Socio-economic issues surrounding PPR prevention and controlT. KimaniSocio‐economistFAO‐ECTAD

Socio‐economic issues within PPR control dialogue• Justification for PPR control

– Why PPR and not other livestock diseases?– Impacts of disease‐Who is affected &  how ?  Monetary and non 

monetary, – Perceptions of producers, government and donors on PPR impacts 

(governments and private sector)» Do they think they should intervene?

– Costs and benefits of  different control strategies? » Which one yields highest returns to investment? Opportunity 

costs?– Feasibility of the different control options vis a vis response capacity

– Who is going to pay? Public versus private good– potential for economies of scale and scope in terms of the costs and benefits 

of successfully delivering large‐scale and integrated interventions (multiple disease approach)

– the opportunities for synergizing delivery modes

Socio‐economic issues within PPR control dialogue• Beyond benefit cost analysis

• Understanding – The different roles played by small ruminants‐

» livelihoods, poverty, asset portfolios, products and services

– Diversity of farming systems» holding sizes; agro‐ecological/environment; goals 

of production; movement  and trade patterns, risk parameters 

» Diverse systems and roles implies that people have divergent motivations for being involved in shoats, 

Socio‐economic issues within PPR control dialogue– Place of small ruminants within livestock 

policies/strategies/programmes» How to raise the profile of small ruminants in the livestock 

development agenda» How to make countries and communities prioritize PPR » Identifying ways in which  governments can improve 

interventions and institutionalize them» Financing strategies  are also critical

– Designing people centered approaches‐ the value chains, incentives, disincentives » Control approaches that integrate people as solvers of 

problems.» How to engage people in PPR prevention and control: the 

opportunities and the limitations.

Socio‐economic issues within PPR control dialogue

• A thorough understanding of these SEC issues is important in developing appropriate approaches to PPR control and prevention

• Few socio‐economic assessments have been undertaken• Limited to impacts of disease only• Control measures impacts and other SEC issues have not been 

adequately assessed• Why?

– Low capacity of livestock Ministry in terms of technical skills in livestock/animal health economics

– Inadequate epidemiological data  ( morbidity and mortality and impacts of  control on these two paameters).

Economic justification for PPR  prevention and control• Demonstrating how PPR control fits as an integral component 

of wider livestock development efforts within the agenda of – Reducing poverty.– Building resilience (HOA)– Reducing the number of food insecure people– Improving the livelihoods of small holder livestock keepers 

An increased need to protect this asset from PPR fits within these agendas.

Making people, livelihoods, poverty, gender rather than pathogens take centre stage.

•

Small ruminants: diverse products and roles Tangible Intangible

Products By products BenefitsMeat

Manure and FertilizerBank

Milk Smooth out cash flows

Skinsand hides

Fuel and biogas

Risk reduction and diversification

Fiber and woolPathway out of poverty

Shock buffer and resilience

Horns Food securityWeed control

All the products are cornerstones for food , nutritional , income, and livelihood security

Small ruminant systems & livelihoods • 27% of the 1.9 billion Shoats are in Africa

– 1/1.9 is at risk of PPR= 53%• 98% is small holder ‐household level • In pastoral systems of the HOA, livestock products produced and 

consumed at household level, annually account for as high as 63% of the annual kilocalories based on a 2100 kcal daily requirement 

• Policy makers focus more on meat and milk  magnitudes and values • Other products/services & roles are difficult to measure and value, not 

considered in evaluation of impacts and control benefits. • People with small ruminants have a weak or no existent political voice, 

limited access to public resources 

Case studies 

• Kenya, Pastoral livelihoods (2008)– Morbidity rate 73%– Mortality rate 57 to 60%. 

•

• Tanzania, agro‐pastoral and mixed farming (2012)– Sample 218 households– Morbidity rate 54%– Mortality rate 39%.

Wealth group* Very poor

Poor Middle Better-off

Percent in population 45–65 20–25 10–20HH size 5–7 5–7 6–8 6–8Camels 0 0–1 1–5 10–20Cattle 0 0 0–7 50–100Shoats 15–25 25–40 50–80 80–150TLU** <2 2–4.5 5.3–16.6 >16.6Annual HH income (Ksh) 14 050 15 900 17 200 18 000Percentage of income originating from:Livestock & products 12 36 48 100Bush products 25 9 7 0Social support 6 5 1 0External (NGO) support 57 50 47 0

Turkana Pastoral Livelihoods: Prior to PPR

Impact of PPR: Depletion of livestock assets

0

20

40

60

80

100

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

Small ruminants Normal Year Small ruminants ImpactCattle / Camel Normal Year Cattle / Camel Impact

Livestock Head

•Poor and very poor lost: 80-100% shoats• Middle and better off :65-80% shoats•Cattle holdings were affected due to increased reliance on markets

PPR increases poverty levels• .

0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

1 0 0

B e fo re P P R N o w

P o o r a n d V e ry P o o r M id d le B e tte r -o f f

Increased the % of the poor and very poor increased by 10%

Eroding sustainability of livelihoods

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 20 40 60 80 100

% HH

TLU per HH

Before PPR Now

Sustainable herd size

Puts households in a desperate situation with increased reliance On coping mechanisms (+ and - ) and decreased ability to meet theirbasic needs.

Sustainable HH herd has •~150 shoats,•mixed herd of e.g. 10 cattle and 50-75 goats

• sustainable livelihood

Impact on food intake and food sources

• food intake in better‐off wealth group• Shift in the food sources:

– Year 1 – Eating of PPR‐infected carcasses– Year 2 – Increased reliance on food markets/wild food

0

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-offMilk Meat Purchase / Barter / Exchange Wild Food Labour Social Support Food aid

% of daily needs (2,000 Kcal/day/pers)

•shoats milk consumed dropped to 0%;•Increased consumption of dead animals ( sign of acute food crises )•Increased reliance on wild fruits and markets for food.

Impact of PPR on income and sources

0

4,000

8,000

12,000

16,000

20,000

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

Livestock sale / barter Livestock product Bush productSocial support CFW Survival thresholdLLH protection threshold

Ksh per HH per year

What if a national PPR prevention system was in place before 2006?PPR IN KENYA 2006PPR IN KENYA 2006--200820082006 2007 2008

P P R S t a tu s 2 0 0 6

P lo t d a te : A pr il 1 5 , 2 0 08 n il

N

EW

S

W A J IR

T U R K A N A

M A R S A B IT

M A N D E R A

S A M B U R U

IJ A R A

L A IK IP IA

B A R IN G O

M A R A K W E T

W E S T PO K O T

P P R S t a t u s2 0 0 7

P lo t d a te : A pr il 1 5 , 2 0 08 n il

N

EW

S

W A J IR

T U R K A N A

M A R S A B IT

M A N D E R A

S A M B U R U

IJ A R A

L A IK IP IA

B A R IN G O

M A R A K W E T

W E S T PO K O T

P P R S t a t u s

N a t ion a l P ar k S er v iceA la s ka S u pp or t O f fic e

G IS T e a m

Plo t d a t e: Ap r il 15 , 2 00 8 n il

N

EW

S

W A J I R

T U R K A N A

M A R S A B IT

M A N D E R A

S A M B U R U

IJ A R A

L A IK IP IA

B A R I N G O

M A R A K W E T

W E S T P O K O T

10 m vaccinated 

•A benefit cost analysis of instituting a NPS over five years for PPR, FMD, & HPAI undertaken

•Estimated discounted annual costs = 9.4 USD in year 1 and decreases to US$ 5.8 million in year 5

•NPV for PPR was USD 14.1 million, BCR was 1.35 and IRR was 0.12.

Conclusions

• Data available makes a case for PPR  control  • However,• Our understanding of the full economic effect that PPR and its 

control have on individuals, households, and nations needs to be improved to target interventions more effectively and equitably.

• all SEC issues need to be considered in strategy formulation