de Garine-Wichatitsky M, Miguel E, Mukamuri B, Garine-Wichatitsky E, Wencelius J, Pfukenyi DM, Caron A

Coexisting with wildlife in Transfrontier Conservation Areas in Zimbabwe: Cattle owners awareness of disease risks and perceptions of the role played by wildlife de Garine-Wichatitsky M, Miguel E, Mukamuri B, Garine-Wichatitsky E, Wencelius J, Pfukenyi DM, Caron A

Background Diseases associated with wildlife may negatively affect local farmers in several ways. - health status of livestock owners and their families may be directly affected, as a number of zoonotic pathogens have been isolated from wild species (Daszak et al 2000) - international rules (OIE in Terrestrial Animal Health Code, 2001) regulate trade of animals and animal products in order to prevent spread of Transboundary Animal Diseases. - proximity to wildlife reservoirs of TADs may impose marketing and management constraints to local farmers international/national/local

Example: Foot-and-Mouth Disease in Southern Africa - African buffalo (Syncerus caffer) is a reservoir of FMD viruses (Vosloo et al. 2002, Thomson et al. 2003). - Livestock keeping and marketing opportunities follow FMD zones

- evidence that wildlife can spread diseases across international boundaries (also trade of animals and products) Background Diseases associated with wildlife may negatively affect local farmers in several ways. - health status of livestock owners and their families may be directly affected, as a number of zoonotic pathogens have been isolated from wild species (Daszak et al 2000) - international rules (OIE in Terrestrial Animal Health Code, 2001) regulate trade of animals and animal products in order to prevent spread of Transboundary Animal Diseases. - proximity to wildlife reservoirs of TADs may impose marketing and management constraints to local farmers international/national/local

Example: Spread of bovine tuberculosis (btb) across the boundaries of the GLTFCA (de Garine-Wichatitsky et al 2013) 1: 1950s

Example: Spread of bovine tuberculosis (btb) across the boundaries of the GLTFCA (de Garine-Wichatitsky et al 2013) 2: 1990

Example: Spread of bovine tuberculosis (btb) across the boundaries of the GLTFCA (de Garine-Wichatitsky et al 2013) 5: 2005

Example: Spread of bovine tuberculosis (btb) across the boundaries of the GLTFCA (de Garine-Wichatitsky et al 2013) de Garine-Wichatitsky et al., 2010 Emerging Infectious Diseases 6: 2008

Background Development of Transfrontier Conservation Areas - During last decade, numerous initiatives to establish TFCAs in Southern Africa (Cumming et al 2013) TFCA: the area or component of a large ecological region that straddles the boundaries of two or more countries, encompassing one or more protected areas as well as multiple resource use areas (SADC, 1999)

Background Development of Transfrontier Conservation Areas - During last decade, numerous initiatives to establish TFCAs in Southern Africa (Cumming et al 2013) - Expected increase of movements of people and animals across the boundaries of re-connected conservation areas present new challenges for both public and animal health (Bengis 2005)

Preliminary results Buffalo-Cattle interactions project, Caron, Hoffmeyr et al

Preliminary results Buffalo-Cattle interactions project, Caron, Hoffmeyr et al

Background Development of Transfrontier Conservation Areas - During last decade, numerous initiatives to establish TFCAs in Southern Africa (Cumming et al 2013) - Expected increase of movements of people and animals across the boundaries of re-connected conservation areas present new challenges for both public and animal health (Bengis 2005) - There is a concern that public and veterinary health issues might negatively impact the perception of TFCA initiatives (Osofsky et al 2005, Michel et al 2006)

Background Awareness and implications of small-scale farmers in TADs surveillance and control - The success of veterinary disease control largely depends on the knowledge base and involvement of cattle owners with regard to diseases (Munyeme et al. 2010; Brook and McLachlan 2006). - Priorities and strategies for disease control are dictated at national and international levels, with little attention paid to the views and opinions expressed at grass-root level by cattle keepers.

Survey of cattle owners awareness of disease risks and perceptions of the role played by wildlife De Garine-Wichatitsky et al. 2012 in press. CIMID. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cimid.2012.10.007 2008-10; 24 dip-tanks in periphery of Gonarezhou NP et Hwange NP

Cattle owners awareness of disease risks and perceptions of the role played by wildlife De Garine-Wichatitsky et al. 2012 in press. CIMID. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cimid.2012.10.007 Free-list/semi-directed questionnaires (n=256), group discussions (DT comittees) Vernacular names given by cattle owners during free-list Nb citations Most often associated scientific disease/syndrom name (NID = Not Identified) Shona 280 Chamahwanda Chamapundu Chekuomesa makumbo Chekutsemukahwanda Chenduru Chikwekwe Chimbwa mupengo Chimee 27 Foot and mouth 32 Lumpy Skin 1 Blackleg 1 Foot Rot 2 Anaplasmosis 7 Ticks 15 Rabies 11 Heartwater

Cattle owners awareness of disease risks and perceptions of the role played by wildlife De Garine-Wichatitsky et al. 2012 in press. CIMID. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cimid.2012.10.007 Free-list/semi-directed questionnaires (n=256), group discussions (DT comittees) - Language used Free-listing task: 1059 names of livestock diseases 49.6% of the respondents acknowledged Shangani as their mother language but only 2.8% of the disease names were given in Shangani 20.1% Shona /21.6% of the disease names 9.4/Ndebele/2.4% of diseases names Nambya, 5.9%; Tonga, 1.9%; other minorities 2.0 72.4% of the disease names were given in English.

Cattle owners awareness of disease risks and perceptions of the role played by wildlife De Garine-Wichatitsky et al. 2012 in press. CIMID. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cimid.2012.10.007 Free-list/semi-directed questionnaires (n=256), group discussions (DT comittees) - Language used Free-listing task: 1059 names of livestock diseases - List length/number of disease mentionned 1 9 names, 8.3% of the respondents listing >7 names. No Sig difference between ethnic groups (n = 246, 2 = 1.5, df = 3, p = 0.681)

- Ranking of disease Free-listing 1059 different names of livestock diseases/12 DT groups Disease Freq. (%) DTG #1 DTG #2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Foot and mouth 0.78 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lumpy Skin 0.50 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 4 2 5 2 3 Blackleg 0.49 1 3 4 3 1 3 2 5 4 2 3 4 Heartwater 0.35 4 2 5 5 6 4 4 4 3 5 4 4 Anthrax 0.29 2 4 7 4 5 5 3 7 6 5 5 3 Babesiosis 0.24 6 9 11 4 4 7 3 9 7 6 6 1 NID Limping 0.16 6 11 6 9 7 11 3 2 Anaplasmosis 0.15 7 7 11 10 5 6 5 3 5 Rabies 0.15 3 5 5 8 7 9 6 Brucellosis 0.10 7 7 9 7 8 7 6 4 NID Neurological 0.08 8 8 10 6 5 3 Foot Rot 0.08 4 8 11 9 6 7 5 9 12 6 4 Mastitis 0.07 7 4 7 11 4 4 NID Ocular 0.06 7 10 6 7 9 11 6 Ticks 0.04 7 9 10 10 10 6 6 NID Digestive 0.04 5 9 10 8 4 NID Diarrhoea 0.04 7 9 12 7 9 12 5 NID Cutaneous 0.04 10 10 9 8 10 Newcastle 0.04 7 9 10 7 5 10 NID Respiratory and death 0.03 9 9 7 4 NID Paralysis 0.03 7 8 8 7 8 12 NID Salivation 0.03 9 11 10 9 7 Dermatophilosis 0.03 3 Theileriosis 0.01 10 7 12 6

- Ranking of disease Free-listing 1059 different names of livestock diseases/12 DT groups Disease Freq. (%) DTG #1 DTG #2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Foot and mouth 0.78 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lumpy Skin 0.50 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 4 2 5 2 3 Blackleg 0.49 1 3 4 3 1 3 2 5 4 2 3 4 Heartwater 0.35 4 2 5 5 6 4 4 4 3 5 4 4 Anthrax 0.29 2 4 7 4 5 5 3 7 6 5 5 3 Babesiosis 0.24 6 9 11 4 4 7 3 9 7 6 6 1 NID Limping 0.16 6 11 6 9 7 11 3 2 Anaplasmosis 0.15 7 7 11 10 5 6 5 3 5 Rabies 0.15 3 5 5 8 7 9 6 Brucellosis 0.10 7 7 9 7 8 7 6 4 NID Neurological 0.08 8 8 10 6 5 3 Foot Rot 0.08 4 8 11 9 6 7 5 9 12 6 4 Mastitis 0.07 7 4 7 11 4 4 NID Ocular 0.06 7 10 6 7 9 11 6 Ticks 0.04 7 9 10 10 10 6 6 NID Digestive 0.04 5 9 10 8 4 NID Diarrhoea 0.04 7 9 12 7 9 12 5 NID Cutaneous 0.04 10 10 9 8 10 Newcastle 0.04 7 9 10 7 5 10 NID Respiratory and death 0.03 9 9 7 4 NID Paralysis 0.03 7 8 8 7 8 12 NID Salivation 0.03 9 11 10 9 7 Dermatophilosis 0.03 3 Theileriosis 0.01 10 7 12 6

- Ranking of disease Free-listing 1059 different names of livestock diseases/12 DT groups Disease Freq. (%) DTG #1 DTG #2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Foot and mouth 0.78 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lumpy Skin 0.50 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 4 2 5 2 3 Blackleg 0.49 1 3 4 3 1 3 2 5 4 2 3 4 Heartwater 0.35 4 2 5 5 6 4 4 4 3 5 4 4 Anthrax 0.29 2 4 7 4 5 5 3 7 6 5 5 3 Babesiosis 0.24 6 9 11 4 4 7 3 9 7 6 6 1 NID Limping 0.16 6 11 6 9 7 11 3 2 Anaplasmosis 0.15 7 7 11 10 5 6 5 3 5 Rabies 0.15 3 5 5 8 7 9 6 Brucellosis 0.10 7 7 9 7 8 7 6 4 NID Neurological 0.08 8 8 10 6 5 3 Foot Rot 0.08 4 8 11 9 6 7 5 9 12 6 4 Mastitis 0.07 7 4 7 11 4 4 NID Ocular 0.06 7 10 6 7 9 11 6 Ticks 0.04 7 9 10 10 10 6 6 NID Digestive 0.04 5 9 10 8 4 NID Diarrhoea 0.04 7 9 12 7 9 12 5 NID Cutaneous 0.04 10 10 9 8 10 Newcastle 0.04 7 9 10 7 5 10 NID Respiratory and death 0.03 9 9 7 4 NID Paralysis 0.03 7 8 8 7 8 12 NID Salivation 0.03 9 11 10 9 7 Dermatophilosis 0.03 3 Theileriosis 0.01 10 7 12 6

- Ranking of disease Free-listing 1059 different names of livestock diseases/12 DT groups Disease Freq. (%) DTG #1 DTG #2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Foot and mouth 0.78 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lumpy Skin 0.50 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 4 2 5 2 3 Blackleg 0.49 1 3 4 3 1 3 2 5 4 2 3 4 Heartwater 0.35 4 2 5 5 6 4 4 4 3 5 4 4 Anthrax 0.29 2 4 7 4 5 5 3 7 6 5 5 3 Babesiosis 0.24 6 9 11 4 4 7 3 9 7 6 6 1 NID Limping 0.16 6 11 6 9 7 11 3 2 Anaplasmosis 0.15 7 7 11 10 5 6 5 3 5 Rabies 0.15 3 5 5 8 7 9 6 Brucellosis 0.10 7 7 9 7 8 7 6 4 NID Neurological 0.08 8 8 10 6 5 3 Foot Rot 0.08 4 8 11 9 6 7 5 9 12 6 4 Mastitis 0.07 7 4 7 11 4 4 NID Ocular 0.06 7 10 6 7 9 11 6 Ticks 0.04 7 9 10 10 10 6 6 NID Digestive 0.04 5 9 10 8 4 NID Diarrhoea 0.04 7 9 12 7 9 12 5 NID Cutaneous 0.04 10 10 9 8 10 Newcastle 0.04 7 9 10 7 5 10 NID Respiratory and death 0.03 9 9 7 4 NID Paralysis 0.03 7 8 8 7 8 12 NID Salivation 0.03 9 11 10 9 7 Dermatophilosis 0.03 3 Theileriosis 0.01 10 7 12 6

- Perception of wildlife role in the epidemiology of livestock diseases 36.6% of the respondents perceived that wildlife was involved in the transmission of diseases listed, (24.8% said that wildlife did not play any role; 38.5% did not know or did not respond to the question). These proportions were not significantly different according to local abundance of wildlife (n = 1059, Khi 2 = 6.9, df = 4, p = 0.139)

- Involvement of wildlife in disease epidemiology Three patterns were observed: (1) Perceptions in agreement with current epidemiological knowledge (e.g. foot and mouth disease, rabies); (2) Farmers unaware of the possible role of wildlife in the epidemiology of the disease (e.g. brucellosis, Newcastle disease) (3) Current knowledge about the role of wildlife in the epidemiology is not clear (i.e. the disease has been directly or indirectly identified in wildlife species but the transmission between wildlife and domestic species has not yet been proven), farmers answers are close to random (e.g. tick-borne diseases, such as heartwater, babesiosis, anaplasmosis, or anthrax).

- Involvement of wildlife in disease epidemiology Buffalo was (by far) the most frequently mentioned wildlife species, followed by wildebeest (but no mention of Alcelaphine Herpes virus 1) Disease or syndrom Citation (n) Don't know No Yes Species Citation Main wildlife species cited Second most cited wildilfe species Foot and mouth 190 18% 4% 77% 171 Buffalo (82%) Wildebeest (6%) Lumpy Skin 127 52% 26% 22% 35 Buffalo (54%) Wildebeest (17%) Blackleg 122 39% 29% 32% 50 Buffalo (62%) Wildebeest (14%) Heartwater 89 39% 37% 24% 26 Buffalo (62%) Wildebeest (11.5%) Anthrax 67 46% 22% 31% 34 Buffalo (47%) Wildebeest (15%) Babesiosis 43 33% 47% 21% 10 Buffalo (80%) Eland (10%), Elephant (10%)

- Involvement of wildlife in disease epidemiology Buffalo was (by far) the most frequently mentioned wildlife species, followed by wildebeest (but no mention of Nasal Cattarh) «The African Buffalo a villain for inter-species spread of infectious diseases in Southern Africa» Bengis et al 2002. OIE Rev. scient. Tech. Kock, Kock, de Garine-Wichatitsky, Chardonnet & Caron. In press Michel, AL & Bengis, R. 2012. Onderstepoort J. Vet. Res, in press

Conclusions/Perspectives - Cattle owners usually had a «good» (stat of the art) knowledge of cattle diseases and the possible involvement of wildlife in the epidemiology - Information about cattle diseases circulate between groups of farmers (possibly in English and Shona) - FMD was consistently mentionned on top of the list, although farmers did not appear to consider its direct impacts as a major problem - There are marked local variations in the ranking/priority of other diseases - Zoonotic risks were rarely mentionned

Conclusions/Perspectives «Scale mismatch» between levels at which decisions regarding control of livestock disease are taken and implemented National veterinary and TFCA policies and disease management and research should: - Account for local farmers perceptions and priorities - Improve scientific knowledge about the epidemiological role of wildlife at wildlife/livestock/human interfaces, including local knowledge as part of participative research programs - Increase farmers awareness of possible zoonotic risks associated with livestock and wildlife

Research Platform Production and Conservation in Partnership www.rp-pcp.org Merci/Thank you/tatenda for your attention! - Government Veterinary Services of Zimbabwe - Communities, local and traditional authorities: Chanyenga, Chigweziwa, Chikhovo, Chikombedzi, Chishinya, Chitsa, Chizvirizvi, Chomupani, Davata, Faversham, Gurungweni, Makambi, Malipati, Maose, Matihwa, Muhlekwani, Nyabongwe, Nyangambe, Pahlela, Pesvi, Pfumare, Piri, Rupangwana, Tsovani, Kamativi, Chezhou, Sialwindi, Mabale and Lupote