Removing southern African fences may help wildlife, boost economy
Cornell University
ITHACA, N.Y. – Fences intended to protect cattle from catching diseases from wildlife and other livestock in southern Africa are in disrepair, restrict wild animal migrations and likely intensify human-elephant conflict – but a plan to remove key sections could make both livestock and wildlife safer, a new Cornell University study suggests.
Across parts of southern Africa, fences aim to separate cattle from other animals to prevent the spread of diseases – most importantly, foot and mouth disease, which is a virus that can be spread to local cattle by wild buffalo or infected livestock.
The research proposes strategically remove sections of the fencing where disease risks to livestock are very low while promoting herding and other measures that protect cattle from pathogens. And in partnership with local and national government officials, the study’s authors are working to implement these measures in hopes that they will improve animal health and productivity, while also providing poor farming communities with additional income sources from a burgeoning wildlife tourism industry
“The study’s results have gotten traction, with the government of Botswana agreeing to consider the possibility of removing some of the most damaging fences and thus restoring some of the most important wildlife migration routes in southern Africa,” said Steve Osofsky, professor of wildlife health and health policy and senior author of the study published Jan. 29 in Frontiers in Veterinary Medicine. Laura Rosen, a veterinary epidemiologist with the Victoria Falls Wildlife Trust in Zimbabwe, is the paper’s first author.
The study focused on three specific sections of fencing within the 520,000 square kilometer Kavango Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area (KAZA), the world’s largest terrestrial transboundary conservation area, which extends across parts of Angola, Botswana, Namibia, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
In addition to foot and mouth disease, the researchers prioritized two other diseases: cattle-specific contagious bovine pleuropneumonia and peste des petits ruminants, a disease of goats and sheep.
As part of Osofsky’s broader research program in partnership with KAZA countries like Botswana, an initial field and desktop study was done to identify which specific fences, if removed, would most benefit wildlife. Then, in the program’s second phase, Rosen led a team to evaluate the potential risks and consequences of pathogens crossing over fence lines and exposing livestock. They compared different scenarios that included the risks with fences as they are; whether risks might change if specific fence sections were removed; and the risks of fence section removal combined with mitigation measures, such as herding and improved vaccination.
“We found that the overall risk estimates of these diseases were generally very low,” Rosen said. “And we found there was no difference between the status quo and the fence-removal scenarios – the risk didn’t increase with fence section removal.”
Most of the fence sections the researchers examined protect low densities of livestock, often with livestock on only one side of the fence, meaning the fences in these areas aren’t necessarily the most important ones for lowering disease risks. The researchers also pointed to evidence that foot and mouth disease may already be circulating in cattle within Botswana and may not be detected when animals don’t show clinical signs. “A fence may not be preventing the disease from coming into that population from buffalo or from cattle from another country, because it’s already there,” Rosen said.
In Botswana, the study has facilitated an agreement with government officials to explore changing the status quo. The research team and other local organizations are now working to assist communities in northern Botswana to implement herding and improve animal husbandry, vaccination and access to markets by producing disease-free beef that is recognized as safe to trade. In exchange, the government has agreed to consider removing specific fence sections to restore important migrations for wildlife, Osofsky said.
At the same time, these efforts help create more resilient livelihoods for the region’s poorest. The team’s guidelines are already leading to higher beef prices for what is being termed as wildlife-friendly beef, with the longer-term goal of boosting the wildlife economy and jobs in tourism.
For additional information, read this Cornell Chronicle story.
Cornell University has dedicated television and audio studios available for media interviews.
Media note: Pictures can be viewed and downloaded here: https://cornell.box.com/v/veterinaryfences
-30-
Journal
Frontiers in Veterinary Science
No comments:
Post a Comment