Avian 'flu: the politics and policy processes of a global response

>Go straight to new publications
>Go straight to Avian Flu Working Paper

Challenges for politics and processes

The potential of human-human transmission of virulent influenza derived from an avian flu viral strain has raised alarm bells across the world. The prospect of a major public health catastrophe on the scale of that experienced in 1918 – or worse - has meant considerable resources have been invested in developing surveillance and response systems.

But how effective are these responses? And who are the likely winners and losers? Are such response systems robust, durable and resilient, in the face of unknown, and perhaps unknowable, shocks and stresses, and a complex and dynamic viral ecology?

The objective of this research project is to investigate the politics of policy processes surrounding the response to Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI), identifying key actors and networks and associated narratives and practices of policy.

The aim is to interrogate the assumptions being made, and explore different framings in the debate, including those often not heard in mainstream policy circles. The research focuses on both the international level, working with the key agencies involved in the global response, and the country level, engaging with four countries in SE Asia – Cambodia, Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam. The overall analysis of the political economy of policy will reveal key challenges, obstacles and opportunities for responding to avian flu – and potentially other global epidemics.

Working with collaborators in international agencies and national programmes, as well as funding agencies, the aim will be to develop a fresh and critical reflection on the current response to the HPAI challenge, asking questions about the distributional and sustainability consequences of the existing policy response.

The project

Supported by the FAO (UN Food and Agriculture Organisation) Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative as part of a wider set of activities under the DFID funded Pro-Poor HPAI Risk Reduction Project, the project is unfolding in a number of phases:

i) Scoping study

This involved a literature review and included an assessment of:

  • the avian flu ‘time line’, identifying key policy events, moments and shifts.
  • key narratives driving policy debate from different sources.
  • actor networks associated with international policy change around avian flu.

ii) International policy processes study

This study is on-going and involves a more detailed assessment of the international response, involving discussions with key players in FAO, Rome; WHO (World Health Organisation), Geneva; and OIE (World Animal Health Organisation), Paris, as well as other development agencies including the World Bank, USAID, the European Commission and DFID. The aim will be to assess the degree to which the emerging international response is effective, equitable and resilient.

iii) Country studies – South East Asia

Clearly the consequence of ‘international’ policy can only be understood in context. Country level studies will be carried out to look at the intersection of global and national/local processes. These will be carried out in Cambodia, Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam. Each country study will include the following:

  • An overview of policy making and political economy contexts for the country, particularly as related to avian flu.
  • An assessment of the avian flu ‘time line’, identifying key policy events, moments and shifts, based initially on secondary/Internet based material and confirmed through interviews.
  • An assessment of key policy narratives/framings driving policy debate from different actor networks/groupings.
  • A mapping of the actor networks associated with policy change around avian flu in the country (including national/international actors, and those from business, farming, veterinary and other groups).
  • An examination of competing interests and politics involved in making avian flu policy and the consequences for the design and implementation of response mechanisms.
  • An evaluation of both the distributional consequences (who wins/loses) and the resilience implications of policy responses.

The third phase starts in April 2008 with a methodology workshop to plan the field phase of this work.

For more information and material on this project, see the Pro-Poor HPAI Risk Reduction Project website

Backgrounder

Framing policy: the case of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI)

 

Publications

 

Country Studies - papers and presentations

Other publications

avian flu coverThe International Response to Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza: Science, Policy and Politics (pdf 2MB)
By Ian Scoones and Paul Forster

Over the last decade, the avian influenza virus, H5N1, has spread across most of Asia and Europe and parts of Africa. There has, as yet, been no human pandemic, although 245 deaths have been reported since 2003. A major international response has been launched, backed by over $2 billion of public money. Huge numbers of poultry have been culled, vaccination campaigns have been implemented and markets have been restructured. These efforts have affected the livelihoods and businesses of millions. This paper asks: what lessons can we learn from this experience, and what does this mean for future efforts to respond to emerging infectious diseases under the One World, One Health initiative?
Order a copy of paper from the IDS bookshop, cost £5.00

  • STEPS briefing 10: One World, One Health? Learning from the International Response to Avian Influenza

By Ian Scoones and Paul Forster
Download this briefing (pdf 214kb)



 

Expert Meeting

The political economy of the response to highly pathogenic avian influenza – lessons for the One World, One Health initiative


In February 2009, an expert meeting co-hosted by the STEPS Centre and Chatham House and funded by DFID/the World Bank was held in Hove, Sussex, UK. The meeting reviewed country-level experiences of HPAI response in Cambodia, Vietnam, Thailand and Indonesia (papers and presentations). A group of 25 researchers and practitioners - both social and natural scientists (participant list) - gathered to discuss a series of papers, and draw out more general lessons for the One World, One Health approach, on the basis of a comparative analysis.

A number of key themes were highlighted, including the importance of a pro-poor and livelihoods approach; the opportunities for learning from local innovation; the challenges of building resilience in response systems; and the broader geopolitics of the response – and the importance of taking into account both local and international political and bureaucratic realities in the implementation of a One World, One Health approach.

A meeting report summary was prepared which has fed into the major international meeting in Winnipeg in March 2009 and a subsequent high level discussion on governance arrangements to be convened by Chatham House, London in collaboration with te STEPS Centre.

Research Partners

  • Overall project coordinator: Ian Scoones, Professorial Fellow, IDS and co-director STEPS Centre. Ian trained as a biologist, but currently works on institutional and policy questions and the relationships between science, policy and development.
  • Thailand case study: Rachel Safman, Asst Professor, National University of Singapore. Rachel trained in cell/molecular biology, PhD in sociology, epidemiology, international health and development and health, looking in particular on the influence which health events exert on development at the local - family/community - and national level. She is also interested in local governance.
  • Vietnam case study: Tuong Vu , Asst Professor, Center for Contemporary Conflict, Naval Postgraduate School/National University of Singapore. Work includes comparative political development; state origins; contentious mass politics; research methodology; east and southeast Asia. PPLPI paper.
  • Cambodia case study, Sophal Ear, Asst Professor, Dept of Public Administration, Maxwell School Syracuse/Naval Postrgraduate School, Monterey, California. Work includes comparative politics and political economy of development; southeast Asia; post-conflict reconstruction (particularly Cambodia); aid effectiveness and governance] PPLPI paper
  • Indonesia case study - Paul Forster – STEPS Centre DPhil based at IDS

This study is part of a broader initiative of the FAO’s Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative. Contact: Joachim Otte

Related research & events

 

 

Tell a friend about this site

poultry livelihoods

Poultry livelihoods /
Curt Carnemark / World Bank

Steps Direct

On this page

related links

external links