2006年-世界发展银行全球_Enhancing_Control_of_Highly_Pathogenic_Avian_Influenza_in_Developing_Countries_through_Compensation___Issues_and_Good_Practice_102页_977kb

Summary of "Enhancing Control of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza in Developing Countries through Compensation: Issues and Good Practice"

Core Content

This report examines the role of compensation in controlling highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) in developing countries. It outlines the challenges, objectives, and good practices associated with compensating poultry producers for the culling of their birds during disease outbreaks. The report is prepared by a multidisciplinary team from the World Bank, FAO, and IFPRI and is based on field studies in Egypt, Indonesia, and Vietnam, as well as literature and policy analysis from both developed and developing contexts.

Main Objectives of the Report

• To discuss the purposes and scope of compensation schemes in the context of HPAI control.
• To review past experiences with compensation.
• To link compensation practices to the success of culling strategies.
• To analyze how inappropriate compensation packages (e.g., overcompensation) can create perverse incentives.
• To illustrate potential pitfalls and uncertainties in compensation.
• To develop recommendations based on observed good practices.

Key Issues and Good Practices

1. Who Is Eligible for Compensation?

• Animal owners are typically the primary beneficiaries.
• Contract farmers may be compensated based on ownership structure, with the contractor or integrator receiving payments depending on who owns the birds.
• Smallholder and backyard systems (sectors 3 and 4) are more complex due to lack of formal records and differential ownership (e.g., by gender).
• Preparedness planning is essential to identify beneficiaries and ensure their inclusion in compensation schemes.

2. Types of Losses Covered

• Direct losses include the value of culled birds.
• In some cases, disposal costs and cleaning/disinfection costs are also covered.
• Consequential losses (e.g., business interruption, price effects) are generally not compensated, though private insurance may cover them in developed countries.
• Indirect losses (e.g., lost feed sales, tourism decline, absenteeism) are not typically included in public compensation schemes.

3. Setting Compensation Rates

• Rates should be set before an outbreak using pre-outbreak market prices.
• A reference market value is preferred over budget or production cost-based rates.
• Rates should be between 50% and 100% of the reference market value, with 75–90% being optimal.
• Diseased birds should be compensated at a lower rate than suspected birds to encourage early reporting.
• Dead birds should be compensated at a positive rate to promote complete reporting.

4. Timeliness and Payment Mechanisms

• Prompt payment (ideally within 24 hours) is critical to ensure compliance and reduce delays.
• Cash or vouchers are preferred methods, especially in areas with limited banking access.
• Bank transfers are suitable for large, commercial farms.
• Local financial institutions, such as rural post offices, can be used for voucher systems.

5. Communication and Awareness

• Awareness campaigns are necessary to ensure stakeholder understanding and trust.
• These campaigns should include consultation, advocacy, and information dissemination.
• Messages should be clear, consistent, and include the principles, procedures, and compensation levels.
• Private sector actors, such as para-veterinarians, can play a key role in communication and awareness raising.

6. Organizing Payment and Accountability

• Preparedness is key to efficient compensation.
• Eligibility databases and emergency payment procedures must be in place.
• Involvement of multiple stakeholders (veterinary services, finance ministry, civil authorities, community leaders) is necessary for effective implementation.
• Local governments and social accountability mechanisms should be used to ensure transparency and fairness.

7. Future of Compensation

• Compensation remains essential for early disease control and to prevent spread.
• As HPAI becomes endemic, compensation strategies may shift, with a focus on sectors 3 and 4.
• International funding is likely to support poorer countries.
• Private initiatives may support large commercial sectors through mandatory levies and voluntary insurance.
• PVS (Performance, Vision, and Strategy) tools can help assess government capabilities in disease control.

Conclusion

Compensation is a vital tool in the control of HPAI, especially in developing countries. It encourages early reporting and compliance with culling measures, reduces the risk of disease spread, and supports affected communities. However, it must be carefully designed to avoid perverse incentives and ensure transparency and accountability. The report emphasizes the importance of preparedness, good communication, and efficient payment systems in the success of compensation programs. As HPAI continues to pose a global health risk, compensation schemes must evolve to meet changing needs and support sustainable disease control.