FEASIBILITY OF SOCIO-ECONOMICS AND BIODIVERSITY NETWORK

IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTROL OF HPAI AND OTHER EMERGING OR

RE-EMERGING TRANSBOUNDARY DISEASES IN AFRICA

Cheikh LY

Service d’Economie Rurale et GestionEcole Inter-Etats des Sciences

et Médecine Vétérinaires

EISMV – DAKAR, SENEGAL

Consultant for Alive

Bamako Subregional Stakeholders’ Workshop

•Ongoing consultation launched by Alive Secretariat in collaboration with FAO

• FAO CVO and Senior Livestock policy officer•René Bessin and François Le Gall•Anni McLeod ; Joseph Domenech •AHRS (3 sub-regions) + Socio-economic group at FAO

1. Concept note and ToR for the Study

2. Selection of the Consultants (4)

•Cheikh Ly (team leader, West and Central Africa)•Anthony Mugisha (Eastern Africa)•Simbarashe Sibanda (Southern Africa)•Funso Sonaiya (West Africa)

1. Context

a. Inception meeting – 18-22 Aug. 2008 – FAO HQ in Rome

b. Country visits – 1 to 25 September 2008

West Africa & Central Africa : Burkina, Cameroun, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Mali, Nigeria (Ly & Sonaiya)

East Africa : Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda (Mugisha)

Southern Africa: Botswana, Malawi, South Africa, Zambia

c. Sub-regional Stakeholder Workshops : Naïrobi – 15 – 16 October 2008Bamako – 25 – 26 October 2008Gaborone - ??

d. Report – Submission in November 2008

e. Alive EC – Sharm El Sheikh / Postponed

2. Objective of the work

Study the feasibility of

a socio-economics and biodiversity network

in support of the control of HPAI

and

other emerging or re-emerging transboundary diseases

in Africa.

Assess the need to have a socio-economics and biodiversity network & propose a scheme

• improve the understanding of the epidemiology of animal

diseases

• facilitate risk analysis, decision making and policy design

•to have a better monitoring of livestock production, trade

and consumption and animal health

• get more attention from livestock policy makers

• be able to assess the impact of change in policies

and regulation at the local community and national levels

Different layers of local, national and international institutions.

Context : HPAI & other TADs

Construction of a “sanitary territory” with a common zoo-sanitary regulation

Règlement N° 7/CM/UEMOA

Process ECOWAS/OiE/EISMV towards regional legislation under ECOWAS Sponsorship

Ultimate need to be assessed for CEMAC

Four basic considerations are used to build a rationale:

1. The most effective way to reduce the costs of disease is to control new outbreaks rapidly. Outbreak control needs to be implemented in a way that is efficient, safe and environmentally sound while minimising damage to value chains and livelihoods.

2. Biosecurity & structural changes to the poultry sector & erosion of genetic diversity.

3. HPAI control requires an efficient and transparent financing process and a support system that not only helps farmers to recover from immediate losses from outbreaks but also assists them and other value chain agents to re-establish their operations and improve animal husbandry.

4. Comprehensive analysis of the long term costs and impacts of HPAI control in Africa has yet to be done but also for other transboundary diseases (RFV in the Horn of Africa, FMD, CBPP in Southern Africa, ASF in Western Africa, NCD).

3. Rationale for a network3. Rationale for a network

“There are no arguments better than figures!”

Questions to be answered ?

1. How to acquire and share knowledge, views, experience?

2. How to promote skills and knowledge in the economics of TADs in Africa?

3. How to insure efficiency of information

dissemination, research and development (R&D) at the different layers of decision-making from local to international?

POWER DOES NOT RESIDE IN INSTITUTIONS NOT EVEN THE STATE OR LARGE CORPORATIONS.

It is located in the NETWORKS that structure society

The Rise of the Network Society : Castells M., 1997, 1998

• The Information Age: Economy, society and Culture

• The Power of Identity

Civil societies

Development agencies

Policy communities ; policy actors; civil society

Management; knowledge; public policy; advocacy; etc

“Networks are formal or informal structures that link actors (individuals or organisations) who share a common interest or a general set of values¨.

Organisational structures or processes bringing actors together.

They constitute a way to gather, assess and share knowledge and learning.

Networks are now considered the most effective organisational model.

The CONCEPT

Networks are viewed as the solution to all worries. This is amplified by the “end of project-era mechanisms”.

However, networks are not magic bullets.

In developing countries, the challenges of networking are significantly greater that in the North. Economic, social and political environments are more difficult.

Capacity is more limited. Resources are scarcer.

They can be formal or informal.

They can help marshal evidence and increase the influence of good qualityevidence in the policy process;

They can foster links between researchers and policy-makers;

They can help bypass formal barriers to consensus;

They can bring resources and expertise to policy-making; and

broaden the pro-poor impact of a policy.

Networks are considered cost-effective ways to access or provide goods and services to a large constituency or membership.

Sustainability of interventions is possible through developing strong springboards.

And, of course, networks can provide both direct and indirect access to financial support.

Simultaneously or with trade-offs Specific skills,

Six non-exclusive functions for networks : Network functions approach (ODI).

Strategies and activities of networks:

1. Filters: Filtering, to help members find their way through often unmanageable amounts of information.

2. Amplifiers: Amplifying to make little-known or little-understood ideas more widely understood;

3. Convenors: Convening to bring together members from different communities.

4. Facilitators: Facilitating learning and the main activities of their members.

5. Community or special groups builder networks: Community-building, to promote and sustain a cohesive group.

6. Investors/Providers: Investing or providing resources, capacities and skills to their members.

Network

6 functions

Two-major roles

a support role : interest-group or community development and learning among the members

an agency role : developing and amplifying the voice of the members

SECSEC

SEC/NET Policy process

Policy process

Policy process

AGENCY ROLE

SEC/NET

Policy process

Policy process

SUPPORT ROLE

Policy process

Policy process

C

S + A

M

G

F

L + S

R

C + S

EE

FunctionsGovernanceL+S: Localisation and scopeC+S: Capacities and skillsR: ResourcesM: MembershipC: Communications S+A: Strategic and adaptive capacityEE: External environment

How the form defines the functions of the network

10 ‘keys to success’

1. Clear governance agreements: objectives, functions, membership structures, decisions making and conflicts resolution processes

2. Strength in numbers (political weight)

3. Representativeness (legitimacy and influence)

4. Quality of evidence (credibility and legitimacy)

5. Packaging of evidence (effective communication)

6. Persistence over a period of time (policy influence)

7. Key individuals/Institutions (policy influence)

8. Informal links (critical usefulness)

9. Complementing official structures rather than duplicating

10. ICT: New information and communication technologies increasingly vital

•Information on the socio-economic consequences of HPAI + TADS scattered among a number of small and large organisations based in or working in Africa.

•Well tested analytical approaches and tools but limited discussion of their use and appropriateness (cf. smaller organisations that find it hard to participate in regional meetings)

When a product is produced that requires inputs from diverse and geographically scattered human resources, a network is a highly effective organisational form.

4. The need for a network

A network on socio-economics & biodiversity:

•Link research and planning centres in different African countries, Facilitate information sharing on methods and results,

•Joint work on projects of regional interest,

•Timely analysis to planners and decision makers and Promotion of a critical mass of experienced and well qualified economic and policy analysts.

•Focus on HPAI but skills and knowledge acquired to extended to other TADs

Network = tool to contribute to the overall effort of prevention and control of HPAI

•meet a membership including policymakers and other decision makers in animal health systems that will become routine participants in developing and using information.

•a principle of subsidiarity (If suitable network exists, they are strengthened, if not creation)

•a wide multi-disciplinary constituency of information users and information providers by means of electronic “meeting places” and physical meetings funded through ALIVE.

•to serve the needs of planners and decision makers and grassroots organisations in the region.

A “network” as defined here would be:

•based around five to ten main participating organisations (traditional “research” or state planning organisations, private and NGO organisations with existing programme and human resource capacity suitable to support the work of the network)

•be anchored by one co-ordinating organisation that will receive additional funding.

•have funding to support network activities of participating institutions

•support a grant (modest) for studies in support of animal health planning within the region

5. Scheme for the network

•a supporting network at national and regional levels for undertaking assessment of impacts and their policy implications

•to identify “champions”, discover and stimulate the demand for socio-economic analysis, and communicate effectively with policy makers and planners.

•a platform for network members (methodologies)

•to support staff of organisations within the network ;

6. Specific objectives

•technical guidance and support to decision makers on animal disease

•control strategies that take into account their impacts on markets, livelihoods and biodiversity, so that research findings are translated into policy changes;

•linking up with existing technical networks

•the participation of all stakeholders (livestock market chains in the design and evaluation of animal health control strategies.

•Sub-regional (?) networks established with appropriate institutions at the sub-regional level

•Designated focal point for the network by each participating institution

•Variety of tools, media and events supported initially for 2-3 yearsWebsite, e-consultations, newsletter, databasechronology of events regarding the network since its inceptionface-to-face consultations, regional or Africa-wide meetings

•Distribution of the work of generating and collating knowledge already available on socio-economic and biodiversity impacts, for example through international organisations

7. Activities in support of the specific objectives

•Engaging with policy makers and decision makers distributed among participating institutions

•Interactions of members for conducting a review of methodologies for social, economic, production sector and policy assessment of HPAI (and TADs) in the light of available data conducted.

•Capacity building within institutions in methodologies for HPAI and other TADs assessment and supported by Institutes and individuals with particular expertise

•Strategic economic and policy reviews and studies conducted by the institutions in the network at country or regional level:

•Provision or promotion of decision support tools and documentation in support of decision making, produced within the network or produced elsewhere

•Participation in decision making fora in order that HPAI and other Tads control strategies in the sub-regions incorporate information provided by the networksSUBSIDIARITY (existing networks – New networks)

•Farmers associations, cooperatives and service providers included in the network and benefiting from targeted support

•Provision and promotion of technical guidelines and manuals field tested and translated in local languages targeting major stakeholders in poultry production

•Distribution of material through public and private sectorsdialogue with governments and the private sector establish contact with existing networks that have common interests in order to widen the constituency for sharing information.

8. Participatory approach

•Activities completed, strength of partnerships formed, improvement in national and regional capacity)

•National animal health plans, dissemination of tool and guidelines, and ability to effectively control disease).

The funding proposed under the present ALIVE cycle = for 2-3 years.

Multiagency multi-agency platform

9. Expected impacts of the network & long term sustainability

ACTIVITIES SO FAR

Programme African Livestock (Alive)

Consultation des acteurs sur la faisabilité d’un Réseau sur la socio-économie et la biodiversité pour appuyer la lutte contre la grippe aviaire hautement pathogène et les autres maladies animales émergentes et ré-émergentes en Afrique

QUESTIONNAIRE Remplissez s’il vous plait ce questionnaire et envoyer le aux adresses suivantes : chly@refer.sn, ssibanda2001@yahoo.com, amugisha@vetmed.mak.ac.ug, fsonaiya1@yahoo.com Ne vous limiter pas à l’espace après chaque question. Utilisez autant d’espace que nécessaire: 1. Nom de l’Institution ou structure :

2. Type d’institution ou de structure (Mettre X pour répondre, plus d’un fois si nécessaire) Recherche-Développement en Elevage Services vétérinaires publics ONG Structure de formation/académique Transformation/commercialisation Organisation de producteurs Donateur Réseau Prestataire de services privé (préciser le type de services) ……………… 3. Nom du répondant: 4. Position du répondant: 5. Téléphone: E-mail: 6. Adresse physique:

7. Avez-vous été/êtes vous impliqué dans un ancien réseau ou un réseau actuel consacré à la santé animale et/ou l’élevage? Oui Non

8. Si oui, répondez s’il vous plait aux questions suivantes: (s’il y a plusieurs réseaux, les lister en 8.1 avec un numéro d’ordre et répondre aux questions 8.1 à 8.10 suivant le numéro d’ordre).

8.1 Quel est/était le nom de ce réseau ? 8.2 Quel est/était l’objectif principal de ce réseau? 8.3 Quels sont /étaient les centres d’intérêt de ce réseau? 8.4 Quels sont/étaient les principales cibles/participants de ce réseau ? 8.5 Lister les principales activités de ce réseau ? 8.6 Sous quelle(s) forme(s) sont/étaient ses services et produits ? (ex: lettres d’information/ bulletins de liaison, site web, conférences, système de

subventions, système d’information, support technique etc.) 8.7 Quelles valeurs avaient/ont les activités du réseau pour les différents types de participants? 8.8 A quels enjeux est/était confronté le réseau? 8.9 Suivant votre expérience des réseaux, quelles sont les questions qui déterminent la durabilité d’un réseau?

Pensez-vous qu’il y ait besoin d’un réseau sur la socio-économie et la biodiversité en relation avec la santé animale et la lutte contre la grippe aviaire et les autres maladies animales transfrontalières ?

10. Quels déficits un réseau sur la socio-économie et la biodiversité peut combler, en tenant compte de l’existence d’autres réseaux en santé animale et en

élevage ? 11. Quels devraient être les objectifs principaux et l’impact d’un réseau sur la socio-économie et la biodiversité? 12. Lister les activités auxquelles un réseau pourrait être consacré : 13. Quels types d’institutions/personnes/acteurs devraient être à la base d’un réseau sur la socio-économie et la biodiversité? 14. Quels sont les autres types d’institutions/acteurs qui devraient participer à un tel réseau ? 15. Comment devrait être organisé un tel réseau? (Niveaux régional et sous-régional, gouvernance,

modalités/dispositifs pour l’hébergement, coordination, taille, etc.)? 16. Comment financer un tel réseau? (démarrage et durabilité des activités) Merci d’avoir consacré du temps pour remplir ce questionnaire. Envoyer le par e-mail à : chly@refer.sn, ssibanda2001@yahoo.com, amugisha@vetmed.mak.ac.ug, fsonaiya1@yahoo.com

Etude de faisabilité d’un réseau sur la socio-économie et la biodiversité pour appuyer la lutte contre la grippe aviaire

et les maladies transfrontalières émergentes ou ré-émergentes en Afrique

ATELIER CONSULTATIF SOUS-RÉGIONAL

23-24 Octobre 2008, CRSA, Bamako, Mali

Termes de référence & Programme

Horaire Activité Responsable

1er jour

8:30 - 9:00 Cérémonie d’ouverture Officiels

9:00-10:30 Session plénière 1 Présidence : Cameroun; Rapporteurs : Sénégal, Ghana Presentations1. Santé animale dans la sous-région et point spécial sur l’influenza aviaire hautement pathogène, les maladies transfrontalières émergentes et ré-émergentes 2. Importance de la socio-économie et de la biodiversité en santé animale et sa panification – Introduction sur la nécessité d’un réseau sur la socio-économie et la biodiversité 3. Historique, raisons de l’étude, expériences, objectifs de l’étude Discussion générale

FAO-CRSAFAO-CRSA - Socio-économieConsultant AlivePrésident et rapporteurs

10:30 -11:00 Pause

11:00 - 12:30 Session plénière 1 Président : Nigeria; Rapporteur : Côte d’Ivoire Objectifs (programmes) du réseau sur la socio-économie et la biodiversité Discussion GénéraleOrganisation du travail de groupe (élection d’un modérateur et de 2 rapporteurs)

Président et rapporteurs

12:30 -2:00 Déjeuner

2:00 – 3:30 Discussions en groupeGroupe 1: Arrangements institutionnels du Réseau Group 2: Activités du Réseau et programmesGroup 3: Ressources et gestion financière du Réseau

Consultant - facilitateurs

3:30-3:45 Pause

3:45-4:30 Poursuite des discussions en groupe Consultant - facilitateurs

2e jour

8:30 – 10:30 Session plénière 2Présidence : Burkina; Rapporteur : TogoPrésentation des résultats des discussions en groupeDiscussion générale

Président et rapporteurs

10:30-11:00 Pause

11:00-1:00 Session plénière 3 ConclusionsPerspectives

RapporteursConsultant Alive

Clôture Officiels

1:00-2:00 Déjeuner

Thank you

Merci

SPECIAL THANKS TO :

Alive Secretariat

FAO