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

No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundLivestock farmers' attitudes, practices, and behaviors are major factors in infection prevention and control of animal diseases. Kenya has the fourth largest global camel population, and the industry has grown over the last two decades, transforming beyond the traditional camel-keeping areas to include peri-urban camel trade and value chain growth. The dromedary camel is resilient, and it is a preferred species in the arid and semi-arid areas (ASALs) of Kenya. However, it still faces many health and production challenges; to identify infection drivers and risky behaviors for camel respiratory illnesses and conditions in Kenya, we conducted a knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) survey.MethodUsing a set of tools (questionnaires, key informant interviews, and focus group discussions), we interviewed camel owners, herders, agro-veterinary outlets, and other relevant value chain stakeholders in Garissa and Isiolo counties (n = 85). Data were analyzed using descriptive and analytic statistics.ResultsMost camel owners/herders are male and most are relatively uneducated (85.5%). The camels were used primarily for milk and meat production, income generation, and transport. Larger herd sizes (>30 camels) and owner/herder's lack of formal education are risk factors for owner-reported respiratory illnesses in camels. Major clinical signs of respiratory conditions were coughing (85.7%), nasal discharge (59.7%), and fever (23.4%). Diseases, lack of feeds, theft, and marketing challenges are the major constraints to camel production in Kenya. Owners-herders use drugs indiscriminately and this may contribute to antimicrobial resistance challenges.ConclusionPractitioners in the camel value chain want more commitment from the government and animal health officials on support services and access to veterinary services. Watering points, grazing areas, and marketing points are the primary areas for congregating camels and have a significant potential for disease spread. Kenya camels have a massive capacity for rural and ASALs' livelihoods transformation but the identified health challenges, and other issues must be addressed. Further studies on the Kenyan camels' respiratory microbial ecology are important to understand microbial risks and reduce the burden of zoonotic infections. Intensification of risk communication and community engagement, and messaging targeted at behavior change interventions should be directed at camel value chain actors.

Aim: This study examined organizational leadership as a cross-sectoral collaboration factor in the implementation of the One Health (OH) approach using Kenya's Zoonotic Disease Unit and its core OH implementers as an example. Materials and Method:The study used a mixed methods research design. A semi-structured questionnaire was administered to 71 respondents, and key informants were interviewed using an interview guide. All the seven key informants and 53 (74%) of the respondents participated in the study. Data were checked for consistency, coded, entered into the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, and analyzed using descriptive and correlational statistics. Interview data were transcribed and analyzed thematically.Results: From the analysis, 41/53 (77.2%) of the respondents were senior personnel, 51/53 (85%) of them had worked for 5 years and above in their organizations, and 38/53 (71.7%) had at least a Master's degree. The study established that although most leaders in the organizations had embraced the OH approach, they were not actively involved in its implementation due to constraints such as inadequate funding. There were moderate and statistically significant positive correlations between participation in leadership roles in implementing the OH approach and the level of awareness (Rs (51)=0.54, p<0.001) as well as level of sensitization (Rs (51)=0.52, p<0.001). Majority (86%) of respondents acknowledged that top government leaders were not well sensitized about the OH approach. Conclusion:Organizational leadership plays an important role in the implementation of the OH approach. However, sensitization of leaders about the OH approach needs to be enhanced and expanded.