2294 part 1 final report.pdf - Agra CEAS Consulting

Prevention and control of animal diseases worldwide
Part I: Economic analysis: prevention versus outbreak costs
A selection of examples of the overall impact of animal diseases is provided in Table 6. The relative scale
of the overall impacts per country in the case of HPAI is illustrated in Figure 6.
Indirect or longer-term impacts (such as loss of consumer confidence, and repercussions on trade and
tourism) are generally seen to be far greater than the direct or shorter-term impacts. There is wide
consensus in the literature on this point, not only in respect of animal disease outbreaks (e.g. UK FMD,
Asia and Africa HPAI) but more generally for public health crises (e.g. 2003 SARS experience in Asia).
One factor that generally appears to contribute to relatively lower direct costs in developed countries is the
fairly rapid response and reaction to crises. This factor is generally less present in developing/emerging
countries although there is wide variation between countries.
In global macro-economic terms, the direct impact may be relatively modest, depending on the
contribution of livestock to the national GDP. However, in the context of the rural economy as such, or in
micro-economic terms looking at individual farmers, the impact can be devastating given that the affected
farmers in most developing countries have few other sources of income and the sector is of fundamental
importance for rural livelihoods and their survival (as discussed in section 3.2). In this case, serious
poverty alleviation and food security concerns enter into the equation.
For example, in Vietnam - one of the countries hardest hit by HPAI - the total direct loss of the poultry
sector has been estimated at less than 1 % of the national GDP (Table 7). Nonetheless, the relatively
largest losses were felt by small-scale, often indebted, commercial chicken producers with limited other
livestock activity. In addition, the number of rural households directly involved in poultry production has
fallen by 50%. Although these smallest producers are the ones who have lost the least in absolute terms, in
relative terms they have lost the most, when compared to their daily income (of 2 US$ per day or less, a
financial position in which some 64% of households are found in Vietnam) (see section 5.2). In Nigeria,
the situation for the rural and urban poor was even worse as these poor households often have few other
sources of protein food or income (see section 5.3).
The total number of poor people dependent 81 on poultry in five of the currently most affected countries of
Asia (Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Thailand, and Vietnam), where some 60-80% of the rural
population is assumed to keep poultry, is estimated at between 136-210 million (A40, A91). These figures
exclude China’s rural population likely to keep poultry, which could be as high as 450-600 million 82 . The
FAO and the OIE estimate that between a third and half of the population in the most affected areas of
South East Asia earn at least part of their income from poultry farming. In Nigeria, 60-70% of the
population lives in rural areas and it is estimated that 80-95% of them keep poultry – in addition urban
households frequently keep poultry (UNDP Nigeria data); this picture is representative of most sub-
Saharan Africa.
81 This includes people that are partially dependent on poultry, although even in this case dependence can be crucial
for rural livelihoods.
82 According to China’s latest nationwide census the Chinese population in 2001 stood at 1.26 billion, including
people living on the island of Taiwan. Some 60% of this is estimated to be rural population (their relative share has
fallen by an estimated 25 percentage points in the last decade due to massive urbanisation).
Civic Consulting • Agra CEAS Consulting 67