Socio-economics of PPR Acknowledgements Nicoline DeHaan, FAO - - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Tabitha Kimani*, Jonathan Rushton, Alana Boulton, Nick Lyons, João Afonso, Pablo Alarcon, Ndama Diallo, Joseph Domenech

Socio-economics of PPR

*Socio-economist, ECTAD, FAO

Acknowledgements

• Nicoline DeHaan,
• FAO - Juan Lubroth, Bouna Diop
• OIE – Bernard Vallat
• Farmers and traders who participated in data collection efforts

3

Outline

• What role do sheep and goats have in the

regions affected by PPR?

• What is the impact of PPR on these sheep

and goat systems?

• The impact of PPR across the economy
• Some reflections

4

Sheep and goats

5

Population of sheep and goats by region

6

• 100

200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Africa East Asia Middle East South Asia West Eurasia Head of population (Millions) Sheep Goats

Number of sheep and goats per person

7

0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8 Africa East Asia Middle East South Asia West Eurasia Overall Sheep Goats

Sheep and goats represent a major investment in many regions affected by PPR

Number of sheep and goats per person by country

8

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Mongolia Turkmenistan Namibia CAR Djibouti Lesotho Azerbaijan Chad Syria Afghanistan South Africa Oman Cap Verde Turkey Tanzania Botswana Bangladesh Malawi Iraq China Qatar PAT India Zambia Cote D'Ivoire Egypt Congo Laos Seychelles Philippines Malaysia Thailand Japan Sheep Goats

17 countries have more than 1 sheep and goat per person

Number of poor livestock keepers in Africa and Asia

9

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 West and Central Africa East Africa Southern Africa North Africa South Asia SE Asia Population (millions)

Proportion of the human population in poverty

10

source: http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/resources/documents/AH/PPR_flyer.pdf

Density of sheep and goats

11

source: http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/resources/documents/AH/PPR_flyer.pdf

Globally, small ruminants support livelihoods of many of the poorer households in Africa, Asia and the Middle East.

Importance of sheep and goats to livelihoods

• the case of Kenya and Somalia

Access Improved Technologies Improved Market Access Improved

Year 1990 1990 1998 1999 2000 2001 2003 Family have 7 to 8 goats They receive a good price for goats Goat rearing is seen as profitable Status Transition from Poor to Medium Medium Traders come to the village and buy goats at a good price Money used to cover household expenses Key events Poor to Medium Family have 2 or 3 goats Roadhead construction Forest grazing banned Goats treated for worms on a regular basis Different forage grass and fodder trees introduced by livestock services

Goats role in improving livelihoods

• a case from the terai in Nepal

Small ruminants roles

Tangible benefits Intangible benefits Products By products Benefits Meat Manure and Fertilizer Bank Smoothing out cash flows Milk Risk reduction and diversification Skins and hides Fuel and biogas Pathway out of poverty Fiber and wool Shock buffer and resilience Horns Food security Weed control

Trading Systems

Kiserian Kiamaiko Choice’s meat Dagoretti Burma

And what of trade and processing?

16

The areas most dependent on sheep and goats have important international trade in live animals Between 3‐4 million sheep and goats are exported from the Horn of Africa every year

The impact of PPR

17

Dead animals Thin animals Animals poorly developed Low returns Poor quality products

Visible Losses

Fertility problems Change in herd structure Delay in the sale of animals and products Public health costs High prices for livestock and livestock products

Losses Invisible Losses

Access to better markets denied Medicines Vaccines Insecticide Time Treatment of products Additional Costs

Lost Revenue Animal Health Impact Expenditure & Reaction

Sub‐optimal use of technology

Rushton et al, 1999; Rushton, 2002; Rushton, 2009

Dead animals Thin animals Animals poorly developed Low returns Poor quality products

Visible Losses

Fertility problems Change in herd structure Delay in the sale of animals and products Public health costs High prices for livestock and livestock products

Losses Invisible Losses Disease Impact

Access to better markets denied Medicines Vaccines Insecticide Time Treatment of products

Additional Costs Lost Revenue Expenditure & Reaction

Sub‐optimal use of tecnology

Impact caused by the disease Impact caused by human reaction

Small ruminant systems: magnitude of PPR impact related to production function

Market oriented systems Social value oriented Overall goals Profit maximization Risk minimization Cash generation Family support Productivity Stability and sustainability Income smoothing Targets Increased production Multi‐functional animal Single purpose animal Improved viability of animals Genetic homogeneity Biological vigor Risk of PPR Smaller High Potential impact Small Variable – high Disease approach Invest in protecting Reduction of impact Input driven Limited inputs

Impact of the disease

• Mortality and morbidity rates
• In endemic countries morbidity rates range from

6.2 to 65% in Somalia and 48.4 to 56.6% in Cote d’Ivoire

• During epidemics these rates rise to between 86

to 100% (reported in Kenya, Ethiopia and Eritrea).

• Mortality rates also vary with reports - 0-97% in

Cote d’Ivoire; 69 to 74% in Tanzania; 33 to 90% in Kenya, Ethiopia and Eritrea

• The rates depend on methodology used in data

collection, species and farming systems.

The impact of the disease

• Depletion of productive assets in Africa
• From: mortality; increased off take to adjust to shifts in food

sources (cattle and shoats); culling or distress sales

• 28 to 60%: 7 month; Mixed farming systems, Cote d’Ivoire –

distress sales halved prices

• 52% - 68%: 2 years; Pastoral systems, Kenya - 1.2 million

deaths :US$ 23.6 million

• 33% and 63% in mixed and agro-pastoral systems respectively,

Tanzania - 1 million dead and 64,661 culled

• In Tanzania it was estimated that 330,910 kids/lambs were not

borne due to abortions.

• In Kenya and Tanzania 10% of households lost their entire

herd or flock

• It was estimated that in Kenya, Tanzania and Somalia milk

production losses were in the region of 2 million litres

PPR disease losses in Asia

• the case of Madhya Pradesh and Maharastra, India
• Two studies from India indicate that while the

mortality rate was relatively low per animal affected, the overall losses were high even when the animal recovered

• The loss per animal affected was Rs 523

(US$ 8.44) in Madhya Pradesh (Awase et al, 2013) and Rs 918 (US$14.81) and Rs 945 (US$ 15.24) respectively for sheep and goats in Maharastra (Thombare and Sinha, 2009)

23

The responses to the presence of PPR

• control costs in Africa
• Tanzania: 2010-2011
• 7.4 million vaccinated.
• About 3,484,505 treatments estimated
• Kenya: 2009
• 10 million animals vaccinated at an estimated unit cost of

US$0.75

• US$ 4.4 million (including surveillance and post

vaccination monitoring)

• Somalia: 2012-2014
• 31.5 million animals vaccinated at unit cost of US $ 0.3 per

dose

Eroded sustainability of herds and increased poverty levels

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 20 40 60 80 100 % H H TLU per H H Before PPR N

• w

Sustainable herd size

20 40 60 80 100 Before PPR Now Poor and Very Poor Middle Better-off

• 10% increase in poor and very poor
• Eroding sustainability of livelihoods

Impacts on household income

5 ,0 1 ,0 1 5 ,0 2 ,0 2 5 ,0 3 ,0 B e fo re P P R N

• w

B e fo re P P R N

• w

B e fo re P P R N

• w

P

• r a

n d V e ry P

• r

M id d le B e tte r-o ff L ive sto ck a n d live to c k p ro d u c t s a le P e tty tra d e F ire w

• d

a n d c h a rc

• a

l sa le W ild fo

• d

s a le C a s u a l la b

• u

r C F W / R e lie f K in s h ip su p p

• rt

K s h p e r H H p e r y e a r

• Shift in the income sources:
• Very poor/Poor/Middle:

 reliance on wild product selling

• Middle/Better-off: 

livestock sale (vicious circle

• f asset loss)

In Tanzania, household forgone income was US$ 233.6.

Impacts on food sources and availability (2)

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Very Poor Poor Middle Better-off Milk Meat Purchase / Barter / Exchange Wild Food Labour Social Support Food aid % of daily needs (2,000 Kcal/day/pers)

• Consumption of small ruminants milk decreased to nearly 0% in all

wealth categories,

• Increased consumption of small ruminant meat- consumption of dead

animals

• Highly unsustainable distress coping strategy, a sign of acute

food insecurity

• increased share (by 25-40%) of wild food in the food sources

Estimated global impact of PPR – production losses and vaccination costs only

28

• 100

200 300 400 500 600 700 Africa East Asia Middle East South Asia West Eurasia US$ (Millions) Recovered Died Vaccination

Estimated impact is between US$ 1.4 and 2.1 billion Africa: 40%; South Asia 27%; East Asia 20%; Middle East 7%; West Eurasia 6%

Reflections

29

Sheep and goats

• Sheep and goats play a role in the livelihoods
• f many people across the regions affected

by PPR

• These people are a mixture of producers,

traders and processors

• Probably the largest group affected are

consumers

• The rapid assessment of global impact of

PPR indicates that it is a costly disease

PPR – its impact

• A number of case studies of PPR impact

have been conducted and reported for Africa and Asia

• These all indicate the dramatic impact of

this disease on people

• The contagious nature of this diseases

means it creates negative externalities

31

And yet we have solutions

• PPR control in Somalia

32

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Vaccination costs 0,23 0,23 0,21 0,21 0,21 0,24 0,21 0,21 0,21 0,25 5,94 3,62 Mortality & Morbidity 26 27 28 28 22 23 24 25 25 26 14 5 5 10 15 20 25 30

PPR – have we got the investment right?

• PPR disrupts trade and affects supply

chains yet we have good technical solutions

• PPR control needs investment in

coordination and disease management

• PPR needs political will to ensure this

disease is first controlled and then eradicated

33

Tabitha Kimani*, Jonathan Rushton, Alana Boulton, Nick Lyons, João Afonso, Ndama Diallo, Joseph Domenech

Thank you

*Socio-Economist, ECTAD, FAO Tabitha.Kimani@fao.org

References

Awase, M,; Gangwar, L.S.; Patil, A.K.; Goyal, G.; Omprakash (2013) Assessment of economic losses due to Peste des Petits Ruminants (PPR) disease in goats in Indore Division of Madhya Pradesh. Livestock Research International 1 (2) pp 61‐63 Bennett, R.M. (2003) The “direct” costs of livestock disease: the development of a system of models for the analysis of 30 endemic livestock diseases in Great Britain. Journal of Agricultural Economics 54 pp 55‐72 Bennett, R.M. & IJpelaar, J. (2005) Updated Estimates of the Costs Associated with 34 Endemic Livestock Diseases in Great Britain: A Note. Journal of Agricultural Economics 56, pp 135‐144Knight‐Jones, T.J.D.; Rushton, J. (2013) The economic impacts of foot and mouth disease – What are they, how big are they and where do they occur? Preventive Veterinary Medicine 112 (3‐4) pp 161‐173 Knight‐Jones, T. J. D., & Rushton, J. (2013). The economic impacts of foot and mouth disease ‐ what are they, how big are they and where do they occur? Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 112(3‐4), 161–73. doi:10.1016/j.prevetmed.2013.07.013 McInerney, J. P. Howe, K. S. Schepers, J.A. 1992. A framework for the economic analysis of disease in farm livestock. Preventive Veterinary Medicine.13: 2, 137‐154. Raj Kumar Singh, Vinayagamurthy Balamurugan, Veerakyathappa Bhanuprakash, Arnab Sen, Paranasivam Saravanan, Mahendra Pal Yadav (2009) Possible control and eradication of peste des petits ruminants from India: Technical aspects. Veterinaria Italiana 45 (3) pp 449‐462 Rushton (2009) The economics of animal health and production. CABI, Wallingford, UK. 364 pages Rushton, J. (2002) The economic impact of livestock diseases. CABI Animal Health and Production Compendium 2002 edition. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. In CD and the internet Rushton, J.; Thornton, P. and Otte, M.J. (1999) Methods of Economic Impact Assessment. In “The economics of animal disease control” OIE Revue Scientifique et Technique Vol 18 (2) pp 315‐338. Thombare, N.N.; Mukesh Kumar Sinha (2009) Economic Implications of Peste des petits ruminants (PPR) disease in Sheep and Goats: A sample analysis of District Pune, Maharastra. Agricultural Economics Research Review 22 pp 319‐322

35