Dipartimento di Scienze Veterinarie
Scuola di Dottorato in Scienze Agrarie e Veterinarie
Programma in: “Produzioni animali, sanità e igiene degli alimenti nei
Paesi a clima mediterraneo”
Codice Settore Scientifico Disciplinare (SSD): AGR/01
Tesi di dottorato
27° Ciclo
Resilience, livelihoods and food security of small
ruminant breeders in situations of extreme
vulnerability: the socio-economic effects of the
veterinary intervention promoted by the
International Cooperation in the Gaza Strip.
Resilienza, mezzi di sussistenza e accesso al cibo
degli allevatori di piccoli ruminanti in situazioni di
vulnerabilità estrema: gli effetti socio-economici
dell’assistenza veterinaria promossa dalla
Cooperazione Internazionale nella Striscia di Gaza.
Candidato Relatore
Dr. Cristiano Rossignoli Prof. Francesco Di Iacovo Correlatore
Dr. Giancarlo Ferrari
Presidente del programma di dottorato Prof. Domenico Cerri
To my beautiful daughter Masami Bianca, with all my love.
Alla mia bellissima figlia Masami Bianca, con tutto il mio amore.
Abstract
Animal diseases represent a serious issue for the 900 million of poor people relying on livestock for their livelihoods in developing countries. Objective of this research is to analyse, through a case study, the effectiveness of animal health intervention promoted by donor-based livestock projects to sustain livelihood, food security and resilience of poor livestock keepers in the developing world. The methodology adopted is consistent with an ex post cost–benefit analysis. The benefits of the treatment were estimated through the Meat Gross Profit (Di Iacovo, 2002) by analysing changes in the productivity parameters and epidemiological information of small ruminants in the study population. Propensity-score methods are used to adjust for differences in pre-treatment variables. In conclusion, the research provides evidence of the importance of veterinary interventions in tackling poverty, food insecurity and in supporting livelihood and resilience of poor livestock keepers in the developing world. This can definitely contribute to donors and decision makers in taking decisions and in allocating resources, especially in time of financial crisis. The research also provides a valuable methodological and practical contribution to the debate of animal health impact assessments in developing contexts.
Key words: Animal health economics; Food security; Impact assessment;
Livelihood; Livestock; Meat Gross Profit; Resilience; Small Ruminant; Smallholder
Le malattie degli animali rappresentano un grave problema per 900 milioni di persone povere che dipendono dal bestiame per il loro sostentamento nei paesi in via di sviluppo. L’obiettivo di questa ricerca è analizzare, attraverso un caso di studio, l’efficacia degli interventi di sanità veterinaria promossi dalla cooperazione internazionale nel sostenere i mezzi di sussistenza, la sicurezza alimentare e la resilienza degli allevatori poveri nel mondo in via di sviluppo. La metodologia adottata si basa su un’analisi costi-benefici di tipo ex-post. I benefici del trattamento sono stimati attraverso l’Utile Lordo Carne (Di Iacovo, 2002), analizzando i cambiamenti nei parametri produttivi e le informazioni epidemiologiche della popolazione di piccoli ruminanti in studio. Metodi basati sul propensity-score sono usati per regolare le differenze nelle variabili di pre-trattamento. In conclusione, la ricerca fornisce la prova dell'importanza degli interventi veterinari per la lotta contro la povertà, l'insicurezza alimentare e nel sostenere i mezzi di sussistenza e la resilienza degli allevatori poveri nel mondo in via di sviluppo. Questo può aiutare la cooperazione internazionale nello sviluppare strategie corrette e ad allocare le risorse in modo adeguato, soprattutto nel tempo di crisi finanziaria che stiamo vivendo. La ricerca fornisce inoltre un prezioso contributo metodologico e pratico al dibattito sulla valutazione economica dei programmi di sanità veterinaria in contesti di sviluppo.
Parole chiave: Mezzi di sussistenza; Piccoli ruminanti; Piccoli allevatori; Sicurezza alimentare; Resilienza; Utile Lordo Carne; Valutazione di impatto; Valutazione economica programmi di sanità veterinaria;
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS II
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS IV
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES VI
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS IX
1 INTRODUCTION 10
1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT 13
1.2 OBJECTIVES 16
1.3 RESEARCH QUESTION AND HYPOTHESES 16
1.4 STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT 17
2 LITERATURE REVIEW: ANIMAL HEALTH ECONOMICS FRAMEWORK 18 2.1 LIVESTOCK REVOLUTIONS AND ECONOMIC OF DISEASES 18
2.2 ANIMAL HEALTH ECONOMIC: ORIGINS AND APPLICATIONS IN DEVELOPED AND
DEVELOPING CONTEXTS 20
3 MATERIALS AND METHODS 25
3.1 THE STUDY POPULATION 25 3.2 THE RESEARCH IMPLEMENTATION 28 3.2.1 DESK PHASE 29 3.2.2 FIELD PHASE 30 3.2.3 DATA ANALYSIS 32 3.2.3.1 Data description 32
3.2.3.2 Analysis of study population by treatment 43 3.2.3.3 Veterinary Intervention Analysis 43 3.2.3.4 Cost-Benefit analysis 45 3.2.3.5 Analysis of food security and resilience 48 3.2.3.6 Statistical Analysis 50
3.3 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY 51
4 PRESENTATION OF THE CASE STUDY 54
4.1 BRIEF SITUATION ANALYSIS: THE CONFLICT EFFECTS 54
4.2 THE INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION: ROLES AND EFFECTS 57
4.3 AGRICULTURE AND LIVESTOCK SECTOR IN THE GS 58
4.3.1 SMALL RUMINANTS SECTOR IN OPT 60 4.3.1.1 Sheep breeds in oPt 61
4.3.1.2 Goat breeds in oPt 64
4.3.1.3 Management systems for SR in the GS 66 4.3.1.4 The livelihood of SR keepers in the GS 68
5.1 PRODUCTIVITY PARAMETERS 72
5.2 OUTCOMES AND IMPACTS 77
5.2.1 MEAT GROSS PROFIT (KG AND VALUE) AND NET SOCIAL BENEFIT 77 5.2.2 FOOD SECURITY AND RESILIENCE 89
6 CONCLUSIONS 93
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank my lifelong mentor, my mother Patrizia, for teaching me the value of learning, equality and love. I would like to thank my sister Serena for understanding me deeply and for pushing me in front of difficulties. I admire you a lot. A special thank is for my father that is always so patient to listen all my discourses. Thank you for believing in me.
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor Prof. Francesco Di Iacovo for listening my ideas and for providing me always with his precious advices about both life and work. I would like to thank Dott. Giancarlo Ferrari for his support and approach to the animal health economics.
My sincere gratitude goes to Dott. Fabio Bartolini for his support in analysing data, and for his help during the learning process at the base of this work. His experience and unbiased research approach have been for me of greatest help. I also thank him for reading my work with patience and attention.
My gratitude is also for Dott. Roberta Moruzzo that has been a special advisor not only for this job but for many other things. I always wait the morning to speak with you, thanks. My thanks are also for Dott. Paola Scarpellini for sharing with me ideas and thoughts. Also, I would like to thank Vincenzina Colosimo and Monica Villani for their immense gentleness. My gratitude also goes to for Prof. Vittorio Tellarini for teaching me rural evaluation. For his precious advise about how measuring food security and resilience and for his immense kindness and consideration.
I would like to thank Alberto Giani for encouraging me in doing the PhD, but also for his personal empathy and honesty. His critical approach and our discourses in Gaza have helped me to enlarge my perspective for life and work. Thanks to Alberto Alcalde for his great friendship that has been so precious during the time in Gaza.
A very special thank to the people of Gaza, with a particular mention for my beloved friends and colleagues Tareq Al Qattaa and Wasim Ashour. Without you nothing would have been possible. Also, I would like to thank Ahmbed Alsabe for his support during the last period of fieldwork.
I express my gratitude to my beloved Rossignoli’s family. You are a lot and all of you are part of me, this work is also your merit. A very special thank to my
grandparents Maria Lina, Natale, Annalisa and Lino. I would like to hug all of you once again. This would never happen without your support.
I would like to thank Prof. James Muir. He was my model and I am proud to have met him during my previous studies. He strongly contributed to my passion for research.
Then, I would like to thank Poldo. He was close to me almost until the end. He was looking at me silently and seeing him made me always happy also in hard moments. Goodbye little Poldo, I miss you.
Finally, my wife, Masayo, has been a vital driving force behind this study being completed through her professional advice and her love. Arigato.
List of figures and tables
Figure 1: Sustainable Livelihoods Framework with highlighted the livestock’s
contribution to strengthening the basic assets. ... 11
Figure 2: Gaza Strip, with Israeli-controlled borders (buffer zone) and limited fishing zone.. ... 14
Figure 3: Disease impacts. ... 20
Figure 4: Enterotoxaemia vaccinations implemented in the Gaza Strip. ... 26
Figure 5: The logic of the projects implemented. ... 27
Figure 6: Monitoring and evaluation system over the period 2011-2013. ... 32
Figure 7: Age of the main livestock keeper in the households of the study population at the baseline. ... 41
Figure 8: SR adults reared per households of the study population at the baseline. ... 41
Figure 9: Mean of SR adults reared per households of the study population over the period 2011-2013. ... 42
Figure 10: % of sheep and goats in the initial population of SR (2011). ... 42
Figure 11: Costs of disease. ... 44
Figure 12: The Gaza Strip on the map. ... 54
Figure 13: Feeding Awassi, Assaf and local goats in the Gaza Strip. ... 61
Figure 14: Sheep and goats in a farm of the Gaza Strip ... 65
Figure 15: Sheep and goats in a urban area of the Gaza Strip. ... 70
Figure 16: Mean of SR (adult) kept in the households of the study population receiving veterinary assistance (treated) and non-receiving veterinary assistance (non-treated). ... 71
Figure 17: Box plot representation of the sheep DR in both treated and non-treated samples during the 3 years of observation over the period 2011-2012. ... 73
Figure 18: Box plot representation of the sheep MA in both treated and non-treated samples during the 3 years of observation over the period 2011-2012. ... 74
Figure 19: Box plot representation of the lamb MNB in both treated and non-treated samples during the 3 years of observation over the period 2011-2012. ... 74
Figure 20: Box plot representation of the goats DR in both treated and non-treated samples during the 3 years of observation over the period 2011-2012. ... 76
Figure 21: Box plot representation of the goats MA in both treated and non-treated samples during the 3 years of observation over the period 2011-2012. ... 76
Figure 22: Box plot representation of the kids MNB in both treated and non-treated samples during the 3 years of observation over the period 2011-2012. ... 77
Figure 23: Average annual MGPkg produced per head of sheep reared in the
treated and non-treated samples over the period 2011-2013. ... 78
Figure 24: Average annual MGPkg produced per goat reared in the treated and non-treated samples over the period 2011-2013. ... 79
Figure 25: Average annual MGPkg produced per sheep and per goat reared in the treated and non-treated samples over the period 2011-2013. ... 79
Figure 26: Annual MGPkg produced per SR reared in the treated and non-treated samples over the period 2011-2013. ... 80
Figure 27: Annual MGPkg produced per household in the treated and non-treated samples over the period 2011-2013. ... 81
Figure 28: Annual MGPv (NIS) produced per SR in the treated and non-treated samples over the period 2011-2013. ... 82
Figure 29: Annual MGPv (NIS) produced per household in the treated and non-treated samples over the period 2011-2013. ... 82
Figure 30: TMGPv (€) produced per household in the treated and non-treated samples over the period 2011-2013. ... 83
Figure 31: TMGPvxhead (€) produced per SR in the treated and non-treated samples over the period 2011-2013. ... 84
Figure 32: NSBfarm (€) produced per household in the treated and non-treated samples over the period 2011-2013. ... 85
Figure 33: NSBa (€) produced per SR in the treated and non-treated samples over the period 2011-2013. ... 86
Figure 34: Dose Response function and Treatment Effect Function of the average annual veterinary visits on TMGPvalue(€) of treated households. ... 88
Figure 35: Dose Response function and Treatment Effect Function of the average annual veterinary visits on level of food security (FSr) of treated households. ... 91
Figure 36: Dose Response function and Treatment Effect Function of the average annual veterinary visits on the level of resilience (Rhrate) of treated households. ... 92
Table 1: Steps for data collection on the study population – treated and non treated. ... 30
Table 2: Description of independent variables ... 36
Table 3: Description of independent variables ... 37
Table 4: Description of fixed-parameters ... 38
Table 5: Description of depended variables ... 39
Table 7: t test for baseline indicators by treatment in the study population. ... 43 Table 8: Population growth and urbanisation of the GS ... 57 Table 9: t test results per sheep productivity parameters by treatment in the study
population. ... 72 Table 10: t test results per goats productivity parameters by treatment in the study
population. ... 75 Table 11: Mean of outcomes variables for sheep and goats in the treated and
non-treated population per year of observation. ... 77 Table 12: Descriptive statistics of outcome variables by treatment. Variables are
measured in €. ... 83 Table 13: ATE estimation for TMGPv and TMGPvhead ... 84 Table 14: ATE estimation for NSBfarm and NSBa ... 86 Table 15: Ratio of socio-economic indicators for Food Security and Resilience of
treated and non-treated population. ... 89 Table 16: ATE estimation for FSr and Rh. ... 90 Table 17: Summary of veterinary interventions impacts on livelihood, Food
List of abbreviations
ATE Average Treatment Effects
ECHO European Commission's Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection Office
FAO Food And Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations
FEG Food Economy Group
FMD Foot and Mouth Disease
GDP Gross Domestic Products
GS Gaza Strip
HEA Household Economic Approach
IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute ILRI International Livestock Research Institute IMF International Monetary Fund
INGO International Non-Governmental Organisation LEGS Livestock Emergency Guidelines and Standards LID Livestock in Development
MOA Ministry of Agriculture
MGP Meat Gross Profit
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NSB Net Social Benefit
oPt Occupied Palestinian Territory
PCBS Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics
SR Small Ruminants
UK United Kingdom
UN United Nations
UNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UN) OCHA UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs UNRWA United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine
Refugees
UNSCO United Nations Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process
US United States
WB West Bank
WHO World Health Organization
1 INTRODUCTION
About 900 million of the world’s estimated 1.3 billion poor people live in developing countries where they depend directly or indirectly on livestock for their livelihoods (World Bank, 2008a; FAO, 2009; IFAD, 2010; FAO, 2012). In developing countries, livestock are raised by poor livestock keepers living in very diverse agro-ecological zones and under very different social and political conditions (IFAD, 2010; Pradère, 2014). The World Bank in 2009 has provided insight of the important contribution of livestock for developing countries. World Bank observed that livestock contribute about 40 percent to the agricultural gross domestic product (GDP) and constitute about 30 percent of the agricultural GDP in the developing world (World Bank, 2009a). However, the way in which livestock contribute to GDP and more in general the livestock contribution to society in terms of food supply, family nutrition, incomes, employment, soil fertility, livelihoods, transport and sustainable agricultural production continues to be subject of significant review and debate (LID, 1999; ILRI, 2002; Ellis and Freeman, 2004; Kitalyi et al., 2005; Chilonda and Otte, 2006; Thornton et al., 2006; Perry and Sones, 2007; Randolph et al., 2007). At the same time, most of the reviews and studies having a focus on livestock’s contributions agreed about their multifunctionality especially in supporting livelihoods of developing communities (LID, 1999; ILRI, 2002; Randolph et al., 2007; Alary et al., 2011; IFAD, 2010; FAO, 2012; Devereux, 2014). The conceptual framework used to understand the roles played by livestock roles in supporting livelihoods of poor communities was developed by Carney (1998) and is defined as Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (Figure 1). This framework is based on the idea that livestock may not be considered as a conventional, independent, production activity. Instead livestock related activities are integrated within household production and consumption decisions, making the role that animals play in household wellbeing quite complex (Randolph et al., 2007). The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework focuses on the idea that household are constantly facing threats from a wide range of possible biophysical and socio-economic shocks. Household reacts deriving its livelihood from five key capital assets: human (based in part on nutrition and health), financial, physical, natural, and social. Capacity of households to develop their livelihood strategies are strictly related to assets available and to the kinds of risk
they face, but are also conditioned by the contextual framework in which they are (e.g. relations, rules, culture, public and private sector behaviours, policies, market etc.).
Figure 1: Sustainable Livelihoods Framework with highlighted the livestock’s contribution to strengthening the basic assets. Source: Randolph et al., 2007
Therefore, by starting from the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework, we can observe as livestock contribute to rural poverty reduction by sustaining livelihoods of poor household. Livestock contribute to:
Food and nutrition
Livestock products account for almost 30 percent of human protein consumption (Steinfield et al., 2006) and thus are a critical source of high quality food products (e.g. meat, milk, eggs and blood) for the households. Although the contribution of high quality food products may be sometime minimal, the livestock-related foods are particularly relevant for vulnerable people in the households such as women, during pregnancy, and children during their growth (Bwibo et al., 2003, Murphy and Allen, 2003; Randolph et al., 2007; Ndlovu, 2010).
Generating Income
Live animals and animal products (e.g. milk, eggs, manure as fertiliser or cooking fuel, fleeces and skins etc.) are bartered or sold for cash income. Livestock can be sold on the market to generate income in a systematic way or occasionally to meet
an urgent need for cash, such as for paying school fees or medical costs (Kitalyi et al., 2005).
Serving as Financial Instruments and Risk buffer
Livestock enable saving, provide security, and allow poor households to accumulate assets (Moyo and Swanepoel, 2010). Usually poor households have no access to standard financial markets (e.g. bank) thus livestock offer an alternative for storing their savings or accumulating capital as a “living savings
account” (Bosman et al., 1997; Moll, 2005). In addition, livestock are also a form of
insurance providing the family with assets that can be sold in times of crisis (Hoddinott, 2006; Pell et al., 2010). Very often keeping livestock is used to reduce the risks associated with crop failure. Thus, livestock provide a safety net in times of need in the form of liquid assets and a strategy of diversification for food production (Freeman et al., 2007, Thornton et al., 2007; Vandamme et al., 2010).
Providing inputs
Livestock provide different inputs needed for agriculture-related activities such as manure, transport and farm power. Livestock wastes are important for maintaining soil fertility while larger animals function as farm equipment (Powell et al., 1998). For instance, horses and donkeys are used as pack animals to transport commodities and people.
Enhancing Social Status
Owning livestock is associated with social status in many communities around the world. In these communities livestock is perceived as an indicator of social importance (Ferguson, 1994; Kitalyi et al., 2005). In addition, livestock contribute to women empowerment in the household and in community as they have often the opportunity to own livestock and to process their products (Waters-Bayer and Letty, 2010).
Therefore as stated by FAO (2012), the sustainable development of the livestock sector can contribute substantially “to raising levels of nutrition, improving
agricultural productivity, bettering the lives of rural populations and contributing to the growth of the world economy” and to eradicating extreme poverty and hunger
findings, the track record of livestock sector development interventions in promoting poverty reduction is weak (LID, 1999), and outcomes of livestock-based livelihood programs to support rural poor are limited. In particular, donor-funded livestock interventions had usually performed poorly and had difficulty in catering to the needs of the poor (Peacock, 2005). The strategies developed by this kind of interventions are usually based on four key actions:
• Improving production system (e.g. improved technologies and practices); • Creating incentives for investment;
• Providing broad access to assets and markets (local, national and international);
• Reducing risk and vulnerability;
Whatever is the way in which livestock based-interventions develop their strategy and actions there is a crucial assumption: animals must be generally healthy and diseases must be limited. In fact, animal diseases can strongly lower livestock productivity, depress investments, limit access to markets and, increase mostly risks and vulnerability (Otte and Chilonda, 2000; Perry and Randolph, 2003; Rich and Perry, 2011; Howe et al., 2013). Thus, most of the donor-funded livestock interventions work, directly or indirectly, for reducing animal diseases. However, in a world of dwindling public financial resources and increasing transparency and search for accountability, donors need to allocate resources carefully. On the other hand, the impacts of animal health intervention are often difficult to estimate both in terms of poverty reduction and in term of cost-benefit produced (Alary et al., 2011; Rich and Perry, 2011). Hence, animal health interventions need to produce evidence of their results and impacts as well as justify their requirements in economic and budgetary terms for raising the interests of donors, and finally to achieve a consolidate action for poverty reduction.
1.1 Problem statement
The population in the Gaza Strip (GS) is negatively affected by a set of contingent political, geographical socio-economic and environmental problems. In particular, this situation represents a serious issue for livestock keepers. The movement restrictions of good and people imposed by Israel as a consequence of
Israeli-accessing traditional pastures, grazing lands and water resources (Figure 2). The blockade in place since 2007 prevents import of fundamental goods. In addition, the so-called “Buffer Zone” prevents herders from accessing almost 35% of Gaza's arable and grazing land.
Figure 2: Gaza Strip, with Israeli-controlled borders (buffer zone) and limited fishing zone. Source: Wikipedia.
Both movement restrictions and geographical isolation result in difficulties to access local markets and lack of services, including veterinary assistance. The blockade in the GS also prevents Palestinians from working in the Israeli market with devastating effects on livelihood and employment. Without alternative sources of income, households, not only breeders, rely mostly on livestock although low profitability. Lack of income drives livestock keepers to reduce expenses including those necessary to guarantee the health of their flock, thus creating a vicious cycle of decreasing productivity and increasing animal mortality as a consequence of diseases. As a result, flocks in the GS are progressively decreasing and again this decreases the income of breeders and increasing their vulnerability. In the GS breeders face problems related to input's prices, rainfall patterns and epidemics. Price of animal feed increase quite dramatically in the last 5 years affecting the capacity of breeders to access at enough quantity of input for their animals. At the contrary, sheep and goats' meat price is quite volatile with significant impact on breeders' income. In addition epidemics and the high rate of animal diseases, considering lacks of veterinary services and herders' bad flock management practices, threaten flocks survival and badly affect the income of herders.
Amongst other more definitive solutions, such as the end of the blockade, this situation requires the implementation of a successful plan to support breeders. Pathways of interventions are various, however a plan of animal disease control and mitigation is required for undoubtedly ensure livelihood, resilience and food security of herders in the GS. This will contribute to arrest the vicious cycle of poverty and vulnerability due to poor productivity and high animal mortality.
The specific problem is how to achieve a successful and effective plan of animal disease control and mitigation in an area where resources are limited and social, economic and political constraints are producing so negative effects. For this reason, an INGO (International Non-Governmental Organisation) and a local NGO (Non-Governmental Organisation) in partnership with an international donor have proposed a set of 3 annual projects based on veterinary assistance and animal feed distribution. They aim at supporting the SR sector as a driver for improving livelihood, resilience and food security of the livestock keepers in the GS.
1.2 Objectives
The objective of this research is to analyse the veterinary intervention implemented by the international cooperation and humanitarian aid in the GS in order to provide evidence of its effectiveness in terms of outcomes and impacts on main socio-economic parameters related to livelihood, resilience and food security of herders beneficiaries of the intervention. The research is developed in participation with both INGO and local NGO and is based on a qualitative and quantitative approach. More in general, the analysis of the case study should help to learn a methodological and practical lesson about the evaluation of animal health intervention in developing contexts. Finally, this will provide insights for future interventions to decision makers, donors and other stakeholders such as INGOs, NGOs and International Agencies working for tackling poverty through livelihoods-based livestock programmes.
1.3 Research question and Hypotheses
There are two research questions in the current investigation, which are the following:
1. What real difference has the veterinary intervention made to the herders in the GS in terms of livelihood, resilience and food security?
2. Was the impact produced from the veterinary intervention effective for the resources spent for its implementation?
Thus, there are some hypotheses to take in account. The first hypothesis states that the veterinary intervention is relevant for supporting herders in the GS. In other words, we assume that is accepted by those herders to whom it is offered. The second hypothesis is that the veterinary intervention is working properly. In other words, we assume that the veterinary intervention produces a positive effect, or at least is not harmful, if correctly implemented.
Third hypothesis is that veterinary intervention is provided to those herders who really need it.
Finally the fourth hypothesis states that the veterinary intervention is feasible in the GS. This is due to the frequent recrudescence of the Gaza conflict. An armed
conflict could in fact completely undermine not only any implemented activity and related analysis, but can dramatically increase socio-economic insecurity of people in the GS.
1.4 Structure of the report
The thesis is structured in six chapters.
Chapter 1 provides a general introduction to the problem and objectives. Also, in this first chapter we state the research questions and hypotheses and we describe the structure of the thesis.
Chapter 2 provides the reader with a literature review of the issues of animal health economics, defining its framework, characteristics and outcomes to respond at increasing needs of livestock products worldwide and to tackle the issue of animal disease. The application of animal health economics concepts in developing and developed countries is also discussed.
Chapter 3 provides in deep insight of material and methods used for the research. In the chapter the study population is presented as well as phases developed for the research implementation. The experimental method used in the research is presented and its uses justified. Also quantitative data (i.e. covariates, variable and fixed-parameters) and tools (economic and statistic) used for the analysis of the results are presented and analysed. Finally, limitations of the study are described.
Chapter 4 enters into the details of the case study analysing qualitative data, both primary and secondary, collected during our fieldwork. The chapter initially provides a situation analysis with particular attention to the effects of the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts on the GS. The role of international cooperation in the area is also analysed. Thus, the chapter describes the agricultural sector in Gaza with a focus on the small ruminants sector. A literature review of the main sheep and goats breeds reared in the GS is also presented. Finally, the management systems and livelihoods of SR keepers in the area are presented.
Chapter 5 basically presents the results of the research. The chapter also discuss the result achieved.
Finally, Chapter 6 provides sound conclusions with the answers of both research questions and hypotheses.
2 LITERATURE REVIEW: ANIMAL HEALTH ECONOMICS
FRAMEWORK
2.1 Livestock revolutions and economic of diseases
Since 18th century, as a consequence of increasing demand of livestock-related products, the way of keeping livestock started to change with the adoption of more intensive livestock production systems. At this time the interest to animal diseases started to rise. In particular, in UK the economic importance of diseases such as rinderpest, contagious bovine pleuropneumonia and Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD) were determinant to starting at investing in veterinary services, education and research (Fisher, 1998). Internationally, concerns on the need to control rinderpest stimulated the creation of the international office of animal health in the 1920s (Rushton, 2009). These initial investments in animal health and production, mainly associated with developed countries, were identified as the first livestock revolution. In the late 90s a new livestock revolution took place. This was identified as a consequence of an important change in the livestock production systems (Steinfeld and Mäki-Hokkonen, 1995; Seré and Steinfeld, 1996), and in the supply and demand of livestock products (Delgado et al., 1999). Differently from the previous, this livestock revolution was based largely on monogastric production and on milk production. Also in this case, the main driver of change was the demand of livestock related-products as a result of population dynamics (i.e. rapid increment of population, urbanisation, increasing of incomes). This last livestock revolution has taken place particularly in developing countries with the consequence that concerns started to rise about effects on poverty (Haan et al., 2001; Heffernan, 2002; FAO, 2005; Owen et al., 2005), and on environment (de Haan et al., 1997; Steinfeld et al., 2006; Thornton et al., 2009). In addition, as a result of a globalised market, many concerns have grown about transboundary animal diseases and more deeply as a consequence of the resurgence of zoonotic diseases (Greger, 2007; Shaw, 2009). New problems relating to food-borne pathogens that also affect human health and welfare (Shaw, 2009) has produced enormous impact in both developed and developing countries. In general the large issues raised by these diseases are related to food scares and trade restrictions, and in some extent to the rural economy. Bennet (2003) also pointed out as in
developed countries, there is also concern about endemic diseases that affect production and increase control costs at farm level.
As a result we can notice as animal diseases engender a multitude of impacts on economy and society, many of which are disease-specific. This is evident by considering zoonotic diseases like Rift Valley Fever and Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza and FMD. While the first two have important and severe effects on both humans and livestock also in terms of mortality which can cause extremely negative short-term effects on domestic and international markets, the FMD influences mainly the international markets prices of livestock-related goods (Jarvis and Rich, 2007). Therefore, FMD causes a host of diverse impacts, extending from the farm-level to the national economy that can be significant. For instance in UK the FMD outbreak in 2001 produced economic losses of over US$ 12 million, over half of which was absorbed in non-agricultural sectors such as services and tourism (McLeod and Rushton, 2007). Differently the presence of endemic FMD in most of sub-Saharan Africa precludes to local beef breeders chances for exports to richest markets such as the European Union, United States, Japan, and Korea. Other diseases such as brucellosis, although impacts are produced on both animals and humans, have no such negative economic consequences (McLeod and Rushton 2007). Hence, animal diseases, which have diverse disease-specific effects, pose significant different threats to livestock sectors throughout the world, both from the standpoint of the economic impacts of the diseases themselves and the measures taken to mitigate the risk of disease introduction or spread (Figure 3) (Perry and Randolph, 2003). At the same time, by increasing system complexity, animal diseases have progressively shifted from a veterinary issue with economic implication to be a socio-economic and environmental concern with veterinary implications because affecting people’s wellbeing (Otte and Chilonda, 2000; Rich and Perry, 2011; Howe et al., 2013). Rising concerns have brought to increase investments in order to control diseases and reduce negative economic impacts. As a result the implementation of much more rigorous and organized programmes has been intensified. These programmes use epidemiology and economics research to assist in decision-making. Hence, the need for animal health impact assessments has been rising in recent years, given the increased prominence of animal health issues on the global stage (Rich and Perry, 2011).
Figure 3: Disease impacts. Source: Perry, 2002 (p.51).
2.2 Animal health economic: origins and applications in developed and developing contexts
Livestock economics and economic studies of associated diseases are relatively young in relation to other economic disciplines (Dijkhuizen et al., 1995; Marsh, 1999; Rushton et al., 1999; Rushton, 2009). By comparing with other studies in the framework of agricultural economics, it is possible to observe the delay that the development of animal health economics has had as a consequence of the low initial interest of governments and scientific community. For instance, the social and economic importance of crop diseases has been relatively well documented throughout history while the economic implications of animal diseases have received comparatively less attention. It is only in the late 90s that, as reported by McInerney (1996), the Agricultural Economics Society of the United Kingdom (UK) discussed the urgent need to work for applying “old economics” to the “new
problem” of livestock disease. Until that moment, the interest for the animal health
economics was related to the movement of the epidemiology of diseases that began in the 1960s and early 1970s. The interest in animal health economics was generated by governments who were becoming aware of the economic impact of diseases both in terms of direct consequences that for the costs needed to control them (Rushton, 2009). Thus, the increasing attention from governments in animal
health initiatives has raised the interest in developing economic analysis related to the use of public funds for these initiatives. Government’s attention stimulated the development of important schools of thought about animal health economics. Rushton (2009) provided a very detailed review of the main schools of thought and their contributions to the development of animal health economics in the “The
Economics of Animal Health and Production” (pp. 1-7). In the book, he also
provides reference lists of the major articles and authors in the field of animal health economics. The main schools of thought as well as researchers involved in the animal health economics have developed in UK (Ellis, Morris, Hugh-Jones, Putt, James and Shaw at the Veterinary Epidemiology and Economics Research Unit, University of Reading; Bennett at the University of Reading; McInerney and Howe at the University of Exeter), US (Carpenter at the Department of Medicine and Epidemiology, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California), the Netherland (Dijkhuizen at the Animal Health Economics, Farm Management Group, Department of Economics and Management, Wageningen Agricultural University), Australia (Tisdell, Harrison and Ramsay at the University of Queensland) and in Kenya (Perry at the International Livestock Research Institute - ILRI). Most of the studies developed by these schools of thought were interested in analysing the economic of specific diseases (e.g. FMD, swine fewer etc.), including zoonosis (e.g. brucellosis, trypanosomiasis, avian flu etc.), in understanding the effects of diseases on production and productivity in different contexts and for different animals, and in developing the use of different tools and economic analysis techniques to measure these effects. Thus, the paradigm of animal health economics finds origin from these research institutes and from the approaches followed by their researchers that played a crucial role also in training the new generations of researchers and specialists. In light of this background the main approach of animal health economics has developed to elucidating the role that economics and epidemiology could play in understanding animal disease impacts and improving public policies related to animal disease control. Perry et al. (2001) have summarized the ways in which economics and epidemiology need to work to play an important integrative role: "(i) priority setting: identifying which
diseases come first, taking into account their institutional and economic context; (ii) decision-making: understanding what options are available for decision makers and presenting (hopefully) an unfiltered perspective of the costs, benefits, and
tradeoffs inherent in them; and (iii) disease control implementation: providing guidance into the delivery of effective animal health interventions.".
As a result, this increasing integration between economics and epidemiology has produced numerous studies in recent years focused on the evaluation of various economic impacts of animal diseases (Dijkhuizen et al., 1995; McLeod and Leslie, 2001; Rushton, 2002; Otte et al., 2004) and on the economic tools that could be employed to provide better information for policymakers (Rushton et al., 1999; Rich et al., 2005a,b; Rushton, 2009). The techniques of evaluation have become increasingly sophisticated with countless of quantitative models that illustrate the epidemiological and/or economic impacts of numerous diseases and, alternative scenarios and strategies that could be employed for their control (Rich and Perry, 2011). This technicality has been used also to explore the poverty dimensions of animal disease. As an example, studies exploring the effects FMD on livelihoods were developed in Southeast Asia (Perry et al., 1999, 2002; Randolph et al., 2002), while in Zimbabwe the impacts of alternative FMD control strategies were observed on different income groups and on different actors in the value chain (Perry et al., 2003). As for its economic relevance FMD was also deeply explored by Perry and Rich (2007) to define a conceptual framework describing various poverty reduction produced by FMD control strategies. Also International Agencies directly interested in poverty issue such as Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) have been interested by the research around the socio-economic impacts provided by important diseases such as avian influenza (Ifft et al., 2009; Rushton et al., 2009a,b; Rich et al., 2009). However, all of these technical analyses have no brought to concrete results. As expressed by Rich and Perry (2011) “despite the wealth of information and new
data, despite the greater sophistication in our analytical toolkit, despite increased awareness of alternative policy options, and despite greater knowledge of the poverty dimensions of animal diseases, our ability to translate these accomplishments into action to influence animal health policies that address the reduction of poverty has been relatively limited. Why is this?”
The same approaches that worked properly for developed countries show application limits in the context of developing world.
Rich and Perry (2011) also provide an analysis of the reasons for this limitation. They suggested that one of the main reasons is related to the macro-level of
analysis implemented during the animal health research. In addition these research studies were implemented with a “developed country mind-set” which often focuses on disease eradication at any cost. This is also due to the same researchers and policymakers in the developing world, which are often influenced and/or trained from such world perspective. Thus, responses to animal diseases in the developing world are often designed on those in more developed settings, which are based more on the idea of disease elimination than in concepts of disease mitigation, equity, gender, and poverty. Western mind-set has otherwise influenced the rising of concerns about environmental issues and climate change related to livestock and disease issues, where social consciousness and good communications plays an increasingly important role (Rich and Perry, 2011). On the other hand, the impact of livestock diseases in developing countries work differently than in developed countries as livestock often serve more diverse commercial (e.g., as a source of income) and non-commercial (e.g. cultural) roles. Providing answers based on culling or mass vaccination may fail to recognize the constraints inherent among farmers, veterinary services and other value chain actors in the developing world (Rich and Perry, 2011). In a typical developing country setting for livestock production the heterogeneity of actors need to deal with a different framework based on high transactions costs, considerable risks, and wide variations in incomes and commercialization of livestock production (e.g. smallholder vs. commercial) (Rich and Perry, 2011). Such framework becomes also more complex by considering for instance social aspects such as the gender dimension to livestock production (Riise et al., 2005). Result evident that answers to an animal disease are affected by socio-economic and institutional characteristics of such heterogeneity of actors. Thus, there is the need to contextualise these issues in their unique circumstance and constraints (Rich et al., 2005a). Therefore, models or analyses of animal health economics have to consider the framework in which different actors work (including decision makers) in order to really contribute at the policymaking processes, particularly for those that are “pro-poor” (Rich and Perry, 2011). In addition, often, policymaking environments in developing countries have limited ability of enforcing rules and regulations. This depends from low trust and credibility in governments as well as from limited levels of social responsibility necessary to adequately address animal health emergencies.
These differences are of critical importance for setting the issue of animal diseases in the developing world. Also, this analysis reflects an important need for a shift in thinking towards more participative and bottom-up approaches. Although some examples have recently developed (Rushton et al., 2006, 2007; De Rooji et al., 2007), more research and emphasis is required in this direction (Rich and Perry, 2011). At the centre of these required efforts there is the need to learn lessons from valuable examples in developing countries where the approach focus on involving key actors along the value chain with the aim of developing a greater understanding of their incentives to participate in mitigation interventions.
3 MATERIALS AND METHODS
The methodology adopted in this study was consistent with an ex post cost– benefit analysis (Drummond et al., 2005; Rushton, 2009; Tisdell, 2009; Gertler et al., 2011; Haughton and Haughton, 2011) applied to a case of study where prospective and socio-economic impact evaluation (Rushton et al. 1999; Baker, 2000; Ravallion, 2001; Morra-Imas and Rist, 2009; White, 2009; Gertler et al., 2011; Haughton and Haughton, 2011) were implemented to estimate the benefit side, and cost analysis of the implemented activities provided the cost information. A cause-effect approach (Morra-Imas and Rist, 2009; Gertler et al., 2011) was followed to determine the benefits (e.g. effects and impacts) of the planned treatment – veterinary assistance - in the observed case study - a set of three subsequent projects of international development cooperation in the Gaza Strip. This approach, crucial for the evaluation of projects, programmes and policies, is based on the assessment of cause-effect relation between the intervention and the impacts observed (Gertler et al., 2011). The benefits of the treatment were estimated through the Meat Gross Profit (Di Iacovo, 2002) by analysing changes in the productivity parameters and epidemiological information of SR in the study population. The socio-economic impacts of the treatment were also analysed in terms of food security and resilience of the study population. The costs of the treatment – veterinary intervention – were estimated by measuring the implementation costs of the projects for this activity (Schreuder et al., 1996).
3.1 The study population
The research focused on a case study in an area - the Gaza Strip - where households are in situation of extreme vulnerability due to frequent and recurrent shocks mainly related to climate events such as drought, and to political, socio-economic and armed conflicts. In this complex and chronic emergency situation (UNOCHA, 1999) many households rely in part or totally on livestock, particularly SR, as a source of livelihood, food and income (LEGS, 2009; Rossignoli et al., 2015a). The study population consisted of households raising SR at small-scale in the Gaza Strip and beneficiaries of a livestock-based intervention promoted by the international cooperation in the area. The intervention aimed at supporting
livelihood, income and resilience of SR keepers in the GS by providing veterinary assistance (at least 3 visits – treatments - per beneficiary per year) and animal feed (1 kg of feed x n° of ewe x 1,5 month x beneficiary). However, the evaluation focussed exclusively on the veterinary intervention which consisted in animal health treatments, vet care treatments, vaccinations (i.e. enterotoxaemia), and counselling for better management (Figure 4). Animals targeted by the intervention were adults of sheep and goats and their offspring. The intervention was developed by 3 subsequent projects implemented from 2011 to 2013 (Figure 5). The projects were funded by the European Union and implemented by an INGO and a local NGO.
Figure 5: The logic of the projects implemented.
Criteria for the selection of the beneficiaries were: 1. they have to be SR keepers;
2. they have to be vulnerable - food and livelihood insecure;
A baseline survey was carried out to verify these conditions. Food insecurity was measured using a food basket approach (Food Security Score) that provides info related to the quantity and quality of food consumed at household level.
3.563 households of livestock keepers were targeted by at least 1 of the 3 projects during the 3 years of the implementation. Livelihood insecurity was evaluated in terms of income and unemployment rate. Our research project objectives led us to observe households that were beneficiaries in all of the 3 projects to evaluate the outcomes and the impacts of the veterinary intervention over the period of implementation. A non-randomized counterfactual population was also observed during the 3 projects. Households in the counterfactual population are those did not received veterinary visits during the three years. The households targeted in all of the 3 projects were identified by linking the data collected in 2011, 2012 and 2013 through a deterministic record linkage procedure based on the ID code as identifier (i.e. identification code uniquely identifying the farm owner). In addition, by crosschecking for an additional identifier (i.e. project code number) we
2011
• 1st Project
2012
• 2nd Project
2013
• 3rd Project
proceeded to remove the households having an insufficient evidence for positive matching.
The resulting sample was composed by 199 households representing 5.6% of the households targeted during the 3 years of interventions. The households which were no-linked may be:
• farms treated for only one or two years;
• farms recorded with errors in one of the 3 project datasets;
• farms whose the farm owner changed over the period 2011-2013;
By including the households of the counterfactual population, the information for our analysis are related to a total of 262 households observed over the period 2011-2013 in different areas of the Gaza Strip: 199 interested by the veterinary intervention and 63 as a counterfactual population. In this study, we refer to the former as treated households or farms and to the latter as non-treated households or farms. Households not receiving veterinary intervention (non-treated farms) were about 24% of the study population. Descriptive statistics of the study population at baseline are provided in the paragraph related to the Data Analysis (see Table 6).
The case study is presented with more details in Chapter 4.
3.2 The research implementation
The evaluation research started in 2011 with the first project implemented by the INGO and the local NGO (project holders). As a result we could set and plan the monitoring and evaluation system of the projects in participation with the project holders (Ridde, 2007; Pérouse de Montclos, 2012; Ridde et al., 2012; Rossignoli et al., 2015b). This facilitated the collection of the meaningful data needed for the evaluation research (Estrella, 2000; Pérouse de Montclos, 2012; Ridde et al., 2012; Rossignoli et al., 2015b). As a win-win solution for both of the actors, researchers and project holders, this collaboration was repeated in 2012 and 2013 thanks to the funding of other two projects aiming at promoting support for smallholders keeping SR in the GS. Therefore, the phases of the research that were initially design for a single project were reiterated for the three projects from 2011 to 2013.
The research was developed in 4 main phases: 1. Desk Phase.
2. Filed Phase. 3. Data Analysis.
4. Data Elaboration and Presentation of Results (this phase is presented in chapter 5. “Results and Discussion”).
3.2.1 Desk Phase
In the Desk Phase we consolidated the research idea, defined the methodological framework, and planned the research study.
As a first step we analysed the project intervention designed by the project holders, collected and analysed relevant sources of secondary data, and reconstructed the causal chain (White, 2009) following the intervention logic of the project.
The system used to collect secondary data during the Desk Phase was consistent with a systematic literature review (Khalid et al., 2003). The literature and documents research covered published journal articles, reports, books and unpublished literature.
The methodology used to perform the review was as follow:
• Online research was conducted through: Agris, Cab Abstract, FAO repository, google scholar, google web, Scopus, Web of Science, World Bank website. The main key words used to find relevant literature were: Gaza Strip, Animal Health Economics, Veterinary Intervention, Small Ruminants, Cost-benefit, Impact assessment, Livelihood, Livestock, Food Security, Resilience.
• Relevant stakeholders in the Gaza Strip were asked to provide suitable publications.
• References of interest in identified papers were reviewed.
• Other relevant publications produced by actors operated in the Gaza Strip were included.
As a second step of the desk phase we defined the research design and we agreed with project holders on outcomes to monitor and evaluate in the project (Ridde et al., 2012; Rossignoli et al. 2015b). Based on these outcomes the monitoring and evaluation system of the project was set out following a logical framework approach (Coleman, 1987; Gasper, 2000). The system of monitoring and evaluation was presented and validated with the project holders, and key indicators to monitor the outcomes were selected. A work plan for the monitoring and evaluation system was also agreed and roles, time and responsibilities for the monitoring and for the final evaluation were individuated. The definition of the system of monitoring and evaluation was a crucial step for the research study as it was the main source of primary data. Primary data were related to the household and farm, flock and animals, and the market of SR in the GS.
The system of monitoring and evaluation was consistent with the following steps (Table 1):
• an initial baseline to collect qualitative and quantitative data;
• the identification of beneficiaries and the ex-ante construction of a counterfactual population (no-randomised);
• a very robust monitoring process based on quantitative data; • an evaluation process consisted in a final evaluation;
Table 1: Steps for data collection on the study population – treated and non treated.
Steps for data collection Treated Population Non-treated Population
Baseline x x
Identification x x
Monitoring x Non observed during the monitoring process
Final Evaluation x x
3.2.2 Field Phase
The field phase was implemented to collect primary data thanks to multi-round surveys (Homewood et al., 1987; Homewood and Lewis, 1987; Homewood and Rodgers, 1991; Brockington and Homewood, 1999; Homewood et al., 2001; Thompson and Homewood, 2002), working with local NGO staff and, veterinaries and agronomists employed by the project who were present in the field throughout the research period. The main surveys carried out during the field phase are:
• Monitoring of the project developed by the veterinaries and agronomists employed by the projects during their field activities.
• Final evaluation carried out by researchers with the support of veterinaries and agronomists, and INGO staff.
The data collection system during the field phase was set according to the kind of survey to carry out.
During the baseline assessment data were collected through a Rapid Rural Appraisal (McCracken et al., 1988; Chambers, 1994). Tools used to collect the data were: questionnaires, informal and formal interviews of key informants, and field observations. A total of 3.430 households were interviewed and surveyed during the baseline assessment. The baseline assessment was not replicated on these households for the second and the third year. The final evaluation of the first project was used as a baseline of the second project while for the third project was used the final evaluation of the second project (Figure 6). However, by increasing the knowledge of the area we discovered the existence of additional households that were not considered during the first intervention. For these households the baseline assessment was conducted during the second project or the third project. In total 4.755 households were assessed during the 3 projects. Only 3563 were considered eligible and targeted by the projects: 1.101 in the first project, 1.139 in the second project and 1.323 in the third project. Limitation of funds and selection criteria were at the base of this choice. The turnover of the households was quite high from one year to another year. As we have seen only 199 households were targeted in all three projects. The baseline assessment was conducted on both treated and non-treated population.
Figure 6: Monitoring and evaluation system over the period 2011-2013.
The monitoring process the project was developed by the veterinaries and agronomists employed by the projects for implementing the veterinary assistance. Veterinaries and agronomists were also in charge to register relevant information about the herd and animals of the households visited. The tools used by veterinary and agronomists were questionnaires and a visits registration book.
During the final evaluation data were collected again through a Rapid Rural Appraisal (McCracken et al., 1988; Chambers, 1994). Tools used to collect the data were: questionnaires, informal and formal interviews of key informants, and field observations. In addition, baseline and monitoring data were checked and triangulated to calculate the key indicators as identified in the Desk Phase.
3.2.3 Data Analysis
3.2.3.1 Data description
According with projects holders and based on the data collection framework suggested by Rushton (2009), the primary and secondary data collected for the economic and statistical analysis of veterinary intervention were divided into four levels: 1. The farm/household; 2. The herd/flock; 3. The animal; 4. The market;
2011
1
stProject
• Baseline Study • Monitoring • Final evaluation2012
2
ndProject
• Baseline = Final evaluation of 1st Project
• Monitoring • Final evaluation
2013
3
rdProject
• Baseline = Final evaluation of 2nd Project
• Monitoring • Final evaluation
The types of data collected at each level were various (qualitative and quantitative) and collected more time during the implementation period of each projects according with the system of monitoring and evaluation.
At Farm/household level data collected were: • Area or Governorate of residence in the GS; • Site or community of residence in the GS; • Age of the breeder/head of household; • Gender of the breeder/head of household; • Marital status of the breeder/head of household;
• Households composition: number of people, age and sex; • Main income source of the household;
• Alternative sources of income of the household; • Main assets of the farm;
• Kind of livestock raised; • Husbandry system;
• Knowledge of livestock management; • Number of veterinary intervention provided;
At Herd / flock level data collected included:
• Numbers of animals in a herd/flock – sheep and goats;
• Herd/flock structure – sheep and goats adults (female and male), sheep and goats offspring;
• Strain of sheep raised; • Strain of goats raised;
• Herd/flock inputs – feed and water, veterinary assistance, others.
• Number of animals (sheep and goats) visited during the veterinary intervention;
• Number of animals (sheep and goats) treated during the veterinary intervention;
At the animal level data collected were: • Ewes and does delivered;
• Adult sheep and goats death; • Lambs and kids death;
• Average Daily Gain for sheep and goats; • Sheep and goats Productive Lifetime; • Lambs and kids Average Born Weight;
• Ewes and does Final Weight for slaughtering; • Ram and bucks Final Weight for slaughtering; • Diseases registered;
• Drugs used;
Animal and flock data were used to determine productivity parameters and epidemiological information.
Market data collected were:
• Market age for lambs and kids; • Price for lambs and kids;
• Price for adult’s category (sheep and goats) • Input prices
Market data were needed to convert production into monetary values in order to estimate treatment’s benefit.
The set of independent variables used for the economic and statistical analysis are presented in Table 2 and Table 3 while fixed-parameters are presented in Table 4. Independent variables are related to the abovementioned categories, while independent variables are also related to the veterinary interventions provided to the households. These include the number of veterinary visits implemented, number of animal treated and vaccinated. The fixed-parameters considered are of three kinds: productivity parameters of the animals, household food security parameters, and local macroeconomic parameters.
The selected set of outcome and impact variables used for the economic and statistical analyses are described in Table 5. These variables are related to productivity parameters and epidemiological information such as mortality, delivery rate, twinning rate for both of the small ruminants (i.e. sheep and goats) analysed in the study. The outcomes variables are related to the Meat Gross Profit, to the
project costs, and to the cost-benefit analysis developed for measuring the economic effect and efficiency of the treatment. Finally, impacts are related to food security and resilience of the households. All of the dependent variables are calculated by disaggregating for single project over the period 2011 to 2013 and for both sheep and goats. Descriptive statistics of the main variable related to the study population at baseline are provided in Table 6.
Table 2: Description of independent variables.
Name Description Categories or measure units AGE Age of the main livestock keeper Years in 2011 (baseline) GENDER Gender of the main livestock
keeper GENDER 1 = male GENDER 0 = female MAR Marital Status of the main livestock
keeper
MAR 1 = married MAR 2 = widow/widower MAR 3 = single/divorced COM Community of residence COM 1 = Azbet Beir Hanoun
COM 2 = As Soudania COM 3 = Joher el Deek COM 4 = Al Matahen COM 5 = Mawassi COM 6 = Qizan an-Najjar COM 7 = Hai As Salaam COM 8 = Khirbat al-Adas COM 9 = As Saifa COM 10 = Al Qarara COM 11 = Ashoka AREA Area of residence AREA 1 = North Gaza
AREA 2 = Middle Area AREA 3 = South Gaza GENDER_HEAD Gender of the head of family GENDER HEAD 1 = male
GENDER HEAD 0 = female MALE Male household member Number of male household
FEMALE Female household member Number of female household members TOTALM&F Total household member Number of household members
MALE<=16 Male under 16 years old Number of male household members under 16 years old
MALE>=17 Male over 17 years old Number of male household members over 17 years old
FEMALE<=16 Female under 16 years old Number of female household members under 16 years old
MALE>=17 Female over 17 years old Number of female household members over 17 years old
MINCOME Main source of income for the
household MINCOME 1 = Unemployed with animal MINCOME 2 = Breeder MINCOME 3 = Farmer with animal MINCOME 4 = Employed with animal MINCOME 5 = Farmer
OSINCOME Other sources of income for the
household OSINCOME 1 = yes OSINCOME 0 = no
OINCOME Income from alternative sources Money from alternative sources of income GH Green House GH 1 = household has green house
GH 0 = household has no green house AS Animal Shelter AS 1 = household has animal shelter
AS 0 = household has no animal shelter HG Home Garden HG 1 = household has home garden
HG 0 = household has no home garden WT Water Tank WT 1 = household has water tank
