Stephen Leahy
BROOKLIN, Canada, Jan 19 2007 (IPS) – Most of the world s poor depend on livestock to survive, but international poverty reduction efforts devote little attention to the health of these animals, experts say.
Animal diseases not only decimate herds and flocks in Africa and Asia, they prevent the sale of animals into the growing markets for meat, milk, eggs and other animal products at home and abroad, according to a policy paper published Friday in the journal Science.
Livestock are incredibly important to livelihoods and economies of developing countries, said Brian Perry, a veterinary surgeon at the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), a Nairobi, Kenya-based independent research centre.
Roughly 70 percent of the world s poor depend on livestock and for nearly all pastoralists, the animals represent the only real equity they have, Perry, a co-author of the paper, told IPS. Livestock are walking bank balances, he noted.
Even more than that, livestock plough fields, thresh grain, provide transport and serve many other functions in Africa and Asia. When disease strikes, it hits very hard.
The outbreak of Rift Valley fever last December in the Horn of Africa has closed export markets for live animals and meat, which is having a major impact on the local economy, Perry says.
Related IPS Articles
Research released last year found that pastoral livestock production systems among communities living in Africa s arid and semi-arid lands still provide the surest means out of poverty.
Pastoralism is a very rational livelihood decision, according to Ernestina Coast of the London School of Economics, who studied the Maasai in Kenya and Tanzania.
Many of those forced to give up their traditional lifestyle end up in unskilled, low-paying jobs such as casual labourers, or gathering honey, making and selling illicit alcoholic brews, and peddling firewood and charcoal, Coast has found.
Public animal health services were devastated 20 years ago by attempts at privatisation conditions imposed by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. This resulted in dramatic cuts in social service programmes, which have never recovered, particularly in parts of Africa, write Perry and his co-author Keith Sones.
Meanwhile, the animal pharmaceutical industry does not invest much into researching diseases of the developing world because pastoralists and small farmers cannot afford to pay for drugs and vaccines, says Perry.
Of the 15 billion dollars spent an animal health products like vaccines, disease treatments and so on in 2005, just three percent was spent in Africa and South Asia. Spending on animal health research reveals similar inequities with Britain budgeting 25.7 million dollars last year to research BSE, or mad cow disease, while a total of 20 million dollars was allocated over 10 years for research targeted at developing countries.
Many animal diseases such as East Coast fever and trypanosomiases only occur in the developing world. There are no vaccines, and very little research investment. Money is mainly spent on diseases such as foot-and-mouth that pose a global risk, Perry says.
But often the solutions such as vaccines that must be refrigerated or are only for short term use are only practical in developed countries.
As in the human drug sector, there are efforts to change this situation. A public-private partnership launched by Britain called GALVmed, which works to widen access to drugs, vaccines and diagnostic products, is a great little initiative , says Perry. It is an attempt to respond to market failures and fund research that tailors animal health technologies to the needs of the South.
On the capacity-building side, Perry also lauds the Canadian-financed Biosciences for East and Central Africa. The new research institution based in Nairobi, which opens its doors in 2008, will address the needs of African livestock and crops using local researchers.
While this might keep some African scientists at home, the ongoing brain drain because career prospects are better in the North continues to cripple Africa s capacity in science, Perry adds.
Beyond vaccines, drugs and research, poor countries need the infrastructure to deliver animal health services. This doesn t necessarily mean more vets but para-professionals and community outreach that can provide low-cost, effective veterinary services, he says. With some exceptions, there is little support for this from the global community.
[S]ectors of the affluent world are still basing their science contributions to poverty reduction on self-interest At the moment, only the crumbs go to the poor, their paper concludes.
