Southern and East African Experts Panel on
Designing Successful Conservation and Development
Interventions at the Wildlife/Livestock Interface:
Implications for Wildlife, Livestock, and Human Health

AHEAD Forum, September 14–15, 2003 Durban, South Africa

Working Group Notes

Editors’ note: These Working Group Notes reflect brainstorming sessions held within the AHEAD forum. They do not necessarily reflect the official opinions of any of the institutions or sponsors involved in the forum. The listing of a particular organization anywhere below does not mean that that organization consented to participate in any particular activity; it simply means that a meeting participant felt that the listed organization was one that should be involved in the process to further develop project ideas being discussed (should those ideas move forward).

Each Working Group focused discussion on the following (please see World Parks Congress AHEAD Agenda on p.xv for the detailed instructions that were provided to working groups):

WORKING GROUP A

Region: South Africa and contiguous areas

Prioritized Protected Areas/Complexes

    1) Greater Kruger NP Complex + TFCA partners (GLTFP)

    2) Hluhluwe/Umfolozi NP

    3) Limpopo/Shashe TFCA

Marikele NP
Lebombo TFCA
Madikwe, etc.

Challenges and Threats

Rank 1: GLTFP: Greater Kruger NP Complex + TFCA partners

Should tsetse be managed?

Suggestion to organize by wildlife, livestock, human health problems:

Prioritized health-related challenges/threats roughly ranked by importance

Brucella: not common but a lot of money invested in eradication

Rift Valley fever: seasonally every 15 years or so, Kruger on edge of range, comes when major flood events, wild animals can get infected (would be in all three columns). (Big outbreak in East Africa in El Niño 2000–2001, many human deaths)

Chosen as a priority area because:

Rank 2: Hluhluwe/Umfolozi NP

Chosen as a priority area because:

Prioritized health-related challenges/threats roughly ranked by importance

Rank 3: Limpopo/Shashe

Chosen as a priority area because:

Prioritized health-related challenges/threats roughly ranked by importance

Proposed Projects

Priority Area: GLTFCA

Project Title: “Monitoring and Management of Diseases in the GLTFCA”

Phase 1

Integrated survey of the major diseases and related elements common to wildlife, domestic stock, and people in the component regions of GLTFCA.

Key Questions to Address for Each Disease:

Important Considerations

This needs to be a regional project. It will not work if it is piecemeal. We need to identify what data we have and what data we need to gather.

Possible Outcomes

Supply information essential for future decision-making for:

Additional Notes

Additional FMD Projects

Options for Control/Containment of BTB

The following were identified as currently existing strategies for control of BTB:

The issue of fences (and their effectiveness) came up several times in discussions.

Project Leaders/Coordinators

Champion/Leader: David Cumming

Others:

Paul Bartels (Biomaterial Banking [WBRC])
Roy Bengis (SA Dept. Vet Services)
Chris Foggin (Zimbabwe)
Wayne Getz (UC Berkeley)
Markus Hofmeyr (KNP)
Nick Kriek (Onderstepoort)
Anita Michel (OVI)
Bartholomeu Soto (Mozambique TFCA Coordinator; to be confirmed)

Priority Area: GLTFCA

Project Title: “Disease Status in Wildlife, Livestock, and People in the Three Contributing Areas (South Africa, Zimbabwe, and Mozambique)”

Conservation and Development Importance

Zimbabwe claims to be BTB free. What is the status on the Limpopo?
What is the BTB status in wildlife populations and livestock in these three areas?
Does M. bovis occur in human populations? Should we check late-stage HIV/AIDS positive people? (sputum culture)
Need to look at Sengwe Corridor (foot and mouth also problem)

(Why don’t they want these diseases?– Tsetse fly and rabies are of risk to South Africa; BTB for Zimbabwe; BTB and foot and mouth to Mozambique)

Assumption that if corridors/fences taken down, then by and large expect same diseases in entire area that may now be distinct (with caveat that some biological boundaries may limit some spread)

Objectives

BTB surveillance

For all, should culture the organism and be able to type it – which strain is it?

Leaders

Each country should do this – JMB Veterinary Subcommittee should be the leader of the work (subcommittee of the Conservation Committee). This relates just to this park.
Driven by Veterinary Subcommittee of JMB (this is just advisory committee).
Ideally, should have consortium of people, including government and academic (scientific consortium).
The people who would have to do this would be authorities or, if funds unavailable, funds raised by researchers, etc.

Basic methodology

There needs to be a common protocol so not done in its own way in each country
Intradermal Comparative Tuberculin Test (cattle) / ? Gamma Interferon (buffalo)
(Cattle and buffalo; buffalo will be much more expensive)
People: culture (possible sputum culture), radiographs

Proposed timeframe

One year if just animals, possibly longer if with people (for initial test)
Longer-term/follow-up monitoring necessary as well

Definition of success (monitoring/evaluation) during the project and at its conclusion

Results – by doing this, possible to improve health of local communities, because better able to manage the health of the people and animals
Recommended outputs to JMB
Capacity of neighbouring countries (Zimbabwe and Mozambique) to monitor the disease will be enhanced

Key partners (governmental, communities, and otherwise)

Political obstacles/vested interests that could impede project success

Three different countries – political
(BTB and foot and mouth have had some impact on development of Peace Parks)
Politicians are concerned that disease may introduce disease/trade barriers
Issue of land-use planning – disease becomes less important if zoned. If fragmented, then everyone is exposed.
Must consider SADC (Southern Africa Development Community) objectives
Agreement by animal health regulators

Critical training needs for success and sustainability

Community-based animal health technicians (two-week courses available, but need people)

Will new or improved legislation be needed for project success?

There is already a joint treaty – a treaty has been ratified (improved legislation is in place)

Anticipated project communications needs/support (outreach, print media, radio, television, web)

Argument is we want healthy cattle and to reduce the risk
Need to “win the hearts and minds” of local people
Need to convince local people (should be obvious that they die from this)
May be suspicion that if there is high incidence of disease, animals will be slaughtered.
Initially would have to purchase a sample of positive cattle for slaughter (research basis) to determine genetic differences. Will need samples from different areas if find disease in separate areas to see if same or different types.
Would need people who speak Portuguese because these areas are very remote

Budget (what funds are already available, from whom?)

Transport, training and extension, subsistence, equipment, laboratory space, consumables, labor, salaries, compensation for slaughtered animals (purchase of animals), and coordinating committees
Limited funds available from Peace Parks Foundation budget
Limited funds available for strain identification from academic institutions
Directorate of Animal Health would cover western boundary

Prospects for long-term (post-project) success (sustainability)

Not applicable, because depends on results of tests
May require repeat monitoring in the future

Additional Discussion Points

Priority Area: GLTFCA

Project Title: “Monitoring of Tsetse Fly – Expansion of its Range”

Conservation and development importance

If we allow the tsetse to come down through Kruger, we will have all the negative spin-offs and will lose cattle; possible to suppress if we know tsetse are there.
Tsetse in Gonarezhou and North of Save River
KNP and LNP are currently free
Need to try to limit to Zimbabwe side – can suppress if know it is there

Objective

Surveillance of tsetse fly

Leaders

Wildlife Unit, Zimbabwe Veterinary Services and Trypanosomiasis Control Branch
Mozambique Veterinary Services
RSA Vet Services – Kruger

Basic methodology

Strategic traps and targets (it may be possible to manage the spread; possible to suppress but not possible to eradicate)

Proposed timeframe

Extended monitoring (longer-term than for BTB)

Definition of success (monitoring/evaluation) during the project and at its conclusion

Success = Results (Suppression of spread)

Key partners (governmental, communities, and otherwise)

National Departments
Communities
Conservation Authorities
Academic institutions

Political obstacles/vested interests that could impede project success

No, treaty has been ratified.

Critical training needs for success and sustainability

Community-based-servicing and monitoring of traps/targets
Dipping of cattle in mobile traps

Will new or improved legislation be needed for project success?

No

Anticipated project communications needs/support (outreach, print media, radio, television, web)

Communication between regulatory agencies, animal health technicians, and communities

Budget (what funds are already available, from whom?)

Transport, training and extension, subsistence, equipment, laboratory space (minimal), consumables, labor (higher than for BTB), and coordinating committees

Prospects for long-term (post-project) success (sustainability)

Good

WORKING GROUP B

Region: Botswana, Namibia, Zimbabwe

Prioritized Protected Areas/Complexes

1) Four Corners: Namibia/Botswana/South Western Zambia/Angola (should consider) – includes Okavango Basin and north of the fence. *Note the addition of a new 1000km fence between Angola and Zambia. This fence, funded by the Netherlands, will be constructed soon to protect Zambian cattle from CBPP in Angola.

2) Limpopo: (Great) Limpopo Basin – across Zimbabwe, Tuli, Gonarezhou

3) Etosha: Etosha watershed, Namibia

4) Zambesi: Middle-Lower Zambesi

Challenges and Threats

Need to emphasize not only health of wildlife, but also links with people and domestic livestock.

Four Corners:

The fence:

All obstructions to wildlife in this western area should be removed. This corner of Botswana is being controlled for the sake of a few cattle, and this is not effective.

International boundary fence is the issue – should drop the idea of having an export zone in this area. Can keep cattle and wildlife together by vaccinating the cattle.

What are the issues that have a health component (at interface), i.e., root causes of policy?

Disease Control Priorities:

Zimbabwe: need for institutional capacity to address

Limpopo Basin TFCA: extends through eastern Botswana, southern Zimbabwe, western Mozambique, Kruger in northern South Africa

Issues

Overarching prioritized issues:

Etosha

Challenges and threats to health at the interface:

Most pressing ETOSHA issues

Proposed Projects

Priority Area: Four Corners TFCA

Project Title: “Examination of Policy Issues Related to Disease Control and Potential Formation of a TFCA”

Project 1a: Examine current veterinary policies vs. land use in Namibia and Botswana. Establish dialogue by working with IUCN Regional Office (IUCN - ROSA) and the IUCN Veterinary Specialist Group, IUCN Antelope Specialist Group.

Issues include:

Project 1b: Research/information gathering on the viability of the resource-return from wildlife to run concurrently with Project 1a to provide the data to feed into Project 1a to substantiate direction.

Project 1c: Study of scenario with/without export zone in Ngamiland fences

Project 1d: Study of FMD ring vaccination efficacy. Word is that there is no good vaccine. Cross-cutting project.

Project Outline

Preamble: The present veterinary control policies and strategies are inimical to the optimal development and sustainability of a major TFCA of the Four Corners and buffer areas.

Goal: To realize the full potential of the Okavango/Upper Zambezi ecosystems for the enhancement of biological diversity and sustainable human livelihoods.

Objective: To promote an enabling policy environment

Activities:

WORKING GROUP C

Region: Kenya

Prioritized Protected Areas/Complexes

1) Ewaso Nyiro Basin (Laikipia to Habaswein)

2) Tsavo ecosystem

3) Tana Basin

Notes

Significance

Nairobi National Park: The survival of wildlife is threatened. The surrounding ecosystem is being destroyed and the corridor is eliminated by settlement.

Maasai Mara: It holds a large number of wildlife and there is potential for the spread of transboundary diseases.

Laikipia: Increasing wildlife activities, important species such as hunting dogs, hartebeest present in this ecosystem, and they could be eliminated by a disease threat.

East Tana/Lamu: Have endangered species and rich biodiversity such as rare Tana red colobus, mangabey, sea turtles, and hirola antelope.

Nakuru: A closed system, big populations of species that need to be managed, an important Ramsar site.

Tsavo/Amboseli: Animal populations depressed through disease and poaching. It is linked to other cross border systems, like Somalia and Tanzania.

Samburu: Has endangered and special species such as Grevy’s zebra, oryx, etc. The system is pastoral.

Meru/Kora: Second largest protected area system in the country. Populations are very depressed due to poaching, disease, and resource competition with livestock.

Baringo and Bogoria: Very small populations of wildlife.

Challenges and Threats

The criteria for ranking the areas of importance were: Health and impact of investment on biodiversity, livestock and human livelihoods/health.

Rank 1: Ewaso Basin (Laikipia to Habaswein)

Challenges

Threats

Rank 2: Tana River Basin

Challenges

Threats

Karamajong Cluster

Rank 3: Tsavo/Amboseli ecosystem (moved to Group E*)

Cross-Cutting Issues

Proposed Projects

Priority Area: Ewaso Basin (Laikipia – Habaswein)

Project Title: “Ewaso Basin Development Project Through Improved Ecosystem Health”

Note: An important assumption is that water projects stalled within the government will be reactivated.

See next page.

Indicators:

1. Support data for required changes presented by lobby group to policymakers in annual updates/briefs
2. a) Awareness about possible wildlife-based enterprise raised in 10 communities over the first year. Monitoring systems introduced at minimally five representative communities on wildlife impact on livestock systems simultaneously and data assessed over a minimum 2-year period.
b) Viability studies on income diversification from other natural resources carried out within the first two years and best choices/practices introduced to about five selected communities by the end of year three.
3. a) Economic and ecological viability of various marketing outlets such as export zone/slaughter houses/cooling facilities, etc., in the Ewaso Basin assessed within first year (partly on-going).
b) Strategy to expand existing expertise on processing of livestock products to Ewaso Basin developed within first 6 months. Resources solicited and strategic partners contracted to implement at least three pilot projects at community level before end of year 2. Progress and impacts at household and community level monitored over a minimum of two years.
c) Improve wildlife/livestock/human health (veterinary services, drug availability, and community education, etc.). Awareness campaigns about prevention, diagnosis, and control of common livestock diseases and related public health issues carried out in a minimum of 25 communities within the first year. Veterinary Department staff (Ministry of Livestock Development) and KWS Veterinary Unit augmented through establishment of specialist units to ensure sustainable delivery of veterinary services, drug availability, and community education within 2 years. Collaboration between the veterinary specialist unit and agricultural extension staff fostered to enhance livestock productivity and impact at household level, monitored annually.
d) Establishment of micro-finance schemes through NGOs or CBOs, monitored after 18 months, in a minimum of five communities. Reasons for success or failure assessed and remedial action taken before end of year 3.

Note: A similar project should be implemented for the Tana basin, with a stronger focus on disease transmission and recovery of biodiversity.

WORKING GROUP D

Region: Tanzania, Uganda, Albertine Rift

Prioritized Protected Areas/Complexes

1) Gombe/Bwindi

2) Greater Maasailand/Serengeti

3) Selous/Mikumi

Potential areas for project development

Justification for all: Great ape area, Albertine Rift, high biodiversity, areas with severe threats and encroachment

Greater Maasai Land: (including Serengeti ecosystem, Loliondo, NCAA, Mkomazi, Tarangire, southern Kenya) Pastoralist areas

Justification: Abundance, intact migratory system, World Heritage, interaction with pastoralists. Large interface between wildlife and livestock and people (zoonotic diseases). Prime example: buffer for rinderpest spread south from remaining foci in Horn of Africa, i.e., sentinel region. History of CBNRM and synergy between these approaches

Karamoja: pastoralist area, unrest

Lake Mburo: FMD focus. Also BTB, brucellosis.

Queen Elizabeth: BTB/FMD situation very different from Kruger, trypanosomiasis, fishing, cobalt mining Akagera basin, savannah and wetland and transfrontier wildlife migrations

Budongo forest: Not protected, poaching, close to Murchison, rinderpest, game ranching starting

Selous/Mikumi: Miombo migratory routes into southern Africa/ Mozambique. Intact ecosystem. Important populations of rhino, elephants, and wild dogs. Development threats: transport routes. Ear disease in giraffe.

Nyungwe-Rwanda: diversity of primates, Eastern Arc Mountains: biodiversity hotspots, endemic species, high human population pressure, little protection

Issues: General approach to problems

How to set priorities? Ecotourism value, exceptional natural resource, but debate relative merits Picking representative areas of general problems
Islands

“Votes”

   Gombe................................................................ 7
   Bwindi................................................................... 7
   Virungas................................................................. 5
   Eastern Arc............................................................ 2
   N Crater................................................................ 1

Migratory/intact ecosystems

   Maasailand/Serengeti Ecosystem......................... 13
   Selous/Mikumi.................................................... 7
   Akagera/Lake Mburo......................................... 6
   Bwindi................................................................ 1

Challenges and Threats

Rank 1: Bwindi/Gombe

1. Lack of knowledge and capacity

   Intervention
   Prevention, particularly in wildlife sector health issues
   Poor diagnostic services
   Lack of employment for trained wildlife disease personnel

2. Public health issues

   Poor services
   Impact of HIV on society
   Zoonoses and anthropozoonoses
   Lack of health knowledge for communities
   Lack of sanitation
   Refugee issues; societal disruption, poverty, lack of ownership of resources
   Different cultural attitudes
   Tourist health

3. Land use and hard edges

   Human/wildlife conflicts, crop raiding, human attacks
   Fragmentation

4. Small population problems

   Inbreeding
   Fragmentation
   Primate health and impact of disease

5. Wildlife utilization

   Primate consumption (particularly refugees) ???
   Bycatch from snaring
   Rehab of confiscated animals from illegal trade (chimps, gorillas)
   Trading route for international trade

6. Political awareness of issues

Rank 2: Maasailand/Serengeti

1. Wildlife/domestic animals- contact in and outside protected areas

   Crop damage
   Livestock predation
   Blockage of migration routes and wildlife movements

2. Link between human poverty and public health and impact on wildlife (through low livestock numbers and demand for
   bushmeat)

   Human disease zoonoses particularly for pastoralist communities, e.g., BTB, brucellosis; reservoirs

3. Land use conflicts

   Habitat degradation by livestock overgrazing and tree felling leading to poor habitat for wildlife
   Agricultural encroachment

4. Lack of capacity/knowledge

   Lack of epidemiological knowledge
   Lack of public awareness of health/conservation
   Lack of coordination between responsible agencies (protected area management, other governmental organizations,
   agriculture, health agencies, NGOs; e.g., rangeland, conservation agencies)
   Lack of transboundary communication
   Lack of capacity to implement management actions (skill sets, equipment, staffing levels)

5. Other issues

   Small populations problems, e.g., rhino (inbreeding)
   Human disturbance
   Intensification/restriction of movements of livestock and wildlife leading to increased parasite loads
   Cattle trading movements poorly understood
   Coordination of carnivore health programs within ecosystem, including transboundary Public health
   Incorporation of health issues into wildlife management area
   Evaluate potential areas where hard edge needs to be defined
   Infrastructure and equipment needs (local and regional level)

6. Political awareness

   Regional, national, local government
   Protected area managers

Rank 3: Selous/Mikumi

Lack of knowledge of issues

Giraffe ear
Lack of capacity
Encroachment across border with Niassa
Cattle trading route to southern Tanzania
Sleeping sickness in people in southern area: periodic outbreaks, wildlife reservoir? (issue of link with Akagera and Bwindi)
Human predation by carnivores (lions, crocodiles)

Proposed Projects

Project Title: “Linking Human and Great Ape Health to Improve Conservation Effectiveness and Human Health and Livelihoods”

Objectives:

      1.             To improve public health of communities that are in contact with great ape protected areas “human health for wildlife health”

      1.          Initially: DG of TANAPA/ED of UWA and FD and TAWIRI Chairman of Board of Trustees, Anne Pusey (JGI rep)

      2.          Minister Natural Resource and Health and appropriate PS, US and Japanese ambassadors, EU delegation, Regional Commissioner, MPs, journalist, Japanese researchers (Nishida, Mike Hoffman)

4a.             To improve communication between field managers

4b.             To create database of great ape health and make it available to field managers

5.               Improve surveillance and diagnosis of disease problems

Champions:     CTPH, MGVP, JGI

Partners:          UWA, TANAPA, IGCP

Budget:            US $175,000

6.               Include health program in current and future Protected Area Management Plans

Goal: Linking human and great ape health to improve conservation effectiveness and human health and livelihoods.

See next page.

WORKING GROUP E1

Region: Tanzania

Prioritized Protected Areas/Complexes

    1) Greater Maasailand inclusive of Serengeti

    2) Tsavo, Amboseli

    3) Selous-Niassa-W. Tanzania

Challenges and Threats

Rank 1: Greater Maasailand

Proposed Projects

Project Title: “Evaluating Disease Status and Health Needs of Wildlife, Livestock and Pastoral People in Greater Maasailand”

Why?

Pastoral areas in Greater Maasailand are of highest conservation importance and economic potential in Tanzania and Kenya. They are World Heritage sites and the largest surviving intact migratory systems. These areas comprise pastoral communities that depend on the integrity of the systems for survival. Land subdivisions are identified as a major threat in Kenya to the integrity of these systems.

How?

Phase 1: Status Evaluation

Time frame: 2 years

Budget for Status Evaluation phase: US $50,000–$100,000

Indicators:

Priority list of disease threats in the region (from perspective of pastoralist communities, wildlife managers, Ministries of Livestock Development and Health)

Epidemiological data on infections/diseases of livestock, wildlife and people, seroprevalence data as a result of analysis of existing serum banks

Database of existing community-based animal health projects

Beyond Phase 1:

Component I: Enhancing intersectoral integration

Time frame: 2 years

Budget: US $80,000

Indicators:

For example, agreed-on policies on pastoral health issues, cross-border harmonization of animal health policies

Component II: Integrating epidemiological research with improved animal health services

Indicators:

Lead:      Pete Morkel (Tanzania)?

      Kenya?

Partners: Ngorongoro Conservation Area Authority (NCAA), TAWIRI, TANAPA, Tanzania’s Naval Institute of Medical Research (NIMR), Ministry of Water and Livestock Development, Ministry of Health, AU-IBAR, PACE, KWS, Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI), Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI), University of Nairobi, Mara Conservancy, Trans-Mara Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) project, AWF, Sokoine University of Agriculture, NGOs (e.g., VetAid), Maasai Preservation Trust

Project Title: “Maintaining Savanna Ecosystem Integrity for Sustainable Livelihoods”

Threat: Unsustainable levels of wildlife utilization through illegal bushmeat hunting in the Serengeti-Mara and Tsavo-Mkomazi ecosystems

Conservation and development importance:

   Justification as above

   Serengeti: Illegal off-take of approximately 100,000–200,000 large ungulates per year

Hypothesis to be tested:

Improving access to dietary protein and cash income through provision of animal health care will reduce the demand for illegal game hunting.

Project Proposal:

Evaluate impact of improving animal health services by comparing:

Methodology:

Identify appropriate strategy for trial/evaluation (e.g., Newcastle disease vaccination, anthelminthic treatment of small ruminants, anti-predator strategies for poultry)
Select treatment and control villages
Compare pre- and post-intervention diet, income, land-use practices, incidence of food-borne zoonoses in treatment and control villages
Compare village origins of hunters before and after intervention
Leads: Titus Mlengeya, Robert Fyumagwa, Elizabeth Muthiani
Timeframe: 3 years
Budget: US $300,000
Partners: TANAPA, TAWIRI, Tanzania Wildlife Division, KWS, KARI, Regional and Local Governments, Maasai Preservation Trust, TRAFFIC, NCAA, NIMR, Ministry of Water and Livestock Development, KEMRI

WORKING GROUP F

Region: Zambia, Mozambique, and Malawi

Prioritized Protected Areas/Complexes

1) Kafue Flats and Upland

2) Great Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area

3) Zambia/Malawi/Mozambique “Triangle”

4) Liuwa (Zambia/Angola)

Challenges and Threats

Priority Areas (General)

Rank 1: Kafue Flats and Uplands

(Lessons from 10 years)

Rank 2: Great Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area (also see Working Group A’s notes)

Rank 3: Zambia-Malawi-Mozambique Triangle

How do we get to points above?

Productivity

    1. Markets and skills drive productivity

    2. Zambian model demonstrates result for productivity and conservation

    3. Extension services at community level

      a)     Animal health

      b)     Animal husbandry

      c)     Ongoing

      d)     Training of trainers

        4.  Capacity building

Proposed Projects

Priority Area: Zambia-Malawi-Mozambique Triangle

Project Title: “Improved Wildlife and Livestock Productivity through Market Synergies”

Indicators:

Priority Area: Kafue Ecosystem

Project Title: “Kafue Integrated Livestock-Wildlife Management System”

Indicators:

Postscript: AHEAD cross-cutting issues that could be further addressed


1Working Group E was formed from Working Group C.

< previous section  < index >  next section >