PC 87/4 b)

Programme Committee

Table of Contents

Executive Summary

I. Introduction

Context

The Importance of Cooperation with Countries on Animal Health

FAO's Role in Animal Health

Scope and Methodology of the Evaluation

Scope
Methodology

II. Overview of Animal Health Work

Regular Programme Structure

Regular Programme Resources

Field Projects

TCP
Non-TCP

III. Implementation Achievements and Results

EMPRES

Programme Achievements
Field Activities

Other areas of animal health

Parasitic Diseases
Veterinary Services
Field Projects

IV. Effects and Impact

V. Conclusions and Recommendations

Preamble

EMPRES

Other programme areas

Environmental Management of Insect-borne Diseases
Integrated Parasite Control and Drug Resistance

Coordination with other agencies

Field activities

Annex 1

Report of the External Review Panel

Panel Findings
Recommendations

Annex 2

Management Response (Ag Department)

Acronyms

Executive Summary

i) The livestock sector is growing in importance more rapidly than any other agricultural sector. Livestock are particularly important in the developing world, where they contribute to the livelihood of 70 percent of the world's rural poor. Sustained livestock production depends on the maintenance of healthy animals which, in developing countries, means paying particular attention to the problems of both endemic and introduced animal diseases. FAO has been playing a well-established role in animal health work, increasingly as part of its broader objectives related to reducing poverty, ensuring food security and preserving natural resources. Since 1994, the Organization has given priority to transboundary animal diseases through the Emergency Prevention System for Transboundary Animal and Plant Pests and Diseases (EMPRES), while still continuing its work on parasitic diseases, particularly trypanosomiasis.

ii) FAO's animal health activities were evaluated for the first time in 2001. The present evaluation focuses on the animal health activities under Programme 2.1.3 (Livestock) that were ongoing between 1995 and 2001, with particular attention to country-level work carried out with Technical Cooperation Programme (TCP) funding.

iii) The Animal Health Service (AGAH) is responsible for FAO's animal health work in three areas: infectious diseases, parasitic diseases and veterinary services. During the period covered by the evaluation, some 45 percent of the Livestock Programme's total resources were used on animal health in each biennium (i.e. about US$ 23.7 million in the period 1996-2001). Between 1995 and 2000, some 90 TCP projects in animal health were approved for a total value of US$ 22.2 million, while an additional 17 non-TCP projects have been approved for a value of almost US$ 28.5 million since 1995.

iv) EMPRES has achieved important results in its four main areas of activity, particularly in the Global Rinderpest Eradication Programme (GREP):

1. Early warning: Software for a Transboundary Animal Disease Information System (TADinfo) has been developed and adopted by several countries for their national animal disease database. Disease surveillance systems have been promoted and countries have been assisted in the development of early warning systems. The Regional Animal Disease and Surveillance Control Network for North Africa, the Middle East and the Arab Peninsula (RADISCON) has been established by an FAO/IFAD partnership;
2. Early reaction: Guides to contingency planning and good emergency management practices have been prepared, and workshops have been held in Africa, Central Europe and Asia. Some countries have undertaken improved contingency planning;
3. Enabling research: Research into priority diseases and vaccine development has been promoted. A list of world reference laboratories and other institutes allows EMPRES and member countries to identify sources of technical and scientific support. Diagnostic capabilities have been introduced and expanded in developing countries;
4. Coordination: GREP has converted separate regional eradication initiatives into a global programme with a valuable rapid response capability. The GREP Secretariat has drawn up an action plan to achieve the goal of global freedom from the disease by 2010, and partial or complete successes have been achieved in several locations; however, the essential programme for the international verification of world-wide freedom lacks assured funding. The Regional Animal Production and Health Commission for Asia and the Pacific (APHCA) and the European Commission for the Control of Foot-and-Mouth Disease (EUFMD) act as fora for the regional coordination of activities in their respective areas of operation;
5. Field Projects: A large majority of projects supported EMPRES in the above areas. In particular, 23 projects provided direct support to EMPRES. All were considered to be relevant to national needs and, in general, they were well implemented. The evaluation missions gave particularly high scores to the seven projects related to rinderpest.

v) The main results in other (non-EMPRES) areas included:

1. Environmental management of insect-borne diseases: Science-based standards for tsetse and trypanosomiasis control are the most important element here. The Programme Against African Trypanosomiasis (PAAT) was started in 1995 as the forum through which control and eradication efforts are coordinated. PAAT supports the Pan-African Tsetse and Trypanosomiasis Eradication Campaign (PATTEC) (initiated in 2000), but harmonization between PAAT and PATTEC needs to be improved;
2. Integrated parasite control and drug resistance: A Working Group on Parasite Resistance (WGPR) was established in 1997 to assist FAO in preparing guidelines on the subject. Two regional reference laboratories and three information networks concerned with ticks and helminths were established, and FAO is acting as a forum for the coordination of resistance issues;
3. Veterinary services: Regular Programme work has aimed at helping governments to reinvigorate public veterinary health programmes by focusing them on World Health Organization (WHO) initiatives that increase the benefits that national livestock industries can derive from global trade. However, the recent privatization of many clinical veterinary services has led to changes in FAO's veterinary health work and now only very limited Regular Programme funds are available for public veterinary health work;
4. Field projects: Seven of the nine non-EMPRES TCP projects that were evaluated were not judged as highly as the EMPRES ones were. The reasons for this include the greater government support that EMPRES projects attract and the two-year time limit imposed on TCP projects, which is not long enough to bring significant results for tsetse and parasite interventions. In other cases, projects had not taken sufficient account of local conditions and other limiting factors.
5. The evaluation concluded that in the priority area of EMPRES significant progress has been achieved, with main successes in the implementation of GREP and the dissemination of TADinfo. Within the overall aim of eradicating rinderpest by 2010, GREP has largely maintained its targets in its action plan for 1998-2003, and TADinfo represents an important achievement in improving disease reporting. While some good work has been produced in the promotion of contingency planning and emergency preparedness, early reaction has been less successful, requiring closer collaboration with countries. With the exception of tsetse and trypanosomiasis, most non-EMPRES activities have a low profile, and many of FAO's veterinary service activities have been phased out. PAAT has been a useful umbrella for FAO's work on tsetse and trypanosomiasis and should play an important role in the implementation of PATTEC. It is also found that FAO's animal health work addresses gender in an integrated fashion.

vii) The evaluation offers a set of recommendations with a view to encouraging that the limited resources are directed to addressing the needs in areas of FAO's comparative advantage in orienting the future animal health work:

1. FAO should continue to promote the improvement of disease surveillance systems, particularly at national level, through dialogue with partners in the donor community;
2. There is a risk that GREP's successes with the control and eradication of rinderpest may lead to unrealistic expectations of success against other diseases which are more difficult to control;
3. In encouraging emergency prevention planning for transboundary diseases other than rinderpest, while strategic diseases for global or regional elimination can be recognized, for most interventions it may be a more useful criterion, rather than disease lists, to recognize transboundary disease situations and events in which the threat to a country comes from an outside source;
4. AGAH should clarify EMPRES's mandate in order to establish whether it embraces, beyond "emergency prevention", the promotion of improved disease surveillance, epidemiology, control and eradication planning and policies for disease situations with transboundary implications;
5. The shortage of staff in the EMPRES-Livestock group should be redressed, or greater discrimination should be applied to accepting TCP requests. Further, FAO should intensify its efforts to obtain extra-budgetary funding for EMPRES activities;
6. FAO's work on veterinary services may be absorbed within EMPRES with key focus on work related to contingency planning;
7. More concrete arrangements should be made among the various agencies involved in PAAT and PATTEC;
8. FAO should clarify its perceived medium- and long-term role in integrated parasite control and drug resistance and how it intends to interact with other concerned bodies in this area;
9. While FAO's collaborative working arrangements with other agencies have been generally good, there are still potential conflicts of interest with the Organization of African Unity International Bureau for Animal Resources (OAU-IBAR) regarding PAAT and PATTEC activities and this relationship needs to be carefully nurtured;
10. For field activities, the main lessons identified in the review of animal health projects should be taken into account in the formulation and implementation.

I. Introduction

CONTEXT

1. This review of FAO's activities in animal health was undertaken because the orientation of those activities has been modified in recent years, significant Technical Cooperation Programme (TCP) resources have been directed towards animal health, and animal health activities have not been subject to external review. The review focuses on work that has been carried out at the country level, particularly through TCP funding, and also includes an examination of complementary Regular Programme activities under Programme 2.1.3 (Livestock), which have been implemented both at Headquarters and in the Regional Offices.

2. The choice of animal health as a topic for review in 2001 was timely in view of news stories regarding serious concerns about animal diseases in Europe. These included both emerging diseases (bovine spongiform encephalopathy [BSE]) and well-known epidemic diseases (foot-and-mouth disease [FMD]).

3. In accordance with good evaluation practice and the directives of FAO's Governing Bodies, the evaluation received considerable external input through independent experts' participation in the evaluation missions and a subsequent external peer review of the evaluation reports by an independent panel.¹ The comments of the panel accompany this report (see Annex 1), along with a management response to the evaluation (Annex 2).

THE IMPORTANCE OF COOPERATION WITH COUNTRIES ON ANIMAL HEALTH

4. Livestock is growing in importance more rapidly than any other agricultural sector. This expansion is being driven by population and income increases that promote changing dietary habits. In the developing world, smallholders own more than 90 percent of livestock, and livestock contribute to the livelihood of 70 percent of the world's rural poor. It can be expected that higher production will lead to increases in both employment and opportunities for supplementary income earning. Livestock thus have an important and increasing role to play in poverty alleviation. Livestock are an important component of household food security throughout the developing world, where they can provide a source of both savings and off-season income. In many countries, women play a particularly significant role in the production of small ruminants, pigs and poultry.

5. It is clear that sustained livestock production is predicated on the maintenance of healthy animals through containing the livestock diseases and controlling the parasites that reduce productivity. This has been, and will remain, the major challenge that countries face. Great increases in the mobility of people and animals have caused the containment of livestock diseases to become increasingly complex, and international information exchange has become an ever-more critical component, along with countries' capacity to identify diseases quickly and act to contain situations before widespread losses occur.

6. For developing countries, the main problem is managing endemic animal diseases and responding to introduced disease incursions effectively. In many countries, until the 1980s and 1990s, this was largely or exclusively the responsibility of government services. However, tasks were often performed inadequately, frequently favouring large farmers and urban populations, and at a cost level that proved unsustainable when structural adjustment programmes were put in place. The challenge remains the same - ensuring a satisfactory level of animal health - but there is a need to find new mechanisms that rely more extensively on privatized clinical services and farmers themselves. Privatization alone has not led to an improved situation; in fact, there is evidence that the situation has deteriorated in some countries. However, it is not realistic to think that extensive government provision of clinical services remains a viable option, and the identification of effective means to carry out animal disease control remains a major task.

FAO'S ROLE IN ANIMAL HEALTH

7. In response to the challenges faced, FAO sees improved animal health as part of its broader objectives relating to reducing poverty, ensuring food safety and veterinary public health and preserving the integrity of the natural resource base. Within FAO's Strategic Framework for 2000-2015, animal health is expected to contribute primarily to two of the major strategies: Strategy A3 - preparedness for, and effective and sustainable response to, food and agricultural emergencies (especially through addressing the threat of transboundary animal diseases); and Strategy C2 - the adoption of appropriate technology to intensify production systems sustainably and to ensure sufficient supplies of food and agricultural, fishery and forestry goods and services.

8. In addressing these challenges, FAO must take into account the roles and responsibilities of other actors in the field of animal health, at least two of which ought to be mentioned because of their international mandate and scope of operations. FAO has an important partner in the International Office of Epizootics (OIE) in Paris. A major part of OIE's mandate is to inform governmental veterinary services of the occurrence and course of epizootics that could endanger animal or human health. It is also responsible for safeguarding health in world trade. The World Trade Organization's (WTO) Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement) explicitly indicates the use of standards, guidelines and recommendations developed under the auspices of OIE. OIE also provides expertise in animal health through work undertaken by its specialist commissions and working groups, with support from collaborating centres and reference laboratories. The first objective assigned to OIE by the International Agreement of 25 January 1924 was to promote and coordinate research into the surveillance and control of animal diseases throughout the world. A letter of agreement that is currently being renegotiated governs the relationships between FAO and OIE. OIE has statutory responsibility for some important normative activities in animal health, but there are constructive and supportive working relationships between the two organizations, and their roles are largely complementary.

9. At the international level, the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), based in Nairobi, conducts significant research. ILRI works to improve the well-being of people in developing countries by enhancing the diverse and essential contributions that livestock make to smallholder farming. ILRI's livestock health programme currently focuses on the endemic vector-borne haemoparasitic diseases and thus has important links to parts of FAO's work in animal health.

10. Within the institutional architecture for international cooperation in animal health, the options for programme interventions by FAO are quite broad. The vast bulk of FAO's animal health work is implemented under the animal health component of Programme 2.1.3 (Livestock), for which the Animal Health Service (AGAH) of the Animal Production and Health Division (AGA) is responsible.² However, a decision was taken in 1994 to give greater direction to FAO's animal health programme by focusing on transboundary animal diseases through the Emergency Prevention System for Transboundary Animal and Plant Pests and Diseases (EMPRES).³ Although wide in concept, the livestock component of EMPRES focuses on specific aspects of strengthening veterinary services at the country level, and it has four components: early warning, early reaction, enabling research, and coordination. The 1996 EMPRES Expert Consultation advised on a system for the priority rating of diseases and ways of handling them by EMPRES. Accordingly, EMPRES gives priority to transboundary animal diseases (TADs) of strategic importance, which may be subject to global or regional eradication programmes, such as rinderpest, FMD and contagious bovine pleuropneumonia (CBPP); those of tactical importance, which may cause very serious epidemics from time to time but are not at a stage at which they could be considered for global or regional eradication campaigns, such as Rift Valley fever (RVF), lumpy skin disease, peste des petits ruminants (PPR), African swine fever (ASF), and Newcastle disease; and emerging diseases, such as BSE. Efforts on the last two categories of diseases have largely been through field projects funded by TCP.

11. Within EMPRES, the main focus has been on the Global Rinderpest Eradication Programme (GREP), which has the goal of verified world-wide elimination of rinderpest by 2010. This was a wise strategic choice for several reasons: rinderpest is a deadly disease with devastating losses from an outbreak, and thus is greatly feared by farmers; the existence of an effective vaccine of life-long duration means that a concentrated, focused effort on this disease holds out the possibility of eliminating it altogether; and FAO's technical capacity and operational experience make it a good candidate to lead this effort.

12. Although FAO has made the wise strategic decision of focusing on EMPRES activities, it is also continuing its work on parasitic diseases, particularly trypanosomiasis. Vector-borne diseases have the capacity to cross borders and are of concern as a major development issue in many parts of the world, especially Africa. Much of FAO's work in this area is channelled through the Programme Against African Trypanosomiasis (PAAT), a disease that renders large areas of Africa unsuitable for livestock and that has emerged as a significant problem. FAO's work on parasites has become increasingly oriented towards problems of drug resistance, particularly to anthelmintics and acaracides.

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY OF THE EVALUATION

Scope

13. This evaluation focuses on the work of AGAH. Thus, it does not specifically cover the Joint FAO/IAEA Division of Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture's (AGE) work relating to animal health under Programme 2.1.5, although the salient aspects of that work are taken into account. Similarly, although animal health in the broad sense could include the health of fish and productive insects, they too have been excluded.⁴ The evaluation covers work that was ongoing between 1995 and 2001.

14. In 1998, an evaluation of the EMPRES-Livestock programme was carried out. That evaluation took place over a short period (two and a half weeks) and focused on Headquarters-based activities. In designing this present (2001) evaluation, it was felt that the main focus should be the effects and impact of FAO's animal health work at the country level. In most developing countries, the most important determinant has been the presence of projects funded under TCP. However, evaluation missions were asked to assess the overall impact of FAO's work in each country, including Regular Programme activities and, in some cases, other field projects.

15. An evaluation report of the entire EMPRES programme was prepared for the November 2001 FAO Conference purely as an information document. This evaluation draws heavily on that report.

Methodology

16. Two independent external consultants and two members of the FAO Evaluation Service implemented this evaluation. The evaluation began with an information collection and analysis phase, including joint and individual meetings with concerned technical officers in AGAH, which were carried out by the Evaluation Service. This phase was supplemented by briefing sessions between AGAH technical officers and the evaluation teams before they went into the field. The visits covered 15 developing countries in Africa, the Near East and Asia,⁵ and examined 31 discrete TCP project interventions.⁶ Because of the additional time and cost that would have been incurred, and the smaller number of projects involved, Latin America was not included in the field visits.

17. In each of the 15 countries visited, consultations were held with senior officials who were responsible for animal health and with staff who were directly concerned with FAO animal health activities. Where appropriate and applicable, visits were organized for a more in-depth assessment, including interviews with field-level personnel. Additionally, consultations were held with the representatives of partner agencies that deal with animal health (e.g. the Organization of African Unity International Bureau for Animal Resources [OAU-IBAR] and OIE) and other donors (e.g. the European Union [EU]). Each TCP project was given a score by the evaluation missions in order to assess the activity's relevance and priority to national needs and the quality of project formulation and design, implementation, results and follow-up.

18. The outputs of the evaluation exercise were three regional reports (West Africa and the Near East, East and Southern Africa, and Asia), along with a summary report focusing on TCP issues, plus the information document mentioned in paragraph 15. The staff of AGAH and the Technical Cooperation Programme Unit (TCOT) were given the opportunity to comment on all reports before they were put into their final form.

19. The draft evaluation report was reviewed by the external peer panel from 17 to 19 December 2001, and the present version reflects the panel's comments.

II. Overview of Animal Health Work

REGULAR PROGRAMME STRUCTURE

20. The FAO work on animal health that falls under the responsibility of AGAH is divided into three distinct areas:

• infectious diseases (including EMPRES, GREP, the Transboundary Animal Disease Information System [TADinfo] and the Regional Animal Disease and Surveillance Control Network for North Africa, the Middle East and the Arab Peninsula [RADISCON]);
• parasitic diseases (including PAAT); and
• veterinary services.

21. This work structure has been in place since the 1980s.⁷ In addition, the European Commission for the Control of Foot-and-Mouth Disease (EUFMD) and the Regional Animal Production and Health Commission for Asia and the Pacific (APHCA), both of which receive substantial funding from Member Nations, operate under the technical direction of AGA.⁸

22. During the period covered, the programme structure for animal health work was significantly changed on two occasions: a) during a reorganization of the Livestock Programme itself (in 1996-1999); and b) during the FAO-wide introduction of a new programming approach (for the biennium 2000-2001). As a result of change a), animal health work was regrouped in two ways: it became an element of three multidisciplinary livestock production-oriented sub-programmes addressing food security and income-generation, and one sub-programme for livestock information, policy and planning; and it became an element of one sub-programme on transboundary animal diseases, including EMPRES. This meant that, with the exception of work in the EMPRES-related sub-programme, a good part of FAO's animal health work was dispersed among various sub-programmes, and thus not readily identifiable in the main programme. The result of change b) was that the bulk of veterinary work was grouped into two technical projects: 213A6 (Monitoring and Control of Production Limiting and Zoonotic Diseases, including PAAT) and 213A7 (EMPRES-Livestock). ⁹ Throughout these programme changes, EMPRES remained the top priority in FAO's animal health work.

23. Within the programme priority areas, the main types of activities include:

• producing methodologies and guidelines in the areas of programme priorities (through the Regular Programme);
• advising member countries about prediction, assessment and response to animal health problems (mostly through TCP, but also through some Regular Programme and other field projects); and
• serving as a forum for debate on animal health-related issues (through the Regular Programme).

REGULAR PROGRAMME RESOURCES

24. Given the changes in programme structure described in paragraph 22, it is difficult to make a precise estimate of the Regular Programme resources that are devoted to animal health work. Very roughly, however, it can be said that about 45 percent of the Livestock Programme's resources were used on animal health in each biennium: the total allocations for that programme were US$ 18.8 million for 1996-1997, US$ 17.2 million for 1998-1999 and US$ 16.8 million for 2000-2001. In the context of declining resources for the programme as a whole, the share used for core work on transboundary diseases appears to have remained the same or increased slightly during the period. At the same time, resources for work on insect-borne diseases (tsetse and trypanosomiasis), parasitic diseases and drug resistance and veterinary services all tended to decline.

25. AGAH consists of 13 established professional posts. Besides the Service Chief and the Secretary of EUFMD (the latter of whom is externally funded), the Infectious Diseases Group consists of five posts (two at P5 level, two at P4 and one at P3); the Parasitic Diseases Group has four posts (two each at P5 and P4); and Veterinary Services has two posts (one each at P5 and P4). In addition, there are Animal Health Officer posts in the Regional Offices for Asia and the Pacific (P5), Latin America and the Caribbean, and Africa (both P4 - the Africa post deals mostly with trypanosomiasis). Established posts for Animal Health and Production Officers are found (all at P4 level) in the Regional Office for the Near East and the Sub-regional Office for Southern and East Africa.

FIELD PROJECTS

TCP

26. From 1995 until 2000, 90 TCP projects in animal health were approved for a total value of US$ 22.2 million. Those that dealt with FAO's response to a disease outbreak were generally classified as emergency projects and comprised slightly more than half of the total TCP animal health portfolio. The breakdown by region, and by emergency and non-emergency projects, is as shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Numbers of animal health TCP projects approved: 1995-2000

27. Evaluation missions reviewed about one-third of the total project portfolio, as shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Numbers of animal health TCP projects visited by evaluation missions

28. The large majority of field projects are EMPRES-related. All emergency projects are EMPRES-related, and some non-emergency projects are EMPRES projects. Of the 31 projects visited during the evaluation, the composition was as shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Numbers of animal health TCP projects visited by evaluation missions (from the AGAH group)

29. The sample of projects visited reflects quite closely the distribution of projects approved by the AGAH group in the period 1995-2000.

Table 4: Distribution of AGAH group TCP projects: total projects approved and projects visited by missions

Non-TCP

30. AGAH has technical responsibility for only a few non-TCP projects, reflecting a general decline in the FAO Field Programme as a whole. In the period since 1995, 17 non-TCP projects have been approved, for a total value of almost US$ 28.5 million. Of this amount, US$ 21.66 million were dedicated to four activities:

1. a unilateral trust fund (UTF) project in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for strengthening veterinary services (US$ 7.65 million);
2. an Australian-funded project for FMD control in the Philippines (US$ 5.38 million);
3. a veterinary services improvement project in Afghanistan, funded by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (US$ 5.16 million); and
4. support to the Pan African Programme for the Control of Epizootics (PACE) and the Pan-African Rinderpest Campaign (PARC) through the EU (three successive projects for a total of US$ 3.47 million).

_____________________________

1 The members of this independent panel were: Dr. Philippe Vialatte, Principal Administrator, European Commission, DG Development B/4; Dr Jim Pearson, Director, Scientific and Technical Department, International Office of Epizootics (OIE); Dr Subhash Morzaria, Head, Animal Health Programme, International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI); Dr Raja Rafaqat Hussain, Animal Husbandry Commissioner, Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock, Pakistan; Dr Stuart Hargreaves, Director of Veterinary Services, Ministry of Lands, Agriculture and Rural Resettlement, Zimbabwe; and Dr. Tony Forman, independent consultant and participant in missions to East and Southern Africa and Asia.

2 The application of nuclear techniques to livestock diseases is handled by the Joint FAO/International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Division of Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture (AGE) under Programme 2.1.5 (Agricultural Applications of Isotopes and Biotechnology).

3 The EMPRES programme comprises two components: one for livestock (implemented mainly by AGAH), and one for plant pests (implemented by the Plant Protection Service [AGPP]).

4 With regard to productive insects, a TCP thematic evaluation on apiculture and sericulture was conducted in 1998 and its results subsequently reported to the Programme Committee.

5 Afghanistan, Benin, Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, the Lao People's Democratic Republic, Mali, Pakistan, South Africa, the United Republic of Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Uganda, Viet Nam and Zimbabwe. Iraq was also included on the original list, but technical reasons made it impossible to carry out that mission.

6 Eight projects in West Africa and the Near East; 14 in East and Southern Africa; and nine in Asia.

7 However, when EMPRES was created, work on parasites was separated from work on infectious diseases and grouped together with work on insect-borne diseases.

8 APHCA receives technical direction from both AGAH and the Animal Production Service (AGAP).

9 For the 2002-2003 biennium, animal health work is grouped into three main technical projects: 213A7 (EMPRES-Livestock), 213A9 (Environmental Management of Insect-borne Diseases) and 213A6 (Veterinary Public Health Management and Food and Feed Safety), although it also comprises an element in several other entities.