Global Animal Health Initiative: The way forward Washington, 9 October 2007

1. Global Animal Health Initiative: The way forwardWashington, 9 October 2007 OIE economic studies part II: A global fund for emergency response in developing countries by Civic Consulting* *with support of Agra CEAS Consulting and from the Institute of Risk and Insurance of Hamburg University

2. Question: Is there a need for a global fund for emergency response in developing countries? If so, how should it operate?

3. Methodology • Desk research, literature review and construction of a detailed literature database • Interviews with key institutions and experts • Case studies of selected national compensation schemes for epidemic livestock diseases in four countries (The Netherlands, Australia, Vietnam, Nigeria) • Case studies on operational principles of five global funds (GFFATM, UN CERF, WFP WCF, FAO SFERA; OIE WAHWF) • Economic analysis based on incentive theory

4. Study focus • The study explores the need for and possible operational rules of a Global Emergency Response Fund for Animal Epizootics and Zoonoses (GERFAE) that would provide developing and transition countries with immediate funding to cover the cost of control measures and livestock owners’ compensation costs

5. The current global financing framework – Progress /1 The global framework for the financing of costs and losses of epidemic livestock diseases has significantly improved during the last decade, partly as a consequence of the Avian Influenza crises and other large scale outbreaks of animal diseases

6. The current global financing framework – Progress /2 Significant progress during the last decade: • more global coordination of donors and recipient countries, • increasing number of multi-lateral financial initiatives and mechanisms, created mainly during the last few years • partly a response to the threat of AI and other zoonoses, but also the consequence of increased awareness for the need to have effective and efficient global mechanisms to address specific global problems or emergencies.

7. The current global financing framework – Progress /3 Other important developments: • Growing attention for a need to provide financial resources for prevention of epidemic livestock diseases and improving VS • Emergency response plans are increasingly prepared and implemented in many potentially affected countries • Vaccine banks are being established that allow in case of outbreaks to respond rapidly with vaccination • There is growing awareness for the need to compensate livestock holders in case of disease related culling

8. The current global financing framework – Shortcomings However, there are still significant shortcomings: • Limited support: hardly any global structure for the financing of animal disease risk management of TADs other than AI • Fragmentation of donor response: Multilateral facilities do not address challenges of the animal disease risk adequately, namely its cumulative nature (highly volatile funding needs) • Inefficiencies caused by lack of incentives for prevention • No consistent policy on cost-sharing with farmers

9. The current global financing framework – Challenges It is a significant challenge to develop an efficient global institutional framework to finance epidemic livestock disease risk, which: • Mobilises and allocates financial resources for epidemic livestock disease prevention and control for diseases other than AI • Creates incentives for prevention at all levels • Provides a mechanism to cope with the highly volatile nature of animal disease risk

10. Possible role for a Global Emergency Response Fund for Animal Epizootics (GERFAE)/1 Does not seem likely that it would be possible to improve global financing of animal disease risk management purely through better coordination of bilateral donor community: • Needs to be a party that is ultimately taking and managing the animal disease risks agreed upon with eligible countries • Unlikely that any individual donor would be willing to take this responsibility • Need for a new global mechanism for the financing of animal disease risk management

11. Possible role for GERFAE/2 This new global mechanism for the financing of animal disease risk management could either be developed • by extending the mandate of an existing fund/facility, for example developed in the framework of the AI crisis • or by creating a new instrument • For the aim of this analysis this question is not of significance, as focus is on the operational rules

12. Possible role for GERFAE/3 Developing emergency response standards and technical assistance to implement them should as a general principle not be performed by GERFAE, but by other appropriate institutions of the global animal health framework GERFAE would mainly be a financial instrument

13. Possible role for GERFAE/4 The new instrument (or the existing facility with an extended mandate) would make a difference: • It would focus on all eligible animal diseases • It would focus on providing a financial mechanism for eligible developing countries. The financial support provided would be conditioned as to create incentives for prevention at all levels • Its operational rules would take into account best practices to enhance control of eligible animal diseases, including through compensation of livestock holders, while preventing the creation of adverse incentives through overcompensation

14. Seven guiding principles GERFAE will ... • Encourage an effective and rapid emergency response for control of epidemic livestock diseases in developing and transition countries, including through compensation of´livestock holders • Function as a financial instrument, not as an implementing body • Promote efficient global animal disease risk management • Focus on diseases that pose a threat to “global public goods” • Provide incentives for prevention and early reporting • Safeguard ownership of emergency response by affected countries • Encourage sharing responsibilities and costs where possible

15. Planning and emergency response Two different approaches are possible: • Approach A: GERFAE would provide support to eligible countries in case of disease outbreak and provide support for emergency response planning in times without outbreaks • Approach B: GERFAE would provide financial support to eligible countries in case of disease outbreak of a relevant disease only. Global support for emergency response planning through other sources/mechanisms • Analysis indicates advantage of Approach A

16. Eligible diseases /1 Eligible diseases, that may trigger support of GERFAE in case of an outbreak, should be determined on basis of the following criteria: • The public relevance of a livestock disease (depending e.g. on contagiousness and potential public health impact) • The need for global coordinated action • The character of a livestock disease as relevant emerging risk

17. Eligible diseases /2 Separate windowsto support the emergency response regarding outbreaks of the following diseases (in order of priority): • Category 1: Emerging livestock diseases of high public relevance with a need for global coordinated action • Category 2: Other priority epidemic livestock disease(s) of high public relevance with a need for global coordinated action; • Category 3: Under-funded diseases of high public relevance with need for regional action, where countries in the region lack resources and capacity and there is clear risk of global impact

18. Eligibility criteria /1 In principle, all emergency response measures that are supported from GERFAE should be co-financed in kind or in cash by the recipient country Co-financing requirements may differ for specific categories of emergency response measures and have to be pre-defined within each country emergency response plan to increase transparency and reduce the administrative burden related to documentation and audit

19. Eligibility criteria /2 Recipient countries need to have ... • Pre-defined and costed country emergency responseplan for relevant diseases and earmarked contingency funds to co-finance measures • Country Compensation Mechanismin place to be eligible for support to compensation payments to livestock holders • Conducted a PVS evaluation of the Veterinary Services and to develop and implement a country strategy to upgrade Veterinary Service to address relevant deficits identified • A country emergency management facility in place that can coordinate measures in case of an outbreak Need for a threshold related to income level of recipient countries

20. Mobilisation of funding /1 • Amongst national donor agencies the desire to contribute to such a fund has to be viewed in the context of a permanent tension between the ‘benefits’ of bilateral support compared to support channelled through multilateral agencies • Deemed essential that disease control be driven by the powerful incentive of the prospect of increased sales and revenue for farmers and countries (access to markets) • Issue of accountability - while donors seem to be willing to accept a ‘trust fund’ managed by an intermediary such as the World Bank which ‘signs off’ on the accounts, accountability may be difficult to achieve (compensation payments)

21. Mobilisation of funding /2 ‘Most likely’ scenario (part I) of total direct disease losses and control costs of an HPAI outbreak, calculated on an annual basis: • US$ 5.3 billion in scenario A (H5N1 infected countries), • US$ 6.1 billion in scenario B (infected and non-infected at immediate risk countries) • US$ 9.7 billion in scenario C (all OIE developing country members) • If income eligibility criteria would apply (only LCD eligible): Under the most likely scenario, estimated direct impact (excluding consequential losses) for the LDCs ranges from US$ 73 million (scenario A) to US$ 258 million (scenario B) and nearly US$ 600 million if all 40 LDCs were to be affected

22. Mobilisation of funding /3 Several factors influence the financial need of GERFAE: • Income eligibility criterion concerning eligible countries • Eligible diseases / measures • Co-financing rate required • Compensation rates applied and types of costs /losses covered Assuming scenario B prevails and on basis of average compensation rates at 75% and a cofinancing rate for eligible countries of 50%, the total required annual budget for GERFAE regarding HPAI would amount to US$ 103 million for the LDCs affected under scenario B, or US$ 2.45 billion on a global level

23. Mobilisation of funding /4 • Decisions on the eligible countries, diseases and measures, the co-financing rate required; compensation rates applied and types of costs compensated have to be taken early on in the planning process of GERFAE, as this significantly impacts on the budget required • Due to the variability of capital requirements for emergency response measures during a given budgeting period, an elaborated system for managing the risk of the fund has to be developed

24. Country Compensation Mechanism /1 Need for a close linkage between CCM and VS: • Emergency response planning of the Country Compensation Mechanism (CCM) is directly related to planning of the Veterinary Service (VS) regarding culling • Availability of data on livestock herds/holders crucial • Control measures carried out under the authority of the VS, timely compensation requires close cooperation • Availability of contingency funds/a relevant government budget line to (co-)finance measures is equally relevant for both CCM and VS

25. Country Compensation Mechanism /2 CCM has to be adapted to a country’s VS infrastructure and livestock production structure: • No institutional „blueprint“ for CCM • CCM should draw on existing social, political and industrial institutions in order to increase acceptance and reduce set-up costs • To avoid collusion, the use of independent financial auditors is recommended

26. Country Compensation Mechanism /3 Common operational rules for CCM • Compensation requires registration: Registration of livestock holders is an important precondition for animal disease risk management and compensation. However, in most countries a complete registration of livestock holders cannot be reached: • Need to differentiate between livestock production sectors. A CCM should define a maximum number of animals for each specie that are compensated in case of culling, if the livestock holder is not individually registered. This splits livestock industry in two sectors: registered commercial producers and unregistered small-scale and backyard producers

27. Compensation of commercial livestock producers /1 • Evidence from countries with HPAI outbreaks has shown that a compensation rate of 50% of the type specific animal value (based on market value) can be enough, if veterinary restrictions are accompanied by strong control efforts • A compensation rate of over 100% of market value is not recommended because of the creation of adverse incentives • Based on these international experiences it is suggested to provide higher compensation rates to commercial livestock producers meeting higher predefined bio-security standards

28. Compensation of commercial livestock producers /2 • Low, moderate and high bio-security farms should be compensated at rates of 60%, 75% and 90% of the animal value for healthy animalsand half of these rates for visibly diseased animals. Dead animals not compensated (exceptions possible) • Compliance of commercial livestock holders with veterinary restrictions either through an incentive-based approach by also compensating business interruption and other losses directly caused by veterinary restrictions, or through policing • As soon as this is feasible, the GERFAE Governing Board should require CCMs from eligible countries to share costs and responsibilities with commercial livestock producers

29. Compensation of small-scale and backyard holders of livestock /1 Need for a community based compensation approach to increase collective responsibility and communal accountability for animal health: • The CCM formally should treat groupings of small-scale/ back-yard livestock holders as one entity (production community) • Compensation rules community-based, i.e. • High numbers of visibly diseased and dead animals would reduce compensation payments to the community as a whole. The individual livestock holder however receives a fixed share of total community compensation, which represents his share in the number of animals culled (independent from disease status)

30. Compensation of small-scale and backyard holders of livestock /2 • Animal losses due to culling incurred by small-scale and backyard holders of animals that are member of a production community compensated according to the bio-security level of the production community • Animals from production communities that do not take specific precautions should be compensated at rates of 75% of the type-specific animal value for healthy animals and half of these rates for visibly diseased animals. For production communities adhering to certain verifiable bio-security measures (e.g. fencing of animals) this rate should be increased to 90%

31. Compensation of small-scale and backyard holders of livestock outside of production communities /1 Atomised backyard holders of livestock are most problematic from a risk-management point of view: very difficult to reach – both to increase awareness for prevention/bio-security, and for control measures in case of an outbreak • The compensation guidelines should therefore provide clear incentives to form production communities, if the system is assumed to be feasible in the particular country/region

32. Compensation of small-scale and backyard holders of livestock outside of production communities /2 • Losses due to culling of animals backyard holders outside of production communities should be compensated at rates of 60% of the animal value for healthy animals and half of this rate for visibly diseased animals (i.e. lower than in production communities) • An additional incentive for early disclosure could be provided by a first-notification compensation rate of 90% of the animal value for backyard holders (only for first notification in region)

33. Compensation of small-scale and backyard holders of livestock outside of production communities /3 • Caveat: Community based compensation approach needs to be tested thoroughly. Experiences (e.g. in Vietnam) seem to indicate that it is possible to channel compensation payments through existing communities. However, this may not be feasible in some regions or countries

34. GERFAE governance arrangements To facilitate coordination of emergency planning and response, both activities should be funded by one mechanism under one management structure • GERFAE should be created through a collaboration of relevant institutions. One institution should manage the day-to-day running and management of GERFAE, possibly in a Trustee function, in close cooperation with expert Technical Agencies • GERFAE should have a governance structure which includes a Governing Board, an Advisory Panel and a Secretariat

35. Payment procedures & monitoring /1 Two levels are relevant: • At the level of the fund itself i.e. the relation between the fund and recipient governments • At the level of disbursement of compensation payments to livestock holders through a Country Compensation Mechanism • In both cases, it is essential that a clear audit trail is established

36. Payment procedures & monitoring /2 • Governing Board, with guidance from the Advisory Panel and Technical Agencies, must establish audit and monitoring processes, taking into account experiences of the ongoing projects funded through the Global Program for Avian Influenza • Experience with other supranational compensation mechanisms shows that creating an audit trail for compensation costs is feasible, but can lead to a very high administrative burden • GERFAE needs to delegate as much auditing functions as possible through the use of independent financial auditors, to be contracted when a Country Compensation Mechanism is set up

37. Managing the risk of GERFAE /1 GERFAE has to provide funds rapidly to support emergency measures in eligible countries, even before related donor contributions are received: • Challenge is to find financing strategy that addresses temporary shortcomings and prevent structural deficits in case of a catastrophic animal disease crisis • Ex-ante contingent agreements should be arranged as opposed to negotiating ad hoc capital provision when capital is needed

38. Managing the risk of GERFAE /2 A layered approach to manage the risk of GERFAE: • Initial working capital: donor contributions that are sufficient to finance emergency response planning expenses („peace time“) and emergency response measures („outbreak“) under relatively certain scenarios within the given period • Contingent grants from donors: when needs are higher • Pre-arranged contingent loan agreements: could be triggered in periods with several or large-scale outbreaks. To be paid back in following periods • GERFAE should also target to developing access to the international risk markets to relieve the burden of animal disease risk financing from donor budgets

39. Answer: Yes, there a need for a global risk-management instrument to finance emergency response in developing countries and provide incentives for prevention at all levels. To make it work, an interagency collaboration is needed, best practices in compensation have to be applied and hard choices will be required.