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 ›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.
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 addressed as CBA modelling consultant on Mongolia’s National Adaptation Plan (NAP) process — a UNEP-funded engagement delivered by OIKO. The work required developing and leading the implementation of a cost-benefit analysis system 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.”
The engagement produced comprehensive Excel-based models the government 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.
A methodology built for
decisions under uncertainty
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.