Suchergebnisse

Highly pathogenic avian influenza (AI) due to H5N1 virus was first reported in Egypt in February 2006; since then, the government has allowed avian influenza vaccination in poultry. The present study evaluated the impact of AI vaccination in terms of cumulative annual flock immunity (CAFI): the percentage of bird × weeks protected by immunity. This evaluation took account of the combined effects of vaccination coverage, vaccine efficacy (VE), and different characteristics of household poultry production on the effectiveness of the adopted vaccination strategy (VS), and provided alternative options for improvement. The evaluation used a population and vaccination model that calculates the CAFI. Participatory approaches were employed in 21 villages to develop the vaccination and flock parameters required for the model. The adopted VS were compared in the model with three alternative VS scenarios in terms of the CAFI. Vaccination coverage varied among villages but was generally low (between 1 and 48 %; median 14 %). Under the adopted VS, the CAFI predicted for the villages ranged from 2 to 31 %. It was concluded that despite the enormous effort put into rural household poultry AI vaccination by the Egyptian government, village CAFI is unlikely to be maintained at the levels required to significantly reduce the virus load and restrict transmission. In HPAI-endemic countries that consider AI vaccination as one of the disease control options, the high cost of mass AI vaccination campaigns and their achievable benefits must be compared with other available control measures, which may include targeted vaccination. Achievable vaccination coverage, VE and the different characteristics of commercial and household (village) poultry production are key parameters determining the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of different AI vaccination strategies.

Highly pathogenic avian influenza (AI) due to H5N1 virus was first reported in Egypt in February 2006; since then, the government has allowed avian influenza vaccination in poultry. The present study evaluated the impact of AI vaccination in terms of cumulative annual flock immunity (CAFI): the percentage of bird × weeks protected by immunity. This evaluation took account of the combined effects of vaccination coverage, vaccine efficacy (VE), and different characteristics of household poultry production on the effectiveness of the adopted vaccination strategy (VS), and provided alternative options for improvement. The evaluation used a population and vaccination model that calculates the CAFI. Participatory approaches were employed in 21 villages to develop the vaccination and flock parameters required for the model. The adopted VS were compared in the model with three alternative VS scenarios in terms of the CAFI. Vaccination coverage varied among villages but was generally low (between 1 and 48 %; median 14 %). Under the adopted VS, the CAFI predicted for the villages ranged from 2 to 31 %. It was concluded that despite the enormous effort put into rural household poultry AI vaccination by the Egyptian government, village CAFI is unlikely to be maintained at the levels required to significantly reduce the virus load and restrict transmission. In HPAI-endemic countries that consider AI vaccination as one of the disease control options, the high cost of mass AI vaccination campaigns and their achievable benefits must be compared with other available control measures, which may include targeted vaccination. Achievable vaccination coverage, VE and the different characteristics of commercial and household (village) poultry production are key parameters determining the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of different AI vaccination strategies.

International audience ; Knowledge and skills in economics and social sciences are becoming increasingly significant in the animal health sector and play an important role in making sure animal health investments are people-centric. These skills provide a basis for decision-making processes within the livestockand animal health sectors at scales ranging from individual owners to farms, and from the livestock and food industries to regions and countries. The trend toward greater reliance on economics and social science skills reflects the complexity and variabilityof situations in the field, which require a whole-system approach. General "one size fits all" rules are not sufficient anymore; rather,insights are needed into the economic impacts of animal diseases, the profitability of potentialinterventions, and an understanding of the behavior of the people involved, including farmers,veterinarians, government officials, and the public. The need to take into account different viewsand therefore values of resources and outcomes during decision making often requires multi-criteria analysis to inform the trade-offs society faces in resource use. The optimization of societalbenefits has to consider an individual's behaviors and socialrelationships within the disciplines ofanimal health management and disease control. The International Society for Economics and Social Sciences of Animal Health (ISESSAH), established in 20172, held its second conference in Montpellier, France in May 2018. The Society promotes transdisciplinary research and joined with the Innovation in Animal Health International Forum and the Economic Reasoning for Improved Animal Health Network to ensure this was achieved at the Montpellier meeting. The proceedings of this 2nd ISESSAH conference focus on how economics and social science approaches can support decision making and governance in animal disease prevention, surveillance, and control. The aim of the conference was to highlight how the principles of economic assessment and social sciences ...

International audience ; Knowledge and skills in economics and social sciences are becoming increasingly significant in the animal health sector and play an important role in making sure animal health investments are people-centric. These skills provide a basis for decision-making processes within the livestockand animal health sectors at scales ranging from individual owners to farms, and from the livestock and food industries to regions and countries. The trend toward greater reliance on economics and social science skills reflects the complexity and variabilityof situations in the field, which require a whole-system approach. General "one size fits all" rules are not sufficient anymore; rather,insights are needed into the economic impacts of animal diseases, the profitability of potentialinterventions, and an understanding of the behavior of the people involved, including farmers,veterinarians, government officials, and the public. The need to take into account different viewsand therefore values of resources and outcomes during decision making often requires multi-criteria analysis to inform the trade-offs society faces in resource use. The optimization of societalbenefits has to consider an individual's behaviors and socialrelationships within the disciplines ofanimal health management and disease control. The International Society for Economics and Social Sciences of Animal Health (ISESSAH), established in 20172, held its second conference in Montpellier, France in May 2018. The Society promotes transdisciplinary research and joined with the Innovation in Animal Health International Forum and the Economic Reasoning for Improved Animal Health Network to ensure this was achieved at the Montpellier meeting. The proceedings of this 2nd ISESSAH conference focus on how economics and social science approaches can support decision making and governance in animal disease prevention, surveillance, and control. The aim of the conference was to highlight how the principles of economic assessment and social sciences ...

Dwarfing the direct losses due to ruminant abortions and flock mortality, the main economic impact of RVF is systemic and ensues from the trade restrictions aimed at its containment. Indeed, past outbreaks of RVF in East Africa and Middle East came as disturbing events in a commercial context of high specialization in trade of small ruminants and interdependence between East-African exporters and the Middle-Eastern importing countries. The two successive bans imposed by Middle-Eastern countries on livestock products coming from the Horn of Africa in 1998-1999 and 2000-2002 highlighted this interdependence. Both bans caused an abrupt stop in exportations from IGAD countries. Nevertheless, the impact of the outbreaks motivating these bans differed due to their unique timing with regard to the Muslim celebrations that trigger the main flow of livestock from the Horn of Africa to Mecca. Hence, in 2000, the worst impact was observed on pastoralist households because the ban was imposed in September, prior to the Haj festival, when the main seasonal export flow had not been realized yet. Regarding the 1997 outbreak, the ban was implemented only in February 1998, after the main trade flow had occurred. The impacts of the bans on Somalia were particularly severe, due to the high specialization of the concerned region in an export-oriented livestock sector, benefitting from a niche market organized around the above-mentioned religious festivals and Arab consumers preferences. The country was all the more affected, as they own two main ports involved in this trade, i.e. Berbera (Somaliland) and Bossaso (Puntland). Prior to the bans, the size of the export market from Somalia to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates was estimated around US$600 million, with Saudi Arabia representing 66% of the total. The bans led the Somali livestock market to collapse. Losses for the livestock industry were estimated at US$109 million and US$326 million, for the first and second ban respectively. The government also directly incurred an important loss around US$45 million from foregone export taxes and docking fees. In the same time, livestock exporters lost a net cumulative profit of US$330 million, whereas producers estimated their annual losses at over US$8 million. Hence, the successive RVF-related trade bans impacted the employment rate, the public treasury, the exchange rate of national currency and thus, the price of imported goods, inducing a general inflationary pressure and important socio-economic upheavals. More generally, the livestock market in the whole East Africa was affected, due to the fall in prices caused by the loss of outlets for livestock. Using market equilibrium models taking these shocks into account, the impact of the trade bans on the Somali region of Ethiopia were estimated at a 36% fall of the GDP. Other impacts originated in the closure of markets inside East Africa, being part of national control strategies. In Kenya, e.g., the closure of the Garissa Market, which is a major outlet for Somali and Ethiopian livestock, resulted in a more than 25% decrease in the price of cattle, inducing a total loss of US$10 million for the value chain. The emergency destocking response of distressed households also participated to the fall in prices and worsening of terms of trade. Together with flock mortality and abortion, destocking moreover affects the herds' dynamics on the long run and the commercial potential of households. These mechanisms show greater impact on smallholders, due to threshold effects in livestock capitalisation and the loss in risk management ability in such variable environmental conditions. In the Middle East too, the bans showed drastic economic impacts. In Yemen, e.g., the bans caused a loss of US$15 million from foregone custom taxes and US$27 million profit losses for traders. The two bans, combined with the prolonged ban maintained till 2009 by Saudi Arabia on Somalia, contributed to a restructuration of trade within and between the two regions. Indeed, trade actors soon reorganized their activity, as highlighted through official figures, notwithstanding the importance of informal trade. Hence, Yemen and the United Arab Emirates appeared as major alternative entry points on Arab Peninsula for Somali livestock. The latter could also transit through Djibouti or Sudan to reach Saudi Arabia. Benefitting from the prolonged bans on Somalia, the port of Djibouti emerged as a major player in the region between 2006 and 2009, thanks to massive investment in port infrastructures and agreements with Saudi importers. Therefore the private sector played a considerable role in adapting to new risks. The Djibouti port diverted much of the livestock trade previously handled at the Berbera and Bossaso ports. On this occasion, as it has been the case in Somalia after ban lifting in 2009, the Middle East has been a source of investment for the Horn of Africa for biosecurity infrastructure. Finally, the second ban led to the emergence of Australia as a major livestock supplier for Saudi Arabia from 2000 till now, and to a certain a point Australia has been a country of major Saudi investments which is seen as another way of adapting for some major value chain agents. In the two last decades, the intraregional livestock trade grew rapidly in East Africa, spurred by the urban demand. Most of this trade is informal, thus lacking official figures. It nevertheless shows a great importance regarding poverty alleviation aspects, the small to medium actors being the main operators of this trade. In recent years, a considerable growth in recorded intraregional trade is noticed, mainly due to a growth of recorded exports from Ethiopia to neighboring countries, as a result of a policy aiming at the facilitation of registration procedures through the CAC/AP-system. As a conclusion, livestock export to Middle East and the growing intraregional East-African livestock trade are both threatened by RVF-linked bans due to loss of outlets and price volatility. Thus, stability of the livestock sector being crucial to human and economic development in the region, a high priority must be given to RVF prevention and control, as supported by figures of impact of past outbreaks. ; Peer reviewed

This study aims to explore the farmers' perceptions of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) vaccination using a reflexive research method called Q methodology. A structured sample was composed of 46 farmers selected according to gender, farming experience, level of education, and production type. Statements relevant to the farmers' perceptions of and attitudes toward FMD vaccination, related to confidence, logistics, costs, and impacts of vaccination were developed. Results were analyzed by principal component analysis and factor analysis. The influence of demographics and characterized variables on the respondent's contribution to each factor was also tested. Regarding the different beliefs and behavior toward FMD vaccination, the common perceptions held by Vietnamese cattle and pig farmers were divided into three discourses named Confidence (24 subjects), Belief (12 subjects), and Challenge (6 subjects). The identified discourses represented 57.3% of the variances. Consensus points were found, such as the feeling of being more secure after FMD vaccination campaigns; the fact that farmers take vaccination decisions themselves without being influenced by other stakeholders; the opinion that FMD vaccination is cheaper than the costs of treating a sick animal; and that vaccines provided by governmental authorities are of high quality. Part of the studied population did not consider vaccination to be the first choice strategy in prevention. This raises the question of how to improve the active participation of farmers in the FMD vaccine strategy. Taking into consideration farmers' perceptions can help to implement feasible vaccination strategies at the local level.

Animal health surveillance is an important tool for disease mitigation and helps to promote animal health and welfare, protect human health, support efficient animal production, and enable trade. This study aimed to assess adoption of recommended standards and best practice for surveillance (including risk-based approaches) in Europe. It included scoping interviews with surveillance experts in Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, and Switzerland to gather information on knowledge acquisition, decisions and implementation of surveillance, and perceptions. This was followed by an online survey among animal health and food safety surveillance users in EU, EEA, and Schengen countries. A total of 166 responses were collected from 27 countries; 111 were eligible for analysis. A strong preference for legislation and established standards was observed, with peer-reviewed publications, conferences, symposia, and workshops to be major sources of information. The majority of respondents indicated a need for international evaluation for surveillance and implied that considerations of cost-effectiveness were essential when making a decision to adopt new surveillance standards. However, most of the respondents did not use a formal evaluation to inform the adoption of new standards or only conducted a descriptive assessment before their implementation or adaptation. Only a few respondents reported a quantitative economic evaluation despite economic efficiency being considered as a highly relevant criterion for surveillance implementation. Constraints mentioned in the adoption of new surveillance standards included insufficient time, financial and human resources, and lack of competency. Researchers aiming to achieve impact by their surveillance work are advised to consider ways of influencing binding standards and to disseminate their work pro-actively using varied channels of engagement tailored to relevant target audiences and their needs. Generally, a more formal linkage between surveillance information and disease mitigation ...

Animal health surveillance is an important tool for disease mitigation and helps to promote animal health and welfare, protect human health, support efficient animal production, and enable trade. This study aimed to assess adoption of recommended standards and best practice for surveillance (including risk-based approaches) in Europe. It included scoping interviews with surveillance experts in Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, and Switzerland to gather information on knowledge acquisition, decisions and implementation of surveillance, and perceptions. This was followed by an online survey among animal health and food safety surveillance users in EU, EEA, and Schengen countries. A total of 166 responses were collected from 27 countries; 111 were eligible for analysis. A strong preference for legislation and established standards was observed, with peer-reviewed publications, conferences, symposia, and workshops to be major sources of information. The majority of respondents indicated a need for international evaluation for surveillance and implied that considerations of cost-effectiveness were essential when making a decision to adopt new surveillance standards. However, most of the respondents did not use a formal evaluation to inform the adoption of new standards or only conducted a descriptive assessment before their implementation or adaptation. Only a few respondents reported a quantitative economic evaluation despite economic efficiency being considered as a highly relevant criterion for surveillance implementation. Constraints mentioned in the adoption of new surveillance standards included insufficient time, financial and human resources, and lack of competency. Researchers aiming to achieve impact by their surveillance work are advised to consider ways of influencing binding standards and to disseminate their work pro-actively using varied channels of engagement tailored to relevant target audiences and their needs. Generally, a more formal linkage between surveillance information and disease mitigation decisions—for example, by using systematic evaluation—could help increase the economic value of surveillance efforts. Finally, a collaborative, international platform for exchange and learning on surveillance as well as co-design and dissemination of surveillance standards is recommended.

Animal health surveillance is an important tool for disease mitigation and helps to promote animal health and welfare, protect human health, support efficient animal production, and enable trade. This study aimed to assess adoption of recommended standards and best practice for surveillance (including risk-based approaches) in Europe. It included scoping interviews with surveillance experts in Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, and Switzerland to gather information on knowledge acquisition, decisions and implementation of surveillance, and perceptions. This was followed by an online survey among animal health and food safety surveillance users in EU, EEA, and Schengen countries. A total of 166 responses were collected from 27 countries; 111 were eligible for analysis. A strong preference for legislation and established standards was observed, with peer-reviewed publications, conferences, symposia, and workshops to be major sources of information. The majority of respondents indicated a need for international evaluation for surveillance and implied that considerations of cost-effectiveness were essential when making a decision to adopt new surveillance standards. However, most of the respondents did not use a formal evaluation to inform the adoption of new standards or only conducted a descriptive assessment before their implementation or adaptation. Only a few respondents reported a quantitative economic evaluation despite economic efficiency being considered as a highly relevant criterion for surveillance implementation. Constraints mentioned in the adoption of new surveillance standards included insufficient time, financial and human resources, and lack of competency. Researchers aiming to achieve impact by their surveillance work are advised to consider ways of influencing binding standards and to disseminate their work pro-actively using varied channels of engagement tailored to relevant target audiences and their needs. Generally, a more formal linkage between surveillance information and disease mitigation ...

Vaccination of domestic poultry against avian influenza (AI) has been used on a large-scale in South East Asia since 2003 and in Egypt since 2006 to fight H5N1 highly-pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) epidemics. The decision to use mass vaccination against HPAI in Egypt was taken as an emergency measure based on positive impact of such control measures in Vietnam and the People's Republic of China. However, three years on, the impact on disease control of AI vaccination in Egypt has been very limited. Despite the continuous vaccination of poultry against HPAI, poultry outbreaks and human cases are reported regularly. A recent assessment study highlighted substantial weaknesses in the current immunisation programme and its lack of positive impact on the spread of infection or the maintenance of public health safety. The shortcomings of the vaccination strategy may be attributed in part to a lack of sufficient support in terms of funding and communication, the absence of an efficient monitoring system, and inadequate training of field technicians. The difficulties of blanket vaccinations in semi-commercial farms and household poultry sectors are well known, however, improvements in the industrial sector should be possible though better government controls and greater collaboration with the private sector. AI vaccination should be regarded as just one control tool within a broader disease control program integrating surveillance, outbreak investigation, disease management systems, and the rigorous implementation of bio-security measures. If incorrectly implemented, AI vaccination has a limited impact as a disease control measure. Moreover, without strict bio-security precautions undertaken during its application, farm visits to vaccinate poultry could facilitate the spread of the virus and therefore become a risk factor with important implications on the maintenance of the virus and potential risk for human exposure.

One Health (OH) positions health professionals as agents for change and provides a platform to manage determinants of health that are often not comprehensively captured in medicine or public health alone. However, due to the organization of societies and disciplines, and the sectoral allocation of resources, the development of transdisciplinary approaches requires effort and perseverance. Therefore, there is a need to provide evidence on the added value of OH for governments, researchers, funding bodies, and stakeholders. This paper outlines a conceptual framework of what OH approaches can encompass and the added values they can provide. The framework was developed during a workshop conducted by the "Network for Evaluation of One Health," an Action funded by the European Cooperation in Science and Technology. By systematically describing the various aspects of OH, we provide the basis for measuring and monitoring the integration of disciplines, sectors, and stakeholders in health initiatives. The framework identifies the social, economic, and environmental drivers leading to integrated approaches to health and illustrates how these evoke characteristic OH operations, i.e., thinking, planning, and working, and require supporting infrastructures to allow learning, sharing, and systemic organization. It also describes the OH outcomes (i.e., sustainability, health and welfare, interspecies equity and stewardship, effectiveness, and efficiency), which are not possible to obtain through sectoral approaches alone, and their alignment with aspects of sustainable development based on society, environment, and economy.

One Health (OH) positions health professionals as agents for change and provides a platform to manage determinants of health that are often not comprehensively captured in medicine or public health alone. However, due to the organization of societies and disciplines, and the sectoral allocation of resources, the development of transdisciplinary approaches requires effort and perseverance. Therefore, there is a need to provide evidence on the added value of OH for governments, researchers, funding bodies, and stakeholders. This paper outlines a conceptual framework of what OH approaches can encompass and the added values they can provide. The framework was developed during a workshop conducted by the "Network for Evaluation of One Health," an Action funded by the European Cooperation in Science and Technology. By systematically describing the various aspects of OH, we provide the basis for measuring and monitoring the integration of disciplines, sectors, and stakeholders in health initiatives. The framework identifies the social, economic, and environmental drivers leading to integrated approaches to health and illustrates how these evoke characteristic OH operations, i.e., thinking, planning, and working, and require supporting infrastructures to allow learning, sharing, and systemic organization. It also describes the OH outcomes (i.e., sustainability, health and welfare, interspecies equity and stewardship, effectiveness, and efficiency), which are not possible to obtain through sectoral approaches alone, and their alignment with aspects of sustainable development based on society, environment, and economy. ; peer-reviewed