Download Animal Diseases and the Cost of Compliance with International

Agriculture and Rural Development Discussion Paper
The World Bank
Animal Diseases and the
Cost of Compliance
with International Standards
and Export Markets
The Experience of Foot-and-Mouth Disease
in the Southern Cone
Karl M. Rich
First printing or web posting: 2005
© 2004 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank
1818 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20433
Telephone 202-473-1000
Internet www.worldbank.org
E-mail [email protected]
All rights reserved.
Agriculture and Rural Development Discussion Papers is an informal series produced by the Agriculture
and Rural Development Department of the World Bank. These papers raise concepts and issues for
discussion in the broader development community and describe ongoing research and/or implementation
experiences from the Bank.
The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the Board of Executive Directors of the World Bank, the governments
they represent, or the organizations of contributing authors.
The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work.
Rights and Permissions
The material in this work is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this work without
permission may be a violation of applicable law. The World Bank encourages dissemination of its work
and will normally grant permission promptly.
For permission to photocopy or reprint any part of this work, please send a request with complete
information to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA,
telephone 978-750-8400, fax 978-750-4470, www.copyright.com.
All other queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to the Office of
the Publisher, World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA, fax 202-522-2422, e-mail
[email protected].
Karl M. Rich is a doctoral candidate at the Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, 414/6
Mumford Hall, MC-710, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801, USA, tel: +1
(217) 333-7761, email: [email protected]. Portions of this case study are based largely on chapter 2 of
the author’s doctoral dissertation, “Spatial Models of Animal Disease Control in South America.”
ii
Contents
Foreword
iv
Acronyms
v
Executive Summary
1
Introduction
3
Overview of Foot and Mouth Disease in South America
8
Country Experiences with FMD
Argentina
Brazil
Uruguay
11
11
14
17
Discussion
21
Conclusions and Lessons Learned
23
Appendixes
1 Stocks and Slaughter for Cattle in Argentina, 1995–2002
2 Exports of Beef by Argentina by Type of Product, 1995–2003
3 Exports of Fresh Beef by Argentina by Trading Partner, Selected Years
4 Exports of Processed Beef by Argentina by Trading Partner, Selected Years
5 Evolution of Real Live Animal Prices in Argentina, 2000–03 (Nov 2001 Prices)
6 Summary Statistics on the Beef Sector in Brazil, 1995–2001
7 Exports of Fresh and Processed Beef from Brazil, 2000–02
8 Exports of Fresh Beef from Brazil by Major Trading Partner, Selected Years
9 Stock, Production, and Export of Beef Cattle in Uruguay, 1995–2002
10 Exports of Frozen Beef from Uruguay by Export Destination, 1995–2002
11 Exports of Chilled Beef from Uruguay by Export Destination, 1995–2002
12 Exports of Processed Beef from Uruguay by Export Destination, 1995–2002
25
25
26
27
28
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
References
35
Boxes
1 Role of the OIE in FMD control
2 FMD and trade in beef products
3 Recognized types of FMD disease status
4 Strategies to control FMD
4
4
5
10
Figures
1 Cattle exposed and infected from FMD by week in Argentina, 2000–02
2 Average FOB export price for Argentine beef by type, 1995–2002
3 Expenditure on disease control by type (public/private), 1995–2003
4 Volume of beef exports from Uruguay by type, 1995–2002
5 Value of beef exports from Uruguay by type, 1995–2002
9
13
16
17
18
Tables
1 Productivity effects from an FMD outbreak in cattle
2 Production of beef in the Southern Cone, developing countries, and world, 1996–2003
3 Exports of fresh beef in the Southern Cone, developing countries, and world, 1996–2002
4 Assessment of costs resulting from the 2001 FMD outbreak in Uruguay
5 Summary of outbreaks
3
6
6
19
20
iii
Foreword
Food and agricultural trade is the vital link in the mutual dependency of the global trade system and
developing countries. Developing countries derive a substantial portion of their income from food and
agricultural trade. The emergence of food safety and agricultural health issues, and the related tightening
of market requirements form challenges to further growth of the mutual gains due to the lack of technical
and financial capacities of many developing economies.
As part of a joint program between the World Bank’s Agriculture and Rural Development Department
(ARD) and International Trade Department (PRMTR), a survey on the Cost of Compliance of exporting
developing countries was undertaken. The survey was focused on the supply chains of high-value food
products (horticulture, fish, meat, spices, and nuts). The study quantified the costs incurred by both the
public and private sectors; identified the coping strategies employed by the various stakeholders in the
supply chains; determined the constraints that hinder compliance; examined the structural changes in the
supply chain resulting from compliance with the safety standards; and evaluated the impact of these
standards on small-scale enterprises and producers. The survey included Ethiopia (animal products), India
(fish and spices), Jamaica (nontraditional agricultural exports), Kenya (fish and horticulture), Latin
America Southern Cone (animal products), Morocco (fruits and vegetables), Nicaragua (shrimp), Senegal
(fish and groundnuts), and Thailand (shrimp and horticulture).
This working paper is one of a series of such case studies that examined the strategies and costs of
compliance of the various stakeholders in developing countries with international agro-food standards.
This paper was prepared by Karl Rich (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign) with guidance from
Cees de Haan (ARD).
A complementary perspective is provided by the companion series of buyer surveys involving
representative importers, brokers, retailers, and distributors in the European Union, Japan, and the United
States. This series, in turn, discusses the buyers’ perception of the strengths and weaknesses of their
suppliers and describes the assistance and/or interventions offered by the buyers to their developing
country suppliers.
The findings and conclusions derived from these country studies are discussed in a synthesis report that
seeks to identify possible points of intervention by the World Bank and other donor agencies and to
determine the types of technical assistance that would be most efficient and appropriate. It is hoped that
the experiences of these exporter and importer countries will provide useful insights to practitioners in the
field, and to national and international policymakers in both the public and private sectors.
Kevin Cleaver
Director, Agriculture and Rural Development
Uri Dadush
Director, International Trade Department
iv
Acronyms
ABIEC
Association of Brazilian Beef Processors and Exporters
COSALFA
c.w.e.
DISCOSE
EU
South American Foot-and-Mouth Disease Control Commission
European Union
FMD
HTS
IGBE
Foot and Mouth Disease
Harmonized Tariff Schedule
Instituto Brasilero de Geografia e Estatística (Brazil)
INAC
MGAP-OPYPA
SISBOV
National Meat Institute (Uruguay)
Ministerio de Ganadería Agricultura y Pesca Oficina de Programación
y Política Agropecuaria (Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, and
Fisheries)
North American Free Trade Agreement
Office International des Epizooties (Office of International Epizooties)
Pan American Foot and Mouth Disease Center
Hemispheric Plan for the Eradication of Foot-and-Mouth Disease
Secretaria de Agricultura, Ganaderia, Pesca, y Alimentos (Argentina)
Servicio Nacional de Sandidad y Calidad Agroalimentaria (Argentina)
System of Identification and Certification of Bovine and Buffalo Origin (Brazil)
NAFTA
OIE
PANAFTOSA
PHEFA
SAGPyA
SENASA
Carcass Weight Equivalent
Division Contralor de Semovientes (Uruguay)
SO
stamping out
SODC
stamping out of contact herds
SOV
stamping out plus ring vaccination
US Department of Agriculture
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
US Department of Agriculture Foreign Agricultural Services
vaccination
World Health Organization
USDA
APHIS
USDA-FAS
VAC
WHO
v
Executive Summary
By their nature, animal disease outbreaks present significant costs and risks to affected countries. For
countries that depend on livestock exports as a source of revenue, the discovery of an animal disease will
result in the immediate, albeit temporary, closure of export markets, and impose significant costs on other
sectors of the economy (for example, tourism, downstream industries related to livestock). Foot-andmouth disease (FMD) is particularly damaging due to its rapid spread and effects on livestock
productivity. Because of this, countries that have eradicated FMD impose strict sanitary restrictions on
meat imports, creating a segmented market in which FMD-free products sell at a price premium over nonFMD-free products. Furthermore, given the difficulty in distinguishing between meat from vaccinated
animals and those that have generated an immune response, the international beef market is further
segmented into FMD-free with and without vaccination components. High-value beef markets such as
Japan and Korea only allow imports from countries in the latter category, thus creating significant market
incentives for countries to eliminate the disease.
After eliminating FMD during the 1990s and achieving FMD-free without vaccination status in the late
1990s, countries in the Southern Cone (Argentina, southern Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay) were poised
to expand exports to high-value markets. However, FMD reappeared in 2000–2001. While FMD was
widespread in both Argentina and Uruguay, outbreaks in Brazil were sporadic. Albeit severe during the
outbreak, the immediate trade effects of FMD in the region were generally short-lived. Indeed, by 2002,
the volume of exports from the region was near pre-FMD levels in Uruguay and in both Argentina and
Brazil exceeded pre-FMD levels. However, in Argentina and Uruguay, there was a medium-term loss of
the markets identified by the region as growth markets for Southern Cone beef, particularly Japan, Korea,
and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) markets (Canada, Mexico, and United States).
This loss resulted in a short-run reallocation of exports to lower-value markets and consequently a
reduction in the export value for beef. To date, Uruguay is the only country to reopen some (Canada and
the United States) but not all of the markets lost as a result of the outbreak.
Policy responses to the FMD outbreak included the pursuit of stamping out (that is, slaughtering all
affected livestock) (SO) policies to keep its FMD-free without vaccination status upon the conclusion of
the outbreak. However, each country eventually decided to adopt a full vaccination approach, thus
restricting its access to high-value markets in the short and medium term. In Brazil, stamping out was not
politically acceptable among farmers in affected regions, while in Argentina and Uruguay, critical delays
in disease reporting and lax surveillance and monitoring programs led to an epidemic that made such an
approach infeasible.
The experience of countries in the Southern Cone demonstrated that the control of FMD requires
institutional machinery in both the public and private sectors that none of the three countries possessed at
the time of the 2000–01 outbreak. The crisis also showed the limits of public monitoring and surveillance,
and the need for transparent, independent risk assessment at a regional level. While there is no clear
answer as to whether public or private approaches for recovery from FMD are optimal, successful control
of and recovery from FMD requires significant coordination among all actors in the animal health and
livestock sectors. At the same time, it should be stressed that sustainable FMD control requires
coordination among countries throughout the whole of South America. The coexistence of regions that
were not vaccinating in the late 1990s (Argentina, parts of Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay) alongside
those in which FMD was endemic (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru) suggested that it was only a
matter of time before FMD would reappear in the Southern Cone. This reality might suggest a role for the
Southern Cone to assist in financing FMD control and market development efforts in Bolivia, Colombia,
Ecuador, Paraguay, and Peru. Joint collaborative efforts across regions will be required, including
regional surveillance, monitoring programs, and information sharing across borders. However, funding,
1
institutional mechanisms, and roles for the public and private sectors for such collaboration need to be
thoroughly addressed in tandem with such efforts.
2
Introduction
Animal disease outbreaks present significant costs and risks to affected countries. For countries that
depend on livestock exports as a source of revenue, the discovery of an animal disease will result in the
immediate, albeit temporary, closure of export markets, and impose significant costs on other sectors of
the economy (for example, tourism and downstream industries related to livestock). Depending on the
nature of the disease, eradication costs, in the form of vaccination and indemnity payments, can also be
substantial.
An FMD is especially damaging to an economy, given the speed at which an outbreak occurs and the
response of international beef markets with respect to a country’s disease status. FMD is an easily
transmitted virus affecting cloven-hoofed animals, which include cattle, sheep, buffalo, swine, goats, and
deer. FMD results in substantial productivity losses in terms of weight gain and milk production, some of
which are permanent (table 1). While generally not fatal for most affected animals, FMD can kill young
animals in differing degrees. Young cattle are the least susceptible (6 percent mortality rate), while up to
Table 1 Productivity effects from an FMD outbreak in cattle
Affected production
•
Breeding
•
•
Milk
•
•
•
•
•
Fattening
•
Nature of production loss
10% of pregnant cows abort (1,000 lbs loss
in milk per aborting cow)
2-month delay in breeding for nonpregnant cows
One-third of milk cows sick and fully
recover (10 days’ lost production)
One-sixth of milk cows lose 14 days’
production due to illness in first half of
lactation
One-sixth of milk cows in second half of
lactation lose all production
One-sixth of milk cows lose all production
during lactation
One-sixth of milk cows culled due to
permanent damage
50% of beef cattle do not consume feed for
14 days, fully recover
50% of beef cattle do not fully recover
appetite for 1 month, require 2 additional
months of finishing
Source: Estimates made by McCauley 1979.
80 percent of swine under 20 pounds are killed by FMD (McCauley 1979). Given the virulence and speed
of the disease, and the significant direct and indirect costs associated with eradication of an outbreak,
countries that have eradicated the disease impose strict sanitary barriers on imports of animal products.
For example, the US Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDAAPHIS) (2002b) estimates that the total cost of an outbreak in the United States would range between $37
billion and $44 billion. Countries that are not FMD-free (as indicated by the World Organization for
Animal Health, or OIE by its French acronym) (box 1) are limited in international markets to sales to
other markets that are also not FMD-free or, in some cases, to exports of specific types of meat products
(for example, processed meat; see box 2) These restrictions thus create a segmented market in which
3
products from countries that are FMD-free sell at a premium (10 percent–50 percent) over products that
do not have this designation (Berentsen and others 1992, Ekboir and others 2002).1
Box 1. Role of the OIE in FMD control
The World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) was established in 1924 to promote information-sharing of
incidences of global animal diseases. A major function of the OIE is to be a clearinghouse of information on disease
outbreaks occurring in member countries. Animal disease outbreaks are reported by member countries themselves;
the OIE is in charge of disseminating such information in a timely manner. This responsibility includes the weekly
publication of emergency reports and follow-up activities of current outbreaks, monthly publications on the status of
“List A” diseases,* and an annual publication on a wide range of animal health issues and diseases. Other OIE
activities include the dissemination of relevant scientific breakthroughs in disease control activities and technical
assistance to countries that request assistance with animal disease emergencies. The OIE has established working
groups that prepare documents and rules that form the basis for sanitary norms used by the WTO in governing
international trade in animal products (see http://www.oie.int for more information).
*List A diseases are those defined by the OIE as having “the potential for very serious and rapid spread, irrespective of national borders, that are
of serious socio-economic or public health consequence and that are of major importance in the international trade of animals and animal
products” (OIE, Diseases Notifiable to the OIE, found at http://www.oie.int/end/maladies/en_classification.htm). FMD is a List A disease.
Box 2. FMD and trade in beef products
FMD plays a major role in influencing international trade in beef, given that the virus can be transmitted
through trade in bone-in beef, offal, and hides. Countries that are FMD-free without vaccination generally
limit imports of fresh beef to countries that are also FMD-free without vaccination (Ekboir 1999), although
exceptions are made for cooked and processed beef (Ekboir and others 2002).
Limitations on fresh beef imports vary by importing country. The European Union (EU) requires that
imports of boneless beef from FMD-infectious regions are to be matured at 10 degrees Celsius for at least
48 hours (Ekboir and others, 2002). The United States typically restricts beef imports to countries that it has
determined (independently of the OIE) are FMD-free; as of April 2004, 52 countries were on this list
(http://www.aphis.usda.gov/NCIE/country.html#FMD). Moreover, a number of these approved countries
must supply additional information that certifies that meat imports have not been co-mingled with products
that originated from countries that are not free of FMD (USDA-APHIS 2003). The United States recently
modified its import practices for meat products by allowing the import of certain types of beef from
countries not on the approved list that have successfully completed a risk assessment by USDA-APHIS.
Such risk assessments are made on the basis of eleven factors that evaluate the nature of a country’s disease
status, veterinary services, control and surveillance programs, and other information on the livestock
industry in the requesting country. USDA-APHIS also makes a site visit and conducts a quantitative risk
assessment as part of the approval process. For example, Uruguay completed a risk assessment in 2003 that
subsequently allowed it to export fresh, frozen, deboned, and matured beef to the United States.
Moreover, certain high-value international markets, such as Japan and Korea, make a further distinction
between FMD-free countries in which vaccination is practiced and those that are FMD-free without
vaccination (box 3). This distinction is based on the difficulty in distinguishing whether an animal
exhibits an immune response to FMD as a result of the vaccine or from actually having the disease. This
“zero-risk policy” toward fresh meat imports in these markets further restricts imports to those markets
that do not vaccinate. Thus, countries with export-oriented meat production have a powerful incentive to
eradicate FMD from their livestock herds.
1
In addition, countries that are FMD-free have more flexibility in marketing certain types of cuts to diverse markets.
4
Box 3. Recognized types of FMD disease status
The OIE has established several categories of FMD disease status for member countries:
1) FMD-free in which vaccination is not practiced. This status is accorded for countries that:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Have veterinary surveillance programs that regularly report disease outbreaks
Declare to the OIE that there have been no outbreaks in the past 12 months
Documentation of no FMD infections over the past 12 months
Have not vaccinated for FMD during the past 12 months
Have not imported animals from countries that vaccinate against FMD
Documentation that surveillance programs for FMD prevention and control are in order.
2) FMD-free in which vaccination is practiced:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Have veterinary surveillance programs that regularly report disease outbreaks
Declare to the OIE that there have been no outbreaks in the past 2 years
Documentation of no FMD infections over the past 12 months
Regularly vaccinate animals with vaccines in compliance with OIE standards
Documentation that surveillance programs for FMD prevention and control are in order.
3) FMD infected zone: applies to zones in which (1) or (2) are not enacted.
The OIE also recognizes that FMD-free status (with or without vaccination) can be given to particular regions of a
country that may otherwise be FMD-infected or in which vaccination is practiced (Articles 4 and 5). In an FMD-free
zone in which vaccination is not practiced, a region must adhere to the guidelines established in (1) above and, in
addition, must:
a.
b.
c.
Be separated through a surveillance zone between the FMD-free zone and the rest of the country
(or neighboring countries)
Provide a description of the boundaries of the FMD-free region
Give documentation on how the disease is prevented from entering the region.
In an FMD-free zone in which vaccination is practiced, the region must adhere to the guidelines set forth above in
(2). Such a region must also establish a buffer zone between the FMD-free region and the rest of the country and
provide documentation on disease prevention activities in the region.
Source: Terrestrial Animal Health Code 2003, chap. 2.1.1 (Articles 1–7).
Countries of the Southern Cone (defined as Argentina, southern Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay) have
historically been major global producers of beef, and represent approximately 18 percent of global
production and 38 percent of developing country production in 2003 (table 2).
5
Table 2. Production of beef in the Southern Cone, developing countries, and world, 1996-2003 (000 t)
Market
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
54,721
55,380
55,262
56,334
56,859
56,138
58,135
World
2003
58,742
23,727
24,790
24,979
26,094
26,799
26,623
27,923
28,527
Argentina
2,694
2,712
2,469
2,720
2,718
2,452
2,700
2,800
Brazil
6,187
5,922
5,794
6,413
6,540
6,671
7,136
7,385
Paraguay
226
226
231
246
239
250
230
240
Uruguay
Southern Cone production
as a percentage of global
production (%)
Southern Cone production
as a percentage of
developing country
production (%)
407
454
450
458
453
317
412
441
17
17
16
17
17
17
18
18
40
38
36
38
37
36
38
38
Developing countries
Source: Statistics downloaded from FAOSTAT, 2004
From the standpoint of trade, producers in the Southern Cone contributed to 18 percent of global exports
of fresh beef and 88 percent of exports from developing countries in 2002 (table 3).
Table 3. Exports of fresh beef in the Southern Cone, developing countries, and world, 1996–2002
(000 t)
Market
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2,964
3,344
3,288
3,853
3,888
3,784
4,153
World
425
489
434
550
632
659
848
Developing countries
137
175
109
155
156
43
159
Brazil
47
52
81
151
188
368
430
Paraguay
13
16
16
9
29
44
14
Uruguay
91
114
90
121
139
88
145
Southern Cone % of world exports
Southern Cone % of developing
country exports
10
11
9
11
13
14
18
68
73
68
79
81
82
88
Argentina
Source: Statistics downloaded from FAOSTAT 2004.
Beef producers in the Southern Cone have struggled over the past century to eradicate FMD from cattle
herds. After successfully eradicating the disease in the mid-to-late 1990s, by 2000 the region achieved the
prized status of “FMD-free without vaccination” from the OIE, thus creating the potential for export to
high-value markets (for example, Japan, South Korea, and the United States).2 However, FMD returned in
2000–01, resulting in a significant reduction in exports, output, prices, and incomes in the region; this
outbreak was coupled with the financial crisis that was gripping Argentina during the same period. While
the region has taken steps to regain the export markets that were lost as a consequence of the outbreak,
results of these efforts have been mixed. Uruguay and certain regions of Brazil (15 states in the South and
East), for example, have regained FMD-free status (albeit with vaccination). The region of Patagonia in
2
The United States (and Canada) does not maintain a zero-risk policy for fresh beef imports as in Japan and South
Korea. Rather, exports of fresh beef are allowed subject to the positive results of a risk assessment conducted by
the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal Health and Plant Inspection Service (USDA-APHIS) (Bervejillo and
Rich 2003). See Box 2 for more information.
6
Argentina (south of the 42nd parallel) has also remained FMD-free without vaccination, although this
region is a relatively minor producer of beef. In contrast, Argentina and Paraguay have failed to regain
FMD-free status (with or without vaccination) due to recent outbreaks in 2002 and in the summer and fall
of 2003.
In the analysis that follows, the experiences faced by Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay in response to the
outbreaks of 2000–01 will be discussed, highlighting the magnitude of the outbreak, economic and trade
ramifications, disease control strategies, and costs associated with the outbreak.3
3
While Paraguay is part of the Southern Cone, there is limited information on the impact or scope of FMD in this
country and is thus excluded from this analysis.
7
Overview of Foot and Mouth Disease in South America
FMD has been present in South America since its introduction to the continent in the 1860s in Argentina.
After introduction, the disease spread unabated throughout the southern region of South America
(primarily Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay) and by 1910 worked its way upward into Bolivia and
Peru and to Ecuador, Colombia, and Venezuela by the 1950s (Casas Olascoaga 1984). Three strains of
FMD virus (O, A, and C) are found in South America. Most outbreaks have been either of the O or A
variant. The C variant has not been found in South America since 1995 (Correa Melo and others 2002).
FMD control efforts (box 4) before the 1950s were minimal. FMD control programs at the country level
did not begin in earnest until the 1970s, spurred partially by increases in veterinary resources, educational
campaigns, and a technological improvement in the available vaccines (Casas Olascoaga 1984). The
development of oil-based vaccines resulted in significantly more effective disease prevention, leading to
more rapid adoption of vaccines by producers throughout the 1980s and 1990s. 4 At the same time,
national programs were typically the purview of the central government and often subject to the
availability and vagaries of budgetary allocations (Correa Melo and Saraiva 2003). Consequently, disease
control expenditures were often rationed to focus mainly on productive regions and exports rather than on
small producers (Correa Melo and Saraiva 2003).
Regional efforts began through the establishment of PANAFTOSA (Pan American Foot and Mouth
Disease Center) in response to an outbreak in the early 1950s in Mexico (Casas Olascoaga, 2002). The
creation of PANAFTOSA began efforts to improve FMD control through technical assistance, training,
vaccine development, and the maintenance of a reference laboratory for strains specific to South America
(Casas Olascoaga 2002). It also marked the start of multilateral means by which to control the disease,
including a number of regional conferences and commissions aimed at regional-level efforts at
eradication. These included the formation of the South American Foot-and-Mouth Disease Control
Commission (COSALFA) in 1972, which aimed at regional coordination of control and eradication
efforts, and the Hemispheric Plan for the Eradication of Foot-and-Mouth Disease (PHEFA) in 1987,
which directed COSALFA and PANAFTOSA to design mechanisms for disease elimination at the
regional, subregional, and national levels through the establishment of regional surveillance and
information systems, regional laboratories, quality control of vaccines, technical assistance, and various
plans and agreements to progressively eliminate the disease (Casas Olascoaga 2002). PHEFA also
highlighted the role of community and local involvement in disease prevention and actively promoted an
integrative approach between public and private sector actors in vaccination campaigns (Correa Melo and
Saraiva 2003).
The combination of PHEFA with improvements in the quality of vaccines led to a significant decline in
the incidence of FMD in South America. By the late 1980s, Chile had successfully eradicated FMD. In
markets in which FMD persisted, the number of cases of FMD in South America dropped dramatically
over the 1990s, and vaccination coverage rates increased to 94 percent of cattle by 1995 (Correa Melo and
others 2002). After experiencing a major outbreak in 1990 and 1991, Argentina, southern Brazil,
Paraguay, and Uruguay were able to eradicate the disease by the late 1990s and received the designation
of “FMD free without vaccination” by the Office of International Epizooties (OIE) by 2000. However,
other areas of South America remained endemic with FMD. Bolivia, portions of Brazil, Colombia,
Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela all reported at least 4 outbreaks during 1990–2001 (Correa Melo and others
2002). Part of the reason for sustained FMD outbreaks in these countries is due to less than universal
vaccination coverage in the livestock population. Correa Melo and others (2002) report that while
4
Oil-based vaccines are more effective in promoting a longer-lasting immune response, particularly upon
administration of a booster dose (Casas Olascoaga 1984).
8
Venezuela had improved coverage to 87 percent by 2001, only 50 percent of the livestock population in
Ecuador was vaccinated in 2000. Moreover, monitoring and eradication efforts in FMD-free regions
declined over the 1990s once countries had eliminated the disease from their herds. Correa Melo and
Saraiva (2003) remark that community-level programs often became a victim of their own success in that
funds for vaccination campaigns diminished as disease cases declined. Indeed, private funding for FMD
eradication programs fell by over 50 percent between 1995 and 1999 (Correa Melo and Saraiva 2003)
(figure 1). Bervejillo and Rich (2003) note that the decision to cease vaccination was political and often
made irrespective of advice from technical experts to reinforce regional sanitary programs. These factors,
combined with the cessation of vaccination throughout the Southern Cone in 2000, contributed to the
return of FMD at the end of 2000. The cessation culminated in localized outbreaks in Brazil in 2000 and
2001, and Uruguay in 2000; and explosive outbreaks in Argentina and Uruguay during 2001. The FMDfree designation was stripped from each country, and external commerce was interrupted by varying
degrees.
Figure 1. Cattle exposed and infected from FMD by week in Argentina, 2000–02
Source: SENASA 2002.
9
Box 4. Strategies to control FMD
The OIE establishes four types of strategies that can be used to control an FMD outbreak in a cattle herd
(OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code, Article 3.8.6.5):
1. Slaughter of all clinically infected animals and those in contact with such animals (susceptible
animals)
2. Slaughter of all clinically infected animals, susceptible animals, at-risk animals, and vaccinated
animals
3. Slaughter of all clinically infected animals, susceptible animals, and at-risk animals; vaccinated
animals are not slaughtered
4. Vaccination of all infected or susceptible animals without slaughter.
Strategies (1) through (3) are variants of a strategy known as stamping out. The OIE defines stamping out
as:
… the killing of the animals which are affected and those suspected of being affected in the herd and,
where appropriate, those in other herds which have been exposed to infection by direct animal to animal
contact, or by indirect contact of a kind likely to cause the transmission of the casual pathogen. (OIE
Terrestrial Animal Health Code, Article 1.1.1.1)
In a model of FMD control for France, Durand and Mahul (2000) distinguish between three stamping-out
strategies that are similar to 1–3 above. Their first strategy is simply termed “stamping out” and
corresponds to the first strategy above. Their second strategy is called “stamping out of contact herds”
(abbreviated SODC), in which herds in the quarantine zone plus other herds in contact with those in the
affected zone are culled. Their third strategy is called stamping out with vaccination (or ring vaccination,
abbreviated SOV), in which animals in the quarantine area are culled, while animals in the buffer area are
vaccinated but not slaughtered. In a stamping-out strategy, animals that are culled are generally destroyed
either through burial or burning; such meat does not enter the food supply. Moreover, infected premises are
to be disinfected through procedures established in the Terrestrial Animal Health Code.
The policies used to control FMD in the event of an outbreak vary by country. The policy of SENASA in
Argentina is to adopt a combination of quarantine, stamping-out, animal movement controls, and
vaccination (SENASA 2002). The strategy also includes establishing protective and surveillance zones for
adjoining areas near the outbreak. In the United States, a quarantine area around an outbreak is established
in which stamping out takes place. In addition, vaccination is considered as an option if the disease reaches
epidemic proportions, spreads to wildlife in three or more states, if stamping out is no longer cost-effective,
or if stamping out is halted by court order (Ekboir 1999).
Source: OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code 2003.
10
Country Experiences with FMD
Argentina
Argentina has traditionally been a major producer and exporter of beef products. In a typical year,
Argentina maintains a stock of roughly 45–50 million head of cattle, of which 11–12 million are
slaughtered (appendix 1). While exports are an important source of revenue, representing 10 percent–15
percent of total production, the majority of beef consumed in Argentina is for the domestic market and
fueled by the highest per capita consumption rates in the world (65 kg–70 kg/capita) (USDA-FAS 2003a).
Prior to the FMD outbreak of 2000–2001, exports on a volume basis had steadily declined during 1995–
98, particularly of processed beef (appendix 2). This decline was due in large part to a reduction in
exports to Brazil, which increased its own domestic beef production and exports (appendix 3). However,
during 1999–2000, there was a sharp rise in exports of fresh beef due to greater levels of exports to the
United States, which had opened its market to fresh Argentine beef in 1997 (appendix 3). However,
exports of processed beef (appendix 4) continued to decline. In particular, there was a steady reduction in
processed beef exports to Great Britain and the United States from 1995–2000, while exports to low-value
markets were small and erratic. “Hilton” beef, which represents fresh beef exports that receive
preferential quota access to the European Union, were stable during 1995–2000, given the small level
(28,000 tons) of quota provided by the EU. Nonetheless, Hilton markets are particularly important to
Argentina, given the much higher export price (in excess of $7,000/ton during 1995–2000) in these
markets.
After a major FMD outbreak in 1990–91, Argentina remained FMD-free throughout the 1990s due to
concerted control efforts and the large-scale introduction of oil-based vaccines. In 1997 OIE accorded
Argentina the status of FMD-free with vaccination. This designation allowed Argentina to export fresh
beef to a number of previously closed markets, such as the United States (Sutmoller and others 2003). In
1999 Argentina stopped vaccinating its cattle herd and was subsequently certified in 2000 by the OIE as
“FMD-free without vaccination,” which theoretically opened the Japanese and Korean markets to
Argentine beef. As noted by Bervejillo and Rich (2003), the potential of the Japanese market as a niche
market for “natural” beef is potentially huge, given that a 10-percent share of the Japanese market would
be, in volume terms, roughly 40 percent of annual Argentine exports.
FMD was first detected in Argentina in July 2000 in a case in Pilcomayo in the province of Formosa near
the Argentina-Paraguay border. A total of 232 animals were exposed to the virus, of which 6 were
infected. The next outbreak occurred a week later in the province of Entre Rios, over 500 km from
Pilcomayo. The disease progressed steadily during 2000 in Argentina, peaking in late September before
slowing by November. The disease was controlled during the initial period of the outbreak through
stamping out (Correa Melo and others 2002). Movement controls on animals were also established
between August and September 2000 (Bervejillo and Rich 2003). The OIE suspended Argentina’s FMDfree status until November 2000. Bervejillo and Rich (2003) note that the disease was never fully
contained in the initial period. Moreover, the severity of the spread of FMD was not publicly
acknowledged by the government. In December 2000, the disease again gained momentum, and by May
2001, over 150,000 animals per week were exposed to the virus. The policy of stamping out and
movement controls were ineffective in controlling the disease, so in April 2001 the Argentine government
commenced a multistep program to eradicate the disease. This program involved regionalizing the
country into five areas, of which Patagonia was declared to be FMD-free without vaccination, while the
other four regions were required to vaccinate all cattle stocks.5 Two types of vaccination strategies were
5
Note that in the Southern Cone, vaccination was conducted only on cattle, not sheep or pigs, which also are prone
to infection with FMD.
11
employed. In high-risk areas, a sequence of two vaccinations was given 21 days apart, while in other
regions, the two-dose regimen was achieved according to a predetermined schedule (USDA-FAS 2001a).
The mass vaccination program was successful in slowing the disease, which by the end of 2001 had
essentially run its course. The last outbreak was in January 2002. Figure 1 presents an evolution of the
FMD outbreak on a weekly basis. By the end of the outbreak, nearly 2.8 million animals (roughly 5
percent–6 percent of the cattle population) had been exposed to the virus, of which over 150,000 became
infected and 875 died as a result of the disease. Approximately 1 percent of all cattle farms were affected.
The average size of affected farms was 1,130 animals (mainly cattle).6 Nearly all cases (94 percent)
occurred in the Pampas region, with 69 percent in the province of Buenos Aires alone (Ward and Perez
2004).
The direct costs to combat the disease were substantial. The cost of the first three rounds of the
vaccination program (twice in 2001 and once in 2002) were borne by the government at a cost of 1.40
Argentine pesos per animal (vaccine plus administration costs) (USDA-FAS 2002a). Bervejillo and Rich
(2003) report a total vaccination cost of $65.4 million in 2001 and $17.8 million in 2002. 7 Subsequent
vaccination will be the responsibility of the producer. In addition, USDA-FAS (2001a) reports that
downstream meat packing industries that produced for export were losing an estimated total of $40
million per month as a result of idle production. The government assisted the meat packing industry
through the temporary provision of tax rebates for 20 export-oriented packers (defined as those that relied
on exports for 30 percent or more of total sales) (USDA-FAS 2001a). The costs of veterinary services to
contain the outbreak are unknown, although likely sizable. As an illustration, logistical costs for the much
smaller Uruguay outbreak were estimated at over $1 million (Casas Olascoaga 2003). Total indirect costs
of the outbreak on other sectors of the economy are also unknown. By law, indemnity payments were
required to be paid to producers whose animals were slaughtered as a result of stamping out practices
(SENASA 2002). Bervejillo and Rich (2003) estimate that farm compensation costs of cattle that were
culled in the early period of the outbreak in 2000 were $818,000. In 2001 indemnity payments were
generally not paid since vaccination was the primary means of control.
The effects of FMD on livestock markets in Argentina were pronounced, particularly in export markets.
Indeed, most major export markets for chilled or frozen meat from Argentina, except the African markets,
Brazil, and Hong Kong, remained closed for most of 2001. The European Union delayed its decision to
reopen its market to Argentine beef until November 2001. USDA-FAS (2001b) remarked that this
decision was also due in part to Argentina not being forthcoming about the outbreak in the first place.
Appendixes 2–4 highlight the significant fall in exports during 2001.
In 2001 exports rebounded sharply to 350,000 tons, but the average price received for Hilton and fresh
beef fell considerably (figure 2). In the former case, this was due to significant price pressure on Hilton
markets by producers trying to export the entire 2002 quota in just four months (the Hilton quota is a
July-June quota). In fresh beef markets, the closure of the United States market in particular resulted in a
reallocation of exports to lower-value markets. Indeed, markets such as Canada, Chile, and the United
States that had imported Argentine beef in 1998–2000 were replaced by markets such as Bulgaria and
Egypt in 2002 (appendix 3; USDA-FAS 2002a). At the same time, in 2003 Argentina was allowed to
export precooked, individually quick frozen meat to the United States, providing Argentina a means to
add value to exports of processed meat products (USDA-FAS 2003a).
6
7
These statistics on the dynamics of the FMD outbreak are computed from a SENASA database obtained by the
author. Note that the national average herd size in Argentina is 200 animals per farm.
This assumes an exchange rate of parity with the U.S. dollar in 2001 and 3.1 Argentine pesos per US$ in 2002
(International Financial Statistics).
12
Figure 2. Average FOB export price for Argentine beef by type, 1995–2002
Source: Data obtained from SAGPyA website, http://www.sagpya.mecon.ar, 2004.
By contrast, production effects from the FMD outbreak were negligible, given that only a small fraction
of animals were slaughtered or affected by the disease. At the same time, however, there were severe
short-term impacts in downstream industries, particularly meat packing. In domestic markets, prices for
live animals fell throughout 2001. The real price of steers, for instance, fell from 78 cents per kg in
January 2001 to 64 cents per kg in December. However, by the end of 2002, domestic prices had
rebounded spectacularly to levels over double those in December 2001, aided in large part by the
devaluation of the Argentine peso (appendix 5).
In the past two years since the FMD outbreak, numerous steps have been taken in disease control
programs. Vaccination has been mandated as the control regime for all animals in Argentina, with the
exception of those in Patagonia. In response to demands from certain export markets, particularly the EU,
a traceability program was started to improve animal identification and tracking. The risk assessment of
the Argentine FMD control program by EU noted that cattle brands were often illegible (USDA-FAS
2001b). In August 2003 SENASA required that animals destined for export have a tag for traceability
purposes (USDA-FAS 2003a). Despite these efforts, FMD re-emerged in Argentina during the summer of
2003, with isolated outbreaks occurring in the Northwest of the country near the border with Bolivia.
While this outbreak was isolated and was contained via stamping out of the 58 head of affected livestock
(mainly pigs), in September 2003 the OIE nonetheless suspended Argentina’s designation of FMD-free
with vaccination for all regions north of the 42nd parallel. Areas south of this demarcation are still
recognized as FMD-free without vaccination by the OIE (OIE 2003). High-value markets such as the
Canada, Japan, Korea, and the United States, remain closed for Argentinian fresh beef.
13
Brazil
Production of beef in Brazil has exploded in recent years, spurred by improvements in animal genetics,
investments in pastures, and reduction in the slaughter age of production animals (USDA-FAS 2001c)
(appendix 6). This has led to a significant growth in exports from Brazil, which have more than tripled in
volume since 1995 (appendix 6). Exports represented approximately 8 percent of production in 2001. The
mix of exports has shifted largely in favor of fresh meat exports. Processed meat exports have increased at
a more modest pace (appendices 6 and 7). During the past five years, fresh beef exports have increased
markedly to Chile and Middle Eastern markets (Egypt and Saudi Arabia), which had been traditionally
markets served by Argentina (appendix 8). The FMD crisis experienced by both Argentina and Uruguay
allowed Brazil to make inroads in these markets. In addition, sizable market promotion activities through
the Brazilian Beef Processors and Exporters association (ABIEC) (in cooperation with export promotion
arms of the Brazilian government) in the European Union, Middle East, and Russia have been undertaken
since 2001 to promote Brazilian beef as a “natural” product (USDA-FAS 2002b). USDA-FAS (2002b
2003b) reports that the budget for market promotion activities is around $2 million and includes
significant media exposure, trade missions, and participation at trade shows worldwide. The Brazilian
government has also been active in the livestock sector through the provision of investment credit. The
government’s Agriculture and Livestock Plans over the past few years have assisted producers through
subsidized credit for pasture improvements, farm machinery, and storage facilities. Investment credit
available to the industry remained at approximately $1 billion during 2001–2003. In addition, the
slaughter industry benefited by numerous tax subsidies at the local level (USDA-FAS 2003b).
FMD has traditionally been endemic in certain parts of Brazil, particularly the Northern and Northeastern
sections (Correa Melo and others 2002). Control efforts typically concentrated on the main livestock
regions of the Southern, Central-West, and Eastern parts of the country. According to Correa Melo and
others (2002), control strategies have been specific to the type of livestock production that predominates
in a particular region (for example, breeding, fattening, or slaughter). Consequently, FMD-free status in
Brazil has been regional. The Southern regions of Rio Grande do Sul and Santa Catarina were recognized
as FMD-free without vaccination in 2000. By contrast, regions in the Central, Western, and Eastern parts
of the country were recognized as FMD-free with vaccination (Sutmoller and Casas Olascoaga 2002).
Brazil has been extremely successful in combating FMD on a regional basis and, as of 2004, has
eliminated FMD through vaccination in 15 of its Southern and Eastern states. In particular, Brazil has
successfully engaged private sector support in its FMD control programs (DuBois and Moura 2004).
Indeed, private sector support in disease control programs has taken an increasingly active role and
comprises the vast majority of funds for such programs (figure 3). In particular, the private sector has
established self-funded programs aimed at improving disease surveillance and control efforts. These
programs have included setting up a state-level emergency fund that can be rapidly accessed in the event
of an outbreak to purchase needed supplies (vaccines, vehicles, equipment); assist in service provision;
hire veterinarians, inspectors, and specialists; and educate producers (DuBois and Moura 2004). Producer
organizations have contributed to these funds and have had a role in vaccination campaigns and assistance
to neighboring countries (such as Bolivia) in their disease control efforts (DuBois and Moura 2004).
Presently, the OIE recognizes the states Bahia, Espírito Santo, Goiás, Mato Grosso, Mato Grosso do Sul,
Minas Gerais, Paraná, Rio de Janeiro, Rio Grande do Sul, Santa Catarina, São Paulo, Sergipe, Tocantins,
the Federal District, and Rondonia as FMD-free with vaccination (OIE 2004). A combination of contact
slaughter, movement controls, and vaccination has been the traditional strategy to deal with outbreaks.
For example, a 1999 outbreak in the state of Mato Grosso was controlled through stamping out 500
animals and strict movement controls of livestock products from Mato Grosso (USDA-FAS 2000).
The FMD outbreaks of 2000 and 2001 affected Brazil primarily at a localized level. In July 2000, 22
outbreaks were reported in the FMD-free without vaccination region of Rio Grande do Sul (Sutmoller and
14
others 2003). Stamping out and a 30-km quarantine zone around the infected area was applied, resulting
in the culling of 8,185 beef cattle, 2,106 pigs, 772 sheep, and 4 goats (Bervejillo and Rich 2003). FMD
returned to Brazil in May 2001 at the same time as the Soriano outbreak in Uruguay. Thirty-seven
outbreaks were reported in Rio Grande do Sul (USDA-FAS 2002b). Initially, stamping out was practiced,
with approximately 1,200 cattle, sheep, and pigs slaughtered at the onset of the outbreak (Sutmoller and
Olascoaga 2002). Local resistance from farmers resulted in the state of Rio Grande do Sul instituting a
vaccination policy of livestock in the State. However, an additional 11,670 animals were culled to meet
OIE standards (Sutmoller and others 2003). Movement controls on animals and meat products between
Rio Grande do Sul and other states were imposed and enforced (USDA-FAS 2002b). USDA-FAS
(2001b) report that there were some delays in distributing vaccine to the region due to conflicts between
the federal and local governments. The OIE stripped the regions of Rio Grande do Sul and the adjoining
region of Santa Catarina of their FMD-free status as a result of these outbreaks, although this status was
reinstated in November 2002 (albeit, in the case of Santa Catarina, as FMD-free with vaccination rather
than without vaccination).
Despite the FMD outbreaks in 2001, the effects on production and exports were minimal. Indeed, exports
from Brazil in 2001 actually rose during the FMD outbreak, because its FMD problems were generally
isolated. Brazil benefited from increased exports to the European Union and other lower-value markets in
the Middle East and Eastern Europe. However, the value of exports did not grow at a similar pace, due to
the lower-quality product mix demanded by the latter markets (USDA-FAS 2001b); this can be seen by
the lower export prices received by Brazilian fresh meat exports (appendix 6). The impact on Brazil was
generally limited to the state of Rio Grande do Sul, which was affected by the temporary closure of
export-oriented slaughter plants, although the cost of idling production is not known. The states of Rio
Grande do Sul and Santa Catarina were also negatively affected by the loss of the U.S. market for fresh
beef exports. Prior to the outbreak, both states had successfully passed a risk assessment from the USDA
to export beef to the United States. A risk assessment by USDA was conducted in Brazil in 2003, with the
expectation (still pending as of December 2004) that fresh beef exports to the U.S. would be allowed by
the end of 2004 (USDA-FAS 2003b).8
8
A USDA Risk Assessment is a lengthy process that requires documentation from the requesting country on its
disease status, veterinary services, control and surveillance programs, and other information on its livestock
industry. USDA-APHIS also makes a site visit and conducts a quantitative risk assessment as part of the approval
process. See http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ncie/reg-request.html and box 2 for more information.
15
Figure 3. Expenditure on disease control by type (public/private), 1995–2003
Source: DuBois and Moura 2004.
Brazil has responded to the FMD outbreak by making notable improvements in its sanitary and
traceability programs. In January 2002 the Brazilian government established the Brazilian System of
Identification and Certification of Bovine and Buffalo Origin (SISBOV), which tracks all animals born in
or imported into Brazil. SISBOV is monitored by the private sector and keeps information on farm origin,
animal ID, date of birth, gender, breeding system, vaccination and health information, and sales records
(USDA-FAS 2002b). The private sector manages the program in four phases. In the first phase, animals
destined for export to the EU had to be registered by July 2003 (USDA-FAS 2003b). By December 2003,
all animals destined for export had to be registered. All beef cattle produced in FMD-free states (or those
in the process of being FMD) must be registered by December 2005, with all remaining animals
registered by December 2007 (USDA-FAS 2002b). USDA-FAS (2003b) reports that over five million
animals were registered (as of mid-2003), with 19 companies certified to conduct traceability in the
country. The cost of the program is borne on a per animal basis of US$2.50 and is estimated to cost
US$400 million by the time all animals are registered by the end of 2007 (USDA-FAS 2003b). Brazil has
also made efforts to harmonize food safety regulations with trading partners. These include sanitary
agreements with China and Poland, and negotiations with the EU (USDA-FAS 2002b). Brazil has also
undertaken steps to regain access to the Canadian and U.S. markets by undergoing risk assessments by
these countries’ animal health agencies.
16
Uruguay
Uruguay is an important exporter in the region, with exports accounting for an increasing percentage of
production. In 2002 exports comprised well over half of domestic production––a sharp rise from 35
percent of production in 1995 (appendix 9) While stocks of beef cattle have remained relatively stable at
10.5–11 million head, production (slaughter) has increased in response to growing export markets
(appendix 9 and figures 4–5). During 1995–2000, exports of beef from Uruguay more than doubled (table
1), fueled by increased exports of fresh beef (frozen and chilled) to Chile and the United States
(appendixes 10 and 11).
As with Argentina, Uruguay had successfully eradicated FMD in the mid-1990s. In 1996 Uruguay was
recognized by the OIE as FMD-free without vaccination (Correa Melo and others 2002). As with
Argentina and Brazil, the cessation of vaccination exposed Uruguay to the possibility of a return of FMD,
given the less than universal eradication in the region (particularly in Paraguay). In 2000 FMD was first
discovered in the department of Artigas in the north of Uruguay (near the Uruguay-Brazil) border. A total
of 322 cattle, 63 sheep, and 47 pigs were affected by the disease (Sutmoller and others 2003). The disease
was quickly controlled in the region by culling the affected animals, imposing a quarantine zone with a
radius of 25 km, and stamping out animals in the quarantine zone (a total of over 20,000 cattle, sheep, and
pigs). A 25-km buffer zone was also established and regularly tested (Sutmoller and others 2003).
Figure 4. Volume of beef exports from Uruguay by type, 1995–2002
Source: Data obtained from INAC website, http://www.inac.gub.uy, 2004.
By early 2001, the disease was contained, and the OIE maintained its recognition of Uruguay as FMDfree without vaccination. A new outbreak started in April 2001 in the Soriano department near the
17
Argentina-Uruguay border. This outbreak was followed by a second case a few days later in a
neighboring farm, resulting in the imposition of movement controls in the region (Sutmoller and others
2003). A number of outbreaks followed these initial cases. Stamping out, ring vaccination, and local
movement controls were initiated as the means of control, although stamping out was halted only a week
after the first outbreak due to the resistance of local farmers (Sutmoller and others 2003). These efforts
did not stem the outbreak, however. According to Sutmoller and others (2003), a number of cattle had
been sold by auction to other regions of the country from the infected region prior to the confirmation of
the outbreak. Bervejillo and Rich (2003) note that delays in disease reporting, less than stringent border
controls with Argentina, and local characteristics of the region helped to fuel the outbreak. In particular,
Soriano has a higher density of both people and animals and is located in a part of Uruguay that receives
constant flows of cross-border traffic. Delays in vaccines and personnel constraints further limited the
ability of the government to adopt ring vaccination and stamping out policies (Bervejillo and Rich 2003).
As a result, numerous cases were reported throughout the country in late April and early May of 2001.
Movement controls of animals within the country were imposed, and mass vaccination was started the
first week of May 2001. A total of 2,057 cattle outbreaks were reported during 2001 (Casas Olascoaga
2003). This number represents approximately 4 percent of all livestock herds in the country (48,518 in
2001). USDA-APHIS (2002a) reports that slightly over 77,000 cattle, sheep, and pigs were affected by
the disease.
Figure 5. Value of beef exports from Uruguay by type, 1995–2002
Source: Data obtained from INAC website, (http://www.inac.gub.uy), 2004
The total direct cost of eradicating the disease (both the Artigas and Soriano outbreaks) was estimated by
Casas Olascoaga (2003) at $13.6 million, of which $7.5 million was spent on vaccination, $4 million on
slaughter and indemnity payments, and $1 million on emergency veterinary services (salaries, staff). This
18
break-out does not include the costs of lost exports or the effects on related markets. A portion of the
vaccine costs were funded by the Permanent Fund by Compensation that levies a 0.21 percent check-off
fee on the export value of all animal products (Bervejillo and Rich 2003). The remainder of the funding
came from a World Bank loan of $18.5 million used to pay for vaccines and a replenishment of the fund
(Bervejillo and Rich 2003). A recent presentation by the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, and Fisheries
(MGAP-OPYPA 2004) using an input-output analysis estimated a total direct and indirect cost of the
2001 outbreak over 2001–03 at $730 million dollars. Direct losses in the livestock sector were estimated
at $226 million dollars, while downstream meat packing industries were estimated to have had losses of
$112 million (table 4).
Given the dependence of the Uruguayan economy on beef exports, FMD had a significant impact on the
livestock sector in Uruguay and a larger overall effect than in Argentina or Brazil. Exports fell from
272,000 tons to 169,000 tons during 2000–01, with the value of exports falling by over 40 percent ($369
million to $217 million) (appendixes 10-12). Similar to Argentina and Brazil, exports rebounded in 2002,
with the value of exports for Uruguay rising by 24 percent during 2001–02. Uruguay regained entry for
chilled and frozen deboned and matured beef into the United States in May 2003 following a risk
assessment conducted by the USDA. Moreover, Uruguay regained its status of FMD-free with
vaccination from the OIE in May 2003 (OIE 2004).
Table 4. Assessment of costs resulting from
the 2001 FMD outbreak in Uruguay
Sector
Cost (US$ million)
Livestock
226
Slaughter/packing
112
Building products
38
Electricity
31
Financial services
29
Refinery
20
Others
Total
274
730
Source: MGAP-OPYPA 2004
In response to the FMD outbreak, the livestock sector in Uruguay has implemented a number of activities
to control disease and accelerate the opening of export markets. In contrast to Brazil, and, to a lesser
extent, Argentina, the public sector has played a more prominent role. Vaccination has been established as
the method of control, with the government in charge of the cost of vaccine provision to date (estimated
total costs for 2 doses is between 46–56 cents; USDA-APHIS 2002a). USDA-APHIS (2002a) has noted
that compliance rates for vaccination exceed 99 percent and are universal for all animals destined for
slaughter, since animals are not allowed to be slaughtered (or moved) without proper vaccination records.
After the 2001 outbreak, the sector engaged in an FMD education campaign for producers. Traceability of
animals has been practiced in Uruguay since 1973 by the government agency DISCOSE, which is
responsible for control stocks and movements of all cloven-hoofed animals (cattle, sheep, horses, and
pigs) throughout the country (Sosa-Dias n.d.). A proposal to adopt a traceability program in line with
European Union requirements is under discussion (USDA-FAS 2002c). Table 5 summarizes the
outbreaks that occurred in the Southern Cone during 2000–01. Direct and indirect eradication and control
costs (where available) are provided.
19
Table 5. Summary of outbreaks
Country
Argentina
Brazil
Year
Outbreaks
NA
2,394b
Number of animals
Cases
Culled Vaccinated
NA
3,563
0
88,502c
181
57,125,396
Direct Costs (‘000 US$)
Indemnity Vaccination Other
818
0
NA
65,400
Indirect costs
2000
2001
SODCa
VAC,
SO
2002
VAC, SO
1
20
228
57,184,525
NA
17,839
NA
2000
SODC,
VAC
SOV/DC,
VAC
VAC
48d
502
11,067
159,076,294
NA
NA
NA
38
1,560
17,000
156,101,114
NA
NA
NA
0
0
0
292,629,840
NA
NA
NA US$2.50/animal cost to
implement traceability
program
SODC
SODC/Ve,
VAC
VAC
2
2,063
76
32,912 f
20,406
6,932
0
11,773,000
3,055
2,008
0
7,524
0
1,065g
0
0
0
25,620,302
0
NA
NA
2001
2002
Uruguay
Strategy
2000
2001
2002
NA
NA
US$40,000/month (idle
production) in exportoriented slaughterhouses
Total economy-wide cost
of US$730 Million
estimated during 2001-03
due to FMD
Sources: OIE Handistatus 2000–02, found at http://www.oie.int/hs2/report.asp, Beverjillo and Rich 2003, Casas Olascoaga 2003, information from sections in text.
Notes:
a. Strategies are abbreviated as follows: SO (stamping out), SODC (stamping out contact herds), SOV (stamping out plus ring vaccination), VAC (Vaccination). See Box 4 for
more details.
b. All figures on the number of animals are the sum of all types of animals that are affected by FMD (cattle, goats, sheep, and pigs).
c. Total outbreaks in Argentina were 2,563; the total number of cases was 152,443 (SENASA 2002). These totals include those not reported to the OIE in 2000.
d. Total outbreaks in Brazil in 2000 include other outbreaks besides the Rio Grande do Sul outbreak described in the text.
e. Stamping out in Uruguay in 2001 was only used in the first few days of the outbreak and at the conclusion.
f. USDA-APHIS (2002) reports that 77,182 were affected by the 2001 FMD outbreak.
g. Other costs include expenditures for emergency services.
20
Discussion
Countries in the Southern Cone have had different experiences with the 2000–01 outbreak of FMD. While
FMD was widespread in both Argentina and Uruguay, the nature of outbreaks in Brazil was sporadic. All
three countries initially pursued a policy of stamping out but each eventually decided to adopt a full
vaccination approach. In Brazil, stamping out was not politically acceptable among farmers in affected
regions, while in Argentina and Uruguay, critical delays in disease reporting and lax surveillance and
monitoring programs led to an epidemic situation that made such an approach infeasible. The experience
of countries in the Southern Cone demonstrates that stamping out regimes requires institutional
machinery in both the public and private sector that none of the three countries possessed at the time. The
crisis also showed the limits of public monitoring and surveillance activities and the need for transparent,
independent risk assessment at a regional level (Bervejillo and Rich 2003).
The trade effects of FMD in the region were generally short-lived, albeit severe during the outbreak.
Indeed, by 2002, the volume of exports from the region was near pre-FMD levels in Uruguay and
exceeded pre-FMD levels in both Argentina and Brazil. However, in Argentina and Uruguay, there was a
medium-term loss of markets identified by the region as growth markets for Southern Cone beef,
particularly Japan, Korea and the NAFTA markets (Canada, Mexico, and United States). This loss
resulted in a short-run reallocation of exports to lower-value markets and consequently a reduction in the
export value for beef. While Uruguay has been successful in recently reopening the U.S. and Canadian
markets and is poised to enter the Mexican market in 2004, such markets remain closed for Argentina,
which has not yet completed the risk assessment process for the U.S. and Canada. Moreover, the 2003
outbreak further hampered such market access issues. However, Argentina has attempted to add value to
its exports of processed beef, which are unaffected by its FMD status. By contrast, exports from Brazil
have exploded since 2000 and were seemingly unaffected by the FMD outbreak. This protection was due
mainly to the localized nature of the outbreaks. Brazil has made steady progress in its regionalized
approach toward vaccination and expects to be FMD-free nationwide by 2005.
Competitive pressures in the region after the FMD outbreak have led to Southern Cone producers seeking
ways to add value to products and diversify beef exports. Producer groups in Brazil have been extremely
active in promoting beef exports through market promotion activities. Similar activities have begun in
Argentina and Uruguay since the FMD outbreak of 2000–01. In Argentina, the emphasis has been on
promoting consumption in domestic and international markets, with cost-sharing and organization
conducted by the private sector. The increased emphasis on marketing has been facilitated by the
establishment of the Beef Promotion Institute, which aims to develop markets through a 1.80 Argentine
peso/animal check-off fee shared by producers (70 percent) and packers (30 percent) (USDA-FAS
2003a). In Uruguay, there has been a combination of public and private initiatives to promote the beef
sector. For instance, the public sector has been involved in the “natural beef” campaign of the National
Meat Institute (INAC). In 2003 the Certified Natural Program of INAC was started in collaboration with
90 producers to export beef that fetches price premiums of 5 percent–7 percent (USDA-FAS 2003c). In
all three countries, there has been an increase in marketing relationships and contracting with downstream
slaughterhouses. Packers in Argentina have increasingly been working with supermarkets to improve
quality (USDA-FAS 2003a). Marketing alliances with supermarkets have increased, particularly in Brazil
and Uruguay. The greater concentration in the slaughter industry in Brazil vis à vis Argentina potentially
provides a marketing advantage to Brazil in exploiting new export markets.9
9
The five largest packers in Brazil comprise 60% of beef exports (USDA-FAS2003b), while, in Argentina, the 4
largest domestic packers account for less than 15% of the market (USDA-FAS2001a).
21
The public sector was the main entity in the control of FMD, both during and after the outbreak. At the
same time, the reduction of funds in surveillance and monitoring in both the private and public sector,
particularly in Argentina and Uruguay, contributed to the severity of the outbreak. The state continues to
play a key role in Uruguay in the provision of vaccination, while, in Argentina, the responsibility has been
shifted to the producer. It is not clear whether this shift toward private sector delivery contributed to the
minor 2003 outbreak, however. Brazil has maintained a combined private-public provision of vaccine and
animal health services that has gradually improved the FMD-free status of livestock herds in the country,
the 2000–01 outbreaks notwithstanding.
22
Conclusions and Lessons Learned
The experiences of the Southern Cone suggest that the successful control of, and recovery from, FMD is a
difficult process that requires significant coordination among all actors in the animal health and livestock
sectors. Certain elements of the 2000–01 outbreak in the region illustrate clear lessons that could be used
by developing countries in the context of an animal health emergency:
1. Speed and transparency are key factors in the control of FMD. The experiences of Argentina, Brazil,
and Uruguay clearly demonstrate that speed and transparency in control efforts are tantamount to
controlling FMD. Minor delays in reporting in Uruguay and limited transparency in Argentina led to
an epidemic situation in both countries. In contrast, Brazil was able to quickly eliminate the disease.
These divergent results suggest that well-managed, timely surveillance and monitoring activities are
crucial in preventing future FMD outbreaks and should be funded appropriately to conduct their
mission. The steep decline in funding for such activities in Southern Cone countries, particularly
Argentina and Uruguay, reduced the ability of these countries to quickly respond to the 2000–01
outbreak. The role of transparency is also important, particularly on an inter-regional basis, to prevent
the disease from spreading further. Forthright reporting on where outbreaks are occurring is
fundamental. The importance of transparency also points to the need for improved capacity in data
gathering and information dissemination among veterinary service providers and, most importantly,
for such data to be used in decision-making (Bervejillo and Rich 2003).
2. There is no clear cut answer as to whether public or private approaches to FMD control are
superior. The experiences of the Southern Cone during the 2000–01 outbreak do not give a clear
answer on the best method of delivery (public or private) for FMD control. Of the three countries
studied, Brazil has the greatest private-sector orientation in its FMD control program and was the
least affected by the 2000–01 outbreak. One could naively argue from this that an approach that
engages the private sector is ideal. Indeed, the positive experiences in the early 1990s of the PHEFA
program, which integrated the public sector with community-level involvement to eradicate FMD,
may be an approach that needs to be revisited, provided that sustainable funding mechanisms that
control disease over the long term are developed. At the same time, the experience of Uruguay after
the outbreak demonstrates that well-run, well-funded public delivery of animal health services can
successfully eliminate FMD and reopen export markets.
3. True eradication of FMD requires coordination among countries throughout South America. The
events of 2000–01 strongly demonstrate that FMD control is a regional issue that requires a regional
solution (Rich and Winter-Nelson 2004). The coexistence of regions that were not vaccinating in the
late-1990s (Argentina, parts of Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay) alongside those in which FMD was
endemic (Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru)–combined with animal movements across the
continent–suggested that it was only a matter of time before FMD would reappear in the Southern
Cone. While the Southern Cone has reinstated vaccination as the primary means of control,
vaccination will limit Southern Cone exports to high-value markets in East Asia. Becoming FMDfree without vaccination will necessitate not only the regional cooperation among Southern Cone
countries but also improved FMD control programs continent-wide. The attainment of this goal is
much more problematic. Rich and Winter-Nelson (2004) have suggested that the main difficulty in
eradicating FMD from South America stems from the presence of countervailing incentives among
farmers in different regions due to inter-regional differences in livestock production systems in South
America (export-oriented production in the Southern Cone versus subsistence production in other
areas). It has been argued that improvements in market development in lagging regions could be a
way to sustain FMD control, although the cost-effectiveness of such programs is not yet clear (Rich
23
and Winter-Nelson 2004).10 This might suggest a role for countries such as Argentina, Brazil, and
Uruguay to assist in financing FMD control and market development efforts in Bolivia, Colombia,
Ecuador, Paraguay, and Peru. Indeed, technical cooperation by more developed countries in South
America to develop markets and raise market incentives to control disease in less developed regions
may have significantly greater impacts than simply subsidizing control programs. Joint collaborative
efforts across regions will be required, including regional surveillance, monitoring programs, and
information sharing across borders, although issues of funding, institutional mechanisms, and roles
for the public and private sectors need to be thoroughly addressed. (Bervejillo and Rich 2003).
10
This issue is a research question that is being addressed in Rich (forthcoming 2005), and Rich and Winter-Nelson
(forthcoming 2005).
24
Appendixes
Appendix 1. Stocks and Slaughter for Cattle in Argentina, 1995–2002
1995 1996 1997 1998
Stock (million head)
52.65 50.83 50.06 48.08
Slaughter (million head)
12.86 12.92 12.79 11.28
Production (000 t)
2,688 2,694 2,712 2,469
1999
49.06
12.15
2,720
2000
48.67
12.40
2,718
2001
48.85
11.58
2,452
2002
46.96
12.30
2,700
Sources: SAGPyA http://www.sagpya.mecon.ar for stock figures; FAO http://faostat.fao.org/?language=EN for slaughter.
Appendix 2. Exports of Beef by Argentina by Type of Product, 1995-2003
tons (product weight)
Product
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Fresh beef
189,068 187,625 171,836 86,993 132,271 133,674
38,027 107,691 155,288
Hilton beef
27,304 28,609 27,218 28,630 27,611 26,034
5,383 48,192 28,796
Processed beef
102,296 81,924 73,415 56,347 47,755 48,884 40,232 45,423 46,919
Offals and byproducts
69,575 66,635 61,936 51,391 61,775 67,502 49,324 55,913 71,995
Total
388,243 364,793 334,405 223,361 269,412 276,094 132,966 257,219 302,998
(000 US$)
Product
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Fresh beef
439,664 403,958 404,592 253,459 314,455 313,153 88,743 145,410 281,086
Hilton beef
255,394 225,187 213,755 224,833 215,815 188,508 27,876 194,831 183,293
Processed beef
325,916 254,142 213,700 195,877 146,856 135,631 111,629 107,492 112,544
Offals and byproducts
80,318 73,917 62,024 49,761 55,731 69,013 38,325 32,108 56,269
Total
1,101,292 957,204 894,071 723,930 732,857 706,305 266,573 479,841 633,192
Source: Data from SENASA found at http://www.sagpya.mecon.gov.ar/new/0-0/ganaderia/otros/bovinos/exportaciones/index.htm
25
Appendix 3. Exports of Fresh Beef by Argentina by Trading Partner, Selected Years
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
t
000 US$
t
000 US$
t
000 US$
t
000 US$
Country
t
000 US$
Russia
143
127
4,173
8,444
570
727 23,878 28,173
Chile
45,562 108,155 59,804 141,820 39,643 79,128 3,811
7,565 19,739 32,415
Israel
11,533 23,822 10,792 21,496 11,660 23,475 6,652 12,449 17,583 27,213
Germany
10,291 40,368
5,956 21,792
7,158 32,996
715
2,702
8,925 38,896
Brazil
68,563 110,684 33,878 75,479
9,309 28,068 4,988 19,947
6,499 18,305
Great Britain
5,847 19,583
5,278 10,287
582
1,053
12
52
5,238 10,875
Egypt
0,25
1
0,25
0,25
4,438
5,339
Netherlands
2,924
9,620
2,327
7,670
1,697
7,397
349
1,292
3,346 11,940
Hong Kong
4,233 11,819
1,020
3,052
571
1,586 1,475
3,038
3,332
6,015
Netherlands Antilles
2,453
7,289
2,151
6,817
1,638
5,482 1,266
4,146
2,227
Peru
2,185
4,529
2,866
5,327
1,084
1,825
674
1,226
2,169
3,829
Italy
8,509 31,613
5,679 18,652
3,427 11,323
320
1,016
1,941
8,383
France
4,182 16,627
4,238 15,744
2,849 10,433
605
2,176
1,903
5,939
United States
6,051 13,655 23,547 49,240 4,116
9,725
Canada
1
4 15,148 25,651 4,581
7,792
Others
22,642 55,426 27,623 54,352 13,960 36,797 7,895 14,893 82,461 83,758
Total
189,068 439,664 171,836 404,592 132,271 314,455 38,027 88,743 155,291 281,080
Source: Data from SENASA found at http://www.sagpya.mecon.gov.ar/new/0-0/ganaderia/otros/bovinos/exportaciones/index.htm
26
Appendix 4. Exports of Processed Beef by Argentina by Trading Partner, Selected Years
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
Country
t
000 US$
t
000 US$
t
000 US$
t
000 US$
t
000 US$
United States
41,209 132,112 30,951 96,226 19,251 72,009 21,244 67,949 21,503 57,557
Great Britain
21,544 65,313 16,034 38,701 7,753 16,265 5,614 10,635 6,160 12,108
Netherlands
4,566 13,412 5,933 15,455 6,157 14,570 4,181
9,033 4,838
9,094
Italy
9,578 33,026 3,873 14,773 2,204
8,889 1,864
6,136 4,658 13,754
Germany
6,497 23,145 4,257 14,204 2,849
9,281 1,151
3,579 1,878
5,095
Nigeria
251
663
333
919
751
2,078
437
906 1,209
2,233
Canada
1,870
5,971 1,101
4,025
905
3,227 1,039
3,785
794
2,235
Ghana
615
1,689
586
1,626
460
1,293
179
369
758
1,432
France
1,840
5,021
811
1,919
455
1,053
275
512
563
940
Jamaica
1,559
4,692
605
1,590
261
587
315
581
500
954
Puerto Rico
2,503
7,408
851
2,299
738
1,423
32
77
489
1,020
Malta
394
1,108
241
639
224
619
270
535
330
592
Bolivia
610
1,214
649
1,340
495
974
501
842
308
371
Paraguay
716
1,732
810
1,779
376
734
502
870
298
351
Spain
1,037
3,037
603
1,602
241
728
52
90
178
302
Chile
656
1,505 1,325
2,790 1,631
3,487
305
604
Japan
1,198
7,852
518
3,416
211
2,687
122
954
239
Others
5,651 17,014 3,936 10,398 2,791
6,951 2,149
4,172 2,459
4,276
Total
102,296 325,916 73,415 213,700 47,755 146,856 40,232 111,629 46,923 112,553
Source: Data from SENASA found at http://www.sagpya.mecon.gov.ar/new/0-0/ganaderia/otros/bovinos/exportaciones/index.htm
27
Appendix 5. Evolution of Real Live Animal Prices in Argentina, 2000–03
(Nov 2001 prices)
Year
Month
2000
2001
2002
2003
0.775
0.695
1.318
Jan
0.706
Feb
0.749
0.796
0.769
1.289
Mar
0.782
0.798
0.787
1.233
Apr
0.779
0.764
0.952
1.147
May
0.804
0.755
0.887
1.093
Jun
0.822
0.771
0.911
1.085
Jul
0.815
0.745
1.028
1.161
Aug
0.828
0.717
1.281
1.228
Sept
0.842
0.657
1.376
1.218
Oct
0.849
0.669
1.370
1.222
Nov
0.798
0.626
1.373
1.205
Dec
0.772
0.636
1.375
N/A
AVERAGE
0.795
0.726
1.067
1.200
Source: SAGPyA http://www.sagpya.mecon.ar.
Appendix 6. Summary Statistics on the Beef Sector in Brazil, 1995–2001
Product
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Total cattle herd (million head)
161.2 158.3 161.4 163.1 164.6 169.9 176.4
Total slaughter (1,000 head)
27.0 31.0 29.1 30.2
31.3 32.5 33.5
Beef meat production (1,000 t c.w.e.)
5,400 6,045 5,820 6,040 6,268 6,650 6,895
Total exports (1,000 tons)
139.9 140.7 146.7 199.3 307.3 339.1 525.1
Fresh beef (1,000 tons)
42.4 53.0 59.2 93.3 169.3 215.7 400.8
Processed beef (1,000 tons)
97.6 87.7 87.6 106.0 138.0 123.4 124.3
Source: Data from IBGE found at the Ministry of Agriculture website, http://www.agricultura.gov.br/.
28
Appendix 7. Exports of Fresh and Processed Beef from Brazil, 2000–02
2000
2001
Value
Quantity Unit
Value
Quantity
(000US$)
(t)
value (000US$)
(t)
Fresh beef
503,296
188,656 2.668 738,805
368,288
Processed beef
265,468
132,249 2.007 260,872
132,639
Total
768,764
320,905
999,677
500,927
2002
Unit
Value
Quantity Unit
value (000US$)
(t)
value
2.006
776,318
430,271 1.804
1.967
310,158
160,482 1.933
1,086,476
590,753
Source: Ministry of Agriculture (Brazil).
Notes:
a. Unit value = US$/t.
Totals differ from appendix 6 since the trade data in this appendix are based on specific HTS codes.
29
Appendix 8. Exports of Fresh Beef From Brazil by Major Trading Partner, Selected Years
1998
2000
2002
Country
Value Quantity Unit value
Value Quantity Unit value
Value Quantity Unit value
Chile
5,160
2,333
2,212
53,784
31,654
1,699 112,259
75,961
1,478
Egypt
3,695
2,122
1,741
3,109
2,392
1,300
58,553
47,315
1,238
Saudi Arabia
123
75
1,640
4,412
2,345
1,881
63,513
43,799
1,450
Russia
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
45,891
39,061
1,175
Netherlands
87,338
19,529
4,472
98,376
25,659
3,834 109,391
34,536
3,167
Italy
54,028
14,398
3,752
60,106
20,946
2,870
64,581
27,268
2,368
Great Britain
17,586
4,906
3,585
49,315
18,612
2,650
53,435
22,341
2,392
Israel
15,093
7,112
2,122
21,487
12,436
1,728
28,411
19,239
1,477
Philippines
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
16,119
17,010
948
Spain
24,138
7,544
3,200
54,095
15,222
3,554
39,385
14,299
2,754
Hong Kong
7,872
3,337
2,359
23,064
11,230
2,054
21,386
14,032
1,524
Germany
11,429
2,490
4,590
37,792
9,877
3,826
40,181
11,900
3,377
Singapore
2,598
1,654
1,571
9,924
9,254
1,072
13,171
9,871
1,334
Switzerland
90
26
3,462
5,684
1,118
5,084
14,464
4,464
3,240
All others
47,445
15,324
3,096
82,148
27,911
2,943
95,578
49,175
1,944
Total
276,595
80,850
3,421 503,296 188,656
2,668 776,318 430,271
1,804
Source: Ministry of Agriculture (Brazil)
Notes:
a. Value = 000 US$.
b. Quantity = tons.
Unit value = US$/t.
30
Appendix 9. Stock, Production, and Export of Beef Cattle in Uruguay, 1995–2002
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Stock (000 head)
10,451 10,651 10,533 10,297 10,389 10,353 10,598 11,115
Slaughter (000 head)
1,505 1,810 2,059 1,904 1,809 1,910 1,412 1,676
Slaughter (liveweight, 000 t)
676
810
904
850
825
843
655
802
Slaughter (carcass weight @ 52% extraction)
352
421
470
442
429
438
341
417
Total exports of fresh beef (000 t, carcass weight)
122
187
246
234
224
255
150
236
Exports as a percentage of production (%)
35
44
52
53
52
58
44
56
Sources: INAC http://www.inac.gub.uy, MGAP http://www.mgap.gub.uy/.
31
Appendix 10. Exports of Frozen Beef from Uruguay by Export Destination, 1995–2002
Market
1995 1996
1,039 1,175
Chile
European Union
4,800 6,829
Brazil
12,811 31,124
Argentina
2,516 5,187
Canary Islands
140
433
Canada
Israel
5
2
United States
9 3,021
Mexico
Japan & Korea
Other destinations
529
50
Total
21,849 47,821
Market
1995 1996
European Union 35,786 42,165
Chile
2,914 2,585
Brazil
17,319 39,662
Argentina
3,134 5,734
Canary Islands
641 1,807
Canada
Israel
4
20
United States
36 7,767
Mexico
Japan & Korea
Other destinations 1,849
231
Total
62 99,971
Volume (t of shipped product)
1997
1998
1999
2000
2,793
7,415
5,053
4,339
6,667
7,062
7,428
6,783
53,568 37,679 14,310 18,419
6,401 20,384
8,945
8,109
433
424
460
216
22
2
132
164
85
71
204
3,344
5,024
4,948
3,800
42
1,622
3,632
1
29
437
434
1,076
578
73,750 78,537 44,179 46,069
Value (000 US$)
1997
1998
1999
2000
41,393 44,536 45,449 37,810
6,799 18,574
9,368
8,563
77,672 64,745 23,132 30,978
8,297 35,509 13,132 11,352
1,818
1,957
2,126
948
90
5
279
508
184
130
447
8,191 13,972 12,140 10,230
108
3,342
7,765
10
56
1,620
1,721
3,415
1,942
146,064 181,257 112,840 110,152
Source: INAC http://www.inac.gub.uy.
32
2001
2002
1,248 11,915
5,380 8,685
10,050 4,724
7,197 4,185
188
656
75
47
242
1,602
19
141
265
26,142 30,477
2001
24,367
2,544
18,625
9,773
615
179
580
4,249
58
2002
39,796
19,533
12,605
3,391
2,180
121
281
569
61,271 78,195
Appendix 11. Exports of Chilled Beef from Uruguay by Export Destination, 1995–2002
Volume (tons of shipped product)
Market
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Israel
20,293 23,120 28,871 29,472 28,910 26,311 20,020 25,738
European Union
18,237 17,770 22,781 17,610 12,317
9,659 10,875 18,960
Brazil
8,081
7,790
6,312
4,542
3,803
3,553
2,116 11,745
Canary Islands
5,324
4,954
4,726
3,757
2,350
2,482
2,069
4,006
Canada
366
8,123
1,376 16,926 24,754 23,263
1,884
Argentina
353
1,059
1,625
5,402
787
1,129
612
399
Chile
3,333
4,296
6,934
9,555
3,279
1,817
947
United States
232 19,144 15,453
9,367 16,659 15,649
7,552
49
160
6,383 12,396
422
Mexico
Japan & Korea
308
3,034 12,513
Other destinations
5,986
5,762
7,643
8,295 12,036 14,921
6,121 55,806
Total
61,839 84,261 102,517 89,844 106,484 125,184 73,997 118,538
Value (000 US$)
Market
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Israel
41,518 48,172 59,917 69,160 60,132 56,452 38,851 45,599
European Union
52,633 47,537 57,721 50,626 35,267 27,565 26,554 37,623
Brazil
16,142 15,918 13,845
9,851
4,927
5,497
3,145
9,747
Canary Islands
18,954 16,751 15,296 12,952
9,778
8,625
5,024
8,781
Canada
583 13,031
2,125 25,975 39,793 39,593
2,898
Argentina
622
1,827
2,695
8,778
1,437
1,359
691
264
Chile
7,609
8,566 13,495 19,921
5,477
2,517
1,524
United States
455 30,446 27,715 16,919 32,211 32,119 16,060
Mexico
99
282 10,540 22,669
911
Japan & Korea
555
7,442 25,110
Other destinations 14,134 10,943 13,877 16,221 20,126 23,594
8,066 68,392
Total
152,067 180,743 217,691 207,390 213,312 245,300 140,419 173,304
Source: INAC http://www.inac.gub.uy.
33
Appendix 12. Exports of Processed Beef from Uruguay by Export Destination, 1995–2002
Volume (t of shipped product)
Market
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
2000
2001
2002
European Union
4,675 4,908 4,592 5,245 5,552
4,440
4,078
4,013
United States
1,462 1,951 1,860 1,818 1,048
1,368
2,513
3,767
Canada
136
257
206
160
88
17
157
Mexico
21
Brazil
11
161
151
12
Israel
35
18
4
Argentina
Chile
Canary Islands
Japan & Korea
69
Other destinations
796
834 1,185
888
234
141
5
163
Total
7,138 7,950 7,854 8,146 6,940
6,127
6,747
8,137
Value (000 US$)
Market
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
2000
2001
2002
United States
5,736 5,932 6,018 6,392 3,472
4,467
7,984
9,272
European Union
13,151 12,329 10,840 13,420 11,852
8,621
7,216
7,602
Canada
388
623
476
411
187
79
355
Mexico
41
Israel
83
41
9
Brazil
55
108
99
7
Argentina
Chile
Canary Islands
Japan & Korea
247
Other destinations
2,337 2,148 3,105 2,223
588
361
20
346
Total
21,859 21,032 20,494 22,529 16,140 13,636 15,319
17,632
Source: INAC http://www.inac.gub.uy.
34
References
Berentsen, P.B.M., A.A. Dijkhuizen, and A.J. Oskam. 1992. “A Dynamic Model for Cost
Benefit Analyses of Foot-and-Mouth Disease Control Strategies.” Preventive Veterinary
Medicine 12:229–43.
Bervejillo, J., and K. Rich. 2003. “Highlights from Our Trip to Montevideo and Buenos Aires.”
Mimeo. University of California, Davis. March/April.
Cane, B. 2001. “Foot and Mouth Disease in Argentina: The Experience of Eradication and the
Crisis as an Opportunity to Produce a Sustainable Change in the Cattle Industry.” Paper
presented at the International Conference on Prevention and Control of Foot and Mouth Disease,
Brussels, 12–13 December.
Casas Olascoaga, R. 1984. “Foot-and-Mouth Disease Policies and Control Strategies in South
America.” Preventive Veterinary Medicine 2:341–52.
______. 2002. “The History of Foot-and-Mouth Disease Control in South America.” Mimeo.
_____. 2003. “Impacto economico causado por el retorno de la fiebre aftosa en el Uruguay.”
Nelore Anais: 78–82.
Correa Melo, E., V. Saraiva, and V. Astudillo. 2002. “Review of the Status of Foot and Mouth
Disease in Countries of South America and Approaches to Control and Eradication.” Revue
Scientifique et Technique de l’OIE 21 (3): 429–36.
Correa Melo, E., and V. Saraiva. 2003. “How to Promote Joint Participation of the Public and
Private Sectors in the Organization of Animal Health Programmes.” Revue Scientifique et
Technique de l’OIE 22 (2): 517–22.
DuBois, R., and J.A. Moura. (2004) “La lutte contre la fievre aphteuse au Brésil: La participation
du privé.” Revue Scientifique et Technique de l’OIE 23 (1): 165-73.
Durand, B., and O. Mahul. 2000. “An Extended State-Transition Model for Foot-and-Mouth
Disease Epidemics in France.” Preventive Veterinary Medicine 47:121–39.
Ekboir, J.M. 1999. :Potential Impact of Foot-and-Mouth Disease in California: The Role and
Contribution of Animal Health Surveillance and Monitoring Services.” Agricultural Issues
Center, University of California, Davis.
Ekboir, J., L.S. Jarvis, D.A. Sumner, J.E. Bervejillo, and W.R. Sutton. 2002. “Changes in Foot
and Mouth Disease Status and Evolving World Beef Markets. Agribusiness 18 (2):213–29.
McCauley, E.H. 1979. “Estimation of the Physical Loss in Animals Infected with Foot-andMouth Disease.” In E.H. McCauley, N.A. Aulaqi, J.C. New, Jr., W.B. Sundquist, and W.M.
Miller, eds., Potential Economic Impact of Foot-and-Mouth Disease in the United States. St.
Paul: University of Minnesota and APHIS-USDA.
Ministerio de Ganadería Agricultura y Pesca Oficina de Programación y Política Agropecuaria
(MGAP-OPYPA). 2004. “Estimación del Impacto del Reingreso de La Fiebre Aftosa en
Uruguay 2001–2003. Efectos Sobre La Economía en Su Conjunto.” Paper presented at the
Hemispheric Conference on the Eradication of Foot and Mouth Disease, Houston, TX, 3–4
March.
35
Office International des Epizooties. 2003. OIE Disease Info 16 (39), 26 September 2003.
tp://www.oie.int/eng/info/hebdo/AIS_78.HTM#Sec2.
_____. Terrestrial Animal Health Code. 2003. 11th ed.
_____. 2004. List of FMD-free countries. Technical Report. (January).
Rich, K.M. Forthcoming 2005. “Spatial Models of Animal Disease Control in South America.”
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Unpublished Ph.D. diss.
Rich, K.M., and A. Winter-Nelson. 2004. “Regionalization and Foot-and-Mouth Disease Control
in South America: Lessons from a Spatial Model of Regulatory Coordination and Interaction.”
Paper presented at the Joint Conference of the University of Illinois and the Centre on
Regulation and Competition of the University of Manchester (UK) on The Regulation of
Development and The Development of Regulation, Champaign, IL, 23–24 April.
_____. 2005. “Regional Externalities and Spatial Interactions: Applications to Foot-and-Mouth
Disease Control in South America,” Paper to be presented at the Allied Social Science
Association meetings, Philadelphia, PA. 7 January.
Servicio Nacional de Sandidad y Calidad Agroalimentaria (SENASA). 2002. “Information
Provided by SENASA to Attain Recognition of Argentina as a Region, As Defined in Section
92.2, Title 9, of the Code of Federal Regulations for Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD).” Republic
of Argentina. Buenos Aires. November.
Sosa-Dias M., J.I. N.d. “System of Identification and Control of Livestock Movements in the
Oriental Republic of Uruguay. Mimeo.
Sutmoller, P., S.S. Barteling, R. Casas Olascoaga, and K.J. Sumption. 2003. “Control and
Eradication of Foot and Mouth Disease.” Virus Research 91: 101–44.
Sutmoller, P., and R. Casas Olascoaga. 2002. “The Successful Control and Eradication of Foot
and Mouth Disease Epidemics in South America in 2001.” Presentation for the Temporary
Committee on Foot and Mouth Disease of the European Parliament. Strasburg. September.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA-APHIS).
2002a. “Site Visit Report: Uruguay–Foot and Mouth Disease.” Veterinary Services, National
Center for Import and Export, Regionalization Evaluation Services. Fort Collins, CO. September.
______. 2002b. “Risk Assessment: Importation of Fresh (Chilled or Frozen) Beef from
Uruguay.” November.
_____. 2003. “Animal Disease Risk Assessment, Prevention, and Control Act of 2001 (PL 1079), Final Report.” Report Prepared by the PL 107-9 Federal Inter-agency Working Group.
January.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service (USDA-FAS). 2000. Brazil
Livestock and Products Annual. GAIN Report #BR0617. Washington, DC. August. 1.
_____. 2001a. Argentina Livestock and Products: Argentine Beef Exports Down Significant
Because of FMD. GAIN Report #AR1028, Washington, DC. May 8.
_____. 2001b. Argentina Livestock and Products Annual. GAIN Report #AR1049. Washington,
DC. August. 3.
36
_____. 2001c. Brazil Livestock and Products Annual. GAIN Report #BR1617. Washington, DC.
August. 16.
_____. 2002a. Argentina Livestock and Products Annual. GAIN Report #AR2050. Washington,
DC. September. 5.
_____. 2002b. Brazil Livestock and Products Annual. GAIN Report #BR2610. Washington, DC.
August. 26.
_____. 2002c. Uruguay Livestock and Products: FMD Status and Traceability. GAIN Report
#UY2001. Washington, DC. January. 30.
_____. 2003a. Argentina Livestock and Products Annual. GAIN Report #AR3037. Washington,
DC. Sep. 29, 2003.
_____. 2003b. Brazil Livestock and Products Annual. GAIN Report #BR3609. Washington, DC.
August. 28.
_____. 2003c. Uruguay Livestock and Products Annual. GAIN Report #UY3001. Washington,
DC. September. 30.
Ward, M.P., and A.M. Perez. 2004.“Herd Demographics Correlated with the Spatial Distribution
of a Foot-and-Mouth Disease Epidemic in Buenos Aires Province, Argentina.” Preventive
Veterinary Medicine 65 (3-4): 227–37.
37