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 Our analysis in this section leads us to the following conclusions: Case study: Vietnam Vietnam suffers from a number of high risk factors with respect to HPAI. Consequently the government has committed significant national resources (including donor support) to the fight against avian influenza and for the prevention of a human pandemic. This has included extensive restructuring in the VS since the 2004-05 AI outbreaks, although there is little information to date on whether this has resulted in improvements that can effectively prevent/control future outbreaks (a recently concluded PVS evaluation is bound to shed more light on this). Our analysis and comparisons of data on the committed national budgets for 2006-10 under the Operational Programme for avian influenza (animal health component) against real and projected costs of the outbreaks reveal the relative scale of the costs and benefits involved (see Notes*). These conclusions are supported by other work reviewed from available literature. For example: • The total commitment on animal health under the 2006-10 OPI (excluding control costs in the event of an outbreak) comes to some US$ 70 million for the 5 year period, while the total direct and indirect costs from the outbreak in 2004 alone is (conservatively) estimated at US$ 300 million (Figure 13). • Investing in disease investigation and strengthening VS over the same period would cost public coffers a total US$ 30 million, compared to total direct production costs and losses during the 2004-05 outbreak of US$ 62 million a year and excluding consequential onfarm losses. • Adding consequential losses, our projections of the total direct impact under the most likely scenario (which is milder than the 2004-05 epidemics) come to US$ 115 million a year. In a country where two thirds of the production is run by small holder systems and over two thirds of farms keep poultry, this analysis also demonstrates the potential benefits of improved prevention in terms of social equity and poverty alleviation (and even food security). Relatively the largest direct losses were felt by small scale, often indebted, commercial chicken producers, while Vietnam’s millions of farm households with small numbers of poultry were also affected. Against this, investment in bio-security is estimated to require at least US$ 500 million for minimum improvements in the next 10 years, a cost prohibitive to small rural farmers. * Notes: These benefits assume that a certain investment will result in productivity gains and exports. The scale of the benefit is conditional on the effective design and implementation of the investment to be undertaken, leading to an effective control of the disease (eradication is questionable as there is a significant risk factor that the disease would re-appear, as has been the general experience. The above calculations do not take into account the Civic Consulting • Agra CEAS Consulting 118
Prevention and control of animal diseases worldwide Part I: Economic analysis: prevention versus outbreak costs incremental operational costs involved, which can be a significant part of the cost of strengthening VS. On the other hand, the investment in strengthening the control of a particular disease, e.g. HPAI, can have important spill-over benefits on the entire VS. 5.3. Nigeria (Africa) 5.3.1. Background 5.3.1.1. Importance of livestock sector to the economy According to official figures 121 , Nigeria has a total poultry population of 140 million, of which the sectoral distribution is 20% commercial integrated systems (sector 1 of the FAO classification), 10% semicommercial (sector 2) and 70% backyard intensive and village farming (sectors 3 and 4) (A273, A293). Flock sizes vary from 5-49 birds in sector 4, up to a 1,000 birds in sector 3, 1,000-5,000 in sector 2 (mainly for egg production) and over 5,000 in sector 1. The types of domestic poultry found in Nigeria are chicken, pigeons, ducks, guinea fowls, and turkeys, but chicken are by far the most important species constituting over 90% of the total poultry stock. The poultry sector is worth some US$230-250 million (about N30 billion) and contributes 9-10% to the country’s agricultural GDP (which in its turn accounts for 35% of the national GDP). It also attracts a significant share of the investment on agriculture. Although Nigeria is a net importer both in terms of livestock products and poultry in particular, it is believed to have potential for export. The sector’s importance in socio-economic terms is crucial. Poverty alleviation is the central issue of the Nigerian economy, with about 60% of the population living below the poverty line 122 . The majority of the poor reside in rural areas and are engaged in some form of agricultural activity, including poultry. Apart from providing an important source of income, poultry is a major source of protein for the entire population (with protein intake still below the FAO recommended levels). Thus, a virulent disease outbreak such as the HPAI has major implications for both the income and food security of the country’s rural and urban poor (A291). A classification of Nigeria’s socio-economic position in the world, as carried out for the purposes of this study, can be found in Annex 3. 121 These figures are reported to underestimate reality, due to the large numbers of unregistered poultry kept in poor rural and urban households. 122 The Nigerian government is currently implementing a Poverty Reduction Strategy along World Bank and IMF recommendations (NEEDs: the 2004 National Economic Empowerment and Development Strategy), which focuses on Nigeria’s commitment to rapid and sustainable growth and poverty reduction (A267). The strategy envisages an agricultural export target for 2007 of US$ 3 billion. Civic Consulting • Agra CEAS Consulting 119
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:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82: Prevention and control of animal di
Page 131: Prevention and control of animal di
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?