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 pledge was based on a World Bank assessment of the financing needs and gaps at the time (A89 and
A176) 63 . This included mainly country level support (accounting for US$ 1.2 billion), and relatively
smaller shares to support the role of international organisations in assisting regional and global initiatives
on animal health (US$ 75 million, for organisations including the WHO, FAO, and the OIE) and on
human health (US$ 157.6 million for the WHO).
The activities foreseen included assistance to ‘infected’, ‘at risk’ and ‘newly infected’ countries for:
emergency preparedness (development of functional disease control plans and simulation exercises;
development of contingency plans for human pandemic of influenza of avian origin), active surveillance
and monitoring, and communication and public awareness; laboratory support (including provision of
equipment and consumables, assistance with diagnostic procedures), and assistance with analysis and
studies (including of epidemiological data); and disease control (including provision of equipment,
vaccines and consumables), capacity building, poultry industry restructuring, and various coordination
activities.
When first presented at the Geneva stakeholders’ conference and to the Beijing donor pledging
conference, the global programme for avian influenza control (developed jointly by the OIE, FAO and the
World Bank), had estimated costs for the animal health component only to US$ 494.3 million over a
period of 3 years (of which some US$ 60 million were sought for the first 6 months as emergency action).
Due to the rapid expansion of the disease, this budget was substantially revised in March 2006 to a total
estimate of US$ 882.1 million over the 3-year period (FAO’s perspective for a global programme for
avian influenza control and eradication A42). Of this, some US$ 308.5 million were proposed to serve as a
contingency mechanism, to be managed by the FAO, for rapid response to infections in new countries not
identified as yet (of which funds for 6 months only, at US$ 21.6 million, were sought at this stage). The
important budget increase provided for the unexpected spread of the disease to Europe and Africa (two
continents that were not affected in November 2005 when the previous estimates were made) but also in
Asia itself. The budget included an international coordination component of US$ 132 million 64 .
The emphasis was mainly on infected countries for which nearly a third of the total budget (some US$
304.5 million) was proposed. Two countries (Indonesia and Vietnam) accounted for nearly a third of this
total (US$ 75.3 million and US$ 20.4 million, or 25% and 7%, respectively), whereas India and Nigeria
were estimated to need around US$ 45 million each (i.e. 15% each of the total) 65 . A further US$ 157.6
million was proposed for countries ‘at risk’ which included all world regions.
63 The Technical Note (Annex C) to document A89 (“AHI: Financing Needs and Gaps”) provides details of the
costing for individual countries, the assumptions made and the tools used for extrapolation to the world. This
procedure was undertaken in consultation with the OIE, the FAO and the WHO
64 This was drafted on the basis of supporting coordination activities to be undertaken by the FAO as such and did
not include activities related to the OIE notably coordination of the international effort for the strengthening of VS
for mid to long-term capacity improvements, which was part of the original Geneva budget (for a proposed $22.5
million).
65 The proposed budget for Indonesia, Vietnam, Lao and Cambodia was based on detailed need assessments in the
countries, whereas for a second set of countries (15 countries, including India, Nigeria, Egypt, Iran, Cameroon,
Romania, Turkey, Malaysia etc.) detailed need assessments were still to be provided.
Civic Consulting • Agra CEAS Consulting 52