Dear Paul
To comment on Robert Allport’s useful reminder that we are in the age of One Health!
I raised this issue under the banner of political ecology earlier.
When developing a project of this magnitude (cost), scope (geographic), and potential ecological consequences (demographic, social, economic and environmental)
we cannot ignore the externalities. Nor should we be ignoring the reasons why the problem has arisen in the first place, which might also be linked to demographics, climate, social and economic changes. Controlling PPRv infection in itself, might have positive
and negative effects on a whole range of ecologies but in the run up to the decision on acting on this initiative, I believe there should be a risk analysis on unintended consequences and perhaps some effort to understand the emergence itself. I think this
can be largely academic and would not cost a lot but should involve a wide spectrum of scientists, in an interdisciplinary engagement.
Sorry more than my pennies worth.
Sincerely
Richard
From: Establishment of a PPR Global Research and Expertise Network
(PPR-GREN) [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paul Rossiter
Sent: 28 February 2014 15:20
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: From Dr Robert Allport, FAO Kenya on the interaction between improved animal health and the environment.With moderator's comment.
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.
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
This message, together with any attachments, is intended for the stated addressee(s) only and may contain privileged or confidential information. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Royal Veterinary College (RVC). If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and be advised that you have received this message in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying is strictly prohibited. Unless stated expressly in this email, this email does not create, form part of, or vary any contractual or unilateral obligation. Email communication cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, amended, lost, destroyed, incomplete or contain viruses. Therefore, we do not accept liability for any such matters or their consequences. Communication with us by email will be taken as acceptance of the risks inherent in doing so.