2294 part 1 final report.pdf - Agra CEAS Consulting

Prevention and control of animal diseases worldwide
Part I: Economic analysis: prevention versus outbreak costs
The estimates allow us to draw some general conclusions on the structure of these costs, as depicted in
Figure 16. The importance of poultry value losses (80% of total direct production costs and losses) and of
consequential on-farm losses (55% of the total direct impact) is in particular highlighted.
The range of outcomes under the different scenarios (‘most likely’, ‘low impact’ and ‘high impact’, and A,
B and C on the geographical country coverage) are summarised in Figure 17. As can be seen, the results
for scenarios A and B tend to be very similar, reflecting the relatively small number of countries added in
scenario B, given the current state of HPAI outbreaks worldwide. If this position changes, with a more
substantial geographical spread of the disease, then the impact would start moving closer to the
substantially higher figures of scenario C. Thus, total direct costs and losses (excluding consequential onfarm
losses) in scenarios A and B are estimated at US$ 5.3 billion and US$ 6.1 billion respectively (on an
annual basis), but would rise up to US$ 9.7 billion if the disease were to spread throughout the developing
world. Including consequential on-farm losses, the total direct impact would be US$ 11.7 billion and US$
13.5 billion respectively in the case of scenarios A and B, but could rise up to US$ 21.3 billion if the
disease was to spread more worldwide along the lines suggested by scenario C. It is noted that in all cases,
the impact is not proportionate to the number of countries added under subsequent each scenario, because
the countries of scenarios A and B account for 55% and 63% respectively of the poultry stock of all
developing OIE country members.
Similarly, the most likely scenario depends on the assumptions made on the various parameters as the
situation currently stands (markets/prices, duration of impact, size of poultry sector affected etc.), in other
words it represents the most realistic potential outcome with the information currently available. If this
situation changes, this would affect the assumptions made on the key parameters such as the duration of
the impact, the size of the poultry sector affected, the effect on consumption, markets and prices and so
on. Thus, if the situation becomes less critical, then the potential outcome would start moving towards the
‘low impact’ scenario; conversely if the situation becomes more severe, then the potential outcome would
start to approximate to that of the ‘high impact’ scenario (Figure 17 and Figure 18). For example, taking
scenario A, total direct costs and losses (excluding consequential on-farm losses) in the ‘low impact’
scenario come down to US$2.5 billion and the ‘high impact scenario rise to US$ 8.9 billion (all figures on
an annual basis), compared to US$ 5.3 billion in the ‘most likely’ scenario. Including consequential onfarm
losses, the total direct impact would be US$ 3.5 billion in the ‘low impact’ scenario and US$ 30.3
billion the ‘high impact scenario (compared to US$ 11.7 billion in the ‘most likely’ scenario).
Civic Consulting • Agra CEAS Consulting 143