Challenges of Controlling Foot-and-Mouth Disease in Pastoral Settings in Africa

Mashinagu, Mkama M.; Wambura, Philemon N.; King, Donald P.; Paton, David J.; Maree, Francois; Kimera, Sharadhuli I.; Rweyemamu, Mark M.; Kasanga, Christopher J.

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/2700985

Transboundary and Emerging Diseases

On this page

Abstract Introduction Conclusion Ethical Approval Disclosure Conflicts of Interest Acknowledgments References Copyright Related Articles

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2024 | Article ID 2700985 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/2700985

Challenges of Controlling Foot-and-Mouth Disease in Pastoral Settings in Africa

Mkama M. Mashinagu,^1,2,3Philemon N. Wambura,¹Donald P. King,⁴David J. Paton,⁴Francois Maree,⁵Sharadhuli I. Kimera,^2,6Mark M. Rweyemamu,^1,2and Christopher J. Kasanga^1,2

Academic Editor: Subodh Samrat

Received22 Feb 2023

Revised07 Dec 2023

Accepted03 Jan 2024

Published08 Feb 2024

Abstract

Foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) is a highly devastating viral disease affecting all cloven-hoofed animals. The disease threatens food security and livelihoods across different parts of the world. FMD is endemic in Africa; where the continuous circulation of the disease impacts the livelihoods of pastoral communities by reducing the quality and quantity of livestock products such as milk and meat, as well as undermining the access of the livestock sector to regional and lucrative global markets. Strategies used to control FMD in Africa, especially tropical Africa, are typically fragmented national-level focused activities with relatively poor outcomes, rather than regionally coordinated initiatives that have been used on other continents (South America, Europe) to successfully reduce and even eliminate virus circulation. Biotechnological advances have improved our ability to detect and characterize FMD virus strains, but more effective approaches to disease control are needed to encourage disease reporting and outbreak investigation. This review of the challenges to FMD control amongst Africa’s diverse pastoral communities is intended to provide information and provoke discussion to improve the strategies and approaches for regional FMD control in Africa.

1. Introduction

Foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) is a highly contagious disease that affects all cloven-hoofed livestock and wildlife animals, with impacts on food security and the socioeconomics of livestock-dependent communities [1]. The disease is caused by foot-and-mouth disease virus (FMDV) that belongs to the genus Aphthovirus of the family Picornaviridae [2, 3]. There are seven serotypes of FMDV, namely O, A, C, Southern African Territories (SAT)-1, SAT-2, SAT-3, and Asia-1, five of which have been reported circulating on the African continent (Figure 1(a)–1(e)) [4]. In Africa, FMDV circulates in three main virus pools or ecosystems [5], subdivided further into eight epidemiological clusters (Figure 1(f)) that are dynamic rather than fixed, requiring regular review and updating [6]. FMD is a potential transboundary animal disease (TAD) that requires properly coordinated national, regional, and global progressive control strategies [7–9]. The disease is a major obstacle to both commercial and traditional livestock production systems and even has impacts on the continent’s wildlife sector [10, 11].

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

FMD has a long history in Africa, and countries have struggled for many years to prevent, control, and eliminate the disease through various strategies and initiatives [12]. FMD epidemiological knowledge in livestock and wildlife populations provides vital evidence to design control strategies [13, 14]. Zoo-sanitary measures, such as quarantine and movement permits and the use of physical fences to separate wildlife from domesticated species, are critically important to break the cycle of infection for highly contagious diseases like FMD. These may be supplemented with vaccination and culling of affected herds, though culling may be appropriate in the final stages of eradication. Conversely, in parts of Africa where FMD is more common and where pastoralists predominate, vaccination has always been regarded as the main FMD control approach [10], since control of animal movements is difficult and there are usually insufficient resources to compensate owners in support of livestock culling. However, vaccination is a complex task, requiring a sound strategy, proper implementation, and regular review [15], in order to be effective, especially where complementary control measures are weak [16, 17]. Where resources are available, new tools can be used for partial genome and whole-genome sequencing of FMDV [18, 19], as well as for serological surveillance using commercial kits. Although these biotechnological advances help to understand the epidemiology of FMD (Figure 1(a)–1(f)), FMD remains a regional and global problem with significant food security and livelihood impacts that affect vulnerable communities.

Surveillance activities continue to monitor the occurrence, emergence, and spread of different FMDV serotypes and lineages, including antigenic characterization, to inform vaccine selection [5] (Figure 1(f)). This knowledge can help direct control efforts properly [20, 21]. In the last 10 years, studies have started to investigate the African pastoral context in which control measures must operate and to consider how social and disease control measures can be reconciled [22]. This review explores the FMD control challenges related to the highly diversified pastoral communities [23] and their implications for the improvement of FMD control strategies across Africa.

2. Africa’s Pastoral Systems and Its Impact on FMD

The livestock sector in Africa is predominated by pastoral and agropastoral systems [24]. Pastoralists are found in all regions of Africa with characteristic variable livestock husbandry practices that pertain to their traditional and cultural systems but are influenced by geography, topography, and climatic conditions [25, 26]. According to Robinson [27], there are five main livestock husbandry practices identified in Africa that operate between pastoral and agropastoral systems, namely (i) total nomadism (no permanent place of residence and no regular cultivation), (ii) seminomadism (a permanent place of residence exists and supplementary cultivation is practiced, but for long periods of time animals travel to distant grazing areas), (iii) transhumance (a permanent place of residence exists, and herds are sent to distant grazing areas, usually on seasonal cycles), (iv) partial nomadism (farmers live in permanent settlements and have herds at their disposal that graze in the vicinity), and (v) stationary or sedentary animal husbandry (animals remain on the holding in the village throughout the year). In most cases, more than one livestock husbandry practice operates in a particular geographical area, and each has distinct animal movement characteristics [28, 29]. Pastoralists in Africa are unevenly distributed in the savannah lands and experience diverse climatic conditions across the continent. Some of the areas experience floods of varied duration and rivers that are challenging to cross in some seasons [30, 31]. The pastoralists in Africa are unevenly distributed in the savannah lands and experience different climatic conditions across the continent [28, 29]. Some of the areas experience floods of variable duration and rivers that are difficult to cross in some seasons [30, 31]. Pastoral communities that are diverse and always dynamic [32, 33] make FMD surveillance and monitoring activities challenging due to difficulties to trace/track animals [34–36]. Maintenance of FMD infection in these pastoralist settings provides opportunities for spread between herds and is thought to influence the regional virus circulation patterns [6]. The disparities and complexity amongst pastoralist practices across Africa indicate that tailored approaches will be required to achieve FMD control.

3. Tradition Practices of Farming Multiple Species

Unlike highly commercialized farms in many other parts of the world, most of pastoral communities across Africa such as the Maasai in Kenya and Tanzania often keep multiple species of FMD-susceptible livestock [23] including cattle, sheep, and goats [37, 38]. There is uncertainty over the role of some species in the epidemiology of FMD, which likely depends on stocking density and contacts with other species (Figures 2(a) and 2(b)). The tendency of pastoralists to value and care for cattle more than other species also has implications for FMD control strategies. Similarly, cattle have been the main focus of scientific research and veterinary service provision, such as vaccination programs [15, 39] with other animal species often neglected. This underlines knowledge gaps on the relative contribution of different species in the epidemiology of FMD [8, 40].

(a)

(b)

(c)

4. War and Conflicts in Africa Pastoral Communities

Pastoral communities commonly experience conflicts that endanger human and animal lives [41, 42]. Four key categories cover most reported conflicts. The first category involves struggles within pastoral communities [32, 43]; the second involves struggles between pastoralists and the farming communities [44, 45]; the third involves pastoralists being affected by rebellion groups [46, 47]; and the fourth is between pastoralists and government authorities [45, 48]. Access to grazing lands and pastures, water sources, and animal theft often lead to conflicts [49–51]. These problems are all exacerbated by governance problems [52]. In Africa’s FMD-endemic areas, civil wars followed by protracted postwar recovery and stabilization have been witnessed [53], and this can often lead to a lack of permanent settlements for pastoralists. The free-roaming pastoral communities distort social programs like vaccination campaigns [32]. Wars and conflicts foster food insecurity, diseases, and vulnerabilities, particularly poverty [23, 54] making animal disease control initiatives a low priority. The disputes in Kenya (al Shabaab, postelection unrest), Uganda, South Sudan, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republics of the Congo and Chad (Lord’s resistance army), and Nigeria (Boko Haram) [46, 47, 55] highlight the type and extent of unrest in Africa. In incidents like these, animal health service providers hesitate to travel to remote areas for fear of their security, hence paralyzing animal health programs. Rweyemamuet et al. [56] revealed how insecurity prevented surveying the Southern Somali ecosystem and implicating timely release of global rinderpest eradication declaration reports.

5. Dissimilar Policies on Pastoral Undertakings across African FMD Endemic Countries

Pastoralists in Africa experience a diverse range of policies from their respective governments [57, 58]. For example, Kenya recognizes pastoralism and provides some safeguards as stipulated in the Community Land Act No.27 [59]. In Tanzania, there is no land legislation specific to pastoralism [54] even the National Land Policy of 1995 [60] does not cover pastoral activities in relation to their land resource use and ownership [61]. In Zambia, most land is held by tribal chiefs and managed in common [62–64]. Land policy in Botswana differs most, with predominantly private ranches for livestock production [65, 66]. Increase in human population with growing demands for cultivation and mining activities are evident in Africa as elsewhere [67–69] and have exerted pressure on many pastoral communities, which often do not have legal papers for land ownership [55, 58, 70, 71]. This pressure has resulted in an increased migration of pastoral communities to areas where they can access land for readjustment of their pastoral activities [72]. These differences in national policies and circumstances call for tailored and strategic approaches to deal with animal health problems. Achievement of TADs control (FMD inclusive), therefore, requires an understanding and adjustment of underlying policies that impact pastoralists and their practices.

6. Animal Movements and FMD Epidemiology in African Pastoral Settings

Most pastoralists keep livestock for prestige and livelihood sustenance. The key reasons for movements of animals involve communal grazing land, transhumance, oxen for transport, bulls for mating, dowry transfers, arable land cultivation, and for other social actions like refraining from unsettled disputes. Furthermore, pastoral communities migrate animals due to excessive drought and rains that destroy habitats, pastures, water sources, and crops [73]. The lack of priority given to pasture management necessitates finding new pastures and water sources [74, 75]. Animal movements influence livestock–wildlife interactions, providing opportunities for subsequent interspecies transmission, and spread of infectious disease pathogens [1]. Kangalawe et al. [76] provided background describing pastoral and agropastoral community movements from the early 1950s in Tanzania, mostly involving Maasai, Barbaig, and Sukuma peoples. The authors also cited the rise in north-to-south migration to Mbeya, Iringa, and other regions of Kigoma, Rukwa, Morogoro, Pwani, and Rufiji that occurred in the 1980s. The primary drivers were gradual climatic changes, soil or land degradation from overgrazing and overstocking, poor agricultural practices, and population increase in their areas of origin. In Kenya, predominant pastoral communities are Maasai and Turkana, which have limited mobility due to stringent Kenyan government land policies adopted from the British colonial era [77]. In West Africa, Fulani pastoralist groups in the Savannah and Sahel rangelands operate regulated transhumance movements under the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) 1998 Protocol on Transhumance [78] to monitor of risks for animal diseases epidemics like FMD.

Unmonitored movements have potential to spread the FMDV to susceptible hosts, thereby undermining control efforts [79]. For instance, the 2018 FMD serotype O outbreaks that started in Algeria and spread to Tunisia and lastly Morocco in January 2019 were genetically closely related to the O/EA-3 topotype that originates from West Africa. Furthermore, serotype A outbreaks in Algeria in 2017 FMD were genetically closely related to the Nigerian FMDVs [80]. Similarly, the 2006 FMD serotype A outbreaks in Egypt were genetically closely related to the East Africa topotype (G-VII genotype) that had already been reported in Kenya and Ethiopia [81]. Recently, serotypes O and A have spread southward from East Africa to Zambia [82], Malawi, and Mozambique. Animal movements render vaccination campaigns challenging though missed or incomplete vaccination and reduce the efficiency of disease control programs [15]. African animal health authorities deploy three epidemiological strategies to control animal movements. The first is quarantining, which aims to prevent infected animals from infecting nearby herds. The second is issuing movement permits that are approved after acquiring health and vaccination certificates for regulating long-distance movements of animals. Unfortunately, dishonest officials and pastoralists can misuse these permits, reducing their impact to control animal diseases [35]. The third option is based on controlling local movements, e.g., transhumance through the identification of defined areas within which free movements can occur. Animal health and law enforcement officers have to identify target animal herds under all movement control settings and do monitoring (http://www.fao.org/3/w3737e/w3737e12.htm). Some countries such as South Africa, Botswana, Namibia, and Zimbabwe have also erected physical fences to curb animal movements. Game-proof fences restrict both livestock and wild animal movements and their interactions [83]. However, fencing is expensive and creates socioeconomic and environmental concerns and interrupts wildlife migration, and these may outweigh the FMD control benefits [84, 85]. Although fencing has not been widely adopted by other African countries facing similar FMD problems, animal identification is also poorly practiced in most of Africa’s FMD-endemic areas.

7. Wildlife Involvement in the Epidemiology of FMD in African Pastoral Settings

Many African countries contain wildlife conservation areas that possess rich pastures and water sources [86]. Most pastoral communities are settled around these conservation areas and strategically graze their animals within the parks during droughts, despite the stringent restrictions imposed by the government authorities [87–89]. Studies have shown that SAT serotypes of FMDV are maintained in African buffalo herds (Syncerus caffer) for 24 years or longer [90]. Moreover, transmission of FMDV from infected buffalo in direct contact with cattle can occur under certain conditions of livestock–wildlife interaction, providing a mechanism by which new variants can be introduced into livestock within and around protected areas (Figure 2(b)) [87, 91]. Evidence of long-term FMDV maintenance through virus persistence in infected wildlife of species other than the African buffalo has not been shown, and more efforts are needed to define the FMDV host spectrum in wildlife and their roles in virus spread and maintenance. Such work is hampered by the practical difficulties of conducting surveillance studies in wildlife essentially due to high expenses [92, 93]. The presence of FMDV persistently infected wildlife complicates the epidemiology of the disease and its eventual eradication prospect [88, 94].

8. Challenges of FMD Surveillance Systems in African Pastoral Settings

Surveillance is essential to understand the risks posed by animal diseases [35, 95]. These activities employ active or passive surveillance to monitor FMDV circulation and identify new virus in the field [6] including high-risk areas, such as the livestock–wildlife interface [35, 87, 94]. Surveillance is expensive since it requires data collection at regular intervals and proper record keeping. Obtaining relevant data on TADs like FMD is difficult as record keeping is a challenge in most Africa countries, though it requires effective coordination of pastoralists at all levels [34]. However, pastoral communities live in isolated, scattered, remote, infrastructure-poor, and underdeveloped areas [96], and some in cross-border ecosystems to access communal grazing areas [97, 98]. At certain periods of the year, livestock and their owners become unavailable for surveillance and disease control programs. Thus, considerable flexibility, commitment, time, patience, and passion are needed for retrieving information when conventional approaches are deployed. Among the different surveillance studies employed in Africa, participatory surveillance remains a cost-effective method of gathering vital data from pastoral communities, especially in remote, FMD high-risk pastoral areas [99]. However, the lack of proper knowledge and commitment to record keeping (i.e., vaccination, vaccines, outbreaks, etc.) for the pastoralists and other key players in diseases control is a notable drawback. The lack of appreciable immediate benefits on animal health surveillance activities exacerbates these challenges [89] especially since pastoral communities have little interest in FMD control programs as they do not appreciate the benefits that may accrue from its successful control [11]. The FMD risk-based animal movement epidemiological surveillance data generated should help to implement vaccination program tactics to improve FMD control effectiveness [100]. Interestingly, most FMD surveillance data from pastoral communities in Africa is generated by research studies rather than routine operational surveillance systems. Such studies are infrequent and need considerable time, resources and expertise to design, implement, and analyze for a specific intended purpose.

9. The Burden of Other Diseases with Human and Animal Health Implications

Apart from FMD, African countries and, in particular, the pastoral communities face significant challenges from other diseases with serious human and animal health consequences [101–103]. Based on the WOAH classification, 15 diseases are considered to be the most contagious and of these, 12 are found in Africa [52]. In the FAO Emergency Centre for Transboundary Animal Diseases reports, it is estimated that about 90% of the WOAH-listed diseases are known to occur in Tanzania [104]. The black-quarter (BQ) [105], contagious bovine pleuropneumonia (CBPP) [106], contagious caprine pleuropneumonia (CCPP) [107], peste des petits ruminants (PPR) [108], and East Coast fever (ECF) [109] are among highly reported animals diseases in different African geographical locations. Considering that over 60% of human diseases are of animal origin, the close association of the pastoral communities with their animals increases their risks of zoonotic infection [110] when compared to other communities, bearing in mind that over 60% of human diseases are of animal origin [111, 112]. Some of the most commonly reported human diseases are brucellosis [110], anthrax [113], tuberculosis (TB) [114], HIV-AIDS [115], rabies [116], malaria [117], cholera [118], and rift valley fever and salmonellosis [119]. New disease(s) epidemics like Ebola [120] further drain resources [121]. Most African countries have weak economies [122] and prioritize the control of human diseases over animal health. The future risks and threats to neglected human and animal diseases are expected to escalate due to changes in trends of disease drivers [52], putting extra strain on budgets for control of TADs. Most African governments have a tendency to express high sensitivity and greatest concern for diseases that cause massive mortalities [123] and condemnation of products. The indiscriminate use of unprescribed drugs in Africa intensifies animal and human health threats from antibiotic-resistant pathogens [52]. These are the reasons why FMD control initiatives in most African countries have hitherto been sluggish and unsuccessful. The budgetary constraints and unsustainable commitment have rendered control efforts on FMD and other TADs as temporary, contrary to the rinderpest eradication program which earned global-level commitment [52].

10. Vaccine Performance and Vaccination Challenges in African Pastoral Settings

In FMD endemic regions, vaccines can be used to protect high-value animals, such as dairy cows, a strategy advocated for countries at the early stages of the progressive control pathway for FMD (PCP-FMD) [15]. The FMD vaccines available in Africa and elsewhere consist of whole virus particles, chemically inactivated with binary ethylene-imine (BEI) and combined with oil-based or aqueous adjuvants [124, 125]. These vaccines induce short-lived immunity and require booster vaccinations in order to provide sustained protection [39, 126]. Therefore, maintaining immunity over time needs repeated vaccinations (prophylactic vaccination) or by one-off vaccination to provide temporary protection against a specific threat such as nearby outbreaks (reactive or emergency vaccination). For prophylactic purpose, naïve animals should get two initial vaccinations 3–4 weeks apart, followed by revaccination at every 4–6 months. FMD control requires a regular vaccination of whole populations within a given zone and measures to prevent virus incursions, especially from animals outside the zone. Unfortunately, due to limited resources, most FMD-endemic countries fail to prioritize vaccination and complement it with other control measures. Under African states, some manufacturers recommend five vaccinations per annum, depending on the vaccine potency [124, 125, 127] and FMDV challenge weight [15]. Unfortunately, pastoralists cannot afford multiple revaccinations annually [10, 128]. Vaccines sourced from the Kenya Veterinary Vaccine Production Institute (KEVEVAPI), Kenya, and the Botswana Vaccine Institute (BVI), Botswana, (O, A, and SAT1 and 2) cost about 1.60 USD and 2.24 USD per single dose in Tanzania, excluding the logistical costs [129].

A key point with FMD vaccines is that they are thermally sensitive and require intensive cold chain handling to maintain their good quality from leaving the manufacturer until reaching scattered pastoralists in the field [15]; this also has cost implications [10]. Most herders lack permanent physical addresses or settlements making planned vaccination(s) (Figure 2(c)) and postvaccination evaluation(s) challenging [33, 51]. Pastoral communities are insufficiently educated [130, 131] making it more difficult to raise awareness that complement vaccination with other control measures, like biosecurity precautions. For these reasons, emergency vaccination is the often preferred strategy for government intervention. However, this approach requires good surveillance to define the vaccination zone, a rapid response with potent vaccines, good biosecurity to prevent the vaccination teams from spreading infections, and controls on infected livestock being moved beyond the vaccination zone. Additionally, African vaccines are rarely tested or checked for their quality or strain match, and their field performance is seldom monitored or critically reviewed. The Africa Union-Pan African Veterinary Center of the African Union (AU-PANVAC) has a mandate to check the quality of vaccine batches used in African livestock, but this is not yet done as sourcing, immunization, challenging, and monitoring of naïve cattle with the FMDV has been major drawback. In the absence of government support, pastoralists may be obliged to pay for their own vaccine and plan their own vaccination schedules which is difficult without proof of cost–benefit, guidance, and coordination [6].

11. Status of Infrastructures Required for FMD Control in African Pastoral Settings

The infrastructure networks and social services necessary for diseases control (roads, electricity, water, banks, veterinary clinics, veterinary laboratories, hospitals, and schools) in most pastoral communities are underdeveloped [132]. Furthermore, the presence of diverse types of obstructive geographical features (rivers, valleys, hills, and steep mountains) in these highly dispersed communities complicates logistics further and increases transport, materials storage, vaccination, and monitoring expenses for disease control [6, 133]. Due to resource constraints, most of the government authorities in Africa give a low priority to disease control in pastoral areas. This makes effective provision of services in these areas even more challenging [130, 134]. Even competent animal health personnel can become discouraged from working in pastoral areas due to this challenge [135]. Therefore, it is difficult for any animal health program (e.g. vaccination programs) to reach pastoral communities in a timely manner and this impacts negatively on the effectiveness of the FMD control programs [6]. Furthermore, the one health approach needs to be emphasized to enable sharing of some pertinent missing services or facilities in remote areas. And finally, the government(s) need to undertake some land policy reforms to accommodate and transform pastoral activities, and suit infrastructures access that facilitates animal diseases control.

12. The Difference in Animal Disease Control Priorities among African Countries and Communities

Despite many similarities in the challenges from diseases of human and animal health [101, 102], there are marked differences in priorities for control of FMD and other endemic livestock diseases between communities and countries [136]. For example, a participatory study in the Maasai Mara ecosystem in Southwestern Kenya revealed that pastoralists had different ideas about which animal diseases were most important and how they affected their lives [137]. According to pastoralists who participated, FMD has the highest impact on milk production and is ranked second to CBPP based on ascribed losses instead of ECF. In Tanzania, CBPP is regarded as the highest priority disease among all frequently reported livestock diseases (ECF, trypanosomosis, CBPP, BQ, TB, and anthrax) [138, 139]. In Uganda, FMD stands first in their priority lists for disease control. The economic disparities between countries affect the disease control priorities; for instance, low-income countries experience high challenge of infectious zoonotic disease burden of about 13%, as compared to 1% in high-income countries [136]. The countries with many cattle are likely to be more enthusiastic and ambitious to export animal products to lucrative markets after controlling FMD, but this may be offset by the lack of resources, expertise, and priorities, contrary to the outlook in Southern Africa countries like South Africa and Botswana. Currently, there is no single disease that African countries have decided to control strategically by joint efforts /initiatives under regional agreements as stipulated in the OIE: FAO’s [36] document. This lack of harmonization in rankings creates difficulties in agreeing which diseases should be prioritized for control, particularly where joint initiatives among African countries are needed. Perhaps there are lesson to be learnt from the 2011 global Rinderpest eradication success, where all countries were fully engaged in the campaign process [140].

13. Possible Options for Improving FMD Control under the Current Pastoral Settings in Africa

FMD control in the African endemic context faces multiple challenges that need to be addressed systematically to convey tailored solutions concepts. FMD control priorities vary and most countries are in PCP-FMD stages 1 and 2 with only a few in stages 3 and 4 (Figures 3(a) and 3(b)). The FMD free countries avoid new FMDV incursions that can lead to suspension of their FMD freedom status and beef exports. These countries are challenged by new FMDV variants, maintaining adequate vaccination immunity, and managing biosecurity measures at FMD high-risk areas like livestock–wildlife interfaces and pastoralists’ animal movements. They address animal introduction prevention, prophylactic vaccination, and active monitoring for early detection and rapid response to FMD incursions [9, 141]. The countries at early stages are mostly challenged by the availability of resources, often because of the absence of export markets. PCP-FMD can be executed on a single-country basis but due to porous borders, joint actions are emphasized to enhance outcomes (Figures 3(a) and 3(b)). The countries can progress together by (1) ecosystem-based approaches as described by Maree et al. [6], (2) geographical-based approaches via defined regions in the continent (East, Central, West, South, and North) or as a whole continent, as in Europe and South America under EuFMD and COLSAFA, respectively, and (3) political-based approaches via multiple countries establishing political communities/forums like The Southern African Development Community (SADC), ECOWAS, and East Africa Federation (EAF).

(a)

(b)

Sustainable regional and inter-regional trade in Africa needs commodity-based trade (CBT) and other nongeographic FMD control approaches [142]. The latter strategy emphasizes removing the risk of infection from final products or commodities, despite whether the infection has been eradicated from a region’s entire livestock population or not. For example, a hazard analysis critical control point may be used to destroy FMDV during beef processing (beef maturation after deboning and lymph nodes removal). Biosecurity measures and vaccinations can be enhanced to protect livestock against FMDV infection in established compartments [142]. Thus, CBT reinforces the 2012 Phakalane Declaration on trade of beef from places where FMD cannot be easily eliminated by the available geographical-based control measures. The integration of movement controls, vaccination strategies, and biosecurity measures in an African pastoral context could minimize infections, and strengthen animal products trade [142]. The adoption of value chain-based approach to CBT when merged with participatory-based studies [143–145] could promote pastoral communities participation to minimizing FMD contamination risk.

During rinderpest surveillance programs in Pakistan and Kenya, pastoralists helped identifying priority disease in various geographical locations to promote pastoralists’ prompt response and execution of mitigation measures [146]. Pastoralists can readily adopt disease controls when they experience practical benefits in the livestock production value chain. Adoption of control measures may also aid in managing other diseases that pose a threat to their animals as was the case with HPAI control in Africa [99, 144].

FMDV surveillance programs need to be enhanced to determine spatiotemporal distribution of FMDV strains and to identify FMD risk hotspots based on transmission. The rapid and accurate field deployable diagnostic tools like portable qRT-PCR [147] need to be emphasized to support timely diagnosis during outbreaks. Participatory epidemiology and surveillance programs need to be improved by using digital mobile technologies [148], such as the SACIDS-AfyaData app in Tanzania [149]. This will promote quick access and hasten sharing of data at local, national, and international levels [99]. The mapping of the dominant animal movements needs to be done concurrently to understand animal risk pathways in pastoral regions [142]. With suitable vaccination programs, this will foster opportunities for commercial activities and investment via identified and established FMD-free zones and compartments. Strengthening of public–private partnership approaches to improve FMD vaccine value chain awareness from production, purchasing, distribution, delivery, vaccination, and postvaccination monitoring to FMD endemic and pastoralists predominated countries will enable effective vaccine usage and performance [150].

The countries need to enhance laboratory capacity and networks to diagnose and characterize FMDV in a timely manner. A primary driver should be to encourage countries with unknown FMD status to submit outbreak samples and reports. Laboratories need to take part in FMD mitigation quality control activities like vaccine selection and vaccination monitoring, use of high potency vaccines matched with field circulating strains, recommended vaccination schedule, and coverage are required. Finally, regional strategies and initiatives to control FMD in Africa should be coordinated in multicountry state rather than being centered on individual country efforts, with animal health policies adjusted to accommodate existing disparities among FMD endemic countries [99].

14. Conclusion

This review highlights FMD control challenges across Africa in the context of pastoral communities. African pastoral practices need to be perceived as historical adaptations to survive difficulties along with changing climatic conditions rather than a nuisance. This review reveals how pastoral communities operate in particular ecological contexts that render FMD maintenance and control across Africa more complicated than in any other regions in the world. This calls for tailored mitigation approaches that address:(i)Reform of land policies in FMD endemic countries to suit sustainable environmental management practices and enhance pasture and water availability. This will also support the establishment of FMD control infrastructures and promote opportunities for PCP-FMD progress.(ii)The lessons of cooperation via FMD control strategies in Europe and South America. Initiate an AU-FMD platform to foster regional FMD scientific studies, present evidence needed to accelerate CBT, and catalyze PCP-FMD participation.(iii)Emphasize ecosystem-based disease control approach to account for unique pastoral animal movements, the multiplicity of circulating FMDV field variants, the limited availability of vaccines, vaccination, and monitoring.(iv)Enhance participatory surveillance systems for gathering pastoral knowledge with quick access and multisectoral sharing of information to improve preparedness and rapid response to epidemic diseases like FMD.(v)Countries need to consider FMD vaccines as a public good or subsidize, demonstrate their cost-benefits to promote appropriate uptake by pastoralists, and ensure availability of suitable quality vaccines and indicate where they can be effective. In cases where vaccination campaigns experience adequate financing, then the private sector may have to take responsibility for vaccination, as for other endemic diseases.(vi)The WOAH guidelines (TAHC Chapter 4.4 and Chapter 4.5) for FMD free zones and compartments (OIE, 2014) facilitate exports to FMD free countries, but there is a gap in guidance on appropriate risk mitigation for trade between infected countries and zones, and there are no WOAH guideline for CBT that could accelerate trade amongst FMD challenged countries with roaming pastoral herds and carrier wildlife [87, 88, 142].

The future studies of animal movements across African need to be combined with molecular epidemiological data generated from circulating FMDV strains to improve outbreak predictions and proper vaccine usage. Also, the future vaccines for Africa need to consider thermostability, protection duration, and cross-protection challenges for improving logistical and vaccination expenses.

Ethical Approval

The ethical statement is declared not applicable to this work as no questionnaires, animals, and humans samples were collected in accomplishing this review study.

Disclosure

In this manuscript, we involved articles from peer-reviewed journals, technical reports, open-access data from highly trusted repositories, and chapters from electronic book versions. There were no generalized search criteria, instead only specific keywords were identified for every problem(s) noted under each subheading and used for searching the information objectively. A vast of electronic databases were used for searching the information like Google Scholar, Springer, Wiley, ScienceDirect, etc., and a total of 150 articles were found to have relevant information for inclusion in this manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

This work was done at Sokoine University of Agriculture (SUA) under World Bank and Government of the United Republic of Tanzania support through Southern Africa Centre for Infectious Diseases Surveillance–Africa Centre of Excellence (SACIDS–ACE) project for PhD fellowship (WB-ACE II Grant PAD1436) in collaboration with the Intermediate Fellowship in Public Health and Tropical Medicine (IFPHTM) project WT104017MA. The Tanzania Veterinary Laboratory Agency (TVLA) of the Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries is also highly acknowledged for the supplementary support in accomplishing this review work on FMD.

References

A. Di Nardo, N. J. Knowles, and D. J. Paton, “Combining livestock trade patterns with phylogenetics to help understand the spread of foot-and-mouth disease in sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia,” Review of Science and Technology Office International Des Epizooties, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 63–85, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. J. Adams, E. J. Lefkowitz, A. M. Q. King, and E. B. Carstens, “Recently agreed changes to the International code of virus classification and nomenclature,” Archives of Virology, vol. 158, no. 12, pp. 2633–2639, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Zell, E. Delwart, A. E. Gorbalenya et al., “ICTV virus taxonomy profile: picornaviridae,” Journal of General Virology, vol. 98, no. 10, pp. 2421-2422, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. P. Brito, L. L. Rodriguez, J. M. Hammond, J. Pinto, and A. M. Perez, “Review of the global distribution of foot-and-mouth disease virus from 2007 to 2014,” Transboundary and Emerging Diseases, vol. 64, no. 2, pp. 316–332, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. King, A. Di Nardo, and M. Henstock, “OIE/FAO foot-and-mouth disease reference laboratory network annual report 2017,” 2017.
View at: Google Scholar
F. Maree, C. Kasanga, K. Scott et al., “Challenges and prospects for the control of foot-and-mouth disease: an African perspective,” Veterinary Medicine: Research and Reports, vol. 2014, pp. 119–138, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. J. Paton, K. J. Sumption, and B. Charleston, “Options for control of foot-and-mouth disease: knowledge, capability and policy,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, vol. 364, no. 1530, pp. 2657–2667, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Rweyemamu, P. Roeder, D. MacKay, K. Sumption, J. Brownlie, and Y. Leforban, “Planning for the progressive control of foot-and-mouth disease worldwide,” Transboundary and Emerging Diseases, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 73–87, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Sumption, J. Domenech, and G. Ferrari, “Progressive control of FMD on a global scale,” Veterinary Record, vol. 170, no. 25, pp. 637–639, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Barasa, A. Catley, D. Machuchu et al., “Foot-and-mouth disease vaccination in South Sudan: benefit-cost analysis and livelihoods impact,” Transboundary and Emerging Diseases, vol. 55, no. 8, pp. 339–351, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. J. D. Knight-Jones and J. Rushton, “The economic impacts of foot and mouth disease—What are they, how big are they and where do they occur?” Preventive Veterinary Medicine, vol. 112, no. 3-4, pp. 161–173, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. M. Rweyemamu, “Foot and mouth disease control strategies in Africa,” Preventive Veterinary Medicine, vol. 2, no. 1–4, pp. 329–340, 1984.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. B. Casey, T. Lembo, N. J. Knowles et al., “Patterns of foot-and-mouth disease virus distribution in Africa: the role of livestock and wildlife in virus emergence,” in The Role of Animals in Emerging Viral Diseases, pp. 21–38, Elsevier, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. J. Paton, S. Gubbins, and D. P. King, “Understanding the transmission of foot-and-mouth disease virus at different scales,” Current Opinion in Virology, vol. 28, pp. 85–91, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Ferrari, D. Paton, S. Duffy, C. Bartels, and T. Knight-Jones, Foot and Mouth Disease Vaccination and Post-vaccination Monitoring Guidelines, FAO, 2016.
E. Elnekave, Y. Li, L. Zamir et al., “The field effectiveness of routine and emergency vaccination with an inactivated vaccine against foot and mouth disease,” Vaccine, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 879–885, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. F. Maree, P. Nsamba, P. Mutowembwa, L. S. Rotherham, J. Esterhuysen, and K. Scott, “Intra-serotype SAT2 chimeric foot-and-mouth disease vaccine protects cattle against FMDV challenge,” Vaccine, vol. 33, no. 25, pp. 2909–2916, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. M. Cottam, J. Wadsworth, A. E. Shaw et al., “Transmission pathways of foot-and-mouth disease virus in the United Kingdom in 2007,” PLOS Pathogens, vol. 4, no. 4, Article ID e1000050, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Logan, G. L. Freimanis, D. J. King et al., “A universal protocol to generate consensus level genome sequences for foot-and-mouth disease virus and other positive-sense polyadenylated RNA viruses using the Illumina MiSeq,” BMC Genomics, vol. 15, no. 1, Article ID 828, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Chitray, T. A. P. de Beer, W. Vosloo, and F. F. Maree, “Genetic heterogeneity in the leader and P1-coding regions of foot-and-mouth disease virus serotypes A and O in Africa,” Archives of Virology, vol. 159, pp. 947–961, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Lloyd-Jones, M. Mahapatra, S. Upadhyaya et al., “Genetic and antigenic characterization of serotype O FMD viruses from East Africa for the selection of suitable vaccine strain,” Vaccine, vol. 35, no. 49, pp. 6842–6849, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Casey-Bryars, R. Reeve, U. Bastola et al., “Waves of endemic foot-and-mouth disease in eastern Africa suggest feasibility of proactive vaccination approaches,” Nature Ecology & Evolution, vol. 2, no. 9, pp. 1449–1457, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. A. Kaufmann, M. A. Lelea, and C. G. Hülsebusch, “Diversity in livestock resources in pastoral systems in Africa,” Revue Scientifique et Technique de l’OIE, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 445–459, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. J. McDermott, S. J. Staal, H. A. Freeman, M. Herrero, and J. A. Van de Steeg, “Sustaining intensification of smallholder livestock systems in the tropics,” Livestock Science, vol. 130, no. 1–3, pp. 95–109, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. R. Adano, T. Dietz, K. Witsenburg, and F. Zaal, “Climate change, violent conflict and local institutions in Kenya’s drylands,” Journal of Peace Research, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 65–80, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Schilling, F. E. Opiyo, and J. Scheffran, “Raiding pastoral livelihoods: motives and effects of violent conflict in north-western Kenya,” Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice, vol. 2, no. 1, p. 25, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. P. Robinson, “Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations,” in Global Livestock Production Systems, International Livestock Research Institute, & Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. J. Nash, G. De Cort, B. M. Chase et al., “African hydroclimatic variability during the last 2000 years,” Quaternary Science Reviews, vol. 154, pp. 1–22, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. E. Nicholson, C. Funk, and A. H. Fink, “Rainfall over the African continent from the 19th through the 21st century,” Global and Planetary Change, vol. 165, pp. 114–127, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Boamah, F. Armah, V. Kuuire, I. Ajibade, I. Luginaah, and G. McBean, “Does previous experience of floods stimulate the adoption of coping strategies? Evidence from cross sectional surveys in Nigeria and Tanzania,” Environments, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 565–585, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. Krysanova, C. Dickens, J. Timmerman et al., “Cross-comparison of climate change adaptation strategies across large river basins in Europe, Africa and Asia,” Water Resources Management, vol. 24, no. 14, pp. 4121–4160, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Amusan, O. Abegunde, and T. E. Akinyemi, “Climate change, pastoral migration, resource governance and security: the grazing bill solution to farmer-herder conflict in Nigeria,” Environmental Economics, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 35–45, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Owuor, W. Mauta, and S. Eriksen, “Sustainable adaptation and human security: interactions between pastoral and agropastoral groups in dryland Kenya,” Climate and Development, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 42–58, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. Caporale, A. Giovannini, and C. Zepeda, “Surveillance strategies for foot and mouth disease to prove absence of disease and absence of viral circulation,” Revue Scientifique et Technique (International Office of Epizootics), vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 747–759, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Jori, W. Vosloo, B. J. A. Du Plessis, D. Brahmbhatt, B. Gummow, and G. R. Thomson, “A qualitative risk assessment of factors contributing to foot and mouth disease outbreaks in cattle along the western boundary of the Kruger National Park,” Revue Scientifique et Technique de l’OIE, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 917–931, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
OIE, & FAO, “The global foot and mouth disease control strategy: strengthening animal health sysyems through improved control of major diseases,” 2012.
View at: Google Scholar
D. Gifford-Gonzalez and O. Hanotte, “Domesticating Animals in Africa: implications of genetic and archaeological findings,” Journal of World Prehistory, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 1–23, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. Samuels, C. Cupido, M. B. Swarts, A. R. Palmer, and J. W. Paulse, “Feeding ecology of four livestock species under different management in a semi-arid pastoral system in South Africa,” African Journal of Range & Forage Science, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 1–9, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Parida, “Vaccination against foot-and-mouth disease virus: strategies and effectiveness,” Expert Review of Vaccines, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 347–365, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Caron, D. Cornelis, C. Foggin, M. Hofmeyr, and M. de Garine-Wichatitsky, “African buffalo movement and zoonotic disease risk across transfrontier conservation areas, Southern Africa,” Emerging Infectious Diseases, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 277–280, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. G. Galaty, “States of violence: ethnicity, politics, and pastoral conflict in East Africa | geography research forum,” Geography Research Forum, vol. 25, no. 2005, pp. 1–23, 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Moritz, “Understanding herder-farmer conflicts in West Africa: outline of a processual approach,” Human Organization, vol. 69, no. 2, pp. 138–148, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. N. Tarla, “Causes of cattle theft in the North West Region of Cameroon,” Scholarly Journal of Agricultural Science, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 181–187, 2014.
View at: Google Scholar
A. U. Bello, “Herdsmen and farmers conflicts in North-Eastern Nigeria: causes, repercussions and resolutions,” Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. A. Benjaminsen and B. Ba, “Farmer–herder conflicts, pastoral marginalisation and corruption: a case study from the inland Niger delta of Mali,” The Geographical Journal, vol. 175, no. 1, pp. 71–81, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. O. Aremu, “Conflicts in Africa: meaning, causes, impact and solutiondeoti,” African Research Review, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 549–560, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. A. Benjaminsen and B. Ba, “Why do pastoralists in Mali join jihadist groups? A political ecological explanation,” The Journal of Peasant Studies, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 1–20, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. Frys and B. Nienaber, “Protected areas and regional development: conflicts and opportunities—presented on the example of the UNESCO biosphere reserve Bliesgau,” European Countryside, vol. 3, no. 3, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. A. Benjaminsen, “Does climate change lead to conflicts in the Sahel?” in The End of Desertification? R. Behnke and K. Mortimore, Eds., Springer Earth System Sciences, pp. 99–116, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. V. Brottem, “Environmental change and farmer-herder conflict in Agro-Pastoral West Africa,” Human Ecology, vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 547–563, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Seter, O. M. Theisen, and J. Schilling, “All about water and land? Resource-related conflicts in East and West Africa revisited,” GeoJournal, vol. 83, no. 1, pp. 169–187, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Rweyemamu, W. Otim-Nape, and D. Serwadda, “Foresight. Infectious diseases: preparing for the future. Africa,” 2006.
View at: Google Scholar
I. Rudolfsen, “State capacity, inequality and inter-group violence in Sub-Saharan Africa: 1989–2011,” Civil Wars, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 118–145, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. A. Benjaminsen, S. Holden, C. Lund, and E. Sjaastad, “Formalisation of land rights: some empirical evidence from Mali, Niger and South Africa,” Land Use Policy, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 28–35, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. A. Benjaminsen, F. P. Maganga, and J. M. Abdallah, “The kilosa killings: political ecology of a Farmer–Herder conflict in Tanzania,” Development and Change, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 423–445, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Rweyemamu, W. Otim-Nape, and D. Serwadda, “Infectious diseases: preparing for the future. Africa,” 2006, Foresight.
View at: Google Scholar
R. S. Reid, D. Nkedianye, M. Y. Said et al., “Evolution of models to support community and policy action with science: balancing pastoral livelihoods and wildlife conservation in savannas of East Africa,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 113, no. 17, pp. 4579–4584, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Toulmin, “Securing land and property rights in sub-Saharan Africa: the role of local institutions,” Land Use Policy, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 10–19, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Community Land Act No.27, “The Laws of Kenya,” 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
I. S. Selemani, “Communal rangelands management and challenges underpinning pastoral mobility in Tanzania: a review,” Livestock Research for Rural Development, vol. 26, no. 5, 2014.
View at: Google Scholar
E. Daley and B. Englert, “Securing land rights for women,” Journal of Eastern African Studies, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 91–113, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Government of the Republic of Zambia-GRZ, “The lands act. chapter 184 of the laws of Zambia,” 1995.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Mudenda, “The challenges of customary land tenure in Zambia,” 2006.
View at: Google Scholar
N. J. Sitko, “Fractured governance and local frictions: the exclusionary nature of a clandestine land market in Southern Zambia,” Africa, vol. 80, no. 1, pp. 36–55, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. J. Dougill, L. Akanyang, J. S. Perkins et al., “Land use, rangeland degradation and ecological changes in the Southern Kalahari, Botswana,” African Journal of Ecology, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 59–67, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Mulale, R. Chanda, J. S. Perkins et al., “Formal institutions and their role in promoting sustainable land management in Boteti, Botswana,” Land Degradation & Development, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 80–91, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. G. Adam, “Thinking outside the box and introducing land readjustment against the conventional urban land acquisition and delivery method in Ethiopia,” Land Use Policy, vol. 81, pp. 624–631, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. H. Koroso, J. A. Zevenbergen, and M. Lengoiboni, “Land institutions’ credibility: analyzing the role of complementary institutions,” Land Use Policy, vol. 81, pp. 553–564, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Land Matrix, “Landmatrix.org. Online public database on land deals,” 2013.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Bertrand, “A cadastre for Mali? The production of land titles and the challenge of property data on the periphery of Bamako,” Land Use Policy, vol. 81, pp. 371–381, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Robertson and P. Pinstrup-Andersen, “Global land acquisition: neo-colonialism or development opportunity?” Food Security, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 271–283, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. K. Kaimba, B. K. Njehia, and A. Y. Guliye, “Effects of cattle rustling and household characteristics on migration decisions and herd size amongst pastoralists in Baringo District, Kenya,” Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice, vol. 1, Article ID 18, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Shiferaw, K. Tesfaye, M. Kassie, T. Abate, B. M. Prasanna, and A. Menkir, “Managing vulnerability to drought and enhancing livelihood resilience in sub-Saharan Africa: technological, institutional and policy options,” Weather and Climate Extremes, vol. 3, pp. 67–79, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. J. Wigley, W. J. Bond, and M. T. Hoffman, “Bush encroachment under three contrasting land-use practices in a mesic South African savanna,” African Journal of Ecology, vol. 47, no. s1, pp. 62–70, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Trigg, J. Dempewolf, M. Elgamri, C. Justice, and V. Gorsevski, “Fire and land use change heighten tensions between pastoral nomads and mechanized farmers in Kordofan and White Nile States, Sudan,” Journal of Land Use Science, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 275–288, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Y. M. Kangalawe, D. G. Mwamfupe, and M. J. Mbonile, “Land management systems and their environmental impacts in the Usangu Plains, Tanzania,” Journal of The Geographical Association of Tanzania, vol. 32, pp. 15–32, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Mwangi and E. Ostrom, “Top-down solutions: looking up from East Africa’s Rangelands,” Environment, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 34–45, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
United Nations Office for West Africa States and Sahel-UNOWAS, “Pastoralism and Security in West Africa and the Sahel Towards Peaceful Coexistence,” 2018.
View at: Google Scholar
N. Muroga, S. Kobayashi, T. Nishida et al., “Risk factors for the transmission of foot-and-mouth disease during the 2010 outbreak in Japan: a case–control study,” BMC Veterinary Research, vol. 9, no. 1, p. 150, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Pezzoni, A. Bregoli, S. Grazioli et al., “Foot-and-mouth disease outbreaks due to an exotic virus serotype A lineage (A/AFRICA/G-IV) in Algeria in 2017,” Transboundary and Emerging Diseases, vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 7–13, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. J. Knowles, J. Wadsworth, S. M. Reid et al., “Foot-and-mouth disease virus Serotype A in Egypt,” Emerging Infectious Diseases, vol. 13, no. 10, pp. 1593–1596, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Banda, A. Shilongo, E. H. Hikufe et al., “The first detection of a serotype O foot-and-mouth disease virus in Namibia,” Transboundary and Emerging Diseases, vol. 69, no. 5, pp. e3261–e3267, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. J. Ferguson, S. Cleaveland, D. T. Haydon et al., “Evaluating the potential for the environmentally sustainable control of foot and mouth disease in Sub-Saharan Africa,” EcoHealth, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 314–322, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Cozzi, F. Broekhuis, J. W. McNutt, B. Schmid, and J. Fryxell, “Comparison of the effects of artificial and natural barriers on large African carnivores: implications for interspecific relationships and connectivity,” Journal of Animal Ecology, vol. 82, no. 3, pp. 707–715, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Harris, S. Thirgood, J. G. C. Hopcraft, J. P. G. M. Cromsight, and J. Berger, “Global decline in aggregated migrations of large terrestrial mammals,” Endangered Species Research, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 55–76, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Valls-Fox, S. Chamaillé-Jammes, M. de Garine-Wichatitsky et al., “Water and cattle shape habitat selection by wild herbivores at the edge of a protected area,” Animal Conservation, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 365–375, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Miguel, V. Grosbois, A. Caron et al., “Contacts and foot and mouth disease transmission from wild to domestic bovines in Africa,” Ecosphere, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 1–32, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Miguel, V. Grosbois, H. Fritz et al., “Drivers of foot-and-mouth disease in cattle at wild/domestic interface: insights from farmers, buffalo and lions,” Diversity and Distributions, vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 1018–1030, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. de Garine-Wichatitsky, E. Miguel, B. Mukamuri et al., “Coexisting with wildlife in transfrontier conservation areas in Zimbabwe: cattle owners’ awareness of disease risks and perceptions of the role played by wildlife,” Comparative Immunology, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 321–332, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
World Organisation for Animal Health-WOAH, “Terrestrial Code Online Access,” 2022.
View at: Google Scholar
Ż. Kaszta, S. A. Cushman, C. Sillero-Zubiri, E. Wolff, and J. Marino, “Where buffalo and cattle meet: modelling interspecific contact risk using cumulative resistant kernels,” Ecography, vol. 41, no. 10, pp. 1616–1626, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Maree, L.-M. de Klerk-Lorist, S. Gubbins et al., “Differential persistence of foot-and-mouth disease virus in african buffalo is related to virus Virulence,” Journal of Virology, vol. 90, no. 10, pp. 5132–5140, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Tekleghiorghis, R. J. M. Moormann, K. Weerdmeester, and A. Dekker, “Foot-and-mouth disease transmission in Africa: implications for control, a review,” Transboundary and Emerging Diseases, vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 136–151, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. P. Brito, F. Jori, R. Dwarka, F. F. Maree, L. Heath, and A. M. Perez, “Transmission of foot-and-mouth disease SAT2 viruses at the wildlife–livestock interface of two major transfrontier conservation areas in Southern Africa,” Frontiers in Microbiology, vol. 7, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. A. Lyons, A. B. Ludi, G. Wilsden et al., “Evaluation of a polyvalent foot-and-mouth disease virus vaccine containing A Saudi-95 against field challenge on large-scale dairy farms in Saudi Arabia with the emerging A/ASIA/G-VII viral lineage,” Vaccine, vol. 35, no. 49, pp. 6850–6857, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. D. Little, J. McPeak, C. B. Barrett, and P. Kristjanson, “Challenging orthodoxies: understanding poverty in pastoral areas of East Africa,” Development and Change, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 587–611, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Bayissa, G. Ayelet, M. Kyule, Y. Jibril, and E. Gelaye, “Study on seroprevalence, risk factors, and economic impact of foot-and-mouth disease in Borena pastoral and agro-pastoral system, Southern Ethiopia,” Tropical Animal Health and Production, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 759–766, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. J. Shiferaw, K. Moses, and K. E. Manyahilishal, “Participatory appraisal of foot and mouth disease in the Afar pastoral area, northeast Ethiopia: implications for understanding disease ecology and control strategy,” Tropical Animal Health and Production, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 193–201, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Allepuz, K. de Balogh, R. Aguanno, M. Heilmann, D. Beltran-Alcrudo, and J. A. Caylà, “Review of participatory epidemiology practices in animal health (1980-2015) and future practice directions,” PLOS ONE, vol. 12, no. 1, Article ID e0169198, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Leite, S. L. Thomas, and N. J. Andrews, “Implementing near real-time vaccine safety surveillance using the clinical practice research datalink (CPRD),” Vaccine, vol. 35, no. 49, pp. 6885–6892, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. E. Jones, N. G. Patel, M. A. Levy et al., “Global trends in emerging infectious diseases,” Nature, vol. 451, no. 7181, pp. 990–993, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Lozano, M. Naghavi, K. Foreman et al., “Global and regional mortality from 235 causes of death for 20 age groups in 1990 and 2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010,” The Lancet, vol. 380, no. 9859, pp. 2095–2128, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. J. Hotez and A. Kamath, “Neglected tropical diseases in Sub-Saharan Africa: review of their prevalence, distribution, and disease burden,” PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, vol. 3, no. 8, Article ID e412, 2009.
View at: Google Scholar
E. E. M. Kivaria and F. M., “Assessment of costs and benefits of epidemio-surveillance and national disease prevention systems in Tanzania (case of CBPP & HPAI),” 2010.
View at: Google Scholar
B. Ayele, W. Tigre, and B. Deressa, “Epidemiology and financial loss estimation of blackleg on smallholder cattle herders in Kembata Tambaro zone, Southern Ethiopia,” SpringerPlus, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 1822, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Kassaye and W. Molla, “Seroprevalence of contagious bovine pleuropneumonia at export quarantine centers in and around Adama, Ethiopia,” Tropical Animal Health and Production, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 275–279, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. A. Kipronoh, J. N. Ombui, Y. S. Binepal et al., “Risk factors associated with contagious caprine pleuro-pneumonia in goats in pastoral areas in the Rift Valley region of Kenya,” Preventive Veterinary Medicine, vol. 132, pp. 107–112, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. C. Banyard, S. Parida, C. Batten, C. Oura, O. Kwiatek, and G. Libeau, “Global distribution of peste des petits ruminants virus and prospects for improved diagnosis and control,” Journal of General Virology, vol. 91, no. 12, pp. 2885–2897, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Gilioli, M. Groppi, M. P. Vesperoni, J. Baumgärtner, and A. P. Gutierrez, “An epidemiological model of East Coast Fever in African livestock,” Ecological Modelling, vol. 220, no. 13-14, pp. 1652–1662, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. John, J. Fitzpatrick, N. French et al., “Quantifying risk factors for human Brucellosis in Rural Northern Tanzania,” PLOS ONE, vol. 5, no. 4, Article ID e9968, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. M. Morens, A. S. Fauci, and J. Heitman, “Emerging infectious diseases: threats to human health and global stability,” PLOS Pathogens, vol. 9, no. 7, Article ID e1003467, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. R. van Doorn, “Emerging infectious diseases,” Medicine, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 60–63, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Muturi, J. Gachohi, A. Mwatondo et al., “Recurrent anthrax outbreaks in humans, livestock, and wildlife in the same locality, Kenya, 2014–2017,” The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, vol. 99, no. 4, pp. 833–839, 2018, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Munyeme, J. B. Muma, E. Skjerve et al., “Risk factors associated with bovine tuberculosis in traditional cattle of the livestock/wildlife interface areas in the Kafue basin of Zambia,” Preventive Veterinary Medicine, vol. 85, no. 3-4, pp. 317–328, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. S. A. Karim, G. J. Churchyard, Q. A. Karim, and S. D. Lawn, “HIV infection and tuberculosis in South Africa: an urgent need to escalate the public health response,” The Lancet, vol. 374, no. 9693, pp. 921–933, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Dodet, E. V. Adjogoua, A. R. Aguemon et al., “Fighting rabies in Africa: the Africa Rabies Expert Bureau (AfroREB),” Vaccine, vol. 26, no. 50, pp. 6295–6298, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Bhatt, D. J. Weiss, E. Cameron et al., “The effect of malaria control on Plasmodium falciparum in Africa between 2000 and 2015,” Nature, vol. 526, no. 7572, pp. 207–211, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Nkoko, P. Giraudoux, P.-D. Plisnier et al., “Dynamics of cholera outbreaks in Great Lakes region of Africa, 1978–2008,” Emerging Infectious Diseases, vol. 17, no. 11, pp. 2026–2034, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. A. Gordon, S. M. Graham, A. L. Walsh et al., “Epidemics of invasive Salmonella enterica serovar enteritidis and S. enterica Serovar typhimurium infection associated with multidrug resistance among adults and children in Malawi,” Clinical Infectious Diseases, vol. 46, no. 7, pp. 963–969, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Baize, D. Pannetier, L. Oestereich et al., “Emergence of zaire ebola virus disease in guinea,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 371, no. 15, pp. 1418–1425, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. M. Rich and J. K. Niemi, “The economic impact of a new animal disease: same effects in developed and developing countries?” Revue Scientifique et Technique de l’OIE, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 115–124, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Gupta, C. A. Pattillo, and S. Wagh, “Effect of remittances on poverty and financial development in Sub-Saharan Africa,” World Development, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 104–115, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. M. Rich and B. D. Perry, “The economic and poverty impacts of animal diseases in developing countries: new roles, new demands for economics and epidemiology,” Preventive Veterinary Medicine, vol. 101, no. 3-4, pp. 133–147, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Khorasani, O. Madadgar, H. Soleimanjahi, H. Keyvanfar, and H. Mahravani, “Evaluation of the efficacy of a new oil-based adjuvant ISA 61 VG FMD vaccine as a potential vaccine for cattle,” Iranian Journal of Veterinary Research, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 8–12, 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
T. R. Doel, “FMD vaccines,” Virus Research, vol. 91, no. 1, pp. 81–99, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Robinson, T. J. D. Knight-Jones, B. Charleston et al., “Global foot-and-mouth disease research update and gap analysis: 3-vaccines,” Transboundary and Emerging Diseases, vol. 63, pp. 30–41, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Çokçalışkan, T. Türkoğlu, B. Sareyyüpoğlu et al., “QS-21 enhances the early antibody response to oil adjuvant foot-and-mouth disease vaccine in cattle,” Clinical and Experimental Vaccine Research, vol. 5, no. 2, Article ID 138, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Diaz-San Segundo, G. N. Medina, C. Stenfeldt, J. Arzt, and T. de los Santos, “Foot-and-mouth disease vaccines,” Veterinary Microbiology, vol. 206, pp. 102–112, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Häsler, K. Queenan, J. Rushton, and J. Mlangwa, “Cost-benefit and feasibility analysis for establishing a foot and mouth disease free zone in Rukwa region in Tanzania,” 2017.
View at: Google Scholar
C. Dyer, “Evolving approaches to educating children from nomadic communities,” Prospects, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 39–54, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. R. Gustafson, E. VanWormer, R. Kazwala et al., “Educating pastoralists and extension officers on diverse livestock diseases in a changing environment in Tanzania,” Pastoralism, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 1, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. Williams, “Infrastructure development: public private partnership path for developing rural telecommunications in Africa,” Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 63–72, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. A. Ayantunde, J. de Leeuw, M. D. Turner, and M. Said, “Challenges of assessing the sustainability of (agro)-pastoral systems,” Livestock Science, vol. 139, no. 1-2, pp. 30–43, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. F. A. Ogola, B. Davidsdottir, and I. B. Fridleifsson, “Lighting villages at the end of the line with geothermal energy in eastern Baringo lowlands, Kenya—steps towards reaching the millennium development goals (MDGs),” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 15, no. 8, pp. 4067–4079, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Kebede, A. Melaku, and E. Kebede, “The Onderstepoort journal of veterinary research,” Onderstepoort Journal of Veterinary Research, vol. 81, no. 1, 2014.
View at: Google Scholar
D. Grace, M. Songe, and T. Knight-jones, “Impact of neglected diseases on animal productivity and public health in Africa,” Africa-OIE Regional Commission, vol. 29, 2015.
View at: Google Scholar
E. Nthiwa, D. Alonso, S. Odongo, D. Kenya, and B. Bett, “A participatory epidemiological study of major cattle diseases amongst Maasai pastoralists living in wildlife-livestock interfaces in Maasai Mara, Kenya,” Tropical Animal Health and Production, vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 1097–1103, 2019.
View at: Google Scholar
E. Y. Noah, S. I. Kimera, L. J. M. Kusiluka, and P. Wambura, “Abattoir surveillance demonstrates contagious bovine pleuropneumonia is widespread in Tanzania,” Tropical Animal Health and Production, vol. 47, no. 8, pp. 1607–1613, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Swai, I. Mwezimpya, E. Ulicky, A. Mbise, and W. Moshy, “An abattoir survey of contagious bovine pleuropneumonia lesions in slaughtered cattle in selected districts in Northern Tanzania,” Asian Pacific Journal of Tropical Biomedicine, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 303–306, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. M. Morens, E. C. Holmes, A. S. Davis, and J. K. Taubenberger, “Global rinderpest eradication: lessons learned and why humans should celebrate too,” The Journal of Infectious Diseases, vol. 204, no. 4, pp. 502–505, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
EU-FMD, “The progressive control pathway for FMD control (PCP-FMD)—principles, stage descriptions and standards,” pp. 1–24, 2011.
View at: Google Scholar
G. Thomson, M.-L. Penrith, S. J. Atkinson, and S. A. Osofsky, “Guidelines on commodity-based trade approaches for managing foot and mouth disease risk in beef in Southern Africa,” 2018.
View at: Google Scholar
P. E. Mangesho, M. O. Neselle, E. D. Karimuribo et al., “Exploring local knowledge and perceptions on zoonoses among pastoralists in Northern and Eastern Tanzania,” PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, vol. 11, no. 2, Article ID e0005345, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Nthiwa, S. Alonso, D. Odongo, E. Kenya, and B. Bett, “A participatory epidemiological study of major cattle diseases amongst Maasai pastoralists living in wildlife-livestock interfaces in Maasai Mara, Kenya,” Tropical Animal Health and Production, vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 1097–1103, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Queenan, P. Mangesho, M. Ole-Neselle et al., “Using local language syndromic terminology in participatory epidemiology: lessons for one health practitioners among the Maasai of Ngorongoro, Tanzania,” Preventive Veterinary Medicine, vol. 139, pp. 42–49, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. C. Jost, C. Mariner, P. L. Roeder, E. Sawitri, and G. J. Macgregor-Skinner, “Participatory epidemiology in disease surveillance and research,” Revue Scientifique et Technique de l’OIE, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 537–549, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Madi, A. Hamilton, D. Squirrell et al., “Rapid detection of foot-and-mouth disease virus using a field-portable nucleic acid extraction and real-time PCR amplification platform,” The Veterinary Journal, vol. 193, no. 1, pp. 67–72, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Mtema, J. Changalucha, S. Cleaveland et al., “Mobile phones as surveillance tools: implementing and evaluating a large-scale intersectoral surveillance system for rabies in Tanzania,” PLOS Medicine, vol. 13, no. 4, Article ID e1002002, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Mwabukusi, E. D. Karimuribo, M. M. Rweyemamu, and E. Beda, “Mobile technologies for disease surveillance in humans and animals,” Onderstepoort Journal of Veterinary Research, vol. 81, no. 2, pp. 1–5, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Hammond, B. Maulidi, and N. Henning, “Targeted FMD vaccines for Eastern Africa: the AgResults foot and mouth disease vaccine challenge project,” Viruses, vol. 13, no. 9, Article ID 1830, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2024 Mkama M. Mashinagu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

379

Downloads

212

Citations