COVID-19 in pastoral contexts in the greater Horn of Africa: Implications and recommendations

Abstract

COVID-19 is a global pandemic that continues to spread around the world, including to Africa where cases are steadily increasing. The African Centres for Disease Control and Prevention is leading the pandemic response in Africa, with direction from the World Health Organization guidelines for critical preparedness, readiness, and response actions. These are written for national governments, lacking nuance for population and local differences. In the greater Horn of Africa, conditions unique to pastoralists such as inherent mobility and limited health and service infrastructure will influence the dynamics of COVID-19. In this paper, we present a One Health approach to the pandemic, consisting of interdisciplinary and intersectoral collaboration focused on the determinants of health and health outcomes amongst pastoralists. Our contextualized public health strategy includes community One Health teams and suggestions for where to implement targeted public health measures. We also analyse the interaction of COVID-19 impacts, including those caused directly by the disease and those that result from control efforts, with ongoing shocks and vulnerabilities in the region (e.g. desert locusts, livestock disease outbreaks, floods, conflict, and development displacement). We give recommendations on how to prepare for and respond to the COVID-19 pandemic and its secondary impacts on pastoral areas. Given that the full impact of COVID-19 on pastoral areas is unknown currently, our health recommendations focus on disease prevention and understanding disease epidemiology. We emphasize targeting pastoral toponymies with public health measures to secure market access and mobility while combating the direct health impacts of COVID-19. A contextualized approach for the COVID-19 public health response in pastoral areas in the Greater Horn of Africa, including how the pandemic will interact with existing shocks and vulnerabilities, is required for an effective response, while protecting pastoral livelihoods and food, income, and nutrition security.

COVID-19, Livestock Systems and Food Security in Developing Countries: A Systematic Review of an Emerging Literature

“…Specifically, Figure 6 indicates that the majority of the reviewed articles focused on the ‘absorbance’, i.e., the capacity of livestock systems to limit the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic ( n = 51), and the ‘recovery’, i.e., the ability of livestock systems to return to their original state following the pandemic ( n = 48), of livestock systems. Articles cited in the previous sub-section of this paper belong mainly to these two phases of resilience, where the focus has been on how livestock systems were affected by- and responded to the COVID-19-induced risks, such as decreased farm productivity, reduced access to consumer and input markets, shortage of farm labor, reduced consumers’ purchasing power and vulnerability of market prices, to cite a few [ 1 , 22 , 35 , 40 , 58 ]. Based on the investigation of these risks and their effects, the reviewed literature turns then to focus on immediate and short-run countermeasures implemented mainly by governments and actors within livestock supply chains to mitigate the impact of the pandemic and restore the ability of livestock systems to return to their original state and resume livestock activities along the supply chain [ 40 , 59 , 60 , 61 ].…”

One welfare impacts of COVID-19 – A summary of key highlights within the one welfare framework

“…For example, a study in Spain reported that, although small ruminants are not sanitary affected by this virus, global data evidenced a lamb price drop ranging from 16.8% to 26.9% and a 12.5% to up to 40% drop in the goat kid meat market ( Vidaurreta et al, 2020 ). Some have also reported that decreased access to pastoral areas due to COVID-19 measures will impact desert locust control, disaster relief or disease control ( Griffith et al 2020 ). Livestock has various types of value, and the costs have not only been economical, but also supporting livelihoods ( Griffith et al 2020 ) as well as at the emotional value and animal bond level.…”

“…Some have also reported that decreased access to pastoral areas due to COVID-19 measures will impact desert locust control, disaster relief or disease control ( Griffith et al 2020 ). Livestock has various types of value, and the costs have not only been economical, but also supporting livelihoods ( Griffith et al 2020 ) as well as at the emotional value and animal bond level. The emotional impact of the pandemic on farmers ( Hafez & Attia, 2020 ) and how these impacts on animal welfare is an area that also merits attention as part of any pandemic management and recovery phases.…”

The impacts of COVID-19 on cattle traders and their response in agro-pastoral and pastoral regions in Uganda: A case of Karamoja and Teso cattle traders

“…The population in Teso sub-region is estimated at about 2.4 million people with a total land coverage of about 14,855 sq. km (UBOS 2014 ). While the population in Karamoja sub-region is estimated at about 1.2 million people (pastoralists), with a total land coverage of more than 27,000 sq.…”

“…Livestock contributes to people’s livelihoods through numerous channels such as income, food, employment, draft power, hauling services, manure, social status, savings, and insurance, among others (Nyariki and Amwata 2019 ). For livestock keepers including pastoralists who rely mainly on livestock rearing with mobile herds (Griffith et al 2020 ), and agro-pastoralists (crop and livestock farmers) whose livelihood strategy is dependent on keeping livestock, in East Africa access to livestock markets is an essential component of their livelihood (Aklilu and Catley 2010 ; Lynch 2020 ; Roba et al 2017 ). Livestock traders play a significant role in the livestock value chains by linking producers, processors, and consumers, thus acting as lifeblood for pastoralists whose areas are remote, less accessible, and sometimes insecure due to cattle raids (Aklilu 2017 ; Roba et al 2019 ; Roba et al 2017 ).…”