2294 part 1 final report.pdf - Agra CEAS Consulting

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Prevention and control of animal diseases worldwide Part I: Economic analysis: prevention versus outbreak costs VND USD (b) Control costs per head (6) 3,000 0.19 Number of birds culled (2005) 17,000,000 Total compensation (2005) 85,000,000,000 5,448,718 Total value of culled animals (2005) 680,000,000,000 43,589,744 Total restocking subsidy (2005) 34,000,000,000 2,179,487 Total culling and disposal costs (2005) 66,300,000,000 4,250,000 Total control costs (2005) 51,000,000,000 3,269,231 Number of birds culled (2004-5) 41,300,000 Total compensation (2004-5) 206,500,000,000 13,237,179 Total value of culled animals (2004-5) 1,652,000,000,000 105,897,436 Total restocking subsidy (2004-5) 82,600,000,000 5,294,872 Total culling and disposal costs (2004-5) 161,070,000,000 10,325,000 Total control costs (2004-5) 123,900,000,000 7,942,308 Laying hen market value (7) 100,000 6.41 Poultry farming income (8) Normal' (pre-outbreak) 400,000,000,000 25,641,026 Crisis (average during crisis) 100,000,000,000 6,410,256 Total income loss during crisis 1,800,000,000,000 115,384,615 (a) includes culling (value of culled animals and culling/disposal) and control costs (b) Exchange rate: 1USD = VND 15600 (1) To date central government funds allocated for AI amounts to VND 268 billion, from the budget of the National Prevention/Emergency Fund (around 15% of the budget) (source: A3) (2) Assuming that the provided compensation from the Fund (at 5,000 VND per head) only represents 10-15% of the real market value. This is the real 'lost income per head' (source: A3) (3) Compensation for culling only, at 5,000 VND per head (4) On the basis of the provided compensation from the Fund for restocking (at 2,000 VND per head) (5) Cost estimates per bird on the basis of destruction and disposal of 200 chickens per farm (source: A7) (6) On the basis of the provided compensation from the Fund. Includes control costs during and after the outbreak (i.e. equipment, facilities, disinfectants, protective clothing, staff in quarantine stations etc.) (7) The market value of a layer is considered to be 100,000 VND/head (source: A3) (8) Monthly volume sales by price. Income during 'normal' and 'crisis' periods calculated as follows: At the lowest point of the crisis (Oct/Nov 2005), prices were 50 to 60% below normal, and volume of poultry sales had fallen from about 40 million poultry per month to 20 million (unofficial data, source: A9). Crisis period Civic Consulting • Agra CEAS Consulting 114
Prevention and control of animal diseases worldwide Part I: Economic analysis: prevention versus outbreak costs assumed to be an average over 6 months (in the beginning crisis has a higher impact on sales/prices, with return to normal the impact progressively diminishes). Source: Agra CEAS Consulting, based on data from literature (including A3, A7 and A9) It is generally estimated that the economic impact of the AI epidemics has amounted to less than 1% of Vietnam’s GDP. UN agencies have estimated that, in the first outbreak alone (when the impact has been more extensive) the total economic impact (including direct costs and losses and indirect impacts in upstream and downstream activities) have amounted to over US$ 200 million which was about 0.6% of the GDP that year (A204). Both the WB and the IMF have concluded that, in macroeconomic terms, the impact of avian flu on the country’s economy has been very modest, and that despite the outbreaks the national GDP continued to post strong growth (rising by 8.4% in 2005) contributing the targets set within the Vietnam’s poverty reduction strategy (A266, A266b). The picture is, however, very different when the micro-economic impact of the disease is assessed. In Vietnam, relatively the largest losses were felt by small scale, often indebted, commercial chicken producers with limited numbers of other livestock 118 (A76). The social and economic costs were also particularly felt by Vietnam’s millions of farm households with small numbers of poultry. Around 8 million of Vietnam’s 12 million households were estimated to be engaged in poultry production prior to 2003, and this number is estimated to have fallen by 50% following the outbreak, suggesting a significant impact on the sector’s restructuring (A9, A16) 119 . Moreover, the impacts are unevenly distributed, as income from poultry and eggs is relatively more significant for the poorest part of the population 120 . Simulation models (FAO PPLPI) show that a backyard poultry sales ban would result in up to 25% loss of income for the poorer households (losses could be reduced to 10% if there was some diversification towards alternative production); if households were also banned from raising poultry for their own consumption the loss could be double for the poorer households (A30). If the outbreaks escalated into a human pandemic, this would have devastating economic and social consequences, including large-scale loss of livelihoods as well as lives. Vietnam, like other countries affected countries, confronts choices in balancing preparation versus action since both imply economic costs. At least three impacts should be considered under a human pandemic scenario: (a) effects of sickness and mortality on potential output; (b) private preventive responses to an epidemic; and (c) public sector responses. 118 Despite the fact that compensation was paid, this was at a lower rate than initially announced, was only paid to farmers that registered with the authorities, and there were delays. 119 Although some of this restructuring was partly induced by government policies and not just the economic forces at play following the HPAI outbreaks. 120 Vétérinaires Sans Frontières (VSF) in a case study of a village in the highlands of North Vietnam estimated that a smallholder lost US$ 69-108 from the HPAI outbreaks, including the value of lost birds and loss of an average 2.3 months with no activities (no income and consumption ). In Vietnam about 18% of the households earn less than US$1 per capita a day and 64% of the households less than US$2. (A76) Civic Consulting • Agra CEAS Consulting 115
Page 1 and 2:
The World Organisation for Animal H
Page 3 and 4:
Expert Team Agra CEAS Consulting: M
Page 5 and 6:
Prevention and control of animal di
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78: Prevention and control of animal di
Page 127: Prevention and control of animal di
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Annexes Prevention and control of a
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Country Title Date Programme durati
Page 225 and 226:
Country Title Date Programme durati
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251:
show all

2294 part 1 final report.pdf - Agra CEAS Consulting

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?