| Subject: | |
| From: | |
| Reply To: | |
| Date: | Fri, 21 Feb 2014 09:45:46 +0000 |
| Content-Type: | multipart/alternative |
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Dear Paul,
It can be either way, but each option has its disadvantages. If the socio-economics of PPR control is a main stand alone theme, the main challenge would be how the analysis would feed directly into or support the discussions and decisions made in the other major themes in a timely and coordinated manner. My experience is that often, a disconnect occurs where socio-economic findings don’t inform strategies. On the other hand, if it's cross-cutting, the technical experts tend to ignore the issues Dr Nick Honhold has raised as they are only interested in socio-economic impacts only. The control process therefore faces the challenge of being disrupted by these other socio-economic issues.
I personally would prefer cross-cutting but have all the socio-economics issues of PPR prevention and control be delineated and assigned to the relevant major themes (I hope you and others will help us to do this - mod). It should be kept in mind that any analysis done should inform policies and strategies developed be it for funding and resources mobilization, surveillance, diagnostics, vaccine production and delivery.
Tabitha
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the FAO-AnimalHealth-L list, click the following link:
https://listserv.fao.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=FAO-AnimalHealth-L&A=1
|
|
|