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 Country Cambodia Indonesia Indonesia Nigeria (a) Impact PDR), where a total stamping out of all poultry was undertaken on 42 intensive commercial enterprises following HPAI outbreaks. By comparison, in Indonesia, a survey reports that 23% of permanent workers on industrial and commercial farms lost their jobs and more than 40% of family members were unable to continue to work with poultry as farms closed. (A91) In Indonesia, an estimated 23% of industrial and commercial farm workers lost their jobs following the HPAI outbreaks and 40% of these were unable to find alternative employment. (A8) 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) (a) More extensive information on these countries can be found in the case studies Source: compiled by Agra CEAS Consulting Figure 7 Direct production costs and losses of HPAI outbreaks: selected examples Business interruption: sector dow nsizing Vietnam 45 Business interruption: restoring affected poultry units Nigeria 7 Control costs: Africa 66 Control costs: Vietnam 200 Direct losses: total Nigeria 4.8 Direct losses: total Vietnam 53 Direct losses: total Indonesia 171 Direct losses: value of birds lost Indonesia 32 0 50 100 150 200 250 US$ million Source: Table 7 Civic Consulting • Agra CEAS Consulting 74
Prevention and control of animal diseases worldwide Part I: Economic analysis: prevention versus outbreak costs 4.3.3. Indirect impact Generally, the available research points out that indirect costs are typically significant multiples of direct plus consequential on-farm costs and losses, although it should be noted that at the same time the literature also uniformly stresses the difficulties of measuring the precise extent of these costs (A228, A159, A258, A292). Such costs are rarely explored in depth in the available literature, largely due to the methodological difficulties and constraints of this type of analysis and its extensive data requirements. Assessing the overall impact of an animal disease on both global meat markets and other sectors along the supply chain necessitates the use of a framework which links markets, both spatially and cross-commodity. Moreover, the resulting impact assessment is dependent on the various assumptions underpinning the analysis and constrained by data limitations. Broadly, a distinction can be made in the available literature between expost assessments of the actual impact of a disease outbreak that has occurred and ex-ante simulations of the potential impact of a disease outbreak in the event this occurs. The latter are particularly difficult to perform, and results are inevitably shaped by the underlying assumptions and scenarios. Great caution should therefore be paid in the interpretation of the results. From the experience of developed countries (where literature on the indirect costs of a disease is generally more advanced), the direct costs – although significant – are usually relatively lower than the considerable indirect costs caused by the loss of consumer confidence and the impact on export trade. The overwhelming evidence of the available research suggests that where the response to a disease outbreak has been rapid and strict control measures have been applied, coupled with an effective communication campaign towards the wider public, the indirect impacts tend to be more contained. It is important to note that economic analysis to date has focused on the impacts of ad hoc outbreaks rather than the long term effects of endemic diseases, in other words of smaller but repeated outbreaks over a number of years. It has also mostly focused on the domestic impact (within a country or economic zone e.g. the EU) of an outbreak rather than the global market impact. However, the international community is increasingly concerned about the global social and economic impacts of endemic diseases as such. This is partly due to changing times. While many animal diseases, particularly FMD and most types of AI, have long shown signs of becoming endemic in many parts of the developing world, only since 2001 has the severity of outbreaks of FMD (in Europe and Latin America) and more recently AI outbreaks in Asia (and moving westward into Europe and Africa) demonstrated that such events can have a significant impact on international meat markets. The relative importance of these impacts can be highlighted in the context of the global growth in meat production and trade of the last 15 years. World meat production has grown from 100 million tonnes in 1990 to nearly 280 million tonnes in 2006. Nearly three quarters of this growth is concentrated in developing countries, and is accounted for by the pigmeat and poultry sectors. Global meat trade has grown in similar rates from 8 million tonnes in 1990 to nearly 20 million tonnes by 2006. The value of meat trade has also increased, but at a lower rate than the volume, indicating the declining trend of meat prices and the changing meat product composition of trade (much of the growth has been driven by growing demand for poultry cuts, due to health and economic factors notably the lower prices of poultry meat relative to other meats). The most significant contributor to the growth in trade has been the poultry industry (followed by pigmeat), so that the poultry sector’s share of world meat trade has risen from 22% in 1990 to over 40% in 2005. Consequently, a severe transboundary disease outbreak such as HPAI can Civic Consulting • Agra CEAS Consulting 75
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: Prevention and control of animal di
Page 87: Prevention and control of animal di
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
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?