Advertisement

EcoHealth

, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp 314–322 | Cite as

Evaluating the Potential for the Environmentally Sustainable Control of Foot and Mouth Disease in Sub-Saharan Africa

  • Kenneth J. FergusonEmail author
  • Sarah Cleaveland
  • Daniel Thomas Haydon
  • Alexandre Caron
  • Richard A. Kock
  • Tiziana Lembo
  • J. Grant C. Hopcraft
  • Bertrand Chardonnet
  • Thomas Nyariki
  • Julius Keyyu
  • David James Paton
  • Fredrick Mathias Kivaria
Open Access
Review

Abstract

Strategies to control transboundary diseases have in the past generated unintended negative consequences for both the environment and local human populations. Integrating perspectives from across disciplines, including livestock, veterinary and conservation sectors, is necessary for identifying disease control strategies that optimise environmental goods and services at the wildlife-livestock interface. Prompted by the recent development of a global strategy for the control and elimination of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), this paper seeks insight into the consequences of, and rational options for potential FMD control measures in relation to environmental, conservation and human poverty considerations in Africa. We suggest a more environmentally nuanced process of FMD control that safe-guards the integrity of wild populations and the ecosystem dynamics on which human livelihoods depend while simultaneously improving socio-economic conditions of rural people. In particular, we outline five major issues that need to be considered: 1) improved understanding of the different FMD viral strains and how they circulate between domestic and wildlife populations; 2) an appreciation for the economic value of wildlife for many African countries whose presence might preclude the country from ever achieving an FMD-free status; 3) exploring ways in which livestock production can be improved without compromising wildlife such as implementing commodity-based trading schemes; 4) introducing a participatory approach involving local farmers and the national veterinary services in the control of FMD; and 5) finally the possibility that transfrontier conservation might offer new hope of integrating decision-making at the wildlife-livestock interface.

Keywords

foot-and-mouth disease Africa control FAO-OIE sustainable environment wildlife integration decision-making 

Introduction: The Progressive Control Pathway for FMD Control

In June of 2012 multi-lateral agencies including the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), the World Animal Health Organisation (OIE) and the World Bank joined with national stakeholders, in Bangkok Thailand, to endorse a global strategy that aims to ‘progressively reduce the impact of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) and the load of FMD virus’ (FAO-OIE 2012). Following the successful world-wide campaign to eradicate rinderpest, animal health professionals now believe that a further concerted global effort to control, or, in some cases eradicate FMD is a goal worth planning. FMD is the most economically damaging transboundary livestock disease worldwide and its control would also have potential to benefit the poorest livestock-keepers (Kivaria 2003; Perry and Grace 2009).

The strategy that is set to achieve this aim is termed the Progressive Control Pathway for FMD (PCP-FMD, FAO-OIE 2012) which lays out a 5-stage plan to guide regional and national authorities in developing risk-based FMD control strategies based on a clear set of activities and progression stages. The steps span from stage 0, a situation where there is no information about FMD and no control measures in place, to stage 5, which represents freedom from infection (Fig. 1).
Figure 1

The stages of the PCP-FMD (courtesy of FAO-OIE 2012).

The PCP-FMD recognises that key outcomes and objectives of FMD control, and the approaches used to achieve this, are likely to vary in different countries. Progress to stage 5 may not always be possible given different agro-ecological systems. Unexpected consequences of the measures taken to reach stage 5 may outweigh the benefits of doing so. Therefore, it is an important principle that each stage should be considered a benefit in itself and worth pursuing irrespective of whether stage 5 can or will ever be reached. The range of potential scenarios and optimum strategies is particularly diverse in Africa, reflecting both the epidemiological complexity of FMD on the continent, which involves cycles of infection in wildlife, and the potentially wide range of beneficiaries of FMD control, who include subsistence livestock-keepers, commercial farmers and national economies. For example, in addition to developing opportunities for livestock trade, an important objective of FMD control in Africa relates to poverty alleviation and enhancing food security in the traditional pastoral sector, which provides the source of the vast majority of milk and meat consumed (Perry and Grace 2009). While FMD has often been regarded as an insignificant disease in extensive systems, there is clear evidence that losses from reduced production and market access can be substantial (Kivaria 2003; Perry and Grace 2009, FAO-OIE 2012, Lembo et al. 2012) and that control of FMD may have widespread benefits.

In this paper, we address a suite of interacting issues in relation to implementation of the PCP-FMD in Africa, highlighting the importance of engagement between the livestock and wildlife sectors in considering potential FMD control strategies. We further discuss how control options might be developed that deliver a range of international to local economic and development benefits, while protecting the continent’s wildlife and natural resources.

Discussion: Key Actions for an Integrated Approach to FMD Control

FMD circulation in domestic and wild populations in Africa is characterised by a complex epidemiology involving multiple serotypes and topotypes that naturally circulate in a range of species (Thomson et al. 2003; Bronsvoort et al. 2008). Wildlife species, particularly African buffalo (Syncerus caffer), can harbour indigenous SAT (Southern African Type) strains of FMD, and act as sources of infection and outbreaks in livestock (Bengis 2005; Vosloo et al. 2002). To protect the FMD-free status of livestock and comply with stringent zoosanitary regulations demanded for export of livestock and livestock products (FAO-OIE 2012), some countries in southern Africa have, in the past, adopted disease control strategies to prevent: (1) viral transmission between buffalo and livestock, such as veterinary cordon fencing around wildlife-protected areas and removal of wildlife from outside-protected areas and (2) viral transmission from high risk cattle populations living in the periphery of protected areas to naïve cattle populations further away using vaccination and movement control zones. However, there is substantial evidence that veterinary cordon fencing, which has effectively led to geographic zonation and restriction of wildlife movements, has been highly detrimental to wildlife populations and can modify animal community structure (Williamson and Williamson 1981; Taylor and Martin 1987; Harris et al. 2009; Ferguson and Hanks 2010, 2012; Gadd 2011; Scoones et al. 2010; Cozzi et al. 2013). Furthermore, movement control zones have also negatively affected farmers by limiting trading opportunities to the detriment of their livestock production (McGahey 2011). Within the arid and semi-arid rangelands of Africa, livestock movements are essential for the viability of pastoral systems. Any restriction of movements could compromise the overall economic and environmental benefits of pastoral production systems, which can yield greater economic benefits in comparison with commercial fenced ranch systems and arguably causes less environmental damage and has landscape restorative potential (Boone 2007; de Leeuw and Peacock 1982; McGranaghan 2008; Lindsey et al. 2013).

While southern African countries have focused on the risk posed by buffalo, the contribution of buffalo to FMD outbreaks in livestock in other parts of Africa remains unclear and the role of other wild ungulate species is still debated (Hargreaves et al. 2004; Kock et al., in press). It is hoped that activities identified within the PCP-FMD will allow more complete evaluation of the risks associated with wildlife, providing opportunities for risk-based approaches that are more environmentally nuanced and allow for the development of disease control pathways that address widespread concerns about the impact of FMD control on wildlife conservation (FAO-OIE 2012; Kock et al. 2006).

There has been increasing collaboration between the conservation and livestock sectors as a result of growing recognition for the need for emphasizing environmentally-sensitive approaches (D’Amico Hales et al. 2004; Osofsky et al. 2005, 2011), especially with regard to the management of transfrontier conservation areas in southern Africa. However, there is still significant room for improvement in terms of the joint development of FMD control strategies, highlighted by the fact that few conservationists are aware of the PCP-FMD or its implications for management of wildlife conservation areas.

From the additional perspectives of livestock development, as it relates to poverty alleviation, the PCP-FMD also needs to ensure that benefits of disease control filter down to local farmers. However, the importance of FMD as an economic driver of poverty is likely to vary in different agro-ecological and livestock production systems. Livestock production at the periphery of protected areas is often low for many reasons, including husbandry practices, pasture quality and infectious diseases, some of which are shared with wildlife (Caron et al. 2013). Although pastoralists in East Africa indicate that, after tick-borne diseases, FMD is among the most important of livestock diseases (Cleaveland et al. 2001; Bedelian et al. 2007; Ohaga et al. 2007; Jost et al. 2010; De Garine-Wichatitsky et al. 2013; Catley et al. 2013) this may not apply in other regions and other farming systems. Furthermore, the potential uptake by farmers of control strategies, such as FMD vaccination (although efficacious vaccines and delivery remain elusive) is uncertain. Therefore the imperative for FMD control in livestock, and the balance of costs and benefits of disease control at the wildlife–livestock interface are likely to vary for different communities and for different ecological regions in Africa.

The advent of integrated multiple-land use policies encapsulated by the strategic vision of ‘transfrontier conservation’ within a One Health framework (Hanks 2003; Osofsky et al. 2008) represents a major paradigm shift and step forward in African conservation. While these large tracts of African land earmarked for a mixed conservation and development agenda have enormous potential in connecting wildlife populations, and enhancing the integrity and viability of protected areas, they also create substantial inter-sectoral challenges, with transboundary diseases causing potential flashpoints (Bengis 2005; De Garine-Wichatitsky et al. 2012). Many multiple-use areas straddle international borders, often in regions of high FMD endemism. In such overlapping situations there is an urgent need to develop coordinated and integrated land use planning strategies to manage livestock production, a key livelihood option in these semi-arid areas, whilst simultaneously protecting the environment (Karesh et al. 2002; Kivaria 2003; Rweyemamu et al. 2012; Murwira et al. 2012).

Part of the challenge relates to assumptions about potential threats associated with livestock–wildlife interactions. While diseases, such as FMD, can be transmitted from wildlife to livestock, risk-based strategies can be adopted to manage disease risk without harm to wildlife populations. Conversely, livestock populations do not invariably pose a threat to wildlife, and can have synergistic interactions, including diversifying livelihood options for local communities, promoting localised increases in biodiversity and serving as a land-use bulwark against increased savanna conversion to cropping and mechanized agriculture (Reid 2012; Riginos et al. 2012).

Joint development of environmentally sensitive control measures for FMD provides a valuable opportunity to broaden perspectives across sectors and promote awareness of the shared benefits of disease control at the livestock–wildlife interface. The PCP-FMD can act as a potential framework for this, but, to be successful, FMD policy development needs to be aligned with conservation and socioeconomic factors at the initial phases of the planning process. The PCP-FMD requires the identification of specific environmental standards and objective core activities to be conducted early in the stage process and from a transdisciplinary sectoral perspective (Karesh et al. 2002; Rweyemamu et al. 2012) not as an ‘add-on’ some way down the roadmap.

What needs to be done to ensure that interventions to control FMD are as environmentally sensitive and locally acceptable as possible? Several options are currently available as part of a strategy ‘tool box’ that may be considered by participating PCP-FMD countries, especially those with large wildlife populations.

First, improved understanding of circulating viral strains and risk factors provides opportunities for exploring livestock vaccination strategies. For example, growing evidence from both West and East Africa indicates that livestock factors, including cattle movements, are major drivers of endemic FMD (Kivaria 2003; Bronsvoort et al. 2004; Picado et al. 2011), and that proximity to wildlife-protected areas is not consistently identified as a risk factor for livestock outbreaks (Picado et al. 2011; Lembo et al. 2012). Conversely, in southern Africa, recent studies indicate that interactions between buffalo and cattle can account for FMD primary outbreaks at wildlife/livestock interface (Miguel et al. 2013; De Garine-Wichatitsky et al. 2012). Knowledge of the diversity and circulation patterns of different strains of FMD in different hosts (i.e. wildlife and small ruminants) across Africa is also growing, allowing vaccine strains to be selected that can be tailored to local settings, increasing their likelihood of being more effective.

Second, freedom from disease and infection (stages 4 and 5 of the PCP-FMD), which has been required as part of international sanitary regulations for the global export of livestock and livestock products, but is precluded by the co-existence of livestock and wildlife, may not be an appropriate or realistic objective for many African countries. Even where development of trade opportunities remains a key objective, freedom from disease may be unnecessary given the opportunities for developing markets through commodity-based trade and less-restrictive regional trade (Scoones et al. 2010). Commodity-based trade, representing a value chain approach and a wide range of possible value-added, processed products, is a promising model for decreasing the risk of FMD infection in processed animal protein, which meets internationally recognised standards to ensure the lowest risk possible (Thomson et al. 2004; Paton et al. 2010). Strategies incorporating commodity-based trading could re-balance the need for the safe trade of beef products on the one hand whilst also re-aligning appropriate conservation initiatives with agriculture programmes (Thomson et al. 2004; Cumming 2010; Scoones et al. 2010).

Third, in wildlife-rich countries, livestock production areas could still be identified for more commercial development, for example selecting areas with natural barriers, such as mountain ranges and lakes, that would achieve natural separation of buffalo and livestock. The concept of disease control based around geographical zones and compartments will likely remain critical to the control process, and, for these strategies, improved vaccines and controls on livestock movements remain the key fundamentals to FMD control. Therefore, separating livestock, that live well away from wildlife enclaves and other FMD risks may well be required for a successful implementation of the PCP-FMD. Compartments in which management practices (such as bio-security and vaccination informed by adequate knowledge of surrounding risk, with or without geographic isolation) keep smaller enclaves of livestock disease-free may also represent a possible means for contributing to exports from countries that cannot attain complete disease freedom.

Fourth, in order to be more easily accepted and negotiated locally, FMD control at the wildlife/livestock interface should be included in a veterinary “service delivery package”, with communities involved in discussions with veterinary services to identify and implement important disease control objectives. Such a participatory approach could lead to a more efficiently implemented PCP-FMD, and avoid possible negative perceptions that may arise from veterinary services imposing FMD disease control on local communities driven primarily by the benefits of national production and trade. FMD control is not necessarily the first priority of most local farmers. However, farmers expect greater interventions by the veterinary services on specific diseases that impact heavily on their production efforts and therefore directly on their livelihoods. If veterinary services, often (negatively) perceived as representing the national authority in these remote areas, could enter into a negotiation process with communities, they could agree and parcel out their respective responsibilities in achieving FMD and other important disease control objectives. This participatory action could lead to a more efficiently implemented PCP-FMD. A parallel negotiation process involving conservation authorities and local communities could similarly provide a framework to manage and mitigate wildlife/livestock interactions, for example by managing livestock access to water points during the dry season or by developing adapted grazing strategies for livestock that aim to limit cross-species contact.

Finally, the advent of Transfrontier conservation is predicated on a ‘mixed’ economy of wildlife and agriculture. The land-use planning process that attempts to marry these two sectors, especially where they overlap at the peripheries of protected areas, makes much use of the current decentralization dispensation which pushes for the devolution to the subsidiary level (community) of natural resource user rights and the expansion of ecotourism/community conservancies in many key biodiversity locations. These rights and processes are setting up new and complex interfaces between wildlife and livestock, which are often governed locally.

We can conclude our toolbox outline by recognising that mobility and connectivity of species and landscape elements are critically shared fulcra of livestock development and conservation advancement in savanna Africa.

The above strategies help to emphasize that, in an increasingly globalized world, animal health professionals are dealing with a highly mobile interface between wildlife, livestock, and pathogens and that this reality must serve as the foundation stone of ameliorative actions.

If we examine the role of the PCP-FMD in an East African context we find that the region still has growing livestock populations co-mingling with large, but generally declining wildlife populations (Craigie et al. 2010). Furthermore, despite no history of veterinary fencing, this region does face significant challenges from landscape fragmentation and degradation, and losses of wildlife populations, linked in many cases to agricultural management and practices (Newmark 2008; Alkemade et al. 2012; Reid 2012). How might the PCP-FMD assist in changing this trajectory?

Tanzania harbours half of Africa’s buffalo population and the third largest cattle population in Africa (IUCN 2012). The wildlife sector is critical to Tanzania’s economy, with wildlife tourism contributing 8% of GDP in 2010. Several wildlife-protected ecosystems in Tanzania are recognised as World Heritage Sites of global importance and have been traditionally managed in line with low-intervention policies. However, there is also enormous potential for developing the livestock sector, with increasing demand for meat from rapidly growing urban populations in Tanzania and elsewhere. The Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries Development has expressed a commitment to progress from stages 0 to 3 of the PCP-FMD by 2020, within a broader livestock policy that has a stated objective of supporting livestock development while conserving the environment (URT 2009; Lugoe 2011; FAO-OIE 2012). We propose that this may be achieved by a combination of the above five approaches outlined in this paper.

Much depends on the outcome of current research, which aims to characterise the diversity of viruses to inform the selection of locally-appropriate vaccines, and to understand transmission patterns among livestock, buffalo and other potential wild and domestic host populations (Paton et al. 2009). With improved vaccines, livestock vaccination can be deployed, with strategies designed to mitigate disease impacts for individual farmers as well as to disrupt virus circulation across larger scales, for example, by ensuring high vaccine coverage against SAT viruses on the borders of protected areas. With some control of disease achieved through livestock vaccination, greater integration of rangeland uses, through separation strategies could still be important at local levels, which may have benefits for both wildlife and livestock (Reid et al. 2008; Reid 2012; Riginos et al. 2012). For example, a ‘mixed wild and domestic species’ farming model adopted in Laikipia (Kenya) has been successful and sustainable in terms of conserving the environment and generating tourist income (Augustine et al. 2011; Reid et al. 2008). Tanzania has long been at the forefront of multiple land-use initiatives, for example the establishment of the Ngorongoro Conservation Area in 1959, and Tanzania’s rangelands are still large and diverse in terms of spectacular wildlife and traditional pastoralism. However, both will come under serious threat unless the agriculture and conservation sectors can work effectively and efficiently together (Kock et al. 2010). This will require a high degree of policy harmonization, by dovetailing global and national FMD control policies with global, national and regional biodiversity conservation strategies with the ultimate result being FMD control methods aligned to an objective of a disease-free and wildlife-friendly environment.

Conclusions and Signs of Progress

African conservation is competing in an ever more globalized world, but many aspects of conservation such as mixed management of livestock and wildlife are hampered by strict ‘freedom from disease’ policies. Could the PCP-FMD, with its emphasis on flexibility and regionalism, lead by example and factor in wildlife and ecosystem resources within an overall social and economic development policy, which is also appropriate to the biodiverse and yet increasingly fragmented rangelands of Africa? We think it could. However, in the long-term FMD control may prove counter-productive if it impacts negatively on other key factors necessary to achieve ‘healthy landscapes’, such as the perception of local communities towards wildlife conservation, or if it promotes unsustainable livestock production systems. We argue that balanced and integrated (top down and bottom up) land use planning is essential to the health of both the conservation and agricultural sectors. In particular the concept of an environmentally sensitive and locally focussed approach to disease control may encourage greater interaction between decision-making policies for agricultural development and conservation that draws on all available evidence and expertise, including an integrated, scientific risk assessment of multiple livestock diseases and their control in relation to conservation (Mariner et al. 2012).

There are signs of progress in terms of integrating conservation and livestock disease control decision-making. The Southern African Development Community Livestock Technical Committee has recently acknowledged the potential of alternative options for local cattle production (i.e., commodity-based trade—see the Phakalane Declaration—http://www.wcs-ahead.org/phakalane_declaration.html) paving the way to offering local producers a way of benefiting more from livestock production even on the periphery of protected areas. The PCP-FMD pathway will benefit in this region from more communication between authorities and local stakeholders and regional collaboration to manage the disease. On a broader front an attempt at mainstreaming environmental issues with development goals is the rationale behind Tanzania’s MKUKUTA (National Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty) process. This highly participatory planning model could serve as a platform for the efficient integration of environmentally sustainable livestock disease control and wildlife linked land use policies in that country (Swiderska and Maganga 2008; URT 2009).

We urge that the PCP-FMD implementing process should start to involve multiple stakeholders, including conservationists, and representatives of local communities, who can collectively place emphasis on environmental and disease risk assessments, at both national and regional levels such that environmental standards and impact assessments become the accepted norm for all disease control policies that may impact on Africa’s wildlife heritage.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The co-authors wish to thank Dr. Steve Osofsky of the WCS-Ahead Programme and Dr. Gavin Thomson of TAD Scientific for helpful comments on the manuscript. SC, DTH and TL are grateful to the initiative of BBSRC DFID Scottish Government (Combating Infectious Diseases of Livestock for International Development) for supporting TL (grant no. BB/H009302/1) and providing funding for a workshop in which some of these ideas were developed. AC was supported by the research platform "Production and Conservation in Partnership". DJP is a BBSRC funded Jenner Investigator.

References

  1. Alkemade R, Reid RS, van den Berg M, de Leeuw J, Jeuken M (2012) Assessing the impacts of livestock production on biodiversity in rangeland ecosystems. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1011013108. Online February 15, 2013
  2. Augustine DJ, Veblen KE, Goheen JR, Riginos C, Young TP (2011) Pathways for positive cattle–wildlife interactions in semiarid rangelands. In: Georgiadis, N (editor). Conserving Wildlife in African Landscapes: Kenya’s Ewaso Ecosystem. Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press, Washington D. C. pp 55-71.Google Scholar
  3. Bedelian C, Nkedianye D, Herrero. M (2007) Maasai perception of the impact and incidence of malignant catarrhal fever (MCF) in southern Kenya. Preventive Veterinary Medicine: 78 : 296–316.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bengis RG (2005) Transfrontier conservation area initiatives in sub-Saharan Africa: some animal health challenges. In: Osofsky SA, Cleaveland S, Karesh WB, Kock MD, Nyhus PJ, Starr L, Yang A (eds), Conservation and Development Interventions at the Wildlife/Livestock Interface: Implications for Wildlife, Livestock and Human Health. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN, pp 15-20.Google Scholar
  5. Boone, RB (2007) Effects of fragmentation on cattle in African savannas under variable precipitation. Landscape Ecology 22:1355-1369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bronsvoort BM, Nfon C, Hamman SM, Tanya VN, Kitching RP, and KL Morgan (2004) Risk factors for herdsman-reported foot-and-mouth disease in the Adamawa Province of Cameroon. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 66:127-39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bronsvoort BM, de Parida S, Handel I, McFarland S, Fleming L, Hamblin P, Kock R (2008) Serological survey for foot-&-mouth disease in wildlife in East Africa and parameter estimation of the Cedi test NSP ELISA for buffalo. Clinical & Vaccine Immunology 15:1003-1011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Caron A, Miguel E, Gomo C, Makaya P, Pfukeni D, Hove T, Foggin C, De Garine-Wichatitsky M (2013) Relationship between burden of infection in ungulate populations and wildlife/livestock interfaces. Epidemiology and Infections 141:1522–1535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Catley A, Lind J, Scoones I (2013) Development at the margins: pastoralism in the horn of Africa. In: Catley A, Lind J, Scoones, I (editors), Pastoralism and Development in Africa: Dynamic Change at the Margins. Earthscan from Routledge, London, pp 1-26.Google Scholar
  10. Cleaveland S, Kusiluka L, Ole Kuwai J, Bell C, Kawala R (2001) Assessing the impact of malignant catarrhal fever in Ngorongoro District, Tanzania. Department for International Development, Animal Health Programme, pp 1–57Google Scholar
  11. Cozzi G, Broekhuis F, Weldon McNutt J, Schmid B (2013) Comparison of the effects of artificial and natural barriers on large African carnivores: implications for interspecific relationships and connectivity. Journal of Animal Ecology. doi: 10.1111/1365-2656.12039.Google Scholar
  12. Craigie ID, Baillie JEM, Balmford A, Carbone C, Collen B, Green RE, Hutton JM (2010) Large mammal population declines in Africa’s protected areas. Biological Conservation 143: 2221-2228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cumming DHM (2010) Single resource decisions with multiple resource consequences? Responses and reactions to Scoones et al, “Foot and mouth disease and market access: challenges for the beef industry in southern Africa”. Pastoralism, 1: 165-166.Google Scholar
  14. D’Amico Hales J, Osofsky, S A, Cumming DHM (2004) Wildlife Health in Africa: Implications for Conservation in the Decades Ahead. In: The Terrestrial Ecoregions of Africa and Madagascar: A Conservation Assessment, Burgess N, D’Amico Hales J, Underwood E, Dinerstein E, Olson D, Itoua I, Schipper J, Ricketts T, Newman, K (editors), Washington, D. C, Island Press, pp 129-130.Google Scholar
  15. De Garine-Wichatitsky M, Fritz H, Chaminuka P, Caron A, Guerbois C, Pfukeni D, Matema C, Jori F, Murwira A (2012) Consequences of animals crossing the edges of Transfrontier Parks. In: Transfrontier Conservation Areas: People Living on the Edge, Andersson J. A, De Garine-Wichatitsky M, Cumming DHM, Dzingirai V, Giller, K. E. (editors). London: Earthscan, pp 137-162.Google Scholar
  16. De Garine-Wichatitsky M, Miguel E, Mukamuri B, De Garine I, Wencelius J, Pfukeni D, Caron A (2013) Coexisting with wildlife in transfrontier conservation areas in Zimbabwe: cattle owners’ awareness of disease risks and perception of the role played by wildlife. Comparative Immunology, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 36:321–332.Google Scholar
  17. De Leeuw PN, Peacock CP (1982) The productivity of small ruminants in the Maasai pastoral system, Kajiado District, Kenya. An introduction to current research. Working Document 25. Addis Ababa, ILCA.Google Scholar
  18. FAO-OIE (2012) The global foot and mouth disease control strategy: strengthening animal health systems through improved control of major diseases. Rome and Paris. Available: www.oie.int/.../fao-and-oie-unveil-global-strategy-for-control-of-foot-and-mouth-disease. Accessed December 12 2012
  19. Ferguson K, Hanks J (2010) Fencing Impacts: A Review of the Environmental, Social and Economic Impacts of Game and Veterinary Fencing in Africa with Particular Reference to the Great Limpopo and Kavango-Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Areas. Pretoria: Mammal Research Institute. Available: http://www.wcs-ahead.org/gltfca_grants/grants.html. Accessed December 3, 2012
  20. Ferguson K, Hanks J (2012) The effects of protected area and veterinary fencing on wildlife conservation in southern Africa. PARKS 18: 1-12.Google Scholar
  21. Gadd, ME (2011) Barriers, the beef industry and unnatural selection: a review of the impacts of veterinary fencing on mammals in southern Africa. In: Fencing for Conservation: Restriction of Evolutionary Potential or a Riposte to Threatening Processes? Somers MJ, Hayward MW (editors) Springer-Verlag, pp 153-186.Google Scholar
  22. Hanks J (2003) Transfrontier conservation areas (TFCAs) in southern Africa: their role in conserving biodiversity, socioeconomic development and promoting a culture of peace. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 17: 127-148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hargreaves SK, Foggin CM, Anderson EC, Bastos ADS, Thomson GR, Ferris NP, Knowles, NJ (2004) An investigation into the source and spread of foot and mouth disease virus from a wildlife conservancy in Zimbabwe. Revue Scientifique et Technique de l’OIE 23: 783-790.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Harris G, Thirgood S, Hopcraft JGC, Cromsigt JPMG,Berger J (2009) Global decline in aggregated migrations of large terrestrial mammals. Endangered Species Research 7:55-76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. IUCN (2012) IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.1. http://iucnredlist.org. Accessed September 19, 2012
  26. Jost CJ, Nzietchueng S, Kihu S, Bett B, Njogu G, Swai ES,Mariner JC (2010) Epidemiological Assessment of the Rift Valley Fever Outbreak in Kenya and Tanzania in 2006 and 2007. American Journal of Tropical Medicine Hygiene 83: 65–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Karesh WB, Osofsky SA, Rocke TE, Barrows PL (2002) Joining Forces to Improve Our World. Conservation Biology 16: 1432-1434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kivaria FM (2003) Foot and mouth disease in Tanzania: An overview of its national status. Veterinary Quarterly 25 : 72-78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kock MD, Mullins GR, Perkins JS (2006) Wildlife Health, Ecosystems and Rural Livelihoods in Botswana. In: Aguirre AA, Ostfeld RS, Tabor GM, House C, Pearl MC (editors) Conservation Medicine: ecological health in practice. Oxford University Press, pp 265-281.Google Scholar
  30. Kock R, Kock M, Cleaveland S. Thomson G (2010) Health and disease in wild rangelands. In: Wild rangelands: conserving wildlife while maintaining livestock in semi-arid ecosystems, du Toit J, Kock R, Deutsch J. (editors), Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell Publishers, pp 235-265.Google Scholar
  31. Kock R, Kock M, de Garine-Wichatitsky M, Chardonnet P, Caron A (in press) Livestock and buffalo (Syncerus caffer) interfaces in Africa: ecology of disease transmission and implications for conservation and development. In: Wild Cattle, Melletti M (editor), Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Lembo T, Parida S, Mshanga D, Kamani E, Auty H, Fyumagwa R, Hoare R, Parekh K, Knight-Jones T, Reeve R, Kazwala R, King D, Haydon D, Cleaveland S (2012) Serological patterns and household implications of foot-and-mouth disease in endemic rural communities of northern Tanzania. In: Proceedings of the 13th Conference of the International Society for Veterinary Epidemiology and Economics (ISVEE XIII), August 20–24, 2012, Maastricht, The Netherlands. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  33. Lindsey PA, Havemann CP, Lines RM, Price TA, Retieff T, Rhebergen C, Van Der Waal AL, Romanch SS (2013) Benefits of wildlife-based land uses on privatelands in Namibia and limitations affecting their development. Oryx, 47: 41–53. doi: 10.1017/S0030605311001049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lugoe F (2011) Aligning and harmonizing the livestock and land use policies of Tanzania. The Economic and Social Research Foundation. Discussion paper 35:1–46. Available: http://old.esrf.or.tz/docs/ESRFDiscussionPaper35.PDF. Accessed February 15, 2013
  35. Mariner JC, House JA, Mebus CA, Sollod AE, Chibeu D, Jones BA, Roeder PL, Admassu B, van ’t Klooster GGM 2012. Rinderpest eradication: Appropriate technology and social innovations. Science 337, 1309-1312. doi: 10.1126/science.1223805.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McGahey DJ (2011) Livestock mobility and animal health policy in southern Africa: the impact of veterinary cordon fences on pastoralists. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice 1:14 [Available:http://www.pastoralismjournal.com/content/pdf/2041-7136-1-14.pdf. Accessed February 15 2013
  37. McGranaghan DA (2008) Managing private, commercial rangelands for agricultural production and wildlife diversity in Namibia and Zambia. Biodiversity and Conservation 17:1965–1977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Miguel E, Grosbois V, Caron A, Boulinier T, Fritz H, Cornélis D, Foggin C, Makaya PV, Tshabalala PT, De Garine-Wichatitsky M (2013) Contacts and foot and mouth disease transmission from wild to domestic bovines in Africa. Ecosphere 4:51. doi: 10.1890/ES12-00239.1
  39. Murwira A, De Garine-Wichatitsky M, Zengya F, Poshiwa X, Matema S, Caron A, Guerbois C, Hellard E, Fritz H (2012) Resource gradients and movements across the edge of transfrontier parks. In: Andersson J. A, De Garine-Wichatitsky M, Cumming DHM, Dzingirai V, Giller, K. E. (editors) Transfrontier Conservation Areas: People Living on the Edge. London: Earthscan, pp 123-136.Google Scholar
  40. Newmark WD (2008) Isolation in African protected areas. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 6: 231-328.Google Scholar
  41. Ohaga SO, Kokwaro ED, Ndiege IO, Hassanali A,Saini RK (2007) Livestock farmers’ perception and epidemiology of bovine trypanosomosis in Kwale District, Kenya. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 80: 24 – 33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Osofsky SA, Cleaveland S, Karesh WB, Kock MD, Nyhus PJ, Starr L, Yang A (2005) Conservation and Development Interventions at the Wildlife/Livestock Interface: Implications for Wildlife, Livestock and Human Health. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN.Google Scholar
  43. Osofsky SA, Cumming DHM, Kock MD (2008) Transboundary Management of Natural Resources and the Importance of a ‘One Health’ Approach: Perspectives on southern Africa. In: State of the Wild 2008-2009: A Global Portrait of Wildlife, Wildlands, and Oceans, Fearn E, Redford KH (editors). Island Press, Washington, D. C. pp. 89-98.Google Scholar
  44. Osofsky S, Atkinson M, Cumming D, Kock M (2011) One Health Policy Options for Biodiversity, Livelihoods and Transboundary Disease Management in southern Africa. Ecohealth 7 :93-94.Google Scholar
  45. Paton DJ, Sumption KS, Charleston B (2009) Options for control of foot-and-mouth disease: knowledge capability and policy. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series B, 364: 2657–2667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Paton DJ, Sinclair M, Rodriguez R (2010) Qualitative Assessment of the Commodity Risk for Spread of Foot-and-Mouth Disease Associated with International Trade in Deboned Beef. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases 57 :115–134.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Perry B, Grace D. 2009. The impacts of livestock diseases and their control on growth and development processes that are pro-poor. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series B 364 : 2643-2655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Picado A, Speybroeck N, Kivaria F, Mosha RM, Sumaye RD, Casal J, Berkvens D (2011) Foot-and-mouth disease in Tanzania from 2001 to 2006. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases 58:44-52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Reid RS (2012) Savannas of our Birth: People, wildlife and change in East Africa. Berkley, Los Angeles, London: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Reid RS, Gichohi H, Said MY, Nkedianye D, Ogutu JO (2008) Fragmentation of a Peri-Urban Savanna, Athi-Kaputiei Plains, Kenya. In: Galvin, KA, Reid RS, Behnke RHJr, Hobbs NT (editors) Fragmentation in Semi-Arid and Arid Landscapes: Consequences for Human and Natural Systems, Fort Collins: Springer, pp.195-224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Riginos C, Porensky LM, Veblen KE, Odadi WO, Sensenig RL, Kimuyu D, Keesing F, Wilkerson ML, Young TP (2012) Lessons on the relationship between livestock husbandry and biodiversity from the Kenya : Long-term Exclosure Experiment (KLEE). Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice 2: 1-22.Google Scholar
  52. Rweyemamu M, Kambarage D, Karimuribo E, Wambura P, Matee M, Kayembe J-M, Mweene A, Neves L, Masumu J, Kasanga, C, Hang’ombe B, Kayunze K, Misinzo G, Simuunza M, Paweska JT (2012) Development of a One Health national Capacity in Africa. Current Topics in Microbiology and Immunology. 2012 Jul 22 (Epub ahead of print).Google Scholar
  53. Scoones I, Bishi A, Mapitse N, Moerane R, Penrith M-L, Sibanda R, Thomson G, Wolmer W (2010) Foot-and-mouth disease and market access: challenges for the beef industry in southern Africa. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice 2: 135-164.Google Scholar
  54. Swiderska K, Maganga F (2008) Tanzania. In: The Governance of Nature and the Nature of Governance: Policy that Works for Biodiversity and Livelihoods, Swiderska K, Roe D, Siegele L, Grieg-Gran M (editors), IIED, London, pp 132–140.Google Scholar
  55. Taylor RT, Martin RB (1987) Effects of veterinary fences on wildlife conservation in Zimbabwe. Environmental Management 11:327–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Thomson GR, Vosloo W, Bastos ADR (2003) Foot-and-mouth disease in wildlife. Virus Research 91:145–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Thomson GR, Tambi EN, Hargreaves SK, Leyland TJ, Catley AP, van ‘t Klooster GGM, Penrith M-L (2004) International trade in livestock and livestock products: the need for a commodity-based approach. Veterinary Record 155: 429-433.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. United Republic of Tanzania (2009) The Kilimo Kwanza Resolution and 10 Pillars of Implementation. Dodoma: Ministry of Agriculture, Food Security and Cooperatives, Government of the United Republic of Tanzania.Google Scholar
  59. Vosloo W, Boshoff K, Dwarka R, Bastos A (2002) The possible role that buffalo played in the recent outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in South Africa. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 969:187–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Williamson D, Williamson J (1981) An assessment of fences on the large herbivore biomass in the Kalahari. Botswana Notes and Records 13:91–94 and 107–110.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2013

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kenneth J. Ferguson
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sarah Cleaveland
    • 1
  • Daniel Thomas Haydon
    • 1
  • Alexandre Caron
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Richard A. Kock
    • 5
  • Tiziana Lembo
    • 1
  • J. Grant C. Hopcraft
    • 1
  • Bertrand Chardonnet
    • 6
  • Thomas Nyariki
    • 7
  • Julius Keyyu
    • 8
  • David James Paton
    • 9
  • Fredrick Mathias Kivaria
    • 10
  1. 1.Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health and Comparative Medicine, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life SciencesUniversity of GlasgowGlasgowScotland, UK
  2. 2.Department of Environment and SocietiesCIRAD-UPR AGIRsHarareZimbabwe
  3. 3.Department of Environment and SocietiesCIRAD, UPR AGIRsMontpellierFrance
  4. 4.Mammal Research InstituteUniversity of PretoriaPretoriaSouth Africa
  5. 5.Department of Pathology & Infectious DiseasesThe Royal Veterinary CollegeHatfieldUK
  6. 6.African Protected Areas & Wildlife ExpertSaint CloudFrance
  7. 7.African Union Inter-African Bureau for Animal ResourcesNairobiKenya
  8. 8.Tanzania Wildlife Research InstituteArushaTanzania
  9. 9.The Pirbright InstitutePirbrightUK
  10. 10.Ministry of Livestock Development and FisheriesDar es SalaamTanzania

Personalised recommendations