SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT OF FMD OUTBREAKS AND CONTROL MEASURES AT DIFFERENT SCALES

IN MONGOLIA

Georgina Limon, G. Ilziibat, B. Sandag, S. Dorj, D. Purevtseren, B. Khishgee, G. Basan, T. Bandi, M. Bruce, J. Rushton, P.M. Beard,

N.A. Lyons

Background

• Livestock is mainly kept by nomadic herders which istheir main source of food and income.

• Mongolia is a large landlocked country in central Asiaand has one of the highest per capita livestock ratios inthe world.

Background

• Since January 2017, reported FMD outbreaks haveconsiderably increased compared with previous years.

• Current control measures include vaccination, modifystamping out and movement controls.

FMD outbreaks reported to the OIE from January 2005 to June 2018 (https://www.oie.int/wahis_2/public/wahid.php/Diseaseinformation/Immsummary)

Russia

China

Aims• Assess the socio-economic impact of FMD and the

control measures on herders.

• Assess the effect on herders’ food availability and access.

• Estimate the national gross economic losses due toreaction and expenditure.

From outbreaks between January to December 2017.

Approach – herder level• A retrospective study was conducted on herders affected

between January and December 2017 in Mongolia.

• Herders were randomly selected using official outbreaksreports from the State Central Veterinary Laboratory(SCVL).

10 herders affected by FMD ineach Province (Aimag).

5 herders not affected by FMDbut within the quarantine areasin each Province.

Results – herder level• 112 herders interviewed (70 affected and 42 quarantined)

97 (86.6%) Nomadic

15 (13.4%) Fixed location (all in Selenge)

Results – herder level

Results – herder level

Results – herder level

**

Results – herder level

“It was very hard to quarantine during 2 months” Dornogovi

“…difficult to live and stay in quarantine” Khentii

*

***

Results – herder levelImpact Quarantined zone

Mean (Min – Max)FMD affected herdMean (Min – Max)

P value

Number of live animals planned to sell- Cattle- Sheep- Goats

2 (0 – 20)8 (0 – 50)3 (0 – 20)

2 (0 – 15)24 (0 – 300)11 (0 – 190)

0.390.470.69

Animal products planned to sell- Cow milk (lt)- Wool (Kg)- Cashmere (kg

752 (0 – 4800)--

587 (0 – 4800)1 herder 130kg 1 herder 130kg

0.50--

Coping strategies Quarantined zone Mean (Min – Max)

FMD affected herdMean (Min – Max)

P value

- Days without drinking any milk- Days drinking less milk- Days without eating meat- Days eating less meat

50 (21 – 90)36 (14 – 90)

-24 (20 – 60)

46 (7 – 120)35 (14 – 60)

*10 (10 – 10)26 (21 – 30)

0.770.48

-0.61

- Days buying milk- Days buying meat

85 (45 – 150)-

40 (15 – 60)52 (20 – 90)

0.26-

*Only 2 herders gave length of time

Results – herder level

The main reason given for not being able to replace animals was lack of money

“If the government give us compensation we will replace them with healthy animals” Dundgovi

Compensation and purchasing replacement animals

“The government said that they didn’t give us the compensation because we didn't inoculate FMD vaccine to our livestock” Dornogovi

Approach – national level• National level gross losses due to reaction and

expenditure, in 2017, in relation to FMD outbreaks wereestimated

Rushton, 2009

Production losses Reaction and expenditure

• Data were provided for each affected province.

Results - national level

The overall national level gross losses was ₮18.4 billion (Mongolian Tughrik - MNT) equivalent to approximately US$7.5 million.

Only the costs of the current control policy were estimated. The potential benefits on reducing the overall impact were not assed.

Main remarks

• This study provides the first assessment of the impact ofFMD control measures in Mongolia including:

• Quantification of the unintended consequences onherders’ debt and food security.

• Implications for herders’ livelihoods.

• A quantification of the national expenditure.

• Although focusing on Mongolia, the findings andapproach are relevant to other FMD endemic regionsaiming to control the disease as part of the PCP-FMD.

Acknowledgments

• National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA)

• State Central Veterinary Laboratory (SCVL)

• General Agency Veterinary Service (GAVS, formerlythe Veterinary Animal Breeding Association - VABA)

• Field vets

• Herders taking part of the study

Thank you!

Any questions