Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone — the countries that have been hardest hit by the Ebola epidemic — could soon start to rebuild their economies.

This is the message that seemed to come out of the Ebola conference in Brussels earlier this month, which heard that the rate of new infections in the three West African countries had reduced considerably. Together, they have accounted for nearly all the 10,000 fatalities caused by the disease.

However, beyond the loss of lives, the epidemic has dealt a severe economic blow not only to the affected countries, but the wider sub-Saharan Africa region as a whole.

The projected growth rate for the region this year is 5 per cent, but Sierra Leone and Guinea are forecast to fall into recession, contracting by 2 per cent and 0.2 per cent respectively, according to the World Bank.

A few months back, they had been expected to post growth rates of 8.9 per cent and 4.3 per cent respectively. This is in addition to the lost output worth over $500 million incurred in the second half of 2014.

The World Bank estimates that the epidemic has already cost the three countries more than $1.6 billion of their output for this year. In total, the Bank believes that the epidemic will end up costing the African economy $6.25 billion, equivalent to 0.2 per cent of GDP, most of which will be incurred by West African countries.

READ: Ebola to slow growth in Africa, says report

If, however, there is a fresh acceleration in the spread of the disease, the total costs could be between $25-$30 billion, notes the World Bank.

READ: West African economies to lose $359m over Ebola

Either way, it is time to look at how the countries at the centre of the Ebola epidemic can move from crisis to economic recovery.

“A regional approach would achieve the best recovery results,” Liberian president Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf told the 600 delegates at the Brussels conference. “There is no doubt that this will require significant resources, perhaps even a ‘Marshall Plan’.”

This “Marshall plan” will be presented at a meeting of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund in April.

The international community has cobbled together just over $5 billion in pledges, dominated by the European Union and the US, together with the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. However, the three countries and the wider region will face both one-off and long-term economic costs.

ALSO READ: IMF pressed to cancel debts of Ebola-hit countries

The agricultural sector, in particular, will need support. Surveys conducted earlier this year indicate that some 75-90 per cent of people in the three countries worried that they would not be able to afford enough to eat. Corn and rice production fell by an estimated 20-25 per cent in Guinea and Liberia.

There is also the likelihood of long-term effects on health spending across Africa. The epidemic was, in part, caused by underfunded domestic healthcare systems that could not cope with the spread of the disease.

READ: Fight against Ebola epidemic far from over as virus mutates

For example, a report by the UK parliament’s Public Accounts Committee found that there were just 120 doctors in Sierra Leone, and one virology expert at the start of the outbreak.

Health spending as a proportion of GDP is around 6 per cent in sub-Saharan Africa, although Liberia and Rwanda are among a small group of countries that spend more than 10 per cent of output on healthcare. However, in virtually all cases, the majority of spending is private rather than public money, making the spending gap much wider, particularly for the poorest people.

This is not just an issue for Sierra Leone, Guinea and Liberia. Recent reports by Save the Children and the Rand Corporation indicate that more than 20 countries, including Burkina Faso, the Central African Republic, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Ethiopia and Mali, could be equally vulnerable to an Ebola outbreak.

In the post-conference communique, politicians pledged to “ensure that every country has a robust and resilient health system; one that is well-led, well-financed and well-equipped to deliver access to quality essential health care and preventive services to all citizens.” That will require extra investment, both by the international community and domestic governments themselves.