The World Bankdocuments.worldbank.org/curated/en/...document of the world bank report no: 77534-glb project paper for small retf grant (us$ 3.120 million equivalent) to the world organisation

Document of

The World Bank

Report No: 77534-GLB

PROJECT PAPER

FOR

SMALL RETF GRANT

(US$ 3.120 MILLION EQUIVALENT)

TO THE

WORLD ORGANISATION FOR ANIMAL HEALTH (OIE)

FOR A

National Human and Animal Health Systems Assessment Tools and Bridges

April 22, 2013

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS

Currency Unit = US$

FISCAL YEAR

Jan 1 – Dec 31

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AHIF

CDC

DGF

FAO

IHR

OIE

PAHO

PVS

WAHWF

WHO

Avian and Human Influenza Facility

Centers for Disease Control (US)

Development Grant Facility

Food and Agriculture Organization

International Health Regulation

World Organisation for Animal Health

Pan American Health Organization (Regional Office of the WHO)

Performance of Veterinary Services

World Animal Health and Welfare Fund

World Health Organization

Regional Vice President: Rachel Kyte

Sector Director: Juergen Voegele

Sector Manager: Sari Soderstrom

Task Team Leader: Francois Le Gall

COUNTRY

Project Name

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. STRATEGIC CONTEXT .................................................................................................7

A. Country Context ............................................................................................................ 7

B. Sectoral and Institutional Context ................................................................................. 7

C. Higher Level Objectives to which the Project Contributes .......................................... 9

II. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES ..............................................................10

A. PDO............................................................................................................................. 10

B. Project Beneficiaries ................................................................................................... 10

C. PDO Level Results Indicators ..................................................................................... 11

III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................11

A. Project Components .................................................................................................... 11

B. Project Financing ........................................................................................................ 14

Instrument ......................................................................................................................... 14

Project Cost and Financing ............................................................................................... 14

IV. IMPLEMENTATION .....................................................................................................15

A. Institutional and Implementation Arrangements ........................................................ 15

B. Results Monitoring and Evaluation ............................................................................ 16

C. Sustainability............................................................................................................... 16

V. KEY RISKS AND MITIGATION MEASURES (if required by concept note) ........16

A. Risk Ratings Summary Table ..................................................................................... 16

B. Overall Risk Rating Explanation ................................................................................ 17

VI. APPRAISAL SUMMARY ..............................................................................................17

DATA SHEET

World


Small RETF Grant Project Paper .

World

AES

.

Basic Information

Date: April 22, 2013 Sectors: AES, HNP

Country Director: Themes: Health – Animal Production

Sector Manager/Director: Sari Soderstrom / Juergen Voegele EA Category: C

Project ID: P133572

Instrument: RETF Team Leader(s): Francois Le Gall

.

Recipient OIE (World Organisation for Animal Health)

Executing Agency: OIE

Contact: Alain Dehove Title: Coordinator of the World Animal Health and Welfare Fund

Telephone No.: +33 (0)1 44 15 19 63 Email: [email protected] .

Project Implementation Period: Start Date: April 30, 2013 End Date: April 30, 2014

Expected Effectiveness Date: April 30, 2013

Expected Closing Date: April 30, 2014 .

Project Financing Data(US$M)

[ ] Loan [x] Grant [ ] Other

[ ] Credit [ ] Guarantee

For Loans/Credits/Others

Total Project Cost : 3.12 Total Bank Financing : 3.12

Total Cofinancing : Financing Gap : 0 .

Financing Source Amount(US$M)

BORROWER/RECIPIENT

IBRD

IDA: New

IDA: Recommitted

Others AHI Facility Trust Funds US$M 3.12

Financing Gap

Total US$M 3.12 .

Expected Disbursements (in USD Million)

Fiscal Year 13

Annual 3.12

Cumulative 3.12 .

Project Development Objective(s)

The objective of this Grant is to support the development and refinement of harmonized operational assessment tools and

guide by leading international organizations on human and animal health. This would contribute to increase capacity of

countries to address priority diseases, including zoonoses and pandemic threat, and build synergies among human and animal

health systems.

Those tools and guide based on international standards and regulations would have a strong focus on cross-sectoral activities

and cooperation areas to effectively address key diseases and issues causing negative public health impacts. The joint

WHO/OIE operational guide would be developed using experience from 2 to 3 pilot countries. Such tools and guide would

then be available to all countries in all regions, as well as to donors and partners. They would allow benchmarking human and

animal health system performance and guide the development of appropriate strategies and programs based on sound analyses

to sustainably strengthen systems and optimally address national cross-cutting human and animal health priorities..

.

Components

Component Name Cost (USD Millions)

Development of tools for further deployment and implementation of WHO

IHR

750,200

Refinement of OIE PVS Pathway tools 1,000,000

Development of an operational Guide for countries on Good Governance

of human and animal health services

1,169,800

Management, coordination, monitoring and evaluation 200,000

.

Compliance

Policy

Does the project depart from the CAS in content or in other significant respects? Yes [ ] No [x ] .

Does the project require any exceptions from Bank policies? Yes [ ] No [x ]

Have these been approved by Bank management? Yes [ ] No [ ]

Is approval for any policy exception sought from the Board? Yes [ ] No [ ]

Does the project meet the Regional criteria for readiness for implementation? Yes [ ] No [ ] .

Safeguard Policies Triggered by the Project Yes No

Environmental Assessment OP/BP 4.01 x

Natural Habitats OP/BP 4.04 x

Forests OP/BP 4.36 x

Pest Management OP 4.09 x

Physical Cultural Resources OP/BP 4.11 x

Indigenous Peoples OP/BP 4.10 x

Involuntary Resettlement OP/BP 4.12 x

Safety of Dams OP/BP 4.37 x

Projects on International Waters OP/BP 7.50 x

Projects in Disputed Areas OP/BP 7.60 x

.

Legal Covenants

Name Recurrent Due Date Frequency

Description of Covenant

.

Team Composition

Bank Staff

Name Title Specialization Unit UPI

Francois Le Gall Adviser Team Leader AES 85554

Maryse B. Pierre-Louis Lead health specialist HDNHE 20855

Olga Jonas Economic adviser HDNHE 15263

Brian Bedard Sr Livestock specialist ECSAR 311011

Caroline Plante Livestock specialist AES 399637

Madhavan Balachandran Sr Financial management

specialist

FEUCA 200947

Jay Pascual Counsel LEGCF 304441

Non Bank Staff

Name Title Office Phone City

Seyoum Solomon Procurement specialist (301) 330-4740 Washington, DC .

Locations

Country First Administrative

Division

Location Planned Actual Comments

World .

7

I. STRATEGIC CONTEXT

A. Country Context

1. In order to protect people and livestock against major health threats with the potential to

spread internationally, to adversely affect human and economic development and interfere with

international trade and movements, countries need to have in place adequate systems to

effectively prevent and control infectious diseases, including zoonotic diseases. Knowing that

around 60% of all human diseases and around 75% of emerging infectious diseases are zoonotic

(transmissible from animals to humans), not only human and animal health systems need to be

strong, but they also have to work in close partnership to address common issues as effectively

and efficiently as possible. This will reduce the risks of health and income shocks caused by

unchecked disease outbreaks, including the potentially catastrophic global impacts of pandemics.

It is estimated that together, 56 zoonoses are responsible for an estimated 2.7 human million

deaths and around 2.5 billion cases of human illness a year. For the top 13 zoonoses, the figures

give 2.2 million human deaths and 2.4 billion cases of illness (source DFID 2012). The WB

estimated that a severe pandemic could cost $3 trillion globally, comparable to the 2008 global

financial crisis.

2. Strengthening surveillance, reporting and response capacity are common requirements for

both human and animal health services, and form part of international standards developed by

the WHO (World Health Organization) and the OIE (World Organisation for Animal Health) in

the International Health Regulation (IHR) and in the Terrestrial and Aquatic Codes and Manuals

respectively.

3. However, many countries, in particular developing countries, continue to face challenges

in fulfilling minimum core requirements developed by WHO and OIE and fail to implement

efficient strategies and programs due to inadequate structures and resources. Strengthening

governance of such systems is therefore essential for countries to be able to address their

weaknesses in a sustainable manner and to reduce risks to animal and human health, economies,

trade, nutrition, food safety, and food security. Such risks cross borders and if not addressed, can

impact entire regions, continents, and the world. Assessments of such systems are also key for

donors and partners because the efficiency and sustainability of the projects and programs they

support critically depend on the quality of governance of national systems. Appropriate tools and

guidance are needed for individual countries to evaluate objectively their situation and address

deficiencies and to comply with international requirements. As a matter of fact those

international organizations are the best placed to provide guidance to countries to achieve these

common global objectives and the WHO and OIE have joined forces in this effort, using a “One

Health”1 approach.

B. Sectoral and Institutional Context

4. Two main global institutions (WHO and OIE) are responsible for international standards

affecting human and animal health.

1 One Health is a framework for addressing disease risks at the interfaces between humans, animals and the

environment. To reduce these risks, including those of a pandemic, countries need high quality systems for

veterinary and human health and enhanced collaboration among these systems.

8

5. WHO is the international organization establishing public health regulations which are

laid down in the IHR (2005). According to this document, countries should have developed,

strengthened and maintained no later than 5 years from its entry into force (15 June 2007) the

capacity to detect, assess, notify and report events in accordance with these Regulations, and the

capacity to respond promptly and effectively to public health risks and public health emergencies

of international concern. WHO established a list of minimum core public health capacities to

guide effective implementation of the IHR, and provided a checklist and indicators to countries

so that they could assess their degree of compliance. Acknowledging difficulties faced by

countries to set up effective systems complying with international requirements, the WHO may

accept a two year extension on the mandatory timeline, should countries deliver a convincing

work plan. In this context, WHO plans to further develop operational tools for countries to help

them address gaps identified and for planning and budgeting purposes to meet their obligations

in the development and maintenance of IHR core capacities in the area of infectious disease

surveillance and response. WHO would in particular readjust the WHO/IHR current capacity

assessment tool to i) better include zoonoses in the core public health performance assessment

and ii) propose a similar operational approach as OIE based on review of capacities, strategies to

address gaps and costs associated.

6. In accordance with the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary

measures (SPS Agreement), the OIE is the international organization responsible for developing

standards, guidelines and recommendations for animal health and zoonoses. Those are mainly

laid down in the Terrestrial and Aquatic Animals Codes and Manuals. In order to achieve the

sustainable improvement of national Veterinary Services' compliance with those standards, in

particular on the quality of Veterinary Services, the OIE has developed the Performance of

Veterinary Services (PVS) Pathway, which includes different tools for countries to objectively

assess and address the main weaknesses of their Veterinary Services. The tools include, in

particular, the OIE PVS Tool (qualitative assessment of level of compliance with standards on

quality of Veterinary Services), the PVS Gap Analysis tool (qualitative and quantitative

assessment of priorities and investments needed to address identified key gaps), and others to

determine the scope and costs of reform and upgrading and, for example, the modernization of

veterinary legislation. A pilot PVS One Health tool has been developed that would be integrated

into the OIE PVS tool and manual for assessors through the project. Many countries (120) have

already requested OIE’s support to conduct these evaluations and have benefitted from the

program, but those tools need continuous refinement and updates to take recent developments

into account, including strengthening cooperation with other national authorities, public health

services in particular.

7. These international organizations responsible for setting such standards are committed to

develop and expand appropriate tools and collaborate across the sectors, where appropriate, to

support countries to improve public health and animal health globally. During the last decade,

dialogue amongst international organizations and joint events to address common topics have

grown continuously. In a context of globalized world, it is essential that such cooperation and

synergies be also built at national level to best address existing and (re)emerging threats of both

national and international importance.

8. The World Bank has been actively involved and instrumental in pushing this agenda

forward. It had a catalytic role at institutional level through its continuous dialogue with the

international and regional organizations involved and its pro-active participation in international

9

fora on human health, animal health and “One Health”. Recognizing the global public good

character of the program developed by the OIE since 2005 to strengthen the governance of

Veterinary Services worldwide, the World Bank was the first organization to contribute through

a 3 year DGF Grant (2006-2008) to the OIE World Animal Health and Welfare Fund (“OIE

World Fund”) established to finance projects supporting the achievement of this goal. This

helped leverage other donors’ contributions and led to a successful take off of the program.

Building on this experience, and taking advantage of the governance structure of the OIE Fund,

the project would use the same OIE institutional framework to include WHO above mentioned

initiatives and foster cross-sectoral work.

9. The World Bank was also a key actor in the global coordinated response towards H5N1

highly pathogenic avian influenza since 2005, and helped to frame a multisectoral approach

under the GPAI (Global Program for Avian Influenza Control and Human Pandemic

Preparedness and Response), building on OIE/FAO and WHO strategies, that brought to bear

international expertise in human health and animal health, analytical and technical support, and

development communication to underpin comprehensive and integrated country-led responses to

HPAI that were implemented in 72 operations totaling $1.3 billion.

10. At corporate level, it has been a strong advocate of systemic and cross-sectoral

approaches: e.g. increasingly, pre-operational tools like PVS Pathway reports have been utilized

and provided strong ground for World Bank’s project preparation, as they are fully owned by

countries and “certified” by the reference organization. The World Bank has also developed

various cross-sectoral projects, often building on Avian Influenza projects achievements, e.g. in

Central Asia, Eastern Europe and South Asia, promoting a “One Health” approach, using

existing reference tools (PVS Pathway) and developing others (in particular a public health

assessment tool used in a Central Asia project and developed in cooperation with CDC and

PAHO) to address country priorities. This practical experience would be shared within this

project, be it to further develop the tools or to pilot them. Strategically, the World Bank has

recently developed policy documents such as the recent Public Health Policy Note that will be an

important vehicle fostering interactions within the World Bank at the human and animal

interface and an important element to ensure operationalization of this Grant going forward. To

that aim the World Bank would take full advantage of the products developed through this Grant

to develop its own corporate operational framework on human and animal health governance that

would, in the spirit of GPAI, target task teams and guide them in building human and animal

health projects.

C. Higher Level Objectives to which the Project Contributes

11. The project would contribute to strengthen governance of national veterinary and public

health services needed to improve human and animal health globally. This would ultimately

reduce the overall social and economic burden of existing and future diseases and contribute to

improved livelihoods and sustainable development.

10

II. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES

A. PDO

12. The objective of this Grant is to support the development and refinement of harmonized

operational assessment tools and guide by leading international organizations on human and

animal health. This would contribute to increase capacity of countries to address priority

diseases, including zoonoses and pandemic threat, and build synergies among human and animal

health systems.

13. Those tools2 and guide based on international standards and regulations would have a

strong focus on cross-sectoral activities and cooperation areas to effectively address key diseases

and issues causing negative public health impacts. The joint WHO/OIE operational guide would

be developed using experience from 2 to 3 pilot countries. Such tools and guide would then be

available to all countries in all regions, as well as to donors and partners. They would allow

benchmarking human and animal health system performance and guide the development of

appropriate strategies and programs based on sound analyses to sustainably strengthen systems

and optimally address national cross-cutting human and animal health priorities.

B. Project Beneficiaries

14. The ultimate beneficiaries would be the countries that would be able to use harmonized

and internationally recognized tools and methodologies developed by the relevant international

agencies to objectively assess their situation and evaluate necessary investments needed to

progressively reach international standards requirements within their national and regional

strategies framework. The project would also help build synergies between human and animal

health services to address cross-sectoral public health issues in the countries using the tools and

guide.

15. The international organizations mandated for human and animal health would benefit

from the project by supporting their efforts to jointly addressing weaknesses in national

veterinary and public health services, through the development, piloting and implementation of

specific complementary tools and operational guide at the animal-human interface.

16. The international as well as regional donors and technical partners community would also

benefit from the project. Implementation of common tools and methodologies in countries would

provide them with reliable, comprehensive and comparable elements needed to inform project

design and tailor their technical and financial support, aligning national priorities and strategies

with global public goods and international standards requirements.

2 OIE has developed the OIE PVS Tool (qualitative assessment of level of compliance with standards on quality of Veterinary

Services) and the PVS Gap Analysis tool (qualitative and quantitative assessment of investments needed to address identified key

gaps) that would be further refined. The pilot PVS One Health tool will be integrated into the Manual for PVS assessors. WHO

would readjust the WHO/IHR current capacity assessment tool to i) better include zoonoses in the core public health performance

assessment and ii) propose a similar operational approach as OIE based on review of capacities, strategies to address gaps and

costs associated.

11

C. PDO Level Results Indicators

17. Due to the short duration of the project, only outputs would be measurable. They would

contribute to outcome that could be monitored after project closure in particular through the OIE

World Fund Steering Committee chaired by the World Bank. Outputs expected under this project

would include :

- Improved harmonization of WHO and OIE tools and common guide

- Better coordination and collaboration of human and animal health sectors at national and

institutional levels

- Better visibility and awareness of human and animal health systems importance and processes

to support them

III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

A. Project Components

(a) Component 1 : Development of tools for further deployment and

implementation of WHO IHR

18. The development objective of Component 1 of the program is to support the development

of analytical tools on human health systems. These tools would help countries and the WHO

evaluate main gaps and identify ways and costs to address them in a sustainable manner. This

would contribute to the global improvement of human health system governance and in

particular implementation of IHR requirements.

19. A WHO costing tool prototype would be developed, based on a detailed review of the

operational capacities to deliver the IHR mandatory outcomes, and necessary investments needed

to achieve and sustain expected capacity levels using an approach comparable to the PVS

Pathway.

20. A readjustment of the WHO/IHR assessment tool would also be made to better approach

zoonoses in the core public health performance assessment, to better consider the

outputs/outcomes of the PVS Pathway missions at country level, and to propose a similar Gap

Analysis approach based on the review of capacities, strategies to be improved and the

corresponding costs associated. Additionally, specific activities conducted by WHO would be

reviewed and improved to better address the human-animal interface; this includes (i) the review

of the WHO Laboratory Assessment Tool, (ii) antimicrobial resistance (AMR) laboratory based

surveillance, and (iii) laboratory quality management system.

21. Workshops and Trainings for WHO experts in the regions would be needed for these

revisions. These tools would be validated by WHO with their regional offices.

22. Participation of WHO experts in OIE PVS Pathway missions would ensure mutual

understanding of processes to strengthen systems and foster cross-sectoral cooperation.

(b) Component 2 : Refinement of OIE PVS Pathway tools

23. The development objective of Component 2 of the program is to support the refinement

of the tools developed by the OIE to strengthen animal health services. These tools include in

12

particular the OIE PVS Tool designed to evaluate the level of compliance of Veterinary Services

with OIE international standards (qualitative assessment) and the PVS Gap Analysis Tool which

identifies the strategic priorities for the country and related investments needed to reach a

defined level of advancement (qualitative and quantitative assessment). Additionally, a specific

tool still in draft form aimed at addressing the laboratory sector would be further developed.

24. More emphasis would be placed on the tools and attached methodologies on cross-sector

areas of collaboration with the human and environmental sectors (starting with wildlife aspects,

to be later expanded based on the recommendations of the concept note on environment

integration to the work on human/animal interface developed under the project) to better address

the interface. The specific pilot PVS One Health Tool which has already been tested by the OIE

in three pilot countries would be further refined and fully integrated into the Manual for PVS

Assessors to provide countries with possible in-depth evaluation of Veterinary Services focused

more on public health issues at the human-animal interface. The new PVS Gap Analysis Tool

(2013 Edition) would also be aligned with this revised version of the PVS Manual. This revised

PVS Manual would be used systematically when carrying out new initial PVS evaluations or

regular PVS Pathway follow-up evaluations to monitor progress made and to conduct a more

detailed review of the public health functions of Veterinary Services.

25. An OIE PVS Gap Analysis tool on Veterinary Laboratories is currently prepared at a

pilot scale. This tool prototype, which aims at complementing the main OIE PVS Gap Analysis

Tool and addressing the management strategies and networking systems of the veterinary

laboratory services, would be further developed and tested to identify best option(s) to improve

the functioning of the Veterinary Laboratory system in meeting the needs of the National

Veterinary Services and to comply with international standards. The OIE PVS Gap Analysis tool

on Veterinary Laboratories would complement the WHO Laboratory Assessment Tool and vice

versa.

26. Training of PVS Pathway experts and staff of the respective organizations would ensure

full awareness of tools improvements, and the adequate implementation of such tools in

countries focusing more the added public health issues at the human-animal interface, as well as

capacity to advocate for optimum cross sector work to address diseases and issues of common

interest.

27. The OIE would continue to engage countries in the implementation of the PVS Pathway

as a continuous process in order to sustainably improve the compliance of Veterinary Services

with international standards of quality. This would involve follow-up missions in any country

requesting such support to the OIE, using the most updated tools and methodologies.

28. Participation of OIE experts in WHO IHR missions would ensure mutual understanding

of processes to strengthen systems and foster cross-sectoral cooperation.

29. A workshop would be organized with OIE and World Bank experts to explore how to

better use the outputs of PVS Pathway missions at country level and to prepare a document

facilitating the preparation of projects and investments at country level on the basis of these

outputs. Such workshop would build on existing PVS Gap Analysis mission reports as well as

OIE and World Bank task teams feedback to facilitate the incorporation of PVS Gap Analysis

missions’ outputs into World Bank project design. Such process could later be replicated with

WHO once implementation of their tools at country level would be at a more advanced stage.

13

(c) Component 3 : Development of an operational guide for countries on good

Governance of human and animal health services

30. The development objective of Component 3 of the program is to prepare an operational

guide for countries highlighting ways to improve national veterinary and public health services

governance, and identify bridges between them. In the context of PVS and IHR sustainable

capacity building activities, the joint WHO/OIE Guide would provide all relevant information on

key animal health and human health requirements, standards and good governance principles,

references documents, processes and methodologies available to assess systems and address

deficiencies. This document would attempt to identify main possible “bridge points” between

animal health services (Veterinary Services) and human health services and outline when and

how the parties responsible might jointly identify and strategize on their national priorities to

“bridge” and therefore improve governance related to the identified priority areas. The Guide

could be used by countries to support the preparation of investments at country level or by the

World Bank in conjunction with its forthcoming operational framework to develop projects

31. The Guide would be composed in particular of WHO and OIE comprehensive operational

manuals that would clarify how to roll out the above described tools of WHO and OIE

(components 1 and 2) and sustain the coordination of efforts and efficient use of resources. These

documents would benefit from previous experiences conducted at country and regional level.

They would be validated by both organizations and would be disseminated and explained to the

countries.

32. The preparation of these manuals and Guide would require the organization of national

workshops in at least 3 pilot countries in 2 regions (Eastern Europe and South and East Asia –

see table 1). Taking stock of the outcomes of the relevant Stone Mountain Workgroups and of

the Central Asia One Health Project carried out by the World Bank, these workshops would

foresee contributions mainly from WHO and OIE experts from HQ and regional levels and

would include the participation of World Bank experts. The participation of those pilot countries

would provide the opportunity to share their views and results from the assessments conducted in

respectively the human health (IHR monitoring) and animal health (PVS pathway missions)

sectors. In order to guaranty optimal return from experience, pilot countries would be selected

among countries that are relatively advanced in the implementation of the PVS Pathway

missions and/or the IHR assessments, that have confirmed an interest in the work at the human-

animal interface (One Health approach) and/or in which World Bank projects are under

preparation on the basis of the recommendations of the PVS Pathway and IHR assessments.

Table 1. Candidate Countries for Pilot Assessments under this Project AHI Facility

EC Trust Fund window

East & South Asia Window (TF070533)

Countries:

Eastern Europe Window

(TF070541) Countries

World Bank Region East Asia and Pacific

Region (EAP)

South Asia Region

(SAR)

Europe and Central Asia

Region (ECA)

Eligibility under Trust

Fund Window

Cambodia

China

Indonesia

Laos

Malaysia

Mongolia

Afghanistan

Bangladesh

Bhutan

India

Maldives

Nepal

Armenia

Azerbaijan

Belarus

Georgia

Moldova

Russia

14

33. Regular consultation with the World Bank would take place during the development

process of the Guide to ensure that it would ultimately be relevant not only to the countries but

also to the World Bank that would use the Grant outputs to develop its operational framework for

task teams wishing to prepare projects in countries to strengthen animal and human health

systems and improve their collaboration. Although the final version of the Guide may not be

available by the end of the project, feedback and lessons learned from the workshops would

provide valuable elements for the development of an intermediary framework/concept note that

would serve as a basis to finalize the Guide.

34. The project would also contribute to the preparation of a document establishing various

options on how to further work and integrate the environment sector in the assessments and

coordination activities to address the animal-human-ecosystems interfaces triangle.

35. In order inform a large audience of public health, agriculture and environment specialists

of the World Bank, a final workshop would be organized to explain and widely disseminate

project outputs. This would ensure a full understanding of existing global and corporate

strategies to strengthen governance of human and animal health systems as well as refined or

newly developed tools available to support project preparation and design. This workshop would

involve OIE and WHO senior staff and experts involved in project implementation, World Bank

anchor and regional operational staff as well as European Commission representatives.

(d) Component 4 : Management, coordination, monitoring and evaluation

36. The development objective of Component 4 would be to ensure the overall management

of the program. This would include planning, monitoring, coordination, communication and

reporting activities. Visibility rules of Donors and partners concerned would be taken into

consideration.

37. This Component would also include an independent external audit of the program.

B. Project Financing

Instrument

38. The project would be financed through a Grant from two windows (East and South Asia

and Eastern Europe) of the European Commission Avian and Human Influenza Trust Fund.

Project Cost and Financing

39. The total project cost would be US$3.12 million.

Myanmar

Philippines

Thailand

Vietnam

Pakistan

Sri Lanka

Ukraine

15

Project Components Project cost Grant Financing % Financing

1. Development of tools for the

further deployment and

implementation of the WHO IHR

2. Refinement of OIE PVS

Pathway tools

3. Development of an operational

Guide for countries on Good

Governance of human and animal

health services

4. Management, Coordination,

evaluation, monitoring and

evaluation

Total Baseline Costs

Physical contingencies

Price contingencies

750,200

1,000,000

1,169,800

200,000

750,200

1,000,000

1,169,800

200,000

100

100

100

100

Total Project Costs

Interest During Implementation

Front-End Fees

Total Financing Required

3,120,000

3,120,000

3,120,000

3,120,000

100

100

IV. IMPLEMENTATION

A. Institutional and Implementation Arrangements

40. This project would be implemented by the OIE (World Organisation for Animal Health)

and WHO (World Health Organization). The OIE, as recipient of the Grant will be held

accountable for the whole project implementation. Component 1 would be implemented by

WHO, component 2 would be implemented by the OIE, and components 3 and 4 would be

implemented by both the OIE and WHO.

41. In order to clarify financial flow of funds and disbursement conditions, monitoring and

evaluation, as well as reporting requirements and mechanisms, the two organizations would sign

a subsidiary agreement that will be reflected in the Grant Agreement. In particular, WHO

activities and expenditures would be reported to the OIE and the OIE would incorporate these

elements in their report to the World Bank.

42. A detailed budget attached in annex 3 and a simplified procurement plan will have been

established and approved before project starts.

16

B. Results Monitoring and Evaluation

43. The OIE would send to the World Bank a 6 monthly report, within 30 days after the end

of the period. As the project duration would be very short (around 1 year), the second report

would correspond to a final report.

44. An external financial audit would be conducted at the end of the project and the report

would be submitted to the World Bank within 6 months from the Grant closing date.

45. Supervision would be conducted as desk review. If the risk assessed would change during

such review, a field mission would be conducted and reported.

C. Sustainability

46. There is no sustainability issue as the activities developed through the Grant would

continue to be supported and developed by the 2 international organizations involved as part of

their global support to their member states.

V. KEY RISKS AND MITIGATION MEASURES (IF REQUIRED BY CONCEPT

NOTE)

A. Risk Ratings Summary Table

Stakeholder Risk Risk Rating Mitigation measures

Implementing Agency Risk

Capacity Low

Governance Low

Project Risk

Design Moderate Two organizations would be jointly and

equally involved in the implementation of the

project activities. Procedures would be

established between the OIE and WHO in

order to clarify respective responsibilities and

activities for this project, including financial

and procurement management, as well as

monitoring and reporting

Social and Environmental Low

Program and Donor Low

Delivery Monitoring and Sustainability Low

Other : Timeframe Substantial The impossibility to extend the closing date

of the AHIF will place a major time

constraint on both organizations. Detailed

prior consultations and strong commitment of

WHO and OIE to carry out these activities,

that would be continued even after project

closure, would help move forward as rapidly

as possible. The task team together with the

Recipient and WHO have discussed all

deliverables and assigned for each of them a

17

completion stage (initiated, advanced draft,

completed).

Overall Implementation Risk Moderate

B. Overall Risk Rating Explanation

47. The international organizations involved (OIE and WHO) have well established

organizational, financial and reporting procedures. They have concluded cooperation agreements

with many other international and regional organizations and have long been implementing

capacity building projects globally with proven efficacy. Activities supported by the Grant would

be sustainable as they would be continuously embedded into those organizations technical

support programs and continuously improved in the interest of countries and their developing

partners.

VI. APPRAISAL SUMMARY

48. All economic studies available concur to say that prevention is far less costly than response

to disease outbreaks. The recent World Bank report, People, Pathogens and Our Planet: The

Economics of One Health (Vol 2- June 2012) explains in particular that benefits far exceed costs

of One Health investments in all plausible scenarios: for instance, if the international community

invests [in One Health systems] at the upper end of the range (US$3.4 billion per year), the

annual expected rate of return would be between 44 % and 71 % (corresponding to, respectively,

half or all mild pandemics being prevented). The World Bank also financed studies conducted by

the OIE in 2006 and 2007 including on prevention versus outbreak costs that made similar

demonstrations. Good governance is key to ensure optimally functioning national human and

animal health systems, able to rapidly detect and respond to emerging or reemerging diseases

wherever they occur and to ensure a high sanitary status level through appropriate prevention and

control policies. To build sustainable systems in line with international standards, countries need

to objectively identify their strengths and weaknesses and evaluate and cost their needs to

address gaps. The project would support WHO and OIE, the 2 reference international

organizations dealing with human and animal health respectively to develop and advance IHR

(International Health Regulations ) and PVS (Performance of Veterinary Services) -related tools

and processes in order for countries to be able to objectively assess their situation in terms of

compliance with human and animal health regulations and standards and to invest to ensure

sustainable improvement of human and animal health, including through joint efforts where

relevant. Activities supported by the project would mainly include (i) international experts work

to develop the respective tools and the joint operational guide; (ii) trainings and workshops to get

feed-back from the regions and countries on the proposed tools and approaches and to ensure a

broad and common understanding of WHO and OIE program to strengthen governance of public

health and veterinary services globally; and (iii) in-country missions to test and refine the tools

being developed. Products developed through this Grant would benefit both countries and donors

and partners, which would be able to optimize their investments and eventually reduce costs

through improved prevention and control of human and animal diseases.

49. The OIE would be the recipient of the Grant and would implement defined activities with the

WHO according to an agreed financial plan. Procurement plan and guidance in line with the

18

World Bank policies would be followed by the OIE. A subsidiary agreement signed between the

OIE and WHO would establish responsibilities and detailed conditions regarding financial,

procurement and reporting issues for both organizations. No issues were identified with regard to

financial or procurement aspects. This project would not trigger any safeguard policies.

50. The ORAF is attached in annex 2 and budget in annex 3.

19

Annex 1: Results Framework and Monitoring

World: National Human and Animal Health Systems Assessment Tools and Bridges

Project Development Objective (PDO):

The objective of this Grant is to support the development and refinement of harmonized operational assessment tools and guide by

leading international organizations on human and animal health. This would contribute to increase capacity of countries to address

priority diseases, including zoonoses and pandemic threat, and build synergies among human and animal health systems.

PDO Level

Results

Indicators* Co

re

Unit of

Measure Baseline

Cumulative Target Values**

Frequency Data Source/

Methodology

Responsibility

for Data

Collection

Description (indicator

definition etc.) YR 1

Indicator One:

Improved

harmonization of

WHO and OIE

tools and common

guide

documents No linkages

nor common

documents

between

WHO and

OIE tools

WHO/IHR and OIE/PVS Pathway

tools better integrating cross sectoral

issues

Documents

available

WHO and OIE IHR assessment tool

revised to better address

zoonoses (document

finalized).

Costing tool document

in advanced draft form

(prototype).

Laboratories assessment

tool reviewed to better

address interface with

Vet. Labs in particular

on zoonotic diseases

New version of the (i)

PVS evaluation tool,

PVE Gap Analysis tool

and related Manuels of

the assessor (ed. 2013)

finalized and published.

PVS Gap Analysis for

Vet. Laboratories

document in advanced

draft form. Guide in

advanced draft form ;

OIE and WHO manuels

(part of the Guide)

finalized ; concept note

for the Guide finalized

Indicator Two:

Better coordination

and collaboration

of human and

documents No joint

documents

between

WHO and

Joint documents developed and

endorsed by both organizations at

international level and joint

documents established in pilot

Documents

available

OIE WHO and OIE manuals

and concept note for the

Guide ; results of pilot

countries workshops

20

animal health

sectors at national

and institutional

levels

OIE aiming at

improving

human and

animal health

systems

countries by human and animal

health services.

Indicator Three:

Better visibility

and awareness of

human and animal

health systems

importance and

processes to

support them

number of

people

reached

No

information

on joint WHO

and OIE

strategies and

tools

disseminated

Number of WHO, OIE, countries,

WB, EC staff informed/trained

Document

available

WHO and OIE List of meetings,

trainings and workshops

and participants.

Evaluation forms of

knowledge gained

INTERMEDIATE RESULTS

Intermediate Result (Component One): Development of tools for further deployment and implementation of WHO IHR

Intermediate Result

indicator 1:

WHO regional staff

trained

Number No staff

trained

At least 60 WHO staff trained List of

participants to

the

workshops

WHO

Intermediate Result

indicator 2: WHO

experts participating

in OIE PVS

missions

Number No WHO staff participating in

OIE PVS

missions

At least 10 WHO staff involved in PVS missions

List of staff

having

participated in

OIE PVS

missions

WHO

Intermediate Result (Component Two): Improvement of OIE PVS Pathway tools

Intermediate Result

indicator 3: OIE

PVS trainings

organized and

experts trained

Number No training

organized on

the new versions of the

tools

2 training organized and at least 30

experts trained per session

List of

participants to

the trainings

OIE

Intermediate Result

indicator 4: PVS

pathway missions

carried out using the

revised PVS tools

Number No missions carried out

using revised

tools

At least 10 missions carried out List of

missions

OIE

Intermediate Result

indicator 5:

Linkages between

PVS pathway

Document No existing

instruction on best possible

use of PVS

Workshop minutes and recommendations

available

Workshop

minutes and

recommendati

ons to

OIE

21

missions results and

World Bank project

development

facilitated

pathway

missions results by the WB task

teams

facilitate

operationaliza

tion of PVS

pathway

missions

results

Intermediate Result

indicator 6: OIE

experts participating

in WHO/IHR

missions

Number No OIE staff participating in

WHO IHR

missions

At least 10 OIE staff or experts involved in PVS missions

List of staff

having

participated in

WHO/IHR

missions

OIE

Intermediate Result (Component Three): Development of an operational Guide for countries on Good Governance of human and animal health

services

Intermediate Result

indicator 7

Countries involved

in joint human and

animal health

sectors bridges and

strategy

development under

WHO and OIE

auspices

Number No countries

involved

3 countries List of

workshops

organized

OIE and WHO

Intermediate Result

indicator 8: Results

from joint

WHO/OIE/Country

workshops results

used in operational

Guide development

Document No inputs

from

countries

Reports from joint workshops

available and inputs integrated in the

joint WHO/OIE advanced draft

operational guide

Reports

available

OIE and WHO

Intermediate Result (Component Four): Management, coordination, monitoring and evaluation

Intermediate Result

indicator 9:

Six-monthly

intermediate and

final reports

provided to the

Bank

Document No report 1 intermediate report after 6 month

of project implementation

1 final report after project closing

Reports

available

OIE

Intermediate Result

indicator 10:

Document No report 1 final audit Audit report

available

OIE

22

External financial

audit carried out

*Please indicate whether the indicator is a Core Sector Indicator (see further http://coreindicators)

**Target values should be entered for the years data will be available, not necessarily annually

http://coreindicators/

23

Annex 2 : ORAF Simplified Operational Risk Assessment Framework (ORAF) for small RETFs

P133572 - RETF National Human and Animal Health Systems Assessment Tools and Bridges

1. Project Stakeholder Risks Rating Low

Description:

Countries will be the ultimate beneficiaries of the products

developed by WHO and the OIE. Missions will have to take

place in countries to test and further refine those tools, on a

voluntary basis. Risk would be to see a limited interest

expressed by countries which would result in difficulties or

delays to conduct pilot missions for this project

Risk Management: Continuous communication between OIE and WHO and their member

countries through regional offices and directly during regular meetings will ensure a common

understanding of expected benefits and secure countries’ volunteering as pilot for this project.

Resp: OIE and WHO Due Date: continuous Status: in

progress

2. Implementing Agency Risks (including fiduciary)

Capacity Rating: Low

Description:

The OIE, a worldwide recognized intergovernmental

organization will be in charge of the implementation of the

project. This organization has a strong capacity in developing

global products and implementing global programs in an

effective and efficient manner. The project will support

activities carried out by both the OIE and WHO. Those

organizations have strong fiduciary systems in place.

WHO would receive a share of the funds through the OIE and

manage these funds in accordance with their procedures

recognized by the WB.

Risk Management: A subsidiary agreement will clarify responsibilities between the OIE and

WHO in terms of financial management, procurement rules, and responsibilities. The budget

will be detailed per activity and organization and procurement mechanisms agreed upon,

which will ensure clarity and ease implementation.

Resp: OIE and WHO Due Date: December 2012 Status: in progress

Governance (including Fraud & Corruption) Rating: Low

Description:

The OIE has been established in 1924 and its governance

mechanisms are well spelled out in the Organic and General

Rules. The OIE is managing a global program for the

strengthening of Veterinary Services since 2005. The OIE

World Animal Health and Welfare Fund (WAHWF) as well as

the regular budget of the OIE have their accounts audited

yearly and submitted to management committees and reviewed

and endorsed by the Administrative Commission of the OIE

and finally approved by the 178 national Delegates composing

the World Assembly. An independent evaluation of a DGF

(WB contribution to the WAHWF from 2006 to 2008), also

gave satisfactory results.

Risk Management: Audits will continue to take place according to normal OIE procedures.

Resp: OIE Due Date: May 2013 and May 2014 Status: not yet due

3. Project Risks

24

Design Rating: Moderate

Description: Two main international organizations will be

involved in the implementation of the project: the OIE and

WHO. The project has components corresponding to activities

to be carried out in parallel or jointly. A constraint will be for

both organizations to coordinate and monitor closely the

advancement of their respective activities which constitute pre-

requisite to develop the expected joint products.

Risk Management:

Permanent exchanges and coordination will be ensured to deliver expected outputs in the

shortest timeframe. The OIE has in particular seconded an expert to the WHO to further

facilitate coordination between the organizations. WHO and OIE have already agreed on a

work plan in line with this project. If necessary, more detailed procedures would be

developed to clarify all aspects relevant for the smooth management of the project.

Resp: OIE and WHO Due Date: N/A Status: done

Social & Environmental Rating: Low

Description:

The project would focus on institutional aspects and would

therefore not present any adverse impact on social or

environmental aspects

Risk Management:

Not applicable

Resp: N/A Due Date: N/A Status: N/A

Delivery Monitoring Rating: Low

Description:

The OIE WAHWF team would monitor and collect necessary

information on all activities implemented under this project and

provide reports as required to the WB.

Risk Management:

The OIE and WHO will coordinate reporting procedures to ensure compliance with WB

requirements.

Resp: OIE and WHO Due Date: mid term and end of

project Status: not yet due

Other Rating: Significant

Description: The main constraint is the short duration of the

project that may hinder the completion of all planned activities. Risk Management: The OIE and WHO are prepared to start activities immediately. Detailed prior consultations and strong commitment of WHO and OIE to carry out these activities will ensure that the project will move as rapidly as possible. The task team together with the Recipient and WHO have also discussed all deliverables and assigned for each of them a completion stage (initiated, advanced draft, completed). In the worst case scenario, if implementation delays were observed for some unexpected reason, the organizations being committed to pursue this program would follow on these activities towards full their full achievement.

Resp: OIE and WHO Due Date: N/A Status: done

4. Overall Risk Rating

Comments: Moderate

25

Annex 3 : Budget

DATE: 1/2/2013

PROPOSED ACTIVITY:

COUNTRY/PROGRAM: AHIF - East and South Asia Window and Eastern Europe Windows

Components & Activities Expenditure

Category

Quantity Unit Unit Rate

(US$)

Total Cost /

(US$) OIE WHO

1.a) Development of a costing tool

Services (International): Expert related costs for IHR development and testing

Daily fee for WHO expert Fees 202 days 500 101,000

Travel (economy class) to mission location Travel 28 trip 2,200 61,600

Per diem rate Subsistence 186 stipend/day 300 55,800

SUBTOTAL 1.a: 218,400 - 218,400

1.b) Adjustment of IHR assessment tool

Services (International): Expert related costs to assesment of the IHR assessment tool




SUBTOTAL 1.b: 100,900 - 100,900

1.c) Review of WHO laboratory assessment tool

Services (International): Expert costs for the review of the IHR assessment tool




SUBTOTAL 1.c: 50,400 - 50,400

1.d) Assessment of and support to AMR laboratory-based surveillance

Services (International): Expert costs to assess and support AMR laboratory-based surveillance




Laboratory reagents and material Goods 40,800

SUBTOTAL 1.d: 146,300 - 146,300

1.e) Assessment of and support to public health laboratories quality management system

Services (International): Expert costs to assess and support public health laboratories quality management system




SUBTOTAL 1.e: 97,400 - 97,400

1.f) Training workshops in the regions (10 participants)

Fee for international consultant Fees 45 days 500 22,500

Travel (economy class) to training location Travel 10 trip 2,200 22,000


SUBTOTAL 1.f: 55,000 - 55,000

1.g) Participation of WHO experts as observers to OIE PVS Pathway missions

Services (International): Participation to OIE PVS missions

Daily fee for WHO IHR expert Fees 60 days 500 30,000



SUBTOTAL1.g: 81,800 - 81,800

SUBTOTAL COMPONENT 1: 750,200 - 750,200

DETAILED COST TABLE


COMPONENT 1: Development of tools for the further deployment and implementation of the WHO IHR

26

OIE WHO

2.a) Refinement of PVS Pathway tools integrating the pilot PVS One Health tool

Services (International):

Daily fee for PVS Pathway expert Fees 40 days 600 24,000

Travel (economy class) to meeting location Travel 5 trip 1,150 5,750


SUBTOTAL 2.a: 37,250 37,250 -

2.b) Further development of the OIE PVS Laboratory Gap Tool

Services (International): Conduct PVS Pathway missions




SUBTOTAL 2.b: 37,250 37,250 -

2.c) Further Piloting of the OIE PVS Laboratory Gap Tool (4 missions x 3 pax x 14 days)


Daily fee for PVS Pathway expert Fees 120 Day 600 72,000



SUBTOTAL 2.c: 136,200 136,200 -

2.d) Editing and translation of refined PVS Pathway tools


Editing fees Fees 30 days 400 12,000

Translation costs (official OIE languages) Fees 172500 words 0.200 34,500

Publication costs Fees 300 copies 20 6,000

SUBTOTAL 2.d: 52,500 52,500 -

2.e) Training of PVS Pathway Experts on refined and One Health-integrated tools (2 session x 40 experts x 4 days)





Materials for training seminars Fees 80 person 15 1,200

SUBTOTAL 2.e: 231,200 231,200 -

2.f) PVS Pathway missions focusing on the integrated One Health approach (14 missions x 3 pax x 14 days)





SUBTOTAL 2.f: 476,700 476,700 -

2.g) Workshop on PVS Pathway outputs for World Bank experts





Materials for training seminars Fees 20 person 15 300

SUBTOTAL 2.g: 28,900 28,900 -

SUBTOTAL COMPONENT 2: 1,000,000 1,000,000 -

COMPONENT 2: Refinement of OIE PVS Pathway tools

27

OIE WHO

3.a) Development of Joint WHO/OIE documents, includes comprehensive operational manuals on Good Governance


Daily fee for OIE expert consultant Fees 120 days 500 60,000 60,000

Travel (economy class) Travel 35 trip 1,150 40,250 40,250

Per diem rate Subsistence 100 stipend/day 300 30,000 30,000

Editing fees Fees 70 days 400 28,000 28,000

Translation costs Fees 151500 words 0.200 30,300 30,300

Publication costs Fees 400 copies 20 8,000 8,000

Daily fee for WHO consultant Fees 250 days 500 125,000 125,000 Travel (economy class) Travel 60 trip 1,150 69,000 69,000 Per diem rate Subsistence 170 stipend/day 300 51,000 51,000

SUBTOTAL 3.a: 441,550 196,550 245,000


Fee for international OIE consultant Fees 80 days 500 40,000 40,000



Materials for training seminars Fees 60 person 25 1,500 1,500

Training seminar venue rental Fees 3 venue 3,000 9,000 9,000

Fee for international WHO consultant Fees 190 days 500 95,000 95,000



SUBTOTAL 3.b: 476,500 197,250 279,250

Training:


Travel (economy class) Travel 20 trip 1,150 23,000



Translation costs Fees 50000 words 0.200 10,000


SUBTOTAL 3.c: 140,000 140,000







SUBTOTAL 3.d: 44,550 44,550




Materials for training seminars Fees 60 person 20 1,200

SUBTOTAL 3.e: 67,200 67,200

SUBTOTAL COMPONENT 3: 1,169,800 645,550 524,250

COMPONENT 3: Development of an operational Guide for countries on Good Governance of human and animal health services

3.b) National/Regional Workshops (3 meetings in 2 regions x 20 participants x 4 days)

3.c) Development of a framework/concept note on the operational Guide in close cooperation with the World Bank

3.d) Development of a document on further integration of the environment within human/animal interfaces

3.e) Final project results workshop

28

OIE WHO

4.a) Monitoring and evaluation

Services (International): Consultant costs for monitoring and evaluation

Fee for external audit Fees 1 lump sum 15,200 15,200 15,200

Fee for project coordination and management consultants Fees 12 months 4,000 48,000 48,000



Editing fees Fees 15 days 450 6,750 6,750

- Goods: Communication and information technology related costs -

2 equipment 3,000 6,000 6,000

- Operational expenses:

1 lump sum 89,300 89,300 89,300

SUBTOTAL 4.a: 200,000

SUBTOTAL COMPONENT 4: 200,000 110,700 89,300

TOTAL COSTS 3,120,000 1,756,250 1,363,750

COMPONENT 4: Management, Coordination, Monitoring and Evaluation

Information technology equipment for project management

7% Overheads for WHO

Component 1

Goods 40,800

Services 654,400

Training 55,000

Sum of expenditures 750,200

Component 2

Services 768,800

Training 231,200

Sum of expenditures 1,000,000

Component 3

Services 626,100

Training 543,700

Sum of expenditures 1,169,800

Component 4

Goods 6,000

Services 104,700

Operational Expenses 89,300

Sum of expenditures 200,000

Total for All Components 3,120,000

Goods 46,800

Services 2,154,000

Training 829,900

Civil works -

Operational Expenses 89,300

TOTAL COSTS 3,120,000

SUMMARY TABLE BY COMPONENT AND EXPENDITURE CATEGORY