Stakeholder perceptions of foot-and-mouth disease control in South Africa

Abstract

Foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) prevention and control is a challenge worldwide but the situation in southern Africa is particularly complex because the virus is endemic in wild African buffalo (Syncerus caffer). The objective of this study was to compare stakeholder perceptions of the FMD control methods employed to restrict FMD virus to the infected zone of South Africa. Data collection was performed using an online questionnaire distributed to FMD experts, government veterinarians, private livestock veterinarians, people involved within the wildlife sector, and "other" occupation groups including the general public. Data were also collected using semi-structured participatory group discussions with government animal health technicians (AHT) and communal cattle owners directly affected by FMD control measures. Evaluated control methods were the disease control fence bordering the western boundary of the Greater Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area, clinical surveillance of livestock, movement control of cloven-hoofed animals and products, and routine FMD vaccination of cattle. These management procedures were scored according to a set of technical, economic, and ethical criteria by stakeholders, who also weighted the criteria according to their perceived importance. Scores and weights were aggregated using an additive linear model to rank control methods. Sensitivity analysis was performed using a stochastic model to explore the effects of varying inputs and the exclusion of scores from randomly selected respondent groups on the ranking of control methods. The deterministic analysis assigned the highest ranking to the disease control fence and the lowest to routine vaccination of cattle. The fence had the highest ranking in 40% of the stochastic iterations, and second, third and fourth in 26%, 20% and 14% of iterations, respectively. The inputs from the AHT and people involved in the wildlife sector were the most influential for ranking the fence as the preferred control option. The most influential criteria were the feasibility of the fence as a control option and its influence on the economics of the communal cattle owners, livestock industry in the FMD free zone, and the government. The disease control fence was the highest ranking control option but further investigations are necessary to understand the reasons for stakeholder perceptions.

Policy response on handling of foot and mouth disease outbreaks in Indonesia

“…Involving various stakeholders in handling FMD outbreaks is the right action. In accordance with Roberts and Fosgate which stated that success in dealing with FMD outbreaks depends on collaboration between stakeholders [11].…”

Price Dynamics in South African Agriculture: A Study of Cross-Commodity Spillovers between Grain and Livestock Markets

“…This inference supports our finding that higher live weaner prices negatively impact yellow maize prices, as reduced demand corresponds with weaner calf price fluctuations. South Africa's livestock market is susceptible to disease outbreaks such as foot and mouth disease (FMD), which detrimentally affects industry productivity [51][52][53]. Therefore, our findings and those of Marsh [50] highlight the critical importance of understanding livestock-grain market dynamics, external factors like disease outbreaks, and informed decision-making for enhancing market stability and resilience in South Africa's agricultural sector.…”

Exploration of challenges and associated recommendations to livestock sector development in South Africa using a stakeholder-driven approach

“…Transcripts and recordings were reviewed for familiarisation and used to generate a matrix of responses. Since each individual respondent had his or her own subjective perceptions within their own framework of judgement, their responses were not considered to be precise in isolation as per methods described by Roberts and Fosgate (2018). The matrix of responses was categorized, sorted, and evaluated for consensus and verified with the literature where possible.…”