Access of the rural poor to goods and services to control Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD)
By R. Emerson Tuttle
European Commission for the Control of Foot-and-Mouth Disease (EuFMD)
Barriers, opportunities, and the role of the private and public sectors and international organizations in achieving change.
This ppt concerns
New investments in developing countries at the Base of the Pyramid (BoP); Is there a potential market for FMD control?; What are the barriers preventing access to quality FMD control options?; Business models to overcome existing barriers; An evolving role for the public sector and international organizations.
Access of the rural poor to goods and services to control Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD)
1. 40th General Session of the EuFMD âĸ 22-24 April 2013, Rome (Italy)
Access of the rural poor to goods and
services to control Foot-and-Mouth
Disease (FMD)
Barriers, opportunities, and the role of the private and public
sectors and international organizations in achieving change
R. Emerson Tuttle
European Commission for the Control of Foot-and-Mouth Disease (EuFMD)
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
August 1, 2013
2. +
Agenda
īŽ Defining the problem
īŽ Conclusions
īŽ New investments in developing countries at the Base of the Pyramid
(BoP)
īŽ Is there a potential market for FMD control?
īŽ What are the barriers preventing access to quality FMD control
options?
īŽ Business models to overcome existing barriers
īŽ An evolving role for the public sector and international organizations
2
3. +
The problem
īŽ Rural livestock keepers have minimal â if any â access to
control options for FMD
īŽ Governments manage risk for constituents, leaving
individuals to suffer from inefficiencies
īŽ How can the current model be improved?
3
http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2011/jan/21/farm-africa-animal-healthcare-franchise
4. +
The current paradigm
Increased circulation of virus
Public response
Foreign aid
Disease outbreak
-Decreased resilience
-Negative livelihoods impact
-Decreased market access
-Limited ability to trade products internationally
Temporary management
Disease outbreak seen as the problem
?
4
5. +
Towards a new paradigm
īŽ Current paradigm does not properly work
īŽ Animal diseases are widespread
īŽ Governments need to improve animal disease control and management
systems, but resources are limited1
īŽ What is the role for the private sector to complement public service
animal health delivery systems?
īŽ In this presentation: FMD control in East Africa and the scope for a
private sector role
5
6. +
Conclusions
īŽ There is a market for rural FMD control
īŽ Numerous barriers (demand-side and supply-side) prevent this
market from functioning
īŽ Current business models can be adapted for more effective
FMD management
īŽ Governments must evolve to facilitate private investment in
disease control
īŽ International organizations must design a framework for
understanding socioeconomic barriers to access
īŽ An optimum balance of public/private FMD control provision
must be found!
6
7. +
Evidence
īŽ Rapid and continued growth projected for Sub-Saharan Africa2
īŽ An emerging trend of privatization in Africa
īŽ Viewing the poor as a conscious consumers as opposed to victims
īŽ Challenge the idea that the poorest are not willing to pay for goods
and services
īŽ Design interventions targeting those at the BoP
īŽ Many consumers â low purchasing power
īŽ Impact investments also include a social dimension
7
http://moonofthesouth.com/kenyan-media-accused-stereotyping-2/
8. +
Evidence:Wealth at the BoP?
īŽ Refers to a heterogeneous group of consumers in the market
with relatively little purchasing power
īŽ Globally: 4 billion people living on <$2.50/day
īŽ Ethiopia: $84 billion of wealth in the BoP3, 22 million rural poor
īŽ Kenya: 15 million rural poor4
īŽ Target this consumer class through high volume/low value
business models
īŽ Market-based solutions (MBS) to development
8
http://www.generationim.com/sustainability/challenges/real-needs-base.html
9. +
Evidence: Impact investments
īŽ Interventions that have a positive social/environmental benefit
while securing financial returns5
īŽ Examples:
īŽ Microfinance loan programs
īŽ Clean water delivery systems
īŽ Information technology networks
īŽ Energy provision
īŽ Sale of desired food commodities, nutritional supplements
īŽ Hygiene products and public health improvements
9
http://www.thankyouwater.org/
10. +
No MBSs in animal health:Why?
īŽ Inaccessible/non-quantified market
īŽ Demand- and supply-side barriers preventing proper market
functioning
īŽ Intricacies of FMD require innovation and adaptation:
īŽ Genetic variation of the virus
īŽ Cold chain requirement
īŽ Rapid spread
īŽ Sub-clinical or chronic infection
10
11. +
FMD control:What is the potential
market value?
11
http://www.oie.int/wahis_2/public/wahid.php/Diseaseinformation/Diseasedistributionmap
Outbreak distribution: Jan-Jun 2012
13. +
FMD control:What is the potential
market value?
īŽ Focus on cattle in the East African region, specifically
Ethiopia and Kenya:
īŽ Ethiopia â 54 million head6
īŽ Kenya â 17 million head7
īŽ 14.5 million dairy cattle combined
īŽ Business of $142 million per year for control strictly through
vaccination
13
14. +
FMD control: Are the potential
consumers willing to pay?
īŽ The market: rural cattle-owning households (not large
producers)
īŽ Small farmers keep the large majority of the cattle stock
īŽ 88% of rural households in Ethiopia rely on livestock production8
īŽ 92% of such households own cattle
īŽ Non-homogenous group differentiated across three major
characteristics:
īŽ Poverty
īŽ Herd size
īŽ Magnitude of importance of livestock to income
14
All rural householdsLivestock-owning householdsCattle-owning rural households
81% of total, ~61.5 million individuals in Ethiopia alone
15. +A new paradigm
Increased circulation of virus
Disease outbreak
-Decreased resilience
-Negative livelihoods impact
-Decreased market access
-Limited ability to trade products internationally
Demand-side barriers Supply-side barriers
Poor access of rural livestock holders to
quality FMD control options
Minimal/no preventive rural control
Underlying socioeconomic issues create
the environment for disease to persist
15
16. +
Barriers to access: Demand-side
1) Lack of trust in government services (by consumer class)
2) Lack of trust in products
3) Limited resources
4) Political voice of those at the BoP
5) Lack of knowledge of local FMD situation
6) FMD as one of many concerns
16
17. +
Barriers to access: Supply-side
1) Exclusive government capture of FMD control
2) Spatial distribution of consumers
3) Temporal distribution of demand
4) Vaccine requirements
5) Limited access to appropriate epidemiological info
6) Impediments to pharmaceutical importation
17
18. +
Building trust: Sidai Africa9
īŽ Franchise-based social enterprise in rural Kenya
īŽ Operates under full cost-recovery from keepers
īŽ Establish trust amongst consumers through brand recognition
īŽ Liaise with suppliers to provide appropriate and quality goods
18
http://www.sidai.com/index.php?page=aboutus
19. +
Breaking barriers:
Demand-side
1) Lack of trust in government services (by consumer class)
2) Lack of trust in products
3) Limited resources
4) Political voice of those at the BoP
5) Lack of knowledge of local FMD situation
6) FMD as one of many concerns
Supply-side
1) Exclusive government capture of FMD control
2) Spatial distribution of consumers
3) Temporal distribution of demand
4) Vaccine requirements
5) Limited access to appropriate epidemiological info
6) Impediments to pharmaceutical importation
19
20. +
Streamlining disease information:
Vovixaâs Alerta System10
īŽ Data management system developed to eliminate inefficiencies in
Peruvian health data reporting
īŽ Paper system = lag-time, data entry error
īŽ Telecom system = instantaneous, direct contact from the field to the
central government (and vise versa)
īŽ Use of local community health workers as mobile reporting hubs
20
21. +
Breaking barriers:
Demand-side
1) Lack of trust in government services (by consumer class)
2) Lack of trust in products
3) Limited resources
4) Political voice of those at the BoP
5) Lack of knowledge of local FMD situation
6) FMD as one of many concerns
Supply-side
1) Exclusive government capture of FMD control
2) Spatial distribution of consumers
3) Temporal distribution of demand
4) Vaccine requirements
5) Limited access to appropriate epidemiological info
6) Impediments to pharmaceutical importation
21
22. +
Other examples
īŽ Una tantum voucher system for vaccination with a high quality
âexperienceâ good
īŽ Stimulate demand through positive experience
īŽ Address issues of: trust in products, limited resources, temporal
distribution of demand
īŽ Aggregation platforms: dairy cooperatives
īŽ Increase purchasing power through network of livestock owners
īŽ Reduce transaction costs for consumers AND suppliers
īŽ Address issues of: limited resources, political voice, spatial
distribution of demand
īŽ Mobile service delivery platforms:
īŽ Address issues of: spatial distribution of demand, (vaccine
requirements)
22
http://www.opportunity.org/
http://www.heifer.org/eadd/
23. +
An expanded role for the public
sector role
īŽ Shift from a delivery model to a regulatory model:
īŽ Information provider
īŽ Bolster purchasing power
īŽ Encourage investment in animal health
īŽ Develop institutional framework
īŽ Fill in service delivery gaps that private sector cannot reach
23
http://ccafs.cgiar.org/sites/default/files/pastoralist_sossahel.jpg?1345797745
24. +Provider of FMD information
īŽ For livestock keepers:
īŽ Local FMD conditions
īŽ Preventive management options
īŽ Product quality and regulations
īŽ For suppliers:
īŽ Number of animals requiring vaccination
īŽ Distribution of consumers
īŽ Relevant FMD epidemiology
24
http://www.africom.mil/Newsroom/Article/8615/ugandan-us-health-workers-come-together-for-animal
25. +
Purchasing power
īŽ Support aggregation and microfinance platforms
īŽ âSmartâ subsidies:11
īŽ to livestock keepers to incentivize preventive management
īŽ to service providers investing in rural control
īŽ sub-contracting of private veterinarians to work in rural areas
25
26. +
Encouraging private investments in
animal health
īŽ Provide incentives to businesses to devise/test innovative
business approaches to FMD control
īŽ Loans at preferential rate
īŽ Grant funding
īŽ Tax rebates
īŽ Collaterals
īŽ Establish innovative private-public partnerships to test
different methods for effective FMD control, and animal
disease and control management in general
26
27. +
The role of international organizations
īŽ Incentivize governments to shift towards a model that
includes private sector involvement:
īŽ Provide simple tools for analysis of socioeconomic barriers
īŽ Integration with the Progressive Control Pathway (PCP)
īŽ Develop systems for common vaccine registration
īŽ Support harmonization at the regional and international level
27
29. +
References
īŽ 1) Vosloo, W, ADS Bastos, O Sangare, SK Hargreaves and GR Thomson. 2002. Review of the status and control
of foot and mouth disease in sub-Saharan Africa. Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz 21 (3): 437-449.
īŽ 2) Hatch, G, P Becker and M van Zyl. 2011. The dynamic African consumer market: Exploring growth
opportunities in Sub-Saharan Africa. Accenture. 44pp.
īŽ 3) Hammond, AL, WJ Kramer, RS Katz, JT Tran and C Walker. 2007. The next 4 billion: Market size and business
strategy at the base of the pyramid. World Resources Institute and International Finance Corporation Report.
164 pp.
īŽ 4) World Bank. 2013. World Databank: World Development Indicators for Ethiopia and Kenya, 2005-2011.
Accessed on 23 June, 2013 at: http://databank.worldbank.org/.
īŽ 5) Clark, C, J Emerson, J Balandina, R Katz, K Milligan, R Ruttman and B Trelstad. 2012. Investing for impact:
How social entrepreneurship is redefining the meaning of return. Credit Suisse and the Schwab Foundation for
Social Entrepreneurship. 58pp.
īŽ 6) Central Statistics Agency (CSA), Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. 2013. Agricultural sample survey
volume II: Report on livestock and livestock characteristics (private peasant holdings). Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
194pp.
īŽ 7) Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS). 2009. Livestock population census data. Accessed on 16 June,
2013 at: http://www.knbs.or.ke/censuslivestock.php.
īŽ 8) CSA. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. 2012. Living Standards Measurement Study â Integrated
Survey on Agriculture (LSMS-ISA): Ethiopia rural socioeconomic survey. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 4pp.
īŽ 9) Sidai Africa Ltd: Tunza Mifugo Yaka. 2013. Accessed on 10 June 2013 at: http://www.sidai.com/.
īŽ 10) Casas, C, WC Lajoie, and CK Prahalad. 2006. The Voxiva story. Accessed online on 6 June 2013 at:
http://www.mit.edu/~gari/teaching/prahalad_sec_Va.pdf.
īŽ 11) Pica-Ciamarra, U, J Otte and C Martini. 2010. Livestock sector policies and programmes in developing
countries: A menu for practitioners. Pro-Poo Livestock Policy Initiative: A Living from Livestock, FAO. Rome,
Italy. 150pp.
29
31. +
Discussion points
īŽ Additional demand barrier: what of the research pointing to
the fact that individuals do not see the benefit of vaccination?
īŽ EuFMD trainings point otherwise: there are individuals who are
able to pay for control that would be interested in doing so given
the opportunity
īŽ Also, papers such as Barasa et al. 2008 Jibat et al. 2013, and
Radeny et al. 2006 suggest that there is a benefit to vaccination,
and livestock keepers are shown to have an increasing awareness
and interest in FMD control
īŽ Comments on Sidai: massive international investment to start
the program, issue of monopolization and control of many
sectors (credit, advice, animal health, etc.), crowding out
local provision
īŽ Not as cut-and-dry, issues are present in this model as well, yet
international donors providing an investment in market
functioning in such a way displays a shift in the mindset that may
prove useful to explore
31
32. +
Discussion points (continued)
īŽ How can we influence ministries in these countries to change
their policies?
īŽ Easier to do with a government interested in foreign export
īŽ Provide a concrete and solid economic incentive or argument
displaying the benefits
īŽ Be better in connecting development goal desires with animal health
means â investments in this sector are surely tied to these goals, yet
better outreach to this end is needed
īŽ Shift focus from disease to services
īŽ What is needed is an institutional/communication innovation rather
than animal health innovation per se
īŽ âLivestock entrepreneursâ will not be easy to motivate: better
targeting of the disease control message is necessary
īŽ If 90% of individuals are not willing, or able to pay for services,
what of the other 10% who are? There exist individuals who do
wish for better access and can pay for goods and services, we
should be working to find means to connect these individuals to
quality options
32
33. +
Discussion points (continued)
īŽ Cost of compliance issues
īŽ Animal health interventions are sometimes far too costly and the
incentives donât necessarily line up
īŽ âReceiving servicesâ sometimes forgotten â aggregation
platforms act as a means to targeting this issue
īŽ Vaccine technology really acts as one of the largest barriers
īŽ Cold chain
īŽ Serotyping
īŽ Delivery costs of ~$1.7 on average in recent calculations
īŽ Provide infrastructure and burden-sharing mechanisms that
reduce transaction costs
īŽ Disease control is not merely about
immunology/epidemiology, it is also about knowledge
īŽ Systems of communication through mobile phone technologies?
33
34. +
Discussion points (continued)
īŽ The poor really are not victims, they can be accessed by
markets
īŽ For example, an individual with a cow most likely isnât even in the
scope of âpoor,â and providing access and the appropriate
quality/incentive structure should lead to local buy-in for control
īŽ Temporal nature of vouchers, target sales right after harvest (in
the case of fertilizer distribution) â similar translation in livestock
sector at animal markets?
34