Preventing highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) at the rural community level: a case study from Cambodia

Abstract

Poultry is an integral part of the rural livelihoods in Cambodia, with more than half of the households keeping poultry in their small-scale, traditional, and extensive backyards. More than 20 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) outbreaks have been reported since 2004 with deaths of over 21,000 birds. During the HPAI outbreaks, some of the flocks in the rural areas were culled without compensation and producers were not allowed to sell outside of the community. Heifer International worked with 2,000 rural families through local project partners in the target communities to develop an effective intervention mechanism to mitigate the impact of the HPAI crisis. Heifer International provided training, public education, and networking as well as promoting model farms based on improved scavenging poultry management. Each community selected one farm family to serve as a model farm. They were trained in Heifer's working approach and committed to practicing integrated farming systems based on scavenging poultry management. One Village Animal Health Worker (VAHW) in each community participated during the project implementation, playing a key role in the information exchange and the interaction between the communities and the avian influenza experts. Formal and informal trainings were conducted for all project partners and project recipients through experts and VAHWs, respectively. There have been no outbreaks reported in the communities in the project areas. Farmers have started using appropriate techniques to maintain biosecurity. They are passing on the knowledge and the skills to the surrounding communities. This participatory approach in educating rural farmers can serve as a model to mitigate HPAI in the developing countries around the world.

Are Village Animal Health Workers Able to Assist in Strengthening Transboundary Animal Disease Control in Cambodia?

“…Sixty per cent (60%) of VAHWs reported that more than 40% of their farm visits were to attend cattle, indicating VAHW and smallholder engagement for cattle associated work is a major reason for VAHWs visiting smallholder farms. Interestingly, it is reported that VAHWs rarely visit farms for attending diseased poultry, despite resources devoted to HPAI training (Bhandari et al., ). This was observed in the current study, with VAHWs not well equipped for poultry work, and farmers generally indicating the cost of treating low value village poultry were not justified.…”

“…The World Organisation of Animal Health (OIE) Terrestrial Animal Health Code does not recognize VAHWs as being part of the field Veterinary Services unless they are authorized or approved by the Veterinary Authority to undertake delegated animal health functions (OIE, ). However, there is also support for VAHW systems as being beneficial to national livestock health and rural livelihoods (Huttner et al., ; Curran and MacLehose, ; Peeling and Holden, ; Grace et al., ; Bhandari et al., ; Collinson, ; Tornimbene et al., ).…”

“…Recent studies in Cambodia indicate that VAHWs are an important resource for smallholder farmers, whereas semi‐commercial producers prefer a private veterinarian (Tornimbene et al., ). Government disease information campaigns have targeted both VAHWs and local veterinarians (Tornimbene et al., ), and VAHWs have been reported as providing a key role in information exchange between technical experts and the community in biosecurity for prevention of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) (Bhandari et al., ). In a Cambodian study of disease in pigs, over 50% of backyard producers reported calling their VAHW when their animals were sick, with 21% stating they only called the VAHW when the pigs were very sick and when medicines bought privately were not effective (Tornimbene et al., ).…”

Biosecurity measures for backyard poultry in developing countries: a systematic review

“…Among these, three studies showed that information campaigns on flock management would improve the “general condition of the flock” [8,46,82]. Secondly, model-based evidence showed the positive economic effects of biosecurity in backyard poultry [68].…”

“…There is a paucity of data demonstrating the real impact of these measures [72]. Instead, we were only able to identify studies on the impact or effectiveness of these measures, evaluated according to the number of trained people [84] or the absence of outbreaks without control groups [82]. We are left with the impression that the proposed lists of recommendations were made without weighing biosecurity measures according to prioritization criteria, efficiency or financial and technical feasibility.…”