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: Nigeria Nigeria’s experience in this area is relatively more recent and more limited compared to Vietnam. However, both the government and international community are concerned of the potential risks and ramifications of these outbreaks in the context of the extensive presence of rural/urban backyard farming, relatively weak biosecurity, and the socio-economic importance of the sector. Our analysis and comparisons of data on the planned commitments for 2006-10 under the WB integrated plan for the control and eradication of avian influenza as well as under the ALIVE needs assessment for Nigeria, against real and projected costs of the outbreaks, reveal the relative scale of the costs and benefits involved (see Notes). For example: • The total commitment on animal health under the 2006-10 WB plan (excluding control costs in the event of an outbreak) comes to some US$ 22.6 million for the 5 year period (or an average US$ 4.5 million per year), while the direct costs from the outbreak in part of last year alone is (conservatively) estimated at US$ 8.4 million and excluding consequential on-farm losses (Figure 14). • Investing in strengthening disease surveillance and veterinary quarantine would cost a total US$ 10 million over the same period, or US$ 2 million a year which is less than 25% of the above conservative estimate. • The relative scale of this investment is even more evident when adding consequential losses, with our projections of the total direct impact under the most likely scenario (which is milder than the 2006 epidemic) reaching US$ 113 million a year. In a country where two thirds of the official (registered) production is run by small holder systems and poultry rearing is central to the survival of poor rural and urban communities, this analysis also demonstrates the potential benefits of improved prevention in terms of poverty alleviation and food security. 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 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. Civic Consulting • Agra CEAS Consulting 130
Prevention and control of animal diseases worldwide Part I: Economic analysis: prevention versus outbreak costs 5.4. Romania (East Europe) 5.4.1. Background 5.4.1.1. Importance of livestock sector to the economy Despite the ongoing economic reform process which have affected the size of the Romanian agricultural sector, this still plays a critical role in the national economy, contributing 11.9% to GDP and occupying 35% o f the total labour force in 2003. Within this context, the size of the Romanian poultry sector has nearly doubled (in terms of production volumes) since 2000. In 2005, domestic consumption of poultry meat increased by 19% compared to the previous year to a total o f around 375,000 tons, o f which 59% or 220,000 tons were produced domestically. This excludes subsistence farming which is very prevalent in the country. Including production for own consumption, Romania's total annual domestic output of poultry is estimated at around 360,000 tons. It is estimated that nearly 70% o f the country's poultry population (of 70 million birds) is kept in smallholder ("backyard") systems. A typical small-holder farm in Romania keeps 20 chickens, 10 ducks, 5 turkeys, 3 geese, 3 swine, 10 sheep and goats, a cow and a horse living in immediate proximity. Most of the backyard poultry is produced for own consumption or for sale at local (live bird) markets. This sector if generally characterised by low bio-security. On the other hand, Romania's commercial poultry production is highly concentrated, with 15 large scale producers holding about 60% of the total commercial production. In this sector too, bio-security concerns have been raised, particularly from the more recent AI outbreaks (A93a). A classification of Romania’s socio-economic position in the world, as carried out for the purposes of this study, can be found in Annex 3. 5.4.1.2. Key AH problem areas Romania was selected as a representative case study in Europe because of the HPAI relevance, but also the fact that the country’s VS have undergone significant restructuring and upgrading in the run up to EU accession (Romania became an EU member on 1 January 2007). The country has had 168 outbreaks since 2004 (Annex 2), and only recently was declared HPAI-free (1 October 2006) 133 . 133 According to Article 2.7.12.4. of the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code states a country may regain its status as avian influenza-free 90 days after “a stamping-out policy (including disinfection of all affected establishments) is applied, providing that surveillance in accordance with Appendix 3.8.9. has been carried out during that threemonth period”. The last culling and disinfection were completed on 1 July 2006. Since then, clinical and virological surveillance nation-wide have found no positive cases of HPAI. The event is therefore considered resolved. Romania therefore declares having regained its status as a highly pathogenic avian influenza-free country on 1 October 2006. (OIE Final Report No 4, 21 December 2006). Civic Consulting • Agra CEAS Consulting 131
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:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94: Prevention and control of animal di
Page 143: Prevention and control of animal di
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?