding.
Estimated costs are calculated using weighted averages based on the number of
beneficiaries in each region surveyed.
2.3 School Level
To determine the expenditures on NSFP at the school level, six school visits were
conducted in the Khomas, Omaheke, Otjozondjupa, and Hardap regions. Due to the
small number of schools visited, cost estimates presented in this analysis are not
representative of school feeding costs at the school level.
One school, Five Rand Primary School in the Otjozondjupa region, was dropped from
the analysis. The school is not considered to be representative of other school
feeding schools in Namibia because it delivers the meals as take-home rations to
learners whereas the meals generally are cooked at schools.
Costs at school level include both costs incurred by MOE (specifically utilities but
sometimes other cost items) and costs borne by the community. Costs at the school
9
level are distinguished by whether they are incurred by MOE or the community.
School level costs include:
Utilities – costs for electricity (used by stoves) and water (used for cooking
and cleaning).
Cooking equipment – costs for stoves, pots, ladles, fuel / wood for cooking,
etc.
Shelters – costs for constructing cooking and storage shelters, if such costs
were incurred.
Cleaning supplies – scourers, soap, wash buckets, etc.
Transport – costs of fuel etc. for transport of any necessary items (such as
cleaning supplies) to schools. Note that the cost of transporting the blend is
captured in central level costs.
Cooks’ remuneration – in most cases cooks are compensated with maize
blend bags, and thus these costs are not included in the school level costs as
the commodity costs are already captured in the central level costs. However,
cooks’ remuneration is accounted for in cases where cooks are paid.
Utensils – costs for plates and spoons for learners to eat the meal.
Food commodities - food items (e.g. oil that is added to the blend)
Estimated costs are calculated using weighted averages based on the number of
beneficiaries at each school surveyed.
3. Financial Implementation of NSFP
School feeding operations occur through funding flows at three levels: central,
regional, and school-level.
The Ministry of Education at head office is charged with the implementation of the
NSFP. Currently the NSFP is a sub-division, under the Division for Management
Planning, Appraisal and Training, in the Directorate of Programmes and Quality
Assurance (PQA), in the Department of Schools and Formal Education. The Ministry
of Finance funds NSFP by distributing funds to the Ministry of Education. PQA
authorizes the spending of funds for NSFP through a national tendering
process. Although the PQA has authority to spend money, the funds are actually
centrally controlled by the Ministry of Education.
NSFP is a highly centralized program. Through the national tendering process, funds
are disbursed to three tenders to (1) provide protein blend, sugar and salt, (2) mix
the protein blend, sugar and salt with maize meal and fortification, and transport it
to regional warehouses, and (3) transport 12.5 kg bags of the maize blend from the
10
regional warehouses to schools. Each tender, however, is awarded per region, and a
tenderer can be awarded several regions. The tender is issued for three years.
However, implementation of education programmes is decentralised to the regions,
to the thirteen Regional Councils. MOE disburses funds to the regional education
office for operational expenses. The budget includes hostel officers’ requirements.
Although hostel officers are not dedicated to school feeding (and there is no specific
school feeding budget for the regions), hostel officers spend some of their time
coordinating the day-to-day operations of NSFP at the regional and school levels. The
operational review found that hostel officers spend on average 25 percent of their
time on NSFP.
Figure 1: Financial Flows of NSFP
Ministry of Education
Ministry of Finance
Protein Blend (Soya, Sugar, Salt)
Maize Blend (Maize Meal & Protein Blend)
Directorate of PQA
Transport & Storage Provider
CENTRAL
Regional
Council (13) Director of Education
REGIONAL
SCHOOL Schools
Community
Contribution
MOE Funding
Community Contribution
11
4. Current Expenditures for NSFP
Table 1 below provides a summary of current expenditures on NSFP at the different
levels of implementation in 2011. Column four shows total cost per child. The
number of beneficiaries in 2011 was 269 585. The next column shows the share of
costs incurred at central, regional, and school levels of total MOE costs (i.e. total
costs excluding community contributions). The final column shows the share of costs
incurred at each level of total costs (including community contributions).
Table 1. Summary of school feeding cost per child by level
Level Funding Source Total Cost Cost per Child per
Year
Share of Total (I +
II +III)
Share of Total (I + II +III +IV)
I. Central MOE NAD 59,800,000 NAD 222 92% 79%
II. Regional (estimate) MOE NAD 3,210,000 NAD 11 4% 4%
III. School (estimate) MOE NAD 10 4% 3%
IV. School (estimate) Community NAD 40 14%
MOE Total (I + II +III) NAD 242 100%
TOTAL (I + II +III+IV) NAD 282 100%
Costs were also aggregated by cost category for each level of implementation as
shown in Table 2. Figure 2 shows the distribution of costs to MOE by cost category at
central and regional levels.
Figure 2. Distribution of MOE Costs at Central and Regional Level by Cost Category
12
Table 2. Summary of school feeding cost per child by level and category
Level
Central and Regional Costs All Levels Central Regional (estimate) School- MOE (estimate)
School- Community (estimate)
Cost Category Total Cost Per Year
Cost Per Child Per
Year
Cost Per Child Per
Year
Total Cost Per Year
Cost Per Child Per
Year
Total Cost Per Year
Cost Per Child Per
Year
Total Cost Per
Year
Cost Per Child Per
Year
Total Cost Per
Year
Cost Per Child
Per Year
Capital N$ 729,000 N$ 3.24 N$ 33 N$ 159,000 N$ 0.59 N$ 570,000 N$ 2.65 NA N$ 2.52 NA N$ 27.28
Logistics & Storage N$ 9,900,000 N$ 36.72 N$ 37 N$ 9,900,000 N$ 36.72 NA NA NA NA NA N$ 0.20
Management & Administration
N$ 869,000 N$ 1.55 N$ 9 N$ 129,000 N$ 0.48 N$ 740,000 N$ 1.07 NA NAD 7.84 NA NA
Staff N$ 2,460,000 N$ 9.09 N$ 12 N$ 580,000 N$ 2.13 N$ 1,880,000 N$ 6.96 NA NA NA N$ 2.81
Commodity N$ 49,000,000 N$ 181.69 N$ 191 N$ 49,000,000 N$ 181.69 NA NA NA NA NA N$ 9.50
TOTAL (NAD) N$ 63,000,000 N$ 232 N$ 282 N$ 59,800,000 N$ 222 N$ 3,200,000 N$ 11 NA N$ 10 NA N$ 40
TOTAL (USD) US$ 7,505,665 US$ 28 US$ 34 US$ 7,124,425 US$ 26 US$ 381,240 US$ 1 NA US$ 1 NA US$ 5
13
Central level costs comprise the majority of total NSFP costs – 79%. Central level costs
include expenditures for the tenders to supply the commodity, as well as its transportation
and storage. Table 3 shows the costs at the central level of operating NSFP.
Table 3. Summary of Central Level Costs of Implementing NSFP 2011
Cost Category Cost Total Beneficiaries
Cost per Child per Year
Share of Total
Commodity N$ 49,000,000 269,585 N$ 182 82%
Logistics and Storage N$ 9,900,000 N$ 37 17%
Mgmt and Admin Costs N$ 129,000 N$ 0.48 0.2%
Staff N$ 575,000 N$ 2.13 1.0%
Capital N$ 159,000 N$ 0.59 0.3%
TOTAL N$ 59,800,000 N$ 222 100%
Expenditures on the maize blend constitute the bulk of the expenses: approximately 82
percent of central level costs. Logistics costs (primarily for transportation) are also high in
comparison to other countries. Management and staff costs together represent less than
2% of the expenditure, which is very low. Table 4 shows the breakdown of the costs of the
maize blend by commodity. The protein blend is the most expensive component of the
maize blend.
Table 4. Cost Distribution of Maize Blend
Commodity Total Quantity (Metric ton/year)
Total Cost Cost per MT Share of Total Cost
MAIZE MEAL 4266 N$ 17 200 000 N$ 4 000 35%
PROTEIN BLEND 1693 N$ 27 200 000 N$ 16 000 56%
SUGAR 731 N$ 4 500 000 N$ 6 200 9%
SALT 81 N$ 80 000 N$ 980 0.2%
TOTAL 6772 N$ 49 000 000 N$ 7 200 100%
At regional level, thirteen regional officers implement NSFP. Regional level costs are
presented in Table 5. Total regional level costs per child in 2011 were only NAD 10.68 in the
four regions surveyed.4 The costs are primarily for staffing. The staff at the regional level
includes thirteen hostel officers, their clerical assistants, and 66 regional inspectors. Based
on the interviews conducted with all the regional level hostel officers as part of the
operational review, it was estimated that hostel officers spend 25 percent of their time on
4 Total costs for capital and operations are estimated by calculating the weighted average capital and operations cost per region and multiplying this weighted average by 13. Total cost per child is a weighted average for the four regions.
14
NSFP, their clerical assistants also spend 25 percent, and regional inspectors only five
percent of their time. The largest expenditures on capital are for office space and vehicle
leasing.
Table 5. Summary of Estimated Regional Level Costs
Cost Category Total Cost Total Cost per Child per Year
Share of Total
Staff N$ 1,900,000 N$ 6.96 65%
Capital (estimate) N$ 570,000 N$ 2.65 25%
Mgmt and Admin (estimate) N$ 740,000 N$ 1.07 10%
Total N$ 3,210,000 N$ 10.68 100%
School level costs comprise a significant share of total NSFP costs. The total cost per child
of implementing school feeding at the school level in 2011 was on average NAD 49. Of this
total, average costs borne by community members were approximately 40 and the
remainder was borne by MOE.5
Table 6 shows the summary of school feeding costs at the school level. As is evident from
the figures, there is significant variation in costs by school. The estimates presented below
should accordingly be interpreted with caution when considering applications of this cost
analysis to other schools.
Table 6. Summary of Namibia School Feeding Costs at School Level
Region School Number of Beneficiaries
Total Cost Cost per Child per Year
I. Costs Incurred by MOE Omaheke Gobabsis 546 N$ 860 N$ 2
Omaheke Nossob 525 N$ 5 300 N$ 10
Hardap Origo 100 N$ 1 200 N$ 12
Khomas Dr. Frans Aupa Indongo 400 N$ 5 200 N$ 13
Khomas Theo Katjimune 40 N$ 3 100 N$ 77
Weighted Average for MOE Costs N$ 10
II. Costs Incurred by Community Members
Omaheke Gobabsis 546 N$ 4 600 N$ 8
Omaheke Nossob 525 N$ 22 000 N$ 43
Hardap Origo 100 N$ 14 000 N$ 137
Khomas Dr. Frans Aupa Indongo 400 N$ 6 200 N$ 16
Khomas Theo Katjimune 40 N$ 17 000 N$ 425
Weighted Average for Community Member Costs N$ 40
Weighted Average for School Level Costs (I + II) N$ 49
5 Total cost for MOE and community contributions do not sum to 50 due to rounding. A weighted average cost was calculated for school level costs borne by MOE and community members due to the high variation in costs and number of learners benefiting from school feeding at each school.
15
Theo Katjimune primary school in the Khomas region incurred particularly high costs for
implementing school feeding. This was due to a number of factors. First, the school uses a
gas stove and the cost for gas is estimated to be approximately NAD 9 000 per year.
Second, the school is the only school to provide a cash salary to the cook. Third, the school
only feeds on average 40 learners a day (whereas the other schools fed over 100 and two,
over 500).
The schools generally spend money from their own funds (the school development fund) or
get in-kind donations to support school feeding. School development funds are contributed
by learners’ parents.
MOE indirectly supports school feeding at the school level in a number of ways. First, MOE
pays for water and electricity that help school feeding operate. Second, maize blend bags,
which are purchased by MOE at the central level, are the primary method of remuneration
for cooks. Third, teachers spend part of their working hours helping to implement school
feeding by supervising learner feeding, keeping records of stocks, and making purchases of
necessary additional items (cooking and cleaning supplies). As teachers are provided a
salary by MOE, their time working on school feeding is a hidden cost for MOE at the school
level. This hidden cost has not been reflected in the cost analysis as it is very difficult to
estimate and is covered by other funding sources.
5. Assessment of NSFP Costs
In 2011, the MOE’s allocation for school feeding was NAD 50 million. Actual expenditures,
however, for only the tenders (commodity, storage, and transport) was NAD 51 288 027.
The cost of the commodity rations (excluding transport and storage) are currently
approximately 80 percent of MOE’s costs of implementing NSFP at the central and regional
levels. There may be some opportunities for cost-cutting in supplying the rations. The cost
of supplying the different commodities for the maize blend is very consistent across the
different terms of the school year. The only exception is that there may be some small
cost-saving opportunities for purchasing the protein blend during the first term of the year
rather than in the second or third terms in the Ohangwena, Omusati, Oshana, and Oshikoto
regions. The protein blend is cheaper in these regions in the first term of the year.6
However, the costs vary widely by region. The costs in these four regions for the protein
blend are generally 125 percent of the costs in the other regions. The cost difference per
metric ton of sugar and salt in these regions, as compared to other regions, is also more
6 Future analysts may want to investigate the underlying causes behind the seasonal price fluctuations.
16
than ten percent higher. While the cost of the maize meal does not follow this pattern,
there are still significant regional variations in costs that could be captured in order to
minimize expenditures on NSFP.
Annex I shows the average supplier price by region. As shown in the table, the regions with
the higher costs are supplied by the same corporation. Further research is needed to assess
the reason behind the price differentials and whether there may be opportunities for MOE
to cut its commodity purchasing costs. The need for such an analysis is detailed in the
Recommendations section (section 8) below.
Although the costs at the regional level are quite minimal, this is generally due to a lack of
staffing, monitoring, and evaluation that was noted in the operational review. At the
regional level, there is a need for a staff dedicated to school feeding. Section 7 of this
report provides an assessment of the costs of increasing staffing at the regional level.
The operational review also made a number of recommendations for school feeding
implementation whose costs are analyzed in Section 7 below. However, one opportunity
for cost saving that particularly stands out is minimizing expenditures by switching to fuel
efficient stoves. Schools with access to electricity and cooking shelters can switch from gas
or wood to electric stoves – which are far more efficient. In schools that lack this capacity,
there are options for more fuel efficient stoves that will necessitate less wood
consumption, engendering health and environmental benefits.
6. Comparison with Other Countries Distributing CSB Rations
NSFP provides a maize blend similar to Corn-Soy Blends (CSB) used in some school feeding
programmes, in particular by WFP. In 2011, WFP distributed CSB-based rations as meals in
Ethiopia and Tanzania.7 The standardised cost of CSB based school feeding rations per child
per year in 2011 was USD 30 in Ethiopia and USD 27 in Tanzania for a standardized ration
providing 700 kilocalories or 2,929 kilojoules per day.8 The cost per child incurred by MOE
for implementing NSFP in 2011, standardized to 700 kilocalories/200 days in order for the
costs to be comparable to costs for WFP-designed rations, was approximately USD 42 per
child. NSFP costs are therefore more expensive than WFP costs for implementing CSB-
based school meals.9 Countries implementing their own school feeding programs are
7 Although other countries use CSB, only these two countries have rations with CSB as the main commodity. The ration in Tanzania is 120 grams of CSB and 20 grams of vegetable oil 20. In Ethiopia the ration is 100 grams of Faffa and 20 grams of sugar. 8 WFP procurement office 2011. 9 The WFP standardised cost of providing school meals in 2011 was 40 USD per child per year. CSB rations are usually less expensive than other modalities. CSB purchase prices are usually cheaper than other commodities used in school feeding and may require less preparation time.
17
expected to incur higher costs than WFP does for running comparable school meals
programs as they are unlikely to have WFP’s logistics capacity for tracking commodity
prices.
One reason that may be underlying the cost differential between WFP and NSFP costs is
the cost of the maize blend. The cost of procuring maize blend10 in Namibia is far higher
than the cost to WFP of purchasing CSB elsewhere in southern Africa. The cost of the NSFP
maize blend in 2011 was NAD 7,200 per metric ton, equivalent to approximately USD 858.
Yet, WFP procured CSB in 2011 at an average price of USD 615 per metric ton in southern
Africa. Figure 2 below shows the difference in purchase prices in the southern African
countries in 2011.
Figure 3. Purchase Rates for CSB in Southern African Countries (2011)11,12
Although maize blend purchase prices may be higher in Namibia, school feeding may
provide a way for the Namibian Government to spur national production. The Namibian
Government favors national procurement in its supply arrangements. The NSFP can
therefore be used by the Government to provide a steady source of demand for Namibian
food producers.
According to the operational review analysis, less than half of the maize meal procured for
the NSFP is of Namibian origin and even if it is provided by Namibian mills, the millers are
obliged to use both Namibian and foreign suppliers to ensure year-round supply.13 The
average price for the maize meal for NSFP in 2011 was NAD 4025 per metric ton. Namib
10 Maize blend refers to the maize and protein blend served in the NSFP. Maize meal refers to only the maize meal component of this blend. 11 Namibia purchases a maize blend which is similar to the CSB blend used by WFP. 12 WFP procurement office 2011. 13 Justin Ellis, “The Namibian School Feeding Programme: A Case Study,” forthcoming 2012.
18
Mill’s estimated price of maize meal is NAD 4,700 per metric ton. The cost is due to the
milling cost, a levy charged by the Agronomic Board, etc. MOE is therefore able to procure
maize meal for NSFP at a cheaper rate than Namib Mill’s going rate. The Recommendations
section describes that a further investigation into price efficiency of the supply chain for
the NSFP blend is advised as it can reveal if there are opportunities to minimize
expenditures on commodity procurement.
7. Future and Better
A number of recommendations emerged from the operational review and subsequent
validation workshop, held in Windhoek on July 4-5, 2012. Among those many
recommendations, the minimal and immediate recommendations that emerged were for:
increasing staffing at both national and regional levels, paying an incentive to cooks,
providing cooking utensils including pots and fuel efficient stoves, and supplying children
with plates and spoons for eating.
This section reviews the options and associated costs for enhancing the program by
implementing these changes. The costs presented are estimates only, based on the
recommendations from the operational review, cost estimates from suppliers, the
distribution of beneficiaries across schools, and – importantly – assumptions on the
number of cooks, pots, and stoves necessary based on a minimal number of school visits.
The cost projections should be considered a rough estimate of actual necessary
expenditures pending a baseline survey into school-level school feeding requirements.
An estimate of the increase in staffing cost was done for two new posts at the central level,
one at the level of Inspector and one at the level of Chief Control Officer. In addition,
thirteen new posts at the regional level were assessed, at the level of hostel officers.14 The
total anticipated cost for the increase in staffing (using current rates for the same grades) is
NAD 3,328,000 annually of which approximately NAD 548,000 a year is for the additional
central level staff persons and NAD 2,780 000 for regional level staff increases. This
assumes that these posts are 100 percent dedicated to school feeding. Using the number
of beneficiaries in 2011 of 269,585, the cost per child of these additional staff comes to
approximately NAD 12 per year. This represents approximately a 200 percent increase in
staffing costs from 2011 and a five percent increase in MOE total costs (not including MOE
costs at the school level).
Cooks spend anywhere from three to eight hours of their day on school feeding. Currently,
most cooks are paid in-kind with maize blend bags. This form of compensation is
14 Personal communication with Ms. Edda Bohn, MOE Director, on July 5, 2012.
19
considered inadequate. A key recommendation that emerged from the operational review
is the need to increase compensation and to compensate cooks in cash for their labour.
There is no current legal standard for the minimum wage paid to cooks. The only minimum
wages which have just been inscribed into law are for labourers / general workers / non-
skilled workers in the construction, security and agricultural sectors who are paid NAD 4 to
5 per hour. There is a domestic wage bill currently in parliament and when passed, this will
cover the hourly rate for cooks, domestic workers, etc. Whereas the hourly rate for cooks is
based on their negotiated wage, the Ministry of Labour (MOL) recommends that the hourly
rate for cooks be NAD 5 per hour. Assuming a four hour work day for a 195 day term, the
annual wage to cooks would be NAD 3,900.
The current value of cooks’ compensation in in-kind donations at the five schools
considered in this study was on average NAD 7.16 per hour. Therefore, the compensation
rate recommended by the MOL represents a cost savings for MOE. Note however that
wages for cooks tend to be highly differentiated by whether the school is located in an
urban or rural area. The average rural compensation rate in the schools visited is NAD 4.15
per hour and the average compensation rate in urban areas is almost three times higher, at
NAD 11.65 per hour. Given that cooks at the schools visited worked on average four hours
per day, five days a week, at an average compensation rate in in-kind donations of NAD
7.16 per hour, their monthly compensation is equivalent to NAD 573 per month or NAD
5,155 per year per cook for a nine month school year. Therefore, the decrease in
expenditure per cook per year represents a twenty five percent cost savings to MOE.
However, this price differential is an estimate because actual cooking time will vary
according to school needs.15 The cost savings for paying cooks in cash is presented as a
negative “additional cost” in the table on the projected cost of school feeding below (Table
7).
The actual number of cooks needed is not known. An analysis is needed that considers the
distribution of cooks at schools and the proximity of schools. For example, it may be the
case that if schools are located nearby and the number of learners at the schools is small,
one cook may be able to serve more than one school. The estimate presented in this
analysis is based on an analysis of the distribution of beneficiaries across schools in
Namibia in 2011. In 2011, MOE reported that there were 8,350 cooks in the NSFP. The cook
to learner ratio was therefore approximately 1 to 30 in this year. As a lower bound
assumption for the future cost of cooks, this analysis assumes that one cook is needed for
every 100 learners. As an upper bound, this analysis assumes that one cook is needed for
15 Other recommendations – such as adequate cooking utensils and fuel efficient stoves- should contribute to contain food preparation time.
20
every 70 learners. This is the average ratio of cooks to learners in Haiti, Chad, and Sri
Lanka’s programs.16
Although compensating cooks in cash will generate a cost saving for MoE, budgeted figures
will not reflect the change in compensation as a savings. This is because currently MoE
budgets only two bags per term for compensating cooks. In the schools visited for this
study and the case study, actually compensation was far higher – usually in the order of
two bags per week per cook. Table 7 shows this discrepancy between budgeted and actual
cost figures. The current planned compensation for cooks has a value of approximately
NAD 4,500,000, assuming that each of 8,350 cooks is paid two bags per term. Actual
expenditures to compensate cooks are far higher. Therefore, compensating cooks yields a
cost savings even though the planned expenditures would be between NAD 10 million and
NAD 15 million, which is higher than the budgeted amount.
Many schools lack proper cooking equipment, particularly pots and stoves. The operational
review recommended that schools be supplied with #25 cast iron 3-legged pots which are
long-lasting and stand up to the hot flames generated by wood-fired cooking. However, not
all schools need such large pots and not all schools need cast-iron pots because not all
schools cook on an open flame. Table 7 below presents cost estimates for different sizes
and types of pots taking account of the distribution of beneficiaries across schools in 2011
and assuming, based on interviews with cooks, that every litre of a pot can provide 2-3
learners with meals. An additional assumption was made that 60 percent of schools cook
on an open flame and need cast iron pots, whereas 40 percent would use aluminium pots.
However, the actual number of schools cooking with wood needs to be verified.
Cast iron pots and fuel-efficient stoves can be considered to be an investment. The cast
iron pots will last for a long time, in fact, some of the original WFP pots from 1991 are still
in use today. Switching to cast-iron pots may in some cases generate a cost-savings as they
will minimize the frequency of pot purchases. In addition, fuel-efficient stoves may
generate a cost-saving over the long term as they will minimize the necessary expenditure
on firewood. WFP is conducting analyses on procurement of fuel efficient stoves. There are
many different types of stoves available at different cost points. Many of the stoves are
quite affordable, starting at only USD 4 per stove, and can create significant savings in fuel
use. For example, the JIKO stove used in several African countries, uses between 30 and 40
percent less fuel than traditional stoves. The WFP country office can provide more
information on these and other stoves.
16 The cook to learner ratio in these countries is: Sri Lanka 2,159 cooks for 166,436 children, Chad 1,418 cooks for 148,231 children, and Haiti 14,400 cooks for 1.04 million children.
21
Many schools lack cooking shelters and are exposed to the sun and rain while cooking. The
store Game offers a rudimentary structure (shown on the right) that is easy to move and
provides shelter from the sun and rain – although the sides are exposed. One shelter is
suitable for one school. However, given that many schools already have cooking shelters
this analysis assumes that only twenty percent of schools would benefit from these
structures. Cost for cooking shelters may be underestimated and should be interpreted
with caution. Finally, children at many schools do not have plates or spoons to eat their
meal with. This analysis estimates the price of a one-time expenditure for providing all
children with plates and spoons.
Table 7 summarizes the projected cost for implementing NSFP with the addition of these
minimal improvements based on the assumptions and estimates outlined above.
22
Table 7. Future Costs for Implementing NSFP with Minimal Improvements Additional Improvements
Item Current Costs Unit Cost/Initial Investment
Unit Cost per Year
Estimated Quantity
Additional Cost Total Future Cost
Logistics & Storage N$ 9,900,000 N$ 9,900,000
Management & Administration N$ 869,000 N$ 869,000
Commodity N$ 49,000,000 NAD 542/cook/year
-542 8350 -N$ 4,527,948 N$ 44,472,052
Capital N$ 729,000
Fuel efficient stove 2015 81 780 N$ 1,600,000
#25 70 liter Cast-iron 3-legged Cooking Pot 2792 112 650 N$ 1,800,000
#20 56.3 liter cast-iron 3-legged Pot 2255 90.2 434 N$ 978,000
#6 13.5 liter cast-iron 3-legged Pot 960 38.4 181 N$ 174,000
30 liter Aluminium Pot 877 88 1438 N$ 1,300,000
Cooking shelter 350 70 260 N$ 91,000
Kango Enamel soup plate 22cm. 9 2 270772 N$ 2,400,000
Ladle 8oz. 225ml. B/C 23 5 3868 N$ 88,000
Spoons 10 2 270772 N$ 2,700,000
Projected New Capital Costs with Additional Inputs N$ 11,900,000
Staff N$ 2,460,000
Central level - new staff at level of Inspector 320000 320000 1 N$ 320,000
Central level - new staff at level of Chief Control Clerk 228000 228000 1 N$ 228,000
Regional level - new staff at level of hostel officer 214000 214000 13 N$ 2,780,000
Cook salary - estimate of cook to learner ratio of 1:100 N$ 5/hour 3900 2708 N$ 10,600,000
Cook salary - estimate of cook to learner ratio of 1:70 N$ 5/hour 3900 3868 N$ 15,100,000
Projected New Staff Costs with Additional Inputs - LOWER BOUND N$ 16,400,000
Projected New Staff Costs with Additional Inputs - UPPER BOUND N$18,100,000
TOTAL PROJECTED COST - LOWER BOUND N$ 83,541,052
TOTAL PROJECTED COST - UPPER BOUND N$ 85,241,052
23
8. Recommendations
There are two issues identified in this analysis that MOE should consider in order to
improve the efficiency of delivery of quality meals to learners:
(1) Supply Arrangements:
There are regional differentiations in the supply price of the NSFP maize blend
components that correspond to suppliers.
It is recommended that an assessment be conducted of the MOE current supply
arrangements and potentials for modifying supply channels to improve efficiency. A
food technologist should be identified that can provide technical assistance on food
quality assurance. The technologist can determine whether the components of the
NSFP blend are being supplied for the lowest available price for the quantity and
quality of the product. In addition, the technologist can assess opportunities for
adopting new supply arrangements. Specific new supply arrangements that the
technologist could consider are decentralizing procurement and contracting with
different suppliers.
The food technologist could also investigate the potential for diversifying the food
basket while maintaining the nutritional quality of the meals – and the associated
cost of such changes. Appendix II describes an initial assessment of two such options
for basket differentiation.
(2) Survey of school needs:
There is little available data on the assets available at school-level for school feeding.
It is therefore difficult to make a recommendation on the cost of supplying basic
products for NSFP without an assessment of the inventory at schools.
The projected costs presented in this report are estimates largely based on the
assessment of school needs from six school visits. Therefore, these estimates should
be approached with caution. There is a high level of variation in how NSFP operates
in different schools, and as a consequence, what MOE costs will be for incorporating
the minimal improvements recommended by the operational review (i.e.
remuneration for cooks, provision of cooking pots, utensils, etc.).
It is recommended that a school level survey be conducted to determine the cooking
arrangements at different schools. Primary among the many aspects of school
feeding that the analysis should identify is which schools are using wood-burning
stoves and how many schools already have proper cooking equipment. This
information will inform MOE on how many schools would benefit from the provision
24
of fuel efficient stoves and different types of pots (in particular whether they need
cast iron or aluminum pots). In addition, in order to determine the number of cooks
that are needed, it is necessary to determine how many beneficiaries there are per
school and the distance between schools.
9. Conclusion
The estimates provided in this study can be used as a guide by MOE in planning the
future directions of NSFP. It provides estimates of the current costs of running NSFP
on a per-child per-year basis as well as the budget that should be allocated per year
if minimal improvements and expansions are made.
Many of the expenditures on NSFP currently are quite minimal, namely on staffing.
However, the cost of NSFP incurred by MOE (excluding school level costs which are
borne by the community) is more expensive than other countries in which WFP
delivers similar food rations (CSB) and modalities (central procurement and meals
cooked in schools). There may be opportunities for further efficiencies in
procurement. This analysis makes a recommendation for further investigation into
the current supply arrangements.
This cost analysis provides estimates for minimal improvements to the NSFP, as
outlined in the operational review and validation workshop. Specifically, it presents
estimates of the current costs of running NSFP on a per-child per-year basis as well
as the unit costs that should be allocated on a per-year basis if minimal
improvements and expansions are made. Although the analysis presents these
improvements as costs, they could in fact constitute a net cost-saving. Fuel efficient
stoves, for example, will save schools on their purchases of firewood. However, the
projected costs should be considered to be estimates only. A baseline survey of
school feeding needs at school level is essential in order to assess the actual
quantities that should be delivered.
The improvements considered in this analysis do not incorporate the many large-
scale recommendations that were made in the workshop and operational review,
that would greatly enhance the quality of NSFP. Specifically, this analysis does not
consider expansion scenarios (only maintaining the beneficiary numbers at 2011
levels), amendments of staff structures, ration differentiation, alterations to
monitoring and evaluation systems nor many of the other large-scale changes
considered in the operational review and subsequent validation workshop.
Annex II considers the cost for incorporating two new food items into NSFP: dairy
drink and mahangu biscuits. The development of the manufacture of these two
items is currently being supported by MOA. Further investigation into other food
25
items as well may reveal other nutritious and cost-effective means to provide
learners with their dietary needs.
Annex I. Procurement Costs by Region and Term
Table 8. Average Supplier Price by Region
Maize and blending Protein blend, salt and sugar
Transport
Region Supplier Price/MT Supplier Price/MT Supplier Price/MT
Caprivi Halutusane 4400 Halutusane 7212 Halutusane 464
Erongo Alason 3750 Alason 7057 Ehupo 425
Hardap Alason 3750 Alason 7057 Ehupo 430
Karas Alason 3750 Alason 7057 Ehupo 548
Kavango Tyno 4388 Alason 7057 Hakaranda 552
Khomas Alason 3750 Alason 7057 Hakaranda 352
Kunene Tyno 4388 Alason 7057 Ehupo 614
Ohangwena Pena 3900 Pena 8389 FU Rd 1049
Omaheke Alason 3750 Alason 7095 TAA Mokondjo 395
Omusati Pena 3900 Pena 8389 FU Rd 1045
Oshana Pena 3900 Pena 8389 ARC 924
Oshikoto Pena 3900 Pena 8389 TAA Mokondjo 914
Otjozondjupa Alason 3750 Alason 7057 Hakaranda 393
26
Annex II. Ration Differentiation Options
Many of the recommendations that emerged from the operational review and
validation workshop were for substantial changes in the way school feeding is being
implemented. Such changes include: decentralizing the procurement and
transportation structure, differentiating rations, implementing a new monitoring and
evaluation system, and expanding the number of beneficiaries. Most of these
modifications need to be thoroughly researched to determine the necessity and
feasibility of such changes. As such, an analysis of the cost of these modifications is
outside the scope of this study.
This analysis examines the cost for two potential changes to the school feeding diet
which are locally produced and would increase dietary variety. Many schools
complained about the lack of variety in school feeding, where maize meal is provided
to learners every day. In addition, the operational review and workshop participants
expressed an interest in increasing the sourcing of locally produced food to stimulate
local production within the context of school feeding.
Namibia Dairies conducted an analysis of the potential for expanding NSFP to include
dairy products.17 They proposed providing a drinking yoghurt called nammilk
OshikandelaTM. The product can be provided in a fortified form and is available in
both fresh and long life versions. Namibia Dairies can produce a 200ml or 250ml
dairy based long life product with a shelf life of at least six months.
The nutritional value of all dairy based products (example of nammilk Oshikandela TM
below) is high and based on a 200ml or 250ml pack, as shown in Table 9. The
nutritional value ensures that an individual will receive his / her recommended
dietary allowance of protein, calcium and Vitamin A. Further, fortification can be
enhanced to ensure addition of Vitamin D and B12 as well as Iron, Iodine,
Magnesium and other micro nutrients to deliver all basic nutritional elements on a
daily basis.
17 School Nutrition Programme Namibia Dairies Report, October 2011.
27
Table 9. Nutritional info for Dairy Product
Oshikandela sweet without fortification with fortification Current Maize blend
Per 100ml Per 200ml
* % NRV’s
Per 100ml
* % NRV’s
Per 125 grams
Protein (g) 3.6 7.2 6 3.6 6 15
Fat content (g) 2.5 5 - 2.5 - 6
Carbohydrate (g) 12 24 - 12 - 89
Energy (kJ) 352 704 - 352 - 1989
Calcium (mg) 112 224 8 112 8 30
Vitamin A (µg) - - - 900 100
Vitamin D (µg) - - - 15 100
Crude fibre (g) 2
Sodium (mg) 625
Ash (g) 3
Iron (mg) 3
Zinc (mg) 2
Namibia Dairies has done a preliminary cost estimate based on a 200ml portion of
long life fortified Oshikandela. This product, including distribution cost, can be
provided to the NSFP for approximately NAD 2.20 per pack. This calculation is based
on the purchase of at least 10 million portions per annum. However, pricing may
vary depending on the fortification requirements, vitamins, supplements and
nutrients as well as the number of packs ordered and supplied. Increasing the
nutritional content of the packs is likely to also result in an increased price.
Currently, NSFP expenditures are approximately 0.79 NAD per learner per day for
the commodity and 0.98 NAD per learner per day for the commodity plus its
transport and storage. Therefore, supplying the dairy product would necessitate
over a two-fold increase in the budget for food and transport purchase. In addition,
switching to a dairy drink would bring about other challenges in ensuring the
environmentally friendly disposal of the milk packs.
The Ministry of Agriculture is implementing a Mahangu Marketing plan for 2010 to
2013. Mahangu is an indigenous Namibian local produce that is traditionally used in
porridge or fermented beverages. In cooperation with GB Mahangu Enterprises,
MAWF and NAB have supported GB Enterprises in developing and producing several
types of cookies.
28
Currently Mahangu Enterprises, founded last year (in 2011), is in the nascent stages
of its development. The company is expanding to scale up capacity to produce 4 500
kg per month, which it hopes to accomplish in less than two months time (by
September, 2012). The viability of the product for use in NSFP is questionable. The
shelf life has not yet been identified. As shown in Table 10, the nutritional content
does not yet meet WFP standards not the levels of the current maize blend --
although the company is more than willing to work with a nutritionist / food
technician to amend its recipe to boost the nutritional value.
Table 10. Nutritional info for Mahangu cookies
Mahangu cookie Current Maize blend
Ingredient Per 100 grams Per 125 grams
Protein and Carbohydrates (g) 77.3 104
Fat (g) 19.8 6
Crude fibre (g) 2
Calcium (mg) 5.8 30
Sodium (mg) 32 625
Ash (g) 3
Iron (mg) 3
Zinc (mg) 1.3 2
Mahangu Enterprises expects that its wholesale price will be NAD 60 per kilogram.
As one ration is 100 grams, the cost per child is thus NAD 6 per child per day, or
more than a six-fold increase in the current cost.
Diversifying NSFP rations can be done on a one, two, or three days per week basis,
which may help contain costs. However, it seems likely that the alternatives analyzed
in this study are cost prohibitive for MOE, and if possible, future analysts should look
into other foods and suppliers.