Economic & Cost-Benefit Analysis

Service 01 — Core Expertise

Economic &
Cost-Benefit
Analysis

What does a climate investment actually return — to the farmer, to the community, to the funder? We build the evidence that answers that question with precision.

Read the evidence ›
11+
Countries with published CBA evidence in Africa & Asia
15+
Years delivering CBA and investment appraisals on programs funded by USAID, World Bank, Gates Foundation, DANIDA, Swedish Research Council, Nordic Climate Fund, BMZ/GTZ, IKEA Foundation & NWO-WOTRO
30+
Peer-reviewed publications on economic evaluation in development
100+
Scientists & policymakers trained in applied CBA methodology
Climate Risk Management 2025 Heliyon — Ghana & Sub-Saharan Africa 2021–2022 Climate Services — Kenya & Uganda 2022 Scientific African — Rwanda 2025 Discover Sustainability 2025 World Bank — East Africa 2011 USAID — Ethiopia Livestock 2019 National Adaptation Plan Support 2022–2024 Climate Risk Management 2025 Heliyon — Ghana & Sub-Saharan Africa 2021–2022 Climate Services — Kenya & Uganda 2022 Scientific African — Rwanda 2025 Discover Sustainability 2025 World Bank — East Africa 2011 USAID — Ethiopia Livestock 2019 National Adaptation Plan Support 2022–2024
The discipline

The question every donor should ask — but most don’t

Every year, billions flow into agricultural development programs whose returns are never truly measured. Donors make bets based on theory. Farmers live with the consequences. And the field moves on to the next intervention without ever knowing if the last one worked — or how much it actually cost.

Cost-Benefit Analysis changes that calculus. Done rigorously, it forces a program to answer the most uncomfortable question in development: is this the best use of this money? Not compared to nothing — compared to everything else you could have done instead.

Our CBA methodology, developed over 15 years and tested across 11 countries in Africa and Asia, goes beyond simple return calculations. We model uncertainty using Monte Carlo simulations. We separate private returns from social returns. We account for externalities — carbon sequestration, gender equity gains, ecosystem services — that standard financial models ignore. And we translate the numbers into decision-ready guidance that funders, governments, and program teams can actually act on.

Evidence in action

Three investments. Three continents.
Real numbers.

Ghana · Coastal Savannah · USAID

When a farmer bets on the future: climate-smart returns in Ghana

In Ghana’s coastal savannah, we asked a deceptively simple question: if a smallholder farmer adopts a climate-smart practice today, what does she actually get back — in five years, in ten? Input costs are real and immediate. Benefits are diffuse, delayed, and uncertain.

Our CBA found that the economic case varied dramatically by practice — some yielded strong private returns within two seasons, while others only made sense at the societal level once carbon and ecosystem co-benefits were included. The insight reshaped how USAID-supported extension services prioritised their portfolio across the country.

Read the study →
Kenya & Uganda · 6 Practices · Climate Services

Six practices, one hard question: which ones are actually worth it?

A government program wants to scale six different soil management practices across Western Kenya. Funds are limited. Which practices do you back — and which do you quietly drop? This is the exact scenario we were brought in to resolve.

Our analysis compared the profitability and risk profile of each practice at the farm level, accounting for input costs, yield changes, market prices, and risk exposure. The results delivered a clear ranking robust enough to defend to any donor — and a practical guide for farmers and extension workers making adoption decisions under uncertainty.

Read the study →
11 Countries · Africa & Asia · Climate Risk Management

Is risk really the reason farmers don’t invest? We tested it.

The conventional wisdom says smallholder farmers don’t adopt climate-smart innovations because the risks are too high. But is that actually true — or a convenient explanation that lets programs off the hook for poor design?

Across 11 countries, we used financial CBA to put this assumption to the test. The findings were striking: in most contexts, climate-smart innovations showed strong positive returns even under uncertainty. The real barrier was access to information and capital — a conclusion that should fundamentally change how programs are designed and funded.

Read the study →
The bigger picture

When a country needs to decide:
adaptation CBA at the national scale

Most cost-benefit analysis operates at the project level — one intervention, one site, a defined comparison. But what happens when a government needs to choose between ten different adaptation pathways, allocate a national budget, and justify those decisions to international climate funds?

That’s the challenge we were engaged to address under a National Adaptation Plan process led by one of the world’s leading institutions on environmental policy and education. The work required a CBA framework built for policy, not just projects — one that could handle cross-sectoral trade-offs, multi-decade time horizons, and deep uncertainty about future climate impacts.

“The question isn’t whether a country can afford to adapt. It’s whether it can afford not to — and which adaptations deliver the most protection per dollar spent.”

We deliver comprehensive Excel-based models that governments could own and update, validation documentation for donor review, and policy briefs translating technical findings for national decision-makers. The methodology is sharable and can be customized to existing contexts and replicated by other countries navigating the same challenge.

The result:

evidence-backed adaptation investment priorities that could withstand scrutiny from both the finance ministry and international climate funders.

Countries with CBA work

KenyaEthiopia UgandaGhana RwandaZimbabwe MozambiqueTanzania PhilippinesVietnam

Donors & Partners

UNEP · USAID · World Bank · Gates Foundation · DANIDA · NWO-WOTRO · IFAD · IKEA Foundation · Nordic Climate Fund · GTZ/BMZ

A methodology adopted globally

The ex-ante CBA framework developed through this work is widely accepted among institutions of higher learning.

How we work

A methodology built for
decisions under uncertainty

01
Ex-Ante Investment Appraisal
We model costs and benefits of proposed investments before funds are committed — stress-testing assumptions, modelling alternative scenarios, and giving decision-makers a clear picture of expected returns under realistic conditions.
02
Risk & Uncertainty Modelling
Monte Carlo simulation and @Risk modelling allow us to go beyond point estimates and show the full distribution of possible outcomes — critical when programs operate in volatile agricultural and climate contexts.
03
Social & Environmental Returns
We integrate non-market values — carbon sequestration, ecosystem services, gender equity gains, nutritional outcomes — ensuring the full return to society is captured alongside private financial returns.
04
Decision-Ready Outputs
Every engagement produces validated Excel models, policy briefs for non-technical audiences, and presentation materials built for investment committees and governing bodies — not just a report.
Reach out to us

Your investment deserves
rigorous evidence

Whether you’re designing a new program, justifying an investment to a donor, or building national adaptation policy — we bring the analytical depth to make your case with confidence.