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
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.