FAO-ANIMALHEALTH-L Archives

Establishment of a PPR Global Research and Expertise Network (PPR-GREN)

FAO-AnimalHealth-L@LISTSERV.FAO.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Nick Honhold <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Nick Honhold <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 28 Feb 2014 17:25:01 +0000
Content-Type:
multipart/alternative
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (6 kB) , text/html (8 kB)
I think this is a very interesting point. Sheep and in particular goats, 
have been blamed for many years for damaging rangeland, even creating 
deserts. Others argue that the whole concept of carrying capacity is an 
outmoded colonial concept. (For clarity, I don't agree with either 
assertion, but I have had both said to me).

If I were a pastoralist, nomad or small farmer and knew that I needed a 
certain offtake level of goats to eat and sell in a year, I would adapt 
the numbers of breeding females I keep to create that offtake, taking in 
to account the likelihood of a lamb or kid surviving to sale age or as a 
replacement. Arguably, by giving confidence in a lower mortality rate, 
the base viable size for a small ruminant flock would decrease.That is 
perhaps unlikely but the structure of the flock might alter to have 
less  adults and more young stock with the latter more likely to be 
sold. So I think it is a very complex argument and the outcome is 
difficult to predict. You could argue that the largest driver of 
increased small ruminant numbers is other social changes and human 
population growth. In that situation we should try and maximise the 
productive offtake potential rather than encourage a situation in which 
more and more of the flock/herd is adult.

I'm not saying that the rangeland isn't important, it clearly is but 
just that predicting what is going to happen to that and to stock 
numbers has a lot of drivers.

Nick Honhold


On 28/02/2014 15:19, Paul Rossiter wrote:
> Dear Paul
> I have been following this conference with keen interest and have been 
> really impressed with the contributions.  The focus on the progressive 
> control of other diseases makes a lot of sense but has got me thinking 
> about an additional question that, so far as I am aware, has not been 
> addressed as yet (if it has please ignore this).
>
> What impact would the control of these diseases have on sheep and goat 
> numbers and consequently on the environment?
> In Kenya, as in many other parts of the horn of Africa we are seeing a 
> gradual decline in the number of cattle and an increase in the number 
> of sheep and goats as numbers of pastoralists increase and their 
> mobility diminishes.  This is already having a telling effect on the 
> rangeland, which could increase significantly if livestock numbers are 
> not kept in check by disease.
> Whilst in reality drought will still play an important role in 
> regulating livestock numbers, I would ask whether we have a moral 
> obligation to work on the development / adaptation of rangeland 
> management practices (which reinforce traditional mobile systems) 
> concurrent to the work on disease eradication.
> I know that this is outside of the main theme of this conference but I 
> think that it is worth considering.  The eradication of Rinderpest was 
> an amazing scientific success, however it was supposed to improve the 
> livelihoods of people dependant on livestock.  Did it really achieve 
> this, or did a whole host of additional problems undermine the 
> achievement of the ultimate goal?
> In the conference there has been healthy discussion on the 
> socioeconomic benefits of PPR eradication.  The arguments only hold 
> true for pastoral systems however if a number of external factors 
> remain constant (such as access to range resources and mobility).  In 
> the course of an eradication programme there is likely to be 
> significant change in a number of externalities which will need to be 
> addressed if progressive control really is going to lead to improved 
> livelihoods.
>
> Best regards
> Rob
>
> Robert Allport
> Assistant FAO Representative for Programme Implementation
> FAO Representation in Kenya
> Block P UN Complex, Gigiri
> Tel (+254 020) 7625953
> Nairobi Kenya
> Website: http://coin.fao.org/cms/world/kenya 
> <http://coin.fao.org/cms/world/kenya%20>
>
> Thanks for this relevant and difficult issue Robert.   As you know it 
> is not a new one and I was half expecting it.  I am sure that there 
> are many participants better placed than me to answer this but I have 
> a couple of points.
> Back in the mists of time the colonial service in at least one very 
> large and dry country in NE Africa was not over enthusiastic 
> about vaccinating against rinderpest because of its concerns about the 
> detrimental environmental  effect of overstocking.   They were 
> probably not alone in thinking like this. However, in the 1930s or 
> 1940s H. E. Hornby the former DVS of Tanganyika (then) studied stock 
> numbers in areas of that country in relation to disease control (which 
> in those days largely meant rinderpest) and mnagement and found that 
> there was little difference in the quality of ground cover and 
> livestock body condition in areas where overstocking was thought to be 
> occuring and where it was not. He concluded that the livestock keepers 
> were able to move with their stock and to manage their 
> resources.  Perhaps he was under pressure to justify rinderpest 
> control! Anyway, his conclusion was that overstocking did not cause 
> environmental degradation. Of course times have changed and livestock 
> now are less and less free to move to traditional or other dry season 
> grazing or take up the special arrangements that each group has during 
> severe drought. And an AK47 is a much tougher negotiating tool than 
> traditional weapons.
> Another point is that small ruminants are owned by so many 
> more socio-economic groups than pastoralists alone. They too suffer 
> from PPR,  they may have different grazing/browsing/feeding systems 
> and better opportunities for offtake, and they will appreciate 
> improved small ruminant health.
> I know that you are not advocating that we ignore the diseases so they 
> can continue their role in population control but if there is to be 
> another larger programme looking into improved rangeland management I 
> guess the answer is yes but can it all be financed and managed as one 
> huge project? Or should the livestock production teams be looking for 
> separate funds for separate projects to complement what the animal 
> health teams are proposing to do?
> I could go on but to give other people a chance I will start to shut 
> down. I take your point and appreciate that whatever we do it must fit 
> into an holistic, (good word), programme of support for the owners of 
> small livestock. Paul.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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


ATOM RSS1 RSS2