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.