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 million for Social Mobilisation and Strategic Communication and US$ 6.9 million Implementation Support and Monitoring & Evaluation. The animal health component covers 6 areas and a detailed budget breakdown is presented in Table 17. Table 17 Nigeria: HPAI Control & Eradication (AH component of Integrated Plan, 2006-10) US$ million (a) 2006 2007 2008 Total A. Strengthening HPAI control programmes 2.69 2.89 1.01 6.59 B. Strengthening disease surveillance, diagnostic capacity and applied research 2.84 1.59 0.52 4.95 C. Strengthening veterinary quarantine services 1.78 2.33 1.03 5.14 D. Enhancing HPAI prevention and preparedness 0.77 0.86 0.08 1.72 E. Improving bio-security in poultry production 0.49 0.29 0.20 0.98 F. Compensation & economic recovery 6.67 2.06 1.08 9.82 TOTAL 15.25 10.03 3.92 29.20 (a) excludes contingencies Source: Nigeria WB GPAI/APL (A203) The 2006 ALIVE Africa needs assessment presented in Bamako in December (A258) provides estimates of the total animal health component for fighting AI in Nigeria at US$ 40 million over a 10 year period (global budget for Nigeria including all other components of AI prevention and control is US$ 84.3 over the same period). These estimates are largely in line with the current Nigerian WB APL project. Nigeria needs are some of the highest identified by the ALIVE assessment (Figure 5). 5.3.3. Costs of outbreaks According to data from the FDLPCS, as at mid October 2006, some 400,000 poultry died and 900,000 were culled (A169). Culling continues this year, with already some 20,000 poultry culled in week 3 in the NW of the country where fresh cases were detected in January EMPRES-ECTAD. The main control measures used were stamping out with compensation (vaccination was excluded). A government-funded (US$ 847,558 since 2003) compensation scheme was put in place in March 2006 compensating farmers at 30-50% of the market value (A236b) (further details on this scheme can be found in Deliverable 2). Some of the costs resulting from the AI outbreaks in Nigeria is provided in Table 18. On the whole, the total economic impact for Nigeria from the HPAI crisis, including direct and indirect losses, is estimated Civic Consulting • Agra CEAS Consulting 124
Prevention and control of animal diseases worldwide Part I: Economic analysis: prevention versus outbreak costs by the UNDP Nigeria to have been at least N1 billion (US$7.9 million) (A293). Although a significant figure as such, this corresponds to 0.01% of the latest GDP estimates for 2006 ($115.6 billion 132 ). A recent IFPRI study uses a spatial equilibrium model that makes use of the latest spatial distribution data sets for poultry and human populations to analyse the potential impact of AI in West Africa, using Nigeria as an example. The study finds that, depending on the size of the affected areas, the direct impact of the spread of AI along the two major migratory bird flyways would be the loss of about 4% of national chicken production. The indirect (ripple) effects of consumers' reluctance to consume poultry if AI is detected, causing a decline in chicken prices, are generally found to be larger than the direct effect. It is estimated that, if the worst-case scenario occurred (AI spreads >20km along the two major flyways), Nigerian chicken production would fall by 21%, prices by 12% and the combined result could mean that poultry farmers would lose up to US$250 million of revenue (A98). In the best case scenario (AI confined in a narrow zone within the flyway), the total loss to farmers would be US$ 48-52 million. Table 18 Nigeria: selected direct and indirect impacts of AI outbreaks (a) Direct costs and losses Production losses Culling costs Re-stocking costs Consequential on-farm losses As at mid-June 2006, the HPAI outbreak caused a loss of approximately 890,000 birds through deaths and stamping out. At an average farm gate price of about N700 per bird, the farm gate value of the birds lost was about N 617 million (or US$ 4.8 million). These figures are based on official estimates, and are believed to under-estimate reality, because the actual poultry population wiped out in rural areas remains unknown (A293). Culling teams were organised on an ad hoc basis and the costs were estimated to reach about US$ 1.00 per bird, if the team culled 1,000 birds within a day (culling and disposal costs). (A7, A258). The cost of restoring the affected poultry units back to pre-outbreak levels is estimated at about N889 million (or $6.95 million). In addition, there was a 45% drop in the flock size of the non-affected farms, mainly because of lack of funds to feed the birds which forced many farmers to reduce flocks, and it is unclear whether these farms will recover. (A293) The UNDP rapid assessment survey revealed that 80% of workers in the affected farms and 45% of those working in non-affected farms have lost their jobs as a result of the HPAI outbreak. (A293) Indirect impact: ripple effects Poultry sales Egg and chicken sales declined by 80% within 2 weeks following the announcement of HPAI outbreaks in Nigeria in February 2006 (UNDP data and Nigerian Poultry Association – PAN). Up to 4 months after, the recovery rate was still below 50%. (A293) Feed industry Following the HPAI outbreaks in Nigeria in early 2006, poultry feed sales dropped by 82%, and only 43% recovery (to pre-outbreak levels) had been attained by May 2006. Even in non- 132 Source: Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) estimate for 2006 at market exchange rate. Exchange rate (av) N:US$: 127.4 Civic Consulting • Agra CEAS Consulting 125
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:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88: Prevention and control of animal di
Page 137: Prevention and control of animal di
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?