Livestock Services and the Poor: A global initiative - IFAD
Livestock Services and the Poor: A global initiative - IFAD
Livestock Services and the Poor: A global initiative - IFAD
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
90<br />
LIVESTOCK SERVICES AND THE POOR<br />
Box 3.11: Two examples of community participation in animal<br />
health care<br />
Development of primary veterinary services in pastoralist areas<br />
of <strong>the</strong> Horn of Africa<br />
The programme used community animal health workers to address a<br />
limited range of animal health problems identified by livestock keepers,<br />
including rinderpest. The contact with <strong>the</strong> communities occurred through<br />
indigenous institutions. The designation of priorities among <strong>the</strong> problems,<br />
<strong>the</strong> identification of solutions <strong>and</strong> programme design were carried out in<br />
cooperation with <strong>the</strong> communities by using participatory methods. The<br />
community animal health workers were trained through <strong>the</strong> programme,<br />
but <strong>the</strong>reafter performed <strong>the</strong>ir tasks among livestock keepers on a full costrecovery<br />
basis. The workers were solely responsible to <strong>the</strong> community <strong>and</strong><br />
had access to private veterinarians for technical support.<br />
The programme resulted in <strong>the</strong> eradication of rinderpest in <strong>the</strong> Afar<br />
region of Ethiopia <strong>and</strong> in dramatic reductions in outbreaks in sou<strong>the</strong>rn<br />
Sudan. The social impact was evident in <strong>the</strong> continued presence of <strong>the</strong> selfmaintained<br />
community animal health workers <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> ongoing support of<br />
community decision-making forums at <strong>the</strong> local level.<br />
Community-based tsetse control using targets <strong>and</strong> traps in settled<br />
farming communities in Kenya, Ug<strong>and</strong>a, Zambia <strong>and</strong> Zimbabwe<br />
The programme contacted <strong>the</strong> communities through <strong>the</strong> local government<br />
or through professional personnel. The communities were involved nei<strong>the</strong>r<br />
in <strong>the</strong> setting of priorities, nor in programme design. Professionals from<br />
outside <strong>the</strong> communities even decided on <strong>the</strong> placement of <strong>the</strong> traps. The<br />
communities were given free veterinary drugs, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> workers who<br />
manufactured <strong>the</strong> traps were paid a salary through <strong>the</strong> programme.<br />
The technical impact of <strong>the</strong> intervention was limited to temporary<br />
reductions in fly populations. Although <strong>the</strong>re were area differences in<br />
success, <strong>the</strong> outcome was a generally poor long-term community<br />
management of targets <strong>and</strong> traps.<br />
There is no record of <strong>the</strong> continued existence of community-level<br />
resources, institutions, or information.