Dear Colleagues, Dear Moderator,
This discussion is really interesting and many good ideas have been provided. It is good to be enthusiastic, but it is better to be realistic. Having been involved in the Rinderpest eradication campaign in South Sudan and Somalia, I know how often we struggled with literally everything to get the work done in a harsh environment and to bring it finally to a success. From the JP 15 to PARC and finally to PACE, this was not easily achieved and it took so many years to finally succeed in the Rinderpest eradication. There are many reasons to believe that the fight against PPR will be even more difficult: to name a few: countries infected by PPR reach from Turkey to Zambia, from the Atlantic Ocean to India. The number of goat and sheep is a multifold of the cattle population; the gestation period is short, herd growth faster, replacement high, hence herd immunity will not be build up as easy as in a cattle population. The trade with small stock is far more vibrant than cattle movements, and far more people own goats or sheep than cattle. So we have to deal with far more animals and more owners. Funds have always been limited, and I fear this time it could be even a bigger obstacle. Who is actually financing the campaign? Sure there are wealthy countries who will be able to run the eradication of PPR from their national budgets, but others can't. So donor aid is needed to get the work done. I am not convinced that a multi-task campaign finds more money than a targeted, very specific objective: to eradicate PPR. We should start the work in targeted areas, see how we succeed, and then we roll out the strategy.
If we deal with only one disease, with PPR, we will be strictly focused on this one objective. If we take two or even three diseases in the focus, it will be not the same: we may have areas where PPR is not present, but disease B or C causes problems. Livestock owners (and Vets!) will know how to get them still involved in the campaign. To kill two or even three birds with one stone is not easy. In most cases it fails. The final eradication of Rinderpest has been successful because a new approach was coming into practice: first the mass vaccination and then the participatory disease search: farmers and Community Health Workers were trained to carry out the task (yes, we need them! There are many countries were Veterinarians are in extremely short supply or simply not present in remote areas). Given the very limited educational level of farmers and health workers- many of them are even illiterate- we should avoid to put too much on the agenda. Multi-tasking is not a strength in such an intervention. The weakest member state in the eradication campaign will set the level what can be achieved. Indeed, there are a number of countries where access will be extremely difficult as of today- as it has been the case in the final eradication of Rinderpest with the South Sudan and Somalia, at that time both still at war. We still need to involve these countries and we already know it will be very difficult. It does not become easier by adding on to the work.
The veterinary community is bold to propose the eradication of PPR, and I believe, against all odds, it is achievable in a couple of years, if we focus well and if we are not distracted by too many other objectives. Actually we take over a high responsibility in spending large amounts of tax payers' money, and we must not fail. It would have eventually serious consequences for future funding allocations in animal disease control. But if we succeed, it will be possible to put something else on the agenda: all or some of the diseases which have been named in this discussion round. You may not agree with me, and you may find money could be used more efficiently in a combined vaccination campaign, targeting two or even three diseases. If you think so, let's then have the priority right: we started with the idea of PPR eradication, based on experiences gained in the Rinderpest campaign. We should keep that as our core target. Any other vaccine added would just have a side benefit, would not be the prime target. Each country could decide what is their second most important goal and may do it at own expenses. Otherwise we may globally soon run out of steam with our campaign.
Give it a thought.
Regards
Dr. Willi Duehnen | Managing Director|
Veterinaires Sans Frontieres - Germany (VSF-G) |
671 Ngong Road. Piedmont Plaza, Opp K.S.T.C.| P.O. Box 25653 - 00603, Nairobi |
Direct Mobile: +254 (0) 733 895 624|Switchboard: +254 20 3873676 |
Email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Website: www.vsfg.org<http://www.vsfg.org/>
Skype: Willi_duehnen
Please consider the impact on the environment before printing this e-mail
This email, and any files transmitted with it, is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. The views expressed are purely those of the sender and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of VSF Germany. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender and delete the message
From: Establishment of a PPR Global Research and Expertise Network (PPR-GREN) [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paul Rossiter
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 7:56 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: From the moderator: session 4: do we want progressive control of other diseases or just control?
Dear Colleagues,
We have almost reached the last day of week four and the last day of sessions 3 and 4. We have had some inputs for session three “sub-themes for PPR-GREN” and a lot of interest in session 4 “Network to be inclusive or exclusive of other small ruminant diseases?” Without exception all who have contributed to session 4 have been in favour of providing a broad, inclusive package of small ruminant health control rather than just PPR control alone.
Quite a wide range of diseases have been suggested for control along with PPR but, to me, these fall into two categories. The first are the diseases that have a local or regional importance – in a regional basket as Dr Chris Daborn put it. For instance, the control of RVF may be periodically important in Africa, but not in most of the Middle East and definitely not (yet) in Asia. Dr Afzal has raised the importance of enterotoxaemia in Pakistan. And there are more. But these are diseases that we cannot at present consider for eradication- that we cannot engage with in a progressive control programme leading to elimination of the infectious agent. In contrast PPR is eradicable – that is why we are discussing how to set up PPR-GREN to support a global strategy for the elimination of this virus following a process of progressive control. As mentioned above small ruminant pox and small ruminant brucellosis have been highlighted by several contributors as the two diseases that are most appropriate to consider, along with PPR, in a programme designed to improve small ruminant health. Now, to me, these are diseases that are also eradicable. Are we as a conference agreeing that this is what we want to see happen; that progressive control programmes with a view to eradication be developed for SGP and brucellosis along with PPR? This is a serious matter because if we choose to follow this path it will mean that these two diseases are much more than just members of a regional basket. It will mean that all infected and at-risk countries will have to join in and engage with these diseases with a view to eradication. You cannot opt out just because it isn’t a big problem. It will mean that the OIE-FAO GF-TADS Strategy for progressive control of PPR will have to take on the task of developing strategies for progressive control of SGP and Brucella. We may need to learn more about these diseases and it will mean extra work and effort but it will also offer potentially much greater rewards if all these diseases can be eradicated economically within one programme.
Could we please have some feedback on whether you think SGP and Brucella (are there others too?) should be targeted for global eradication or not, and if so, whether you would agree to add another main theme to PPR-GREN which would be “Theme 5: Progressive control of SGP and Brucella”. If you don't agree with this suggestion then please suggest how you think these diseases should be targeted along with our proposed progressive pathway for PPR?
Regards,
Moderator
PS -At the start of session 4 I think I said that I would send again to everyone Dr David Ward's contribution on brucella. I forgot, but it is on the list site on 17th February and important because it shows what might be achieved with this disease.
________________________________
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
########################################################################
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
|