Avian Influenza and the Pandemic Threat

Agencies’ Achievements (against outputs and activities indicated in the logframe)

2.1 : Assessment of economic and poverty impact of avian influenza

27. At the end of last year FAO developed a livelihood toolkit to help address the social and economic impacts of HPAI outbreaks and control measures at all levels. Case studies on market shocks using this toolkit and other analytical measures were conducted in Turkey and Egypt in collaboration with WFP and UNICEF and data were collected on the impact on livelihoods of HPAI and its control in the poorest areas of these countries. The studies demonstrated that controlling any disease is difficult when the market is in chaos and highlighted the need for measures by governments and the private sector to mitigate market impact, such as consistent information provided through trusted sources. A symposium for the Intergovernmental Group on Meat and Dairy (IGG) held in Rome in November 2006 provided an opportunity for market shock impacts and mitigation strategies to be discussed by governments and large industry players – although the impacts are now quite well understood, there have been few success stories to date in reducing impact.

28. KAP studies in Cambodia and Lao PDR conducted by Care, followed up by livelihoods assessments through FAO early in 2007, are improving understanding of livelihoods issues in countries where very small rural flocks predominate, with animal health care provided through NGOs and local action.

29. In Indonesia FAO is currently working closely with the government as well as with the poultry industry and associations of poultry owners and traders to assess the impacts of recent changes in HPAI control policies within the province of Jakarta. In Vietnam, with financial assistance from the World Bank and WHO, FAO has worked with national partners to review the impact of biosecurity measures on the shape of poultry market chains and the access of smallholders to markets, and to identify gender issues in designing HPAI control programmes. The studies highlight the need to consider livelihoods implications when implementing policy changes that will led to long term changes in sector structure.

30. It has been important to review and synthesise work carried out over three years and in several countries. To this end, a meeting held by the Vietnam’s Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development and FAO in March 2007 reviewed the work of several agencies since 2004 on socioeconomic impacts in order to provide pointers to MARD for refining strategies in the future. Papers provided to the Technical meeting held in Rome (June 2007) summarised short term, medium to long term and institutional challenges. The implications of HPAI and its control on livelihoods have been summarised in a Livelihood Support programme policy brief to be released shortly.

2.2 : Compensation schemes and best practices

2.3: Mechanisms for compensation and the development of alternative livelihoods

31. Investigations on compensation by the World Bank, FAO, OIE and the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) led to the issuance of a widely distributed report. FAO has also developed guidelines to help countries who are designing a compensation strategy, and regional workshops on compensation were held in West Africa and the Middle East. In countries where compensation schemes are being negotiated, UNHCR in coordination with FAO, is assisting national authorities to ensure that refugees receive compensation equivalent to that received by the host country population in similar economic conditions.

32. Studies conducted so far by FAO and its partners have shown that a compensation scheme, albeit a good incentive for reporting cases of HPAI and a means to reimburse direct losses, cannot cover all livelihoods losses caused by livestock disease control. As a result, FAO has assisted a number of countries in formulating strategies and technical guidelines for a safe poultry production across various farming systems, marketing and processing facilities. .

33. Work in Egypt by FAO, WFP and local partners is improving ability to locate and target highly vulnerable groups needing special protection. In Indonesia IOM, in collaboration with FAO, national authorities and local NGOs, is conducting focus group discussions with migrant populations based on guidelines developed for this purpose to assess avian influenza knowledge, attitudes, practices and beliefs.  Information collected will be used to analyze the impact of avian influenza in these communities’ livelihood. In Kenya IOM is initiating a project with WHO, FAO and the ministries of health and agriculture on identifying alternatives to livelihoods security in urban migrant populations whose poultry could be affected by HPAI.  Information gathered from these activities will feed into the development of alternative livelihood income generation programmes for migrants. UNDP has provided assistance to governments in Cote d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Egypt, Ghana, Nigeria, Serbia Montenegro and Togo as they devise and implement mechanisms for sustaining the livelihoods of persons made vulnerable by AI control measures and the possible consequences of a pandemic. WFP’s Programme policy on the use of food aid for populations impacted by Avian Influenza has been drafted and integrated in the organization’s Programme Guidance Manual. More work is needed.
Remaining gaps and challenges

34. While compensation is being provided in most countries affected by Avian Influenza, many of them need further support (mostly funding but also expertise) to enable better schemes, identification of beneficiaries and types of losses, compensation at the recommended rate of 75% to 100% of an established market value of birds culled, and development of practical payment systems. However, sustaining the livelihood of communities affected by the impact of Avian Influenza requires other measures than compensation alone, as compensation does not prevent market shocks and does not provide enough support for the rehabilitation of those who have suffered indirect losses.  

35. Market shock as a result of consumer rejection of poultry products in the event of HPAI outbreaks has had a major economic impact. In addition to compensation, there is a need for more consideration given to other support measures such as enabling the rehabilitation of farmers whose poultry are compulsorily culled, in order to withstand market shocks, and minimize the indirect impact of Avian Influenza on other sectors. Avian Influenza control measures ought to be better targeted, with multidisciplinary approaches to analysis of the structure and functioning of national poultry sectors and other sectors indirectly affected, national and regional market chains, and provision of tools and methods for use by UN country teams when they assist national authorities.

36. Assistance should focus on mitigation of shocks and private sector engagement in sharing of risks and responsibilities. Advice is also required on the livelihoods, social and environmental implications of long term structure changes in the poultry sector with emphasis on vulnerable groups. Finally, there is a need for wide scale communication in order to engage policy makers, the private sectors and NGOs.  

37. In order to provide meaningful support to countries struggling with sustaining the livelihoods of all sectors of their economy affected by Avian Influenza, (including tourism and market labor) FAO and its partners WFP, ILO, UNWTO, UNDP, IOM and UNHCR would need far more funding than received to date and for medium term rather than emergency programmes.