the use of participatory methodologies in veterinary ... · incahuasi, chuquisaca department,...

The Use Of Participatory Methodologies In Veterinary Epidemiology By Jonathan Rushton and Rommy Viscarra

A guide for

THE USE OF PARTICIPATORY METHODOLOGIES IN VETERINARY EPIDEMIOLOGY

by Jonathan Rushton and Rommy Viscarra

CEVEP

Casilla 10474La PazBolivia

Tel/Fax: + 591 2 2483495Email: [email protected] or [email protected]

Casilla 10474, La Paz, Bolivia. email: [email protected] page 1 of 57

mailto:[email protected]


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank the following people and institutions: - The Bolivian team of the UNIVEP project – in particular: Fidel Villegas who participated

in the majority of the participatory workshops on livestock diseases in Bolivia in the year 2000; and Marbel Villarroel for her contributions at the beginning of the use of participatory methodologies in veterinary epidemiology in Bolivia.

- Departmental veterinarians in Bolivia – in particular Eduardo Camacho who began the process of the livestock disease prioritisation in Chuquisaca Department, Bolivia.

- The British team of the UNIVEP project – in particular: Stephen Angus for suggestions on the prioritisation of livestock disease; Madelon Meijer for her contributions on the study of the Bolivian livestock sector and Mossy Avila for her help in correcting my Spanish.

- Katrin Linzer at the NGO Tierra Viva, Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia and Fernando Dick at the DPID, Universidad NUR, Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia for their role as trainers of Bolivian veterinarians in PRA.

- PASACH/DANIDA in particular the coordinator Víctor Hugo Román who facilitated the livestock disease study in the Cintis, Chuquisaca, Bolivia.

- DAI/CONCADE in particular David Anderson who facilitated the livestock disease study in the Chapare, Cochabamba, Bolivia.

- My friends and colleagues at VEERU, University of Reading, UK in particular Claire Heffernan for her encouragement to write up the work presented in the guide.

- The Bolivian and British Governments - Ministerio de Agricultura Ganadería y Desarrollo Rural (MAGDR), Prefecturas in Bolivia and the Department for International Development (DFID), UK.

- Livestock owner federations - FEGASACRUZ, FEGABENI, FEGATAR, FEGACHACO, FEDEPELE and the associations affiliated to these federations.

- NGOs who work in animal production and health in Bolivia in particular - CIPCA, UNAPEGA, Unitas Procade.

- Producers who took part in workshops in Bolivia and participated in disease studies. - Joachim Otte, FAO, Rome, Italy for encouraging us to put this work into print and for his

opinions on the content of the guide. - FAO, Rome for funding the writing of the first version of the guide

The document has involved many people and their participation and contributions are recognised. However, The views expressed in the guide are the authors and none of the above are culpable.



CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................................................. 2

CONTENTS................................................................................................................................................... 3

TABLES ........................................................................................................................................................ 4

GRAPHICS.................................................................................................................................................... 5

ABBREVIATIONS......................................................................................................................................... 5

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 6 BACKGROUND OF THE GUIDE 7

VETERINARY EPIDEMIOLOGY AND THE ROLE OF PARTICIPATORY METHODOLOGIES ................ 9 INTRODUCTION 9 THE PRIORITIZATION OF LIVESTOCK DISEASES 10

How do you make a veterinary epidemiology and a livestock disease surveillance system more participatory? ...................................................................................................................................... 11

SUMMARY 15 MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF PARTICIPATION IN A VETERINARY EPIDEMIOLOGY AND SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM......................................................................................................................... 17

INTRODUCTION 17 MAIN ASPECTS OF PARTICIPATION 17

Know how to listen.............................................................................................................................. 17 Have an open mind............................................................................................................................. 17 Be self-critical...................................................................................................................................... 17 Be curious ........................................................................................................................................... 18 Be prepared to say that “I do not know” ............................................................................................. 18

MAIN ASPECTS OF PARTICIPATORY METHODS 18 Facilitation........................................................................................................................................... 18 Flexibility ............................................................................................................................................. 18 Triangulation or corroboration of information...................................................................................... 19 The expression of information ways that are understandable to the participants of a process.......... 19 Collect data that are useful ................................................................................................................. 19 Look for missing information............................................................................................................... 20

VOLUNTARY VERSUS OBLIGATORY PARTICIPATION 20 SUMMARY 21

INVESTIGATION OF A LIVESTOCK DISEASE OUTBREAK USING PARTICIPATORY METHODS..... 22 CASE STUDY – INVESTIGATION OF A FMD OUTBREAK IN LA PAZ CITY ABBATOIR 23

Background and secondary data ........................................................................................................ 23 Investigation of the outbreak............................................................................................................... 24 Results ................................................................................................................................................ 25

REPORT AND FEEDBACK 27 OTHER INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN THE USE OF PARTICIPATORY METHODS IN THE INVESTIGATION OF DISEASE

OUTBREAKS 28 SUMMARY 28



PRIORITIZATION OF LIVESTOCK DISEASES AT COMMUNITY LEVEL............................................... 29 INTRODUCTION 29 PLANNING A LIVESTOCK DISEASE PRIORITIZATION WITH A COMMUNITY 29 THE PALD FORMAT USED IN BOLIVIA 30

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 30 The format of the PALD workshops in Bolivia .................................................................................... 31

Workshop goal ............................................................................................................................................... 31 Workshop Objectives ..................................................................................................................................... 31 Workshop structure ........................................................................................................................................ 32 Activities ......................................................................................................................................................... 32 PALD Workshop Reports ............................................................................................................................... 44

THE USE OF SCIENTIFIC METHODS TO SUPPORT PALDS 44 PALD and regional strategies – the case of Chuquisaca Department, Bolivia .................................. 45

SUMMARY 46 MEETINGS TO RETURN INFORMATION, COORDINATE AND MONITOR ANIMAL HEALTH ACTIVITIES................................................................................................................................................. 48

INTRODUCTION 48 FEEDBACK OF RESULTS AND EXTENSION MATERIAL 48 COORDINATION AND MONITORING MEETINGS 49 SUMMARY 50

CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................................................... 51

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................ 53

BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................................................... 56 IN ENGLISH 56

Web Pages ......................................................................................................................................... 56 IN SPANISH 56

Web Pages ......................................................................................................................................... 56 Reports and books.............................................................................................................................. 56

TABLES Table 1. Different veterinary epidemiology and surveillance systems. 16 Table 2. Different types of participation and their impact on veterinary epidemiology and

surveillance systems. 20 Table 3. Data collected in the analysis of the livestock systems in the region of the liquinas of

Incahuasi, Chuquisaca Department, Bolivia. 34 Table 4. Data collected during an analysis of feeding systems for the area of the liquinas and

valleys of Incahuasi, Chuquisaca Department, Bolivia. 35 Table 5. The prioritisation of species in the area of the liquinas Incahuasi, Chuquisaca

Department, Bolivia. 36 Table 6. Results from a cattle disease prioritisation in Sopachuy, Chuquisaca Department,

Bolivia. 37 Table 7. Results from the disease prioritisation in Incahuasi, Chuquisaca Department, Bolivia. 39 Table 8. Results of the calendar analysis of the priority diseases in the low region of Camargo,

Chuquisaca Department, Bolivia. 40



Table 9. Results from the analysis of prevention and treatment of priority diseases in the low region of Camargo, Chuquisaca Department, Bolivia. 41

Table 10. Results from an analysis of the factors that influence the presence of rabies, blackquarter and anthrax from a workshop held in Camiri, Santa Cruz Department, Bolivia (Rushton et al. 2000a) 42

Table 11. Future animal health actions identified during a workshop held in Comanche, La Paz Department, Bolivia (Rushton et al., 2000b) 43

GRAPHICS Graphic 1. The four squares of knowledge (Modified from Mascarenhas, 1993) 9 Graphic 2. A traditional focus of a livestock disease surveillance system. 10 Graphic 3. The combined use of PALD and scientific methods to develop livestock disease control

strategies at community level. 13 Graphic 4. The role of PALDs and disease prioritisation at community level in the process of

planning regional and national disease control strategies. 14 Graphic 5. The continual process of animal health disease prioritisation to maintain active

participation in a surveillance system. 15 Graphic 6. The use of participatory methods during a disease outbreak investigation. 23 Graphic 7. Plan of the La Paz city abattoir. 26 Graphic 8. History of the FMD outbreak in La Paz city abattoir. 27 Graphic 9. The activities of a PALD workshop. 32 Graphic 10. Livestock systems analysis matrix. 33 Graphic 11. PALDs carried out in Chuquisaca in 1999 and 2000 (Camacho et al 2000). 46 Graphic 12. The use of participatory tools in coordination meetings. 50

ABBREVIATIONS CONCADE Consolidación de los Esfuerzos del Desarrollo Alternativo CSF Classical Swine Fever DAI Development Alternatives Inc. FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations FMD Foot-and-mouth disease PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal PALD Participatory Appraisal of Livestock Diseases LIDIVET Laboratorio de Investigación y Diagnóstico Veterinario MAGDR Ministerio de Agricultura, Ganadería y Desarrollo Rural OIE Oficina Internacional de Epizootias PASACH Programa de Apoyo al Sector Agropecuario Chuquisaca



INTRODUCTION Veterinary epidemiology and participatory methodologies (Thomas-Slayter, 1995) are relatively new specialist subjects, and have only been recognised for the last 20 or 30 years. Despite being relatively new subject, participatory methods have been used extensively in many fields (Blackburn, 1998; Narayan, 1996; IRDB, 1996; Kumar, 1993; Oakley, 1991) but very little has been written on the use of these methodologies in veterinary epidemiology. Water-Bayer and Bayer (1994) wrote an excellent guide on “Planning with Pastoralists” which covers many of the participatory methods useful for study livestock diseases. Catley (1999) has written a report on the role of participatory methods for veterinary epidemiology, but his work is based on specific experiences of the use of the methods in disease investigations and lacks information on how to scale up these methods to allow decision making at regional and national level. More recently Mariner (2001) has published a manual on “Participatory Epidemiology” which takes a classic structure of participatory manuals explaining methods with little information of how these methods might be built into a larger structure of epidemiology and surveillance systems. Therefore, there exists a large body of material on participatory methods and participation and the use of the subjects in many different fields of development, but information on how to incorporate these ideas into veterinary epidemiology is scarce. This guide will present information on how participatory methodologies and participation are important in the study of disease outbreaks, livestock disease surveillance systems and coordination meetings to initiate disease control actions.

However, it is emphasised that the purpose of the guide is not to replace existing methodologies within the subject of veterinary epidemiology. As Cooke and Kothari (2001) state one of the errors of participation and the followers of the associated methods is to believe that participation is in itself sufficient. The view of this work is that participation and participatory methods are necessary and vital components of veterinary epidemiology, but to be truly effective they need to be combined with other methodologies such as:

• Statistical

• Scientific

• Administrative

Each methodology alone cannot achieve successful control of livestock diseases, this requires the combination of methodologies. However, the use of participatory methodologies and participation has not been thoroughly explored in the subject of veterinary epidemiology, disease surveillance systems or the control of diseases. It is suggested that one of the reasons is that many veterinary services believe in legislation, law and abiding by those laws, before thinking about the participation of all actors concerned. Obligation is often the cornerstone of these systems and it is strong belief in many veterinary systems of both



developed and developing countries. This point will be further discussed in the section on participation.

BACKGROUND OF THE GUIDE

The basis of the guide began over ten years ago while one of the authors was giving classes on data collection as part of a MSc course in veterinary epidemiology at VEERU, The University of Reading. More practically this author applied these methods during studies of smallholder dairy systems in India (Rushton, 1991) and Kenya (Murithi and Rushton, 1995) and the study of Newcastle disease in Ethiopia, The Gambia and Zimbabwe (Rushton, 1993, 1995, 1996). However, these experiences were brought together during a project to develop a veterinary surveillance system in Bolivia. This project was implemented between 1997 and the year 2000 and in that time period created a system that for the first time in generated accurate information on Bolivian livestock diseases. The initial system worked on reports about List A disease (OIE, 2002), but with an emphasis on FMD and rabies (Rushton et al. 1999). In order to improve this system and search for information on other diseases the project implemented a series of workshops at field level with producers using participatory methods. The main objective of this work was to prioritise livestock diseases in the different regions of Bolivia in order to plan future activities. These workshops were essentially Participatory Appraisal of Livestock Diseases (PALD).

The experiences in the use of PALD generated ideas on how participatory methods could be combined with other veterinary epidemiology tools (Rushton et al. 2001a) in order to strengthen disease surveillance systems. This guide will develop some of those ideas and also present work from the following studies carried out after the end of this project in two zones of Bolivia.

- Study of livestock diseases in the tropical zone of Cochabamba, Bolivia (Rushton et al. 2001b)

- Study of livestock disease in the Cintis Chuquisaca, Bolivia (Rushton et al. 2001c)

Both studies employed a mixture of participatory and scientific methods to prioritise livestock diseases. There was feedback of the information from the studies to the producers in the areas and also extension material was presented on the priority diseases. In addition, information was presented to the authorities in both zones. The study in the Cintis completed the cycle of feedback more effectively due to it having a larger budget, and this study will be used more extensively in the examples presented in the guide.

Finally participation should not stop with a study of diseases and information. The next phase needs to include actions of the different actors in the zones affected by disease. In this aspect the guide is different from others in that it sees these actors as being producers, technical assistants, veterinarians, administrators and politicians. The role of each groups depends on the disease that is being controlled, but the success of these measures requires



the participation of each group. Therefore, there is a section with details on provision of extension material, coordination and monitoring actions.

The guide contains the following sections: • Livestock disease surveillance system and the role of participatory methodologies. • The main characteristics of participation and participatory methodologies and their

relationship with veterinary epidemiology. • The use of participatory methodologies in disease investigations. • Prioritisation of livestock diseases at the community level. • Diffusion of results, coordination and monitoring meetings. • Conclusions.

The intention of the document is to stimulate discussion and thought on the use of participatory methods and participation within the subject of veterinary epidemiology. It is believed these methodologies are useful in disease investigations and the prioritisation of livestock diseases, but to have the greatest impact these methodologies need to be combined with scientific investigation and knowledge of veterinarians and scientists. In this way it is possible to talk about a participatory process where all actors are involved. The important message is that veterinary epidemiology works best where participation is high and this means using all available methodologies not just participatory methodologies.



VETERINARY EPIDEMIOLOGY AND THE ROLE OF PARTICIPATORY METHODOLOGIES

INTRODUCTION

A veterinary epidemiology and surveillance system is effective when it can say that it has the confidence of the livestock owners and producers. This type of system will have accurate information on livestock diseases, because the producers will participate in the system, freely sharing their animal health problems. The big question is how to achieve this confidence and participation in order that the veterinary epidemiology and surveillance system has credibility. This is obviously the goal of veterinary services worldwide.

In answer to this it is necessary to mix good technical work with a attitude of respect for the producers, so that they feel comfortable to express their opinions. In this way it is possible to get answers from the four squares of knowledge (see Graphic 1). Graphic 1. The four squares of knowledge (Modified from Mascarenhas, 1993)

•Veterinarians know•Producers know

•Veterinarians know•Producers do not know

•Veterinarians do not know•Producers do not know

•Veterinarians do not know•Producers know

Animals do not eat when they are illAnimals with a fever are sick

Treatments for diseasesAppropriate VaccinesDiagnostic tests

Local remedies for diseasesMost important diseases in the local areaSymptoms of sick animals

Results of diagnostic tests

The majority of livestock disease surveillance systems rely more on technical work than on an environment that allows the exchange of ideas. In many societies this can work quite well, but can be improved with thought and actions about the use of participatory methodologies in the disease investigations and prioritisation of animal health problems. There are countries, regions and veterinarians who have achieved an adequate level of participation to produce a high quality level of work. It is hoped that for these groups the current document will serve as something to help think about and order the use of participatory methodologies in their work. For those who have not arrived at such a level of understanding, it is hoped that the guide will help in showing how participatory methodologies can improve their system of veterinary epidemiology and surveillance of livestock diseases. Finally, there are many regions that have limited access to veterinary



services and therefore do not have a disease surveillance system. In these zones the guide is a good starting point to begin work in animal health.

THE PRIORITIZATION OF LIVESTOCK DISEASES

The majority of livestock disease surveillance systems are focused on the List A diseases of the OIE. The direction of the questions about these diseases and also the strategies for their control is from the top to the bottom of the actors involved. The interest is to control the diseases that have been prioritised at international level (see Graphic 2). Graphic 2. A traditional focus of a livestock disease surveillance system.

International Institutions

List A disease reports andstrategies for their control

List A diseases

List A diseases

List A diseases

Nationalcontrol

strategies

Livestock owners, Producers, Technical Staff, Veterinarians

Ministry of Agriculture

National Surveillance Unit

DO YOU HAVE AN OUTBREAK OF A LIST “A”

DISEASE?Regional Surveillance Unit

The objectives of the data collection activities of the traditional animal diseases surveillance systems are basically to:

• Plan control strategies from the top to the bottom;

• Have information on outbreaks of List A diseases; and/or

• Prove that List A diseases do not exist.

However, such systems have little room for the active participation of the producers in the development of control strategies or in the prioritisation of livestock diseases. If there exists a system to respond to problems outside this narrow focus of the surveillance system then there is generally no a problem. Therefore, countries that have a strong private veterinary service have the option of dealing with local animal problems through these services. But in many countries the only veterinary service available is the state service and the veterinarians within this service are focused on diseases that are not necessarily priorities at



field level and in some cases these diseases are absent. It is likely that in this situation, the producers will not be very interested to provide information about diseases to the state veterinarians and these veterinarians will be poorly motivated due to a lack of real contact with the producers. The result is obvious, the basic building blocks of the surveillance system are weak, because the state veterinary service is not responding to the needs of the producers, their focus is on a list of diseases determined at higher levels. However, if they are not responding to the needs at field level, they are unlikely to have much success in generating accurate information for the institutions above the field activities. This is happening in many countries and calls for a change in focus at the field level. It is here that participatory methods have a key role in the strengthening of the livestock disease surveillance system and in the process the veterinary epidemiology activities of the country.

How do you make a veterinary epidemiology and a livestock disease surveillance system more participatory?

The starting point of a change of a veterinary epidemiology and livestock disease surveillance system is an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the existing system. It is almost certain that in some areas the system will be stronger than others. However, probably the most important point is the need to train the existing staff in participation and participatory methods. The training should be very clear about the role of these ideas and methods in improving the veterinary epidemiology system and where necessary time should be allowed for discussion. It is recommended that the focus of training should be on identifying disease priorities1 at producer and community level. In some areas where veterinary activities are strong there is a good possibility that the veterinarians and technical staff will be able to make a list of livestock disease priorities without the need for field level investigations. In other areas, where information is scarce an investigation will be necessary. In both situations it is important to have workshops with producers to discuss animal health problems and allow an exchange of ideas.

Finally the information on the animal health priorities of producers is not in itself useful, it needs to be turned into actions and strategies to improve the animal health situation. This requires political support that will commit economic, logistic and human resources for future actions. If there does not exist long-term support for this process of change, the possibilities that the veterinary epidemiology and surveillance system will change to a more participatory system over the medium and long-term are small. However, if this is the reality it is important not to give the impression to the producers that there is some long-term commitment. This analysis of political support should be a part of the analysis of the existing veterinary epidemiology and surveillance system, because it will help to give a clear ideas of the goals of the proposed changes.

1 Prioritisation of animal disease problems should be the main objective of the field work as this will help

allocate resources to real problems



The summary of the changes are as follows:

1. Analysis of the existing veterinary epidemiology and surveillance system indicating the strengths and weaknesses in the different political and geographical regions. This analysis should include information on the political support for a long-term commitment to achieve active participation.

2. Training of the existing staff in participation and participatory methods. This training should have clear goals and objectives about how participation and participatory methods will help to improve the veterinary epidemiology and surveillance system.

3. Investigations at community and producer level to identify the animal health problems at local level. These investigations should involve workshops with producers.

4. Finally, it is important to recognise that the investigations are only the beginning of a long-term commitment in the subject of animal health to the producers. This commitment needs the backing of technical staff, veterinarians, scientists and authorities.

Therefore this is not a rapid change. The initial phase it to collect information and discuss with the producers how to improve the focus of animal health activities in the direction of the needs of the livestock owners and producers. The second phase is the implementation of activities related to the priorities and that involve all the actors needed for the control of livestock diseases. The important point here is that if the activities are successful then the animal health priorities will change and there will be a need to reprioritise the activities. Therefore a good system should possess a flow of information and the flexibility to modify actions when priorities have been changed by successful control strategies.

A key part of the proposed system is the investigation to prioritise animal health problems. The way to obtain this information is not simple and it is suggested that a mixture of methodologies is used. The first step is to consult with the producers and discuss their opinions on animal health. There are various methods of having such contact, the guide will focus on a format designed in Bolivia (Rushton et al. 2001a) which is a Participatory Appraisal of Livestock Diseases (PALD). The format of this type of appraisal will be described in more detail in a later section. After a PALD there is often the need to verify the presence of diseases with scientific investigations. The information generated is then available to develop extension material for the communities which include strategies of control. Therefore, the investigation is a mixture of participatory and scientific methods which allows the prioritisation of animal health problems and information on potential strategies of control. This can then be used in discussions with the communities. Graphic 3 shows how a PALD can contribute to the develop of animal disease control strategies at local or community level.



Graphic 3. The combined use of PALD and scientific methods to develop livestock disease control strategies at community level.

COMMUNITY

Presentation of strategies and extension

material

Modification according to the socio-economic reality

Local Surveillance Unit

Scientific investigation

Identification of the main diseases

Control strategies and extension

material

Identification of the main animal health problems

Where necessary

PALD

Regional Surveillance Unit

The investigation once completed should help to improve the control of livestock diseases at local level. Therefore the PALD is the beginning of a much broader methodology that involves a combination of participatory and scientific methodologies to prioritise animal health problems.

It is important, therefore, to think of diseases in different groups:

• For some diseases it will be sufficient to provide information on the best means of control either through conventional treatments or local remedies. In this situation the participation of actors in control activities who are from outside the community is limited to the provision of information.

• Other diseases need further investigation to determine the most appropriate times for control and also the best methods of treatment. Internal parasites are a good example of this type of disease problem. These diseases require participation of producers, technical staff and veterinarians, to a level where it may be necessary to offer data analysis. Therefore, the participation of people outside the community is important for the successful control of these types of diseases.

• Finally there are diseases that need the participation of all the actors in a veterinary epidemiology and surveillance system. These are basically the contagious diseases and are generally the diseases found in the List A. They require a strategy on vaccination, control of animal movement, serological tests and accreditation of healthy animals and herds. The people who need to participate span from the



national, regional and local authorities, national, regional and local surveillance units, animal and meat traders and of course the producers. All need to work together to have success in the control or prevention of these diseases.

Graphic 3 shows that information does not stay at local level, but also reaches the regional surveillance units. Therefore the PALD and the general animal health prioritisation improve the information about diseases at regional and national level. Taking this process to its logical conclusion the active participation of the producers in the surveillance system will improve the priority setting at local, regional and national level and therefore improve the allocation of scarce resources available for animal disease control. Graphic 4. The role of PALDs and disease prioritisation at community level in the process of planning regional and national disease control strategies.

International Institutions

Diseases reports and proposals for disease control programmes

Regional control strategies

Regional disease problems

National disease problems

Local disease problems


Regional and national control

strategies

Ministry of Agriculture

National Surveillance Unit

COMMUNITY


material






material


Where necessary

PALD


COMMUNITY


material






material


Where necessary

PALD


COMMUNITY


material






material


Where necessary

PALD


COMMUNITY


material






material


Where necessary

PALD


There are a many advantages to community and producer participation in the veterinary epidemiology and surveillance system: data collected are more accurate; the surveillance network is more representative of the livestock producers; control plans are better adapted to the production systems; the profitability of the production systems should improve; and poverty reduction should be achieved.

With accurate information and with actions that are directed at the needs of producers the surveillance system has a very solid foundation that will be able to pass information about List A diseases quickly to the appropriate levels. The producers will have confidence in the system and will make contact with the veterinary system when they encounter an unknown disease. Therefore, the process of involving the producers in the prioritisation of diseases



and subsequent control strategies has a big pay-off in terms of making the surveillance network much stronger and more credible.

However, there are situations where it is not necessary to begin the disease investigation and prioritisation process with a PALD. There are countries and some regions of some countries where the participation of the producers is already active and the veterinarians will be able identify a list of priorities. It is possible in these situations that could move directly to developing strategies and presenting them to communities.

In the future the information generated and the subsequent actions based on this information should have an influence on animal health priorities. Therefore, there is a need to monitor the progress of the activities and their influence on the priorities and the general process should continue with monitoring and modification of activities (Graphic 5). Graphic 5. The continual process of animal health disease prioritisation to maintain active participation in a surveillance system.

Animal health prioritisation using participatory and scientifc methods and data

analysis

Control and prevention activities for animal health priorities

Changes in the status and impact of animal health priorities

Monitoring of activities

Animal health reprioritisation using participatory and scientifc methods and

data analysis

SUMMARY

Veterinary epidemiology and surveillance system can have different levels of participation. A traditional system is passive and has a low level of producer participation. The strategies of control developed by these systems are concentrated on List A diseases. Beyond this level there are systems with greater producer participation in the priority setting of control strategies and activities. These systems are more participatory and active. Finally there are systems where diseases are prioritised with a mixture of participatory and scientific methodologies. On the basis of these priorities strategies are discussed and implemented



by producers, veterinarians and authorities. Here the field level people have much more control in terms of decisions and budgets and it is system that really can be called participatory. In the other systems described the power and the majority of the budget remains with the central coordinating unit. Table 1 shows the characteristics, advantages and disadvantages of the different types of system. The information presented is important when beginning an analysis of the existing system and the planning of how to achieve political support to make changes to a more participatory approach. It is critical to recognize that to arrive at a truly participatory system, a long-term process is required with strong political support. Table 1. Different veterinary epidemiology and surveillance systems. Veterinary epidemiology and surveillance systems

Traditional Traditional with some collection of field level data

Traditional with coordination of activities at community level

Participatory

System characteristics Passive Semi-active Semi-active Active Participatory methods used in disease investigations?

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Scientific investigations Possibly Probably Probably Yes Community workshops Yes Yes Yes Coordination workshops Yes Yes Local activities for the control of livestock diseases

Yes

Regional projects for the control of livestock diseases

Possibly Possibly Possibly Yes

National projects for List a diseases

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Advantages Low cost Low commitment at community level

Low cost Low commitment at community level Better information at field level

Low cost Better information at field level

High level of Participation Confidence in the system at field level Good surveillance system

Disadvantages Low level of participation Surveillance system is weak Potentially high long-term costs*

Participation is not real Surveillance system is weak Potentially high long-term costs*

Participation is not real Potentially high long-term costs*

Long-term commitment Higher costs short-term

Comments Power and the budget remain with the centre

Power and the budget remain with the centre

Power and the budget remain with the centre

More free at field level A budget is needed for field-level activities

* Costs are associated with the poor reporting and subsequent control of contagious diseases



MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF PARTICIPATION IN A VETERINARY EPIDEMIOLOGY AND SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM

INTRODUCTION

Actions are determined by attitudes and culture. These actions in turn direct the implementation of disease investigations, PALDs and the coordination of activities with communities, institutions and authorities. Therefore, the importance of having an attitude that embraces participation and is adapted to the cultural situation that one finds oneself in is key to achieving active participation in veterinary epidemiology work. The following section provides some key aspects of participation and also of participatory methods.

MAIN ASPECTS OF PARTICIPATION

Know how to listen

The basis of any veterinary epidemiology and surveillance work is the ability to listen. It is important to give people time to explain their problems and this can be facilitated if the environment of the contact is a relaxed one. It maybe necessary in interviews, meetings or workshops to tolerate silences and also to make sure that people are not interrupted when making their views know. If a person or people do not have time to talk freely it is recommended that an appointment is made when time is available.

Have an open mind

Where there is participation and interchange of information it is necessary to recognize that producers and veterinary professionals all have contributions to make (see Graphic 1 on the four squares of knowledge). Generally the producers know their region well, their systems of production and the problems associated with these systems, whereas the veterinary staff have more in depth knowledge of diseases and their control. In this situation the veterinary staff have to listen about the information the producers possess and use their judgement to offer technical opinions that are appropriate to the situation. The interchange of information and views needs to be carried out with mutual respect and should allow an environment that encourages creativity.

Be self-critical

Being self critical is a central pillar of participation. This requires the constant assessment of actions and thoughts with regards to the reality in which the work is being carried out. It is recognized that often it is difficult to learn from personal mistakes, they are probably one of the most important sources of learning.



Be curious

Being curious in a constructive way2 has three aspects: the way which interest is shown in a subject, the ability to identify the important points and the need to note down the results.

The way in which questions are asked is the basis for encouraging discussion and analysis. There is a need to have an open mind, but where necessary offer opinions. It is recommended that in many situations a list of important questions is available before being an investigation or workshop. However, if time allows do not be too rigid in applying the questions and allow subjects that are important to be fully discussed. It is at these points where judgement on the value of information and analysis need to be made. The results from such discussions should be available when writing reports or summaries of the work. If this information is not well stored then the documents produced may give the impression that although discussions at the time were interesting they had no impact on the final product. The way in which to note down the results depends on each person, but it is recommended that a notebook and pen are carried at all times.

Be prepared to say that “I do not know”

The field of veterinary science is so wide that there will be times when situations will be outside the experience of any veterinarian or technical person. Also it is important to note that many diseases cannot be confirmed on clinical examinations alone, they may also be a need to take samples and carry out laboratory diagnosis. In these situations it is recommended that the veterinarian explains that further analysis is needed to confirm the disease and this extra information will be sought as quickly as possible.

MAIN ASPECTS OF PARTICIPATORY METHODS

Facilitation

Facilitation of an investigation, workshop or an analysis should allow people to develop their own ideas and search out important points. In participatory workshops the facilitator should provide a framework for the workshop, but should give sufficient leeway for people to express themselves in ways they feel comfortable. In the end, a good facilitator will make people feel that the process of analysis is their own.

Flexibility

There are many books on participatory methodologies, this one included. However, they should be treated as guides not as manuals. Where certain methods are not applicable or need to be adapted to suit the specific situation, there should be no fear in making modifications. Here it is important to have an open mind. One comment on this point is that



flexibility can be fun and can allow people to learn different things, but it can also lead to situations or methods that do not produce results that the participants were expecting. It is important to make clear before beginning an analysis that is basically an experiment that the final results may not be known.

Triangulation or corroboration of information

Triangulation of data or information collected is an important aspect of participatory methods and also of good veterinary epidemiology work. There are many sources of information or data on diseases: producers, secondary information from reports, authorities, slaughterhouses and of course sero-surveys. Therefore information generated from participatory methods can be verified through scientific investigations. These investigations are an important aspect of the confirmation of disease problems.

The expression of information ways that are understandable to the participants of a process

In some regions there is a high percentage of people who cannot read or write. Also in some countries there are regions where people speak a local language and have difficulty with the official national language. In these situations it is important to recognise the problems of communication and determine how to address these issues in terms of presentations and how to store information. Some languages are basically oral languages and the use of paper and pencil makes little sense in terms of recording information to the local people, but is important to the outsiders from the region. In other communities, even though many may not be able to read and write, they may be comfortable using pictures to express their ideas. Finally, there are areas where the majority are comfortable with reading and writing, but here it is important to check that the minority who cannot read and write well are not isolated.

Collect data that are useful

In this sense it is important to try to collect data that are relevant to the process. Generally, the economists, sociologist and anthropologist want to know everything. However, this guide recommends that the search for information is initially restricted to animal health and livestock diseases. From this point the search can be broadened to include other information that influences the diseases and their control. This focussed view may not appeal to everyone, but it needs to be placed in the context of resources available for disease prioritisation and investigation.

2 It is possible to be curious in a self-absorbed way that is of little value to the people around you.



Look for missing information

Where insufficient information is generated from participatory methods be prepared to search for missing data or information in books, colleagues, Internet, Ministries of Agriculture and Statistics etc. In this way the process is participatory, because the outsider is bringing information not easily accessible to communities. This also requires the investigator or facilitator to be curious and open minded.

VOLUNTARY VERSUS OBLIGATORY PARTICIPATION

In a veterinary epidemiology and surveillance system there are different levels of participation. The majority of countries have animal health laws that indicate it is obligatory to inform the authorities of the existence of a disease outbreak. If a country has an effective policing mechanism of these laws then it is likely that producers will inform the authorities of disease outbreaks3. This obligatory participation is sufficient where it can be well policed and enforced, but a veterinary epidemiology and surveillance can also be improved if it is supported by voluntary participation. The reality is that many countries have areas or farms where the power of the law is weak and in these areas obligatory participation does not work. There is need in these areas to look for alternatives to improve the system. Table 2 shows the different types of participation and their impact on veterinary epidemiology and surveillance systems. Table 2. Different types of participation and their impact on veterinary epidemiology and surveillance systems. Participation Motivation Characteristics Surveillance system and veterinary

epidemiology Obligatory Fear driven Suspicion between producers

and the surveillance system Information is not shared and the veterinary epidemiology output is weak

Voluntary Interest driven Respect between producers and the surveillance system

Active surveillance, value of veterinary epidemiology output is high

A veterinary epidemiology and surveillance system with strong obligatory participation and weak voluntary participation is only as strong as the law enforcement system of the country. Where there is poor law enforcement, there is very poor surveillance of disease and little value in the output from the veterinary epidemiology work. Ideally, a veterinary epidemiology and surveillance system should be based on voluntary participation with the backing of laws that enforce obligation.

3 It is often assumed that a country like the UK has an effective policing system that can apply animal health

laws, but the FMD epidemic in 2001 in this country shows that this is not always the case. This outbreak began in a farm that did not report having the disease.



SUMMARY

In a participatory process it is critical to have an attitude that is correct and adequate for the situation. The three elements of attitude are4:

• What you say to yourself before a disease investigation, workshop or meeting.

• Your state of mind, which is influenced by what you have said to yourself.

• The actions that stem your attitude.

Therefore, everyone can be a leader who creates a participatory environment if their attitude is positive and open to the points described in this chapter. And the characteristics of leaders are the following:

• You have to be an effective teacher.

• Your have to be a sensitive counsellor.

• You have to be a person who cultivates the strong points in people and helps resolve the weak points.

Not everyone is born with these abilities but they can be learned and cultivated with an attitude is based on the need to listen, to be self-critical and to learn from good and bad experiences. If you can achieve voluntary participation in your animal health work then you are strengthening the surveillance system and improving the output from the veterinary epidemiology unit.

4 Modified from the book “Becoming a successful manager” by Jack Grossman y Robert Parkinson (2001).

Paginas 5-9 y 20-23.



INVESTIGATION OF A LIVESTOCK DISEASE OUTBREAK USING PARTICIPATORY METHODS In many countries the investigation of livestock disease outbreaks is structured with a formal questionnaire and a list of samples that need to be taken to confirm the causal agent of the disease. Therefore the technical details of the disease investigation are very well specified. However, these guides or manuals generally lack information on how participatory methods can be used to improve investigations. For the majority of veterinarians these tools are a necessary part of a good investigation and it will possibly be a surprise that they have been using participatory methods in their work.

A good example of this happened when the co-author, Jonathan Rushton, was visited by Peter Ellis5 while carrying out research in small holder dairy farms in India in 1990. During a visit to the field Peter interviewed producers using a semi-structured interview method and later investigated disease problems using animal and disease histories. At that time there was very little published information on the use of these methods in animal production and health, but for Peter they were regular methods for investigating diseases. When he was asked about the use of such methods it became obvious that he had been using them for more than 30 years. It is concluded that participation and participatory methods are not new to many veterinary professionals, but many have been using them without knowing that there existed such a strong literature on the subject.

It is suggested that the most useful methods in the investigation of disease outbreaks are the following:

- Using a general questionnaire for a disease outbreak a semi-structured interview (Waters-Bayer and Bayer, 1994 pages73-75) can be used.

- Disease History can be used to provide information on the properties and communities affected and the disease spread (a good discussion on historical analyses is presented by Waters-Bayer and Bayer, 1994 pages 60-64).

- Animal history or animal interviews (Waters-Bayer and Bayer, 1994 page 76) to determine the economic impact of the disease at individual animal level and to determine events that happened prior to the disease being recognised.

- Flow diagrams and/or maps to identify animal movement and distribution of animals (Waters-Bayer and Bayer, 1994 pages 89-91).

- Institutional diagram to identify which institutions could play a role in the control of the outbreak (Waters-Bayer and Bayer, 1994 pages 94-96; Slocum et al. 1995, pages 127-130).

5 Peter Ellis was the Director of VEERU, University of Reading, UK between 1975 and 1990.



Graphic 5 presents a possible order of their use in a disease investigation. Graphic 6. The use of participatory methods during a disease outbreak investigation.

Semi-Structured interview

Formal questionnaire

Map

Disease and/or animal history

Flow diagram (animal movement and distribution)

Institutional diagram

It is not necessary or advisable to use all the participatory methods mentioned above in every disease investigation. It is important to remember that one of the important aspects in the use of participatory methods is flexibility and that these methods should be mixed with scientific methods. Finally providing feedback on the investigation to the producers affected by livestock diseases is critical in increasing confidence in the surveillance system and its value to the community. Too often a disease investigation is carried out, samples are taken and laboratory produces results. The information generated goes to the next level in the information system, but does not return to the producers affected. Completing the cycle at field level will encourage farmers to return to the surveillance system in the future with their animal health problems.

The following section presents a disease investigation where a mixture of participatory and scientific methodologies were employed. This investigation also had a very strong feedback to the people affected by the animal disease.

CASE STUDY – INVESTIGATION OF A FMD OUTBREAK IN LA PAZ CITY ABBATOIR6

Background and secondary data

The La Paz Department in Bolivia does not have sufficient animals to satisfy demands for beef and pork in the cities of El Alto and La Paz. For this reason, animals are transported

6 The information was presented as a poster at SVEPM conference in Edinburgh, UK in 2000 (Orozco,

Rushton and Angus, 2000)



each day from the eastern part of the country to these cities. The majority of the cattle come from the Department of the Beni, which is a FMD endemic zone. Fortunately, these animals are transported directly to the abattoirs (both are found in the city some distance from local livestock) and are slaughtered within 24 hours. Also a high proportion of the animals are slaughtered in the Beni or Santa Cruz prior to arriving in the city of La Paz.

Studies of the livestock markets in the Altiplano region of the Department of La Paz found that there were no animals from the eastern region of the country or from Cochabamba traded in these markets. Information on the animal movement in the tropical region of the La Paz Department was not sufficient to determine the risks of FMD in this area.

From the information presented above it is clear that there is a risk of FMD entering the Department of La Paz. However, the risk in the Altiplano region of the Department is concentrated in the two city abattoirs, where the possibility of spreading the disease to livestock production systems is low. The greatest risk is from lorries transporting cattle from the Beni to La Paz. These lorries are thought not to be disinfected after completing their journeys.

There was a FMD outbreak in pigs in the La Paz city abattoir that lasted for 21 days. The outbreak was investigated initially by a meat processing company, that owned the pigs. The outbreak ended when the company sterilised the corrals where the pigs were kept and fortunately the disease was not spread outside the abattoir.

Investigation of the outbreak

The investigation had the following components:

1. Epithelium samples were taken from the affected pigs and laboratory tests were run in LIDIVET, Santa Cruz de la Sierra.

2. Semi-structured interviews were carried out in the pig farms in Cochabamba where the pigs infected in the abattoir came from.

3. Blood samples were taken from pigs in the pig farms in Cochabamba and sent for analysis in LIDIVET, Santa Cruz de la Sierra.

4. Semi-structured interviews were carried out based on a disease investigation questionnaire with the staff at the La Paz city abattoir.

5. History of the disease outbreak and movement of pigs was made with the veterinarian in the abattoir.

6. A plan was made of the abattoir indicating where different animals were housed.

7. Semi-structured interviews were carried out with the smallholder milk producers close to the pig farm in Cochabamba.



Results

There were three potential sources of the disease outbreak:

1. The pig farm in Cochabamba.

2. Lorries, which were dirty, that transported the pigs from Cochabamba to La Paz.

3. Pigs were infected in the abattoir due to contact with cattle from the eastern region of the country or with infected faeces or other material from the same cattle.

In reality, it was not possible to say which was the definite source of the outbreak, but each source was investigated using the methods described above.

Two pig farms were investigated in Cochabamba by veterinarians who took blood samples and also interviewed the owners, using a semi-structured informal format, about the health of the pig herds over the last three months. The blood samples were negative for FMD and there was no evidence of clinical FMD in the farms. The smallholder dairy farms close to the pig farm were interviewed using a semi-structured informal format about diseases that had occurred on their farms in the last six months. None had seen FMD and some did not even know what the disease was nor what it looked like. With this information it is unlikely that the outbreak came from the pig farms in Cochabamba.

The lorries that transported the pigs from Cochabamba to La Paz belonged to the meat processing company. According to their veterinarian these lorries were also used to transport cattle from the Beni to La Paz. It was not known if the lorries were cleaned and disinfected between a journey to the Beni and La Paz and a journey to Cochabamba and La Paz. Therefore, there was a risk that pigs were being transported in lorries that had infected faeces from cattle from the Beni, and this source of infection could not be eliminated.

Finally, to investigate the possibility that the pigs were infected in the abattoir a plan of the abattoir corrals was made and photos taken. Graphic 6 shows the plan.



Graphic 7. Plan of the La Paz city abattoir.

Entrance

Holding pens for cattlefrom the Altiplano

Holding pens forpigs

Holding pens for cattlefrom the Beni

Building withweigh balance

To the slaughterhouse Key

Flow of animals

A

BC

D E

A PhotosFlow of water y manure

A history of the disease and pig movement during the outbreak was developed with the abattoir veterinarian and the meat processing company. This showed that pigs were housed in the abattoir for longer than 24 hours and first pigs that became sick had been there for 20 days, which is sufficient time from them to be infected and show clinical symptoms. Before the outbreak the company kept pigs permanently in the slaughterhouse and only slaughtered them when there was a demand for pig products. Therefore, infection of the pigs in the slaughterhouse could not be eliminated. Graphic 8 shows the history of the infected pigs and pig movement during the outbreak.



Graphic 8. History of the FMD outbreak in La Paz city abattoir.

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

63 pigs arrive from Marañon piggery, Cochabamba

69 pigs arrive from Copacabana piggery, Cochabamba

One sick pigthat isdestroyed

Three sickpigs that are destroyed

One sick pig that is destroyed

Two sick pigs that are destroyed

One sick pig that is destroyed

11 days4 days

1 day

8 days5 days

Events during the outbreak of FMD in the La Paz city abattoirJanuary 1999

Time between the arrival of a batch of pigs and the detection of sick pigs

Dr. Ortiz from Cochabamba investigates the outbreak, takes samples and sends them to LIDIVET

After the outbreak the meat processing company stopped keeping pigs in the slaughterhouse.

REPORT AND FEEDBACK

After an investigation it is important that the information generated is presented to the producers, veterinarians and authorities in charge of disease control programmes in the area. With a good system of feedback it is likely that disease reporting will be improved and there will be strong support for future investigations. In the case study described above the meat processing company used the report in identifying that the greatest risk were dirty lorries transporting pigs. The management of the company informed the team who investigated the outbreak that in the future lorries would be cleaned and disinfected between journeys.

It is noted that the case study presented used a mixture of methodologies. Participatory methods were used to collect accurate field level data and scientific methods were used to verify the presence or absence of disease. Finally, the analysis and information was presented in report and distributed to abattoir, the meat processing company and the Ministry of Agriculture. The quality of the investigation generated confidence in the surveillance system and improved the relations between the system and the abattoir and the meat processing company. In this way it helped to strengthen the surveillance network in these areas. It is emphasised that the report of the outbreak was obligatory participation, the actions stimulated by the investigation were voluntary.



OTHER INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN THE USE OF PARTICIPATORY METHODS IN THE INVESTIGATION OF DISEASE OUTBREAKS

Annex 4 of the manual written by Mariner (2001) has information on the use of participatory methods for investigating rinderpest and also for rinderpest surveillance systems. This guide can be accessed through the internet at the FAO publications web page. Catley et al. (2002a, 2002b y 2001) has written a number of articles on the use of participatory methods in investigations of trypanosomiasis in Kenya and bovine diseases in Sudan.

SUMMARY

Disease investigations can be improved with the use of participatory methods such as semi-structured interviews, disease and animal histories, maps or plans and institutional diagrams. The majority of veterinarians are using these tools regularly and the purpose of this chapter is to indicate where these methods might be used in disease investigations. It is emphasised that these methods alone cannot be used to treat animals or develop a control strategy, they should to be combined with veterinary knowledge and scientific investigation.



PRIORITIZATION OF LIVESTOCK DISEASES AT COMMUNITY LEVEL

INTRODUCTION

Graphic 3 presented a methodology for the prioritisation of livestock diseases at community level. The methodology involved:

• Participatory Appraisal of Livestock Diseases.

• Where necessary, scientific disease investigation.

• Prioritisation of livestock diseases.

• Presentation of livestock disease control strategies and extension material to the community.

• Where necessary, modifications of the strategies according to the socio-economic reality of the community.

This chapter will present information on how PALDs were carried out in Bolivia and the way in which participatory methods were supported by scientific investigations and secondary data.

The chapter is divided into four parts:

1. Planning a livestock disease prioritisation process with a community

2. Description of the PALD format used in Bolivia between 2000 and 2001 with examples of the work produced.

3. How scientific investigations can be combined with the information generated from the PALD.

4. The use of PALDs in the Department of Chuquisaca, Bolivia to generate regional data.

The following chapter will discuss disease control strategies and feedback to the communities.

PLANNING A LIVESTOCK DISEASE PRIORITIZATION WITH A COMMUNITY

The objective of a livestock disease prioritisation is to direct animal health activities at field level towards the priorities of the producers. The first phase of this process depends on the previous field level activities. Where an active veterinary service exists or local veterinarians with strong contact with producers, a PALD may not be necessary. The knowledge of the veterinary professionals may be sufficient to generate a good list of local priorities7.

7 This asumes that the activities of these local veterinary professionals encourage active participation of

producers as described in previous sections.



However, in many situations the animal health activities are driven by List A disease priorities and other problems do not count. Therefore in most areas there is a need to carry out a participatory appraisal in order to make contact with producers. The following are important issues during this initial phase of the prioritisation:

1. The participants invited to the appraisal should be livestock owners and/or people important in looking after the animals. This may seem an obvious point but achieving this may be difficult especially in areas with many development activities. In some areas of Bolivia people have become tired of the constant need to attend workshops.

2. There is a need to be flexible in running workshops. If the target group for the participatory appraisal are unable to travel it is important to run smaller workshops or gatherings in a number of regions rather than relying on one large workshop for the whole zone. The disadvantage of this is that the costs will increase.

3. Where there exists secondary information on livestock diseases in the area, it is important to consider if a participatory appraisal is necessary. Instead of running an appraisal the approach could be modified to present the information available and to discuss its validity.

THE PALD FORMAT USED IN BOLIVIA

The format of a Participatory Appraisal of Livestock Disease which had success in Bolivia involved running workshops that used participatory methods to prioritise local diseases and discussed how they were being controlled at the time of the appraisal. There are other methods of discussing subjects with producers such as focus groups and semi-structured interviews, but the analysis and data collection format of the PALDs could also be applied with these methods.

The following section will present the format of the PALD used in Bolivia with examples of the data collected from different regions of the country.

Introduction

In 1999 the veterinary professionals of the Bolivian disease surveillance system were trained in participation and participatory methods (Rushton et al. 2001a). During the training a list of key questions were developed concerning the search for information on livestock diseases at community level. The list had the following questions:

1) Livestock diseases and their relationship with production systems a) What are the important species in the areas? b) How many animals are there in the area and what is the average herd/flock size? c) How are the animals distributed in the area during the different seasons? d) What resources and infrastructure are available to the livestock sector? e) What are the main products from each species and how are they used?



f) How important is each species in the livestock economy of the producers? g) How are the animals managed and what are the feeding systems in the different

seasons? h) Who looks after the animals? i) Which livestock diseases affect the different species? j) When do these diseases affect the animals? k) Which are the priority diseases according to the producers?

2) The control of livestock diseases a) What treatments do the producers use and why? b) What treatments do the producers not use and why? c) In what seasons do the producers practice control and prevention of diseases?

3) The impact of the livestock diseases on the household economy a) What are the local ways of prioritising livestock diseases? b) What are the economic losses caused by the priority diseases? c) What are the costs of controlling and treating the priority diseases?

4) Local institutions a) Which local institutions support rural development? b) What is the impact of local institutions on rural development? c) What is the relationship between local institutions and producers? d) Which local institutions are involved in the livestock sector? e) What is the capacity of these institutions?

These key questions were used to design a format for PALD workshops that included a goal, objectives and activities. This format was tested in over 20 workshops in different regions of Bolivia in the year 2000 (Rushton, 2001a), but was refined during two livestock disease studies in the Chapare and the Cintis of Bolivia in 2001 (Rushton et al. 2001b y 2001c).

The format of the PALD workshops in Bolivia

The following format was presented to participants who took part in the Bolivian PALD workshops.

Workshop goal

Prioritisation of livestock diseases in the area where the workshop is held

Workshop Objectives

To identify:

1. The most important species in the area.

2. The livestock diseases that exist or can exist in the area.

3. The importance of livestock disease in the rural and livestock economy.



4. Possible future animal health activities.

Workshop structure

1) Analysis of livestock systems and the livestock diseases associated with them.

2) Analysis of the systems of livestock feeding and their relationship with animal health problems.

3) Prioritisation of livestock diseases.

4) Analysis of the priority livestock diseases

a) Calendar to identify seasonality of the diseases

b) Methods of control and prevention practised in the area

5) Future animal health actions with dates, institutions and coordinators.

Activities

At the beginning of the workshop the facilitators presented information about what is a disease surveillance system and what value it can provide for producers and they also explained the content of the workshop. In order to achieve high levels of participation it was found that it was better to divide the participants into groups according to regions or systems of production. The number of people per group depended on the number of facilitators, but be between 10 to 15 people was an ideal number.

Graphic 9 shows the activities of the workshop. Graphic 9. The activities of a PALD workshop.

Explanation of disease surveillance system and its role in the control of livestock diseases

Agreements about future animal health actvities

Explanation of the goal and objectives of the workshop

Analysis of livestock production and feeding systems

Prioritizacion of livestock diseases

Analysis of priority livestock diseases•Factors that influence their presence•Calendar•Control and prevention currently used



LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION SYSTEMS ANALYSIS

The livestock production systems analysis is based on a matrix that collects the following information about each species:

1. Herd or flock size per family with a minimum, maximum and average.

2. Why do the families keep this species?

3. What are the main products from the species?

4. What proportion of the products produced are sold?

5. What unit price do producers receive for the main products?

6. What diseases affect the species?

Graphic 10 shows the format of the matrix and Table 3 has the data collected with this matrix at a workshop in Incahuasi, Chuquisaca, Bolivia. Graphic 10. Livestock systems analysis matrix.

Species Herd/Flock size per family

Why do the families keep these animals

Main ProductsProduced

Proportionof the main products sold

Product price per unit

LivestockDiseases



Table 3. Data collected in the analysis of the livestock systems in the region of the liquinas of Incahuasi, Chuquisaca Department, Bolivia. Species Herd/Flock

size per family

Why do the families keep these animals

Main products produced

Porportion of the products sold

Product price per unit

Diseases *

Cattle 0 – 15 Average. 5

Work Milk Meat Manure Sales

Work Sales

5–10% 95%

10-20 Bs./day 1500 $us./ for 3 animales (2.5 bullock pairs ). 1300 Bs/ animal for meat. 1500Bs/bullock.

Aftosa. (1) Carbunculo. (2) Mancha. (3) Gangrena. (3) Diarrea. (4) Itha o piojo. (5) Orina sangre cuased by ticks coming in from the Chaco (6) Mal de vaso. (7)

Sheep 0-80 Average 30

Wool Meat Milk Manure

Meat Manure

0% sale. Buy manure 110 qq**

1qq/15 Bs.

Moquillo (1) Diarrea (6) Itha (2) Muyu Muyu (6) Sarna (3) Fiebre (4) Churu (5)

Goats 0 –100 Average 40

Meat Milk Manure

Meat Manure

10% eaten by the family 10% of herd sold per year Buy 200 qq.

200 Bs.

Diarrea * Fiebre * Churu * Sarna Uma mayo * Piojo Gusanera *

Pigs 0-5 Average 1-2

Fat Meat

Fat Meat

0% 0%

Fiebre aftosa (1) Sarna (2) Triquina (2)

Hens 10-12 Eggs Meat

Eggs Meat

0% 0%

3-4Bs/dozen 15Bs/Hen

Fiebre aftosa (1) Diarrea Borrachera

Donkeys 0-5 Average 3

Transport Transport to carry firewood and goods

0% Barter and social contracts

Fiebre aftosa (1) Diarrea (2) Sarna (3) Angina (4)

* The diseases have not been translated as some are not known in English. Also for the reason that disease names are generally specific to an area and this information is useful for extension material ** qq = quintal (46 kilos)

FEEDING SYSTEMS ANALYSIS

Animal nutrition can have important effects on the animal health and many of the problems reported are related to poor nutrition. Therefore, the workshops that were run during the disease investigations in the Cintis included a calendar to collect information on the feeding systems of the different species. Information was requested on the feeding and grazing systems during the year. Table 4 has the data collected from a workshop in Incahuasi, Chuquisaca Department, Bolivia.



Table 4. Data collected during an analysis of feeding systems for the area of the liquinas and valleys of Incahuasi, Chuquisaca Department, Bolivia.

SPECIES J F M A M J J A S O N D Comments General points Rainy season, animals graze natural

pasture Dry season Cattle

Animals are let lose or are tied with a rope near to the house. The families give the cattle maize straw, grass and salt blocks

The cattle go to the hills and do not return during the night. They graze on natural pasture.

Cattle are feed on wheat, maize and barley stubble. They are tied in the fields with a rope and stake

The cattle are sent to the hills in the morning 7 a.m. and return to the house at night. They are given maize straw, natural pasture, grass straw and forage

Main season for work for the bullocks. These animals are given extra maize straw

Sheep and Goats

Goats and sheep go to graze natural pasture during the day and return to the house at night. They graze between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. There are problems with bloat

The animals graze during the day, but are close to the house and as above return at night

There are many poisonous plants in the area that kill sheep and goats and also cause abortions

Pigs Pigs are sent out with the sheep and search for their own food. They are also give barley grain, kitchen waste.

Pigs are sent to the feed on the maize, wheat and barley stubble

SPECIES AND DISEASE PRIORITISATION

The analysis of the livestock and feeding systems generates much information, but gives no idea of the importance of the different species nor the diseases that affect them. As there are insufficient resources to treat all the diseases identified it is necessary to first prioritise the species and then the diseases. There are various methods for prioritisation, but the most useful in the work in Bolivia was the pair wise ranking matrix. However, this tool is relatively complicated and it is important that the facilitators clearly explain how it is used. Table 5 presents the prioritisation of species in Incahuasi, Chuquisaca, Bolivia. The method of pair wise ranking is extremely good at making people think of priorities and also not reaching early conclusions. For example in Table 5 donkeys have come out as equal to cattle in an area where no-one is running programmes to help problems with donkeys.



Table 5. The prioritisation of species in the area of the liquinas Incahuasi, Chuquisaca Department, Bolivia.

With the informatio

n on the importance of the different species in the area it is possible to begin a disease prioritisation. This process can be focused in the following way:

C att

le

S he ep

G oa t Pi g H en s D on ke y S co re

Pr

ior iti sa tio n

Cattle Cattle Cattle Cattle Cattle Equal 4.5 1ro.

Sheep Sheep Sheep Sheep Donkey 3 2ro.

Goat Goat Goat Donkey 2 3ro.

Pig Pig Donkey 1 4to. Hens Donkey 0 5to

Donkey 4.5 1ro.

1. Where time is not available it is recommended that the disease prioritisation focuses on the two most important species.

2. Where there are four or more diseases for the most important species use the pair wise ranking matrix.

3. Where there are less than 4 diseases and/or the species is not one of the two most important ask the participants to rank the disease in a list.

While the pair wise ranking matrix is a useful tool for disease prioritisation it needs to be explained very clearly. In particular there is much confusion over what is being asked. In Bolivia the participants were asked to determine which was the most important disease on the following basis:

1. The impact of the disease when it is present

1.1. Deaths

1.2. Weight losses

1.3. Milk production losses

1.4. Abortions

2. The frequency that the disease occurs

2.1. Every day

2.2. Every week

2.3. Every month

2.4. Every 6 months

2.5. Every year

2.6. Every 5 years

During the prioritisation the facilitator should remain impartial, but also guide the participants in the use of this tool so that consistent results are achieved.



NB A frequent problem during disease prioritisations is the disease names. For example in Bolivia parasites were commonly identified as a problem alongside diseases such as anaplasmosis and ticks. Obviously parasites are a group of diseases and it is impossible to compare a group of parasites with a specific parasitic disease. In other workshops the participants identified a disease and also symptoms of the disease as being a problem, for example internal parasites and diarrhoea. It is suggested that to improve the prioritisation the facilitator discuss the diseases and symptoms and possibly modify the original list before beginning a pair wise ranking. This is also an opportunity to discuss more carefully animal health problems in the area.

Table 4 shows the results from a cattle disease prioritisation in Sopachuy, Chuquisaca, Bolivia. Table 6. Results from a cattle disease prioritisation in Sopachuy, Chuquisaca Department, Bolivia. Bovinos Rábica Carbunclo Parásitos Fiebre

Aftosa Mea Sangre

Mastitis Score Importance

Rábica Carbunclo Parásitos Rábica Rábica Rábica 3 3 Carbunclo Parásitos Carbunclo Carbunclo Carbunclo 4 2 Parásitos Parásitos Parásitos Parásitos 5 1 Fiebre Aftosa

Mea Sangre

Mea sangre

1 5

Mea sangre

Mea sangre

2 4

Mastitis 0 6

In Table 4 the local and Spanish names have been left rather than translated. There is a temptation in a report to change the names to scientific names. For example “Rábica” is rabies in the local language but should be written “rabia” in Spanish. Also some diseases are not clear from the name used locally so “mea sangre” could be either due to babesiosis or poisoning due to eating toxic plants. What is important here is that local names for diseases should not be dismissed, the facilitator should make note of the these names and discuss symptoms associated with the name. Here it is important to be curious and open minded, because these local names are valuable when thinking about extension material. A local name on an information pamphlet will have much more value than a pamphlet with a scientific name. A good example of this from Bolivia is the use of the name “Triquina” for cysticercosis in pigs. Triquina for the producers is disease that causes cysts in the muscle of animals. The reaction of many Bolivian veterinary professionals is to correct the producers and tell them that Triquina is another disease and that in pigs the disease is called cysticercosis. This reached a situation where pamphlets have been produced on the disease which have cysticercosis on the front page. The reaction of the producers was to say that they do not have a problem with cysticercosis, but they would like information on Triquina. The pamphlets in the end were thrown away. Here it is important to remember that the language of the producers is different from that of the veterinary professionals and as outsiders these professionals need to learn the local language. No-one going to Spain would expect the Spanish to know that the word “beef” means something to eat. The process is the



other way round, the visitor would expect to learn and use the Spanish word for beef. Therefore it is recommended that when working in the field every effort is made to learn the local language for diseases and symptoms and try not to be scientifically rigid in their approach. The aim is to participate in animal health issues at local level, not to impress colleagues in the cities.

With the information generated on livestock and feeding systems and the prioritisation of species and diseases it is possible to select the most important diseases in the area and concentrate on a small number of diseases for a more in-depth analysis. Here the idea of looking for information that is useful is important and the basis of this is an economic one. There are neither sufficient time nor money to solve the problems of all the diseases in the area. The first issue is to deal with priority diseases and if actions have success to begin on other animal health problems. A way to stimulate discussion of the most important diseases is to present the disease prioritisation results on a large sheet of paper. This visual information allows the facilitators and participants the opportunity to see which diseases are most important across regions and species. Table 7 has the disease prioritisation of results for a workshop in Incahuasi, Chuquisaca, Bolivia.



Table 7. Results from the disease prioritisation in Incahuasi, Chuquisaca Department, Bolivia. Region Liquinas Pampa Cattle Number 1 Aftosa Churu Number 2 Carbunclo Orina sangre Number 3 Mancha, gangrena Cabardilla Sheep Number 1 Moquillo Garrapata Number 2 Itha Sarna Number 3 Sarna Muyu muyu Goats Number 1 Diarrea Garrapata Number 2 Fiebre Sarma Number 3 Churu Muyu muyu Pigs Number 1 Fiebre Manchas Number 2 Sarna Triquina Number 3 Triquina Sarna garrapata Poultry Number 1 Fiebre aftosa Moquillo Number 2 Diarrea Itha Number 3 Borrachera Hinchazon de ojo Donkeys Number 1 Fiebre aftosa Angina Number 2 Diarrea Itha Number 3 Sarna Piojo

During the selection of the most important diseases it is important to consider the importance of the species and the order of importance of the diseases within the important species.

ANALYSIS OF THE PRIORITY LIVESTOCK DISEASES

The analysis of the priority livestock diseases in the Bolivian PALD had four potential aspects:

1. A calendar that indicates the presence of the disease during the different parts of the year and also collects information on the impact of the disease in terms of morbidity and mortality.

2. Information on the control and prevention currently practised with the disease.

3. A list of factors that are believed to influence the presence of the disease.

4. An economic analysis of the disease.



It is recommended that points 1 and 2 are a necessary part of a PALD workshop and that points 3 and 4 are optional. Here there is a need for flexibility. The information is important with regard to planning control strategies and also developing extension material as the analysis will provide a good idea of the level of understanding of diseases and their control

Table 8 shows the results of the calendar analysis of the priority diseases of low region of Camargo, Chuquisaca, Bolivia. Table 8. Results of the calendar analysis of the priority diseases in the low region of Camargo, Chuquisaca Department, Bolivia. J F M A M J J A S O N D % Sick % Die* Cattle Mordedura de murcielago

X

x

x

x

x

X

x

x

x

x

X

X

25

0

Fiebre x x 100 0 Suchera 50 100 Hiervas x x x 10 0 (if the animal is not

from the area it dies) Sheep Tumores x x 10 0 Mordedura de murcielago

x x 20 100

Goats Fiebre x x 20 100 Ceguera x x x 50 0 Pigs Fiebre x x 80 100 Hens Moquillo x x x 40 100

* This is the percentage of sick animals that die, not the percentage of the herd x = Low prevalence X = High prevalence The analysis of the control and prevention of the priority disease has two sections:

1. Prevention is defined as something that the producers practice regularly to avoid or control a disease problem. For example vaccination every six months or dipping every two weeks

2. Treatment of animals is an action carried out for animals that are clinically sick.

It is important that this analysis collects information on what producers are actually doing at the time of the workshop. It should be stressed that the analysis is not a test of their knowledge of what treatments are available. This information is of great importance when thinking of future actions. Therefore if the producers do not practise any form of prevention then this should be made clear in the analysis. Table 9 has the results from the control and prevention analysis of the priority disease in the low region of Camargo, Chuquisaca, Bolivia.



Table 9. Results from the analysis of prevention and treatment of priority diseases in the low region of Camargo, Chuquisaca Department, Bolivia. Disease Prevention and control

(This is done regularly e.g. every year, every season) Treatment of sick animals

(This is done when an animal is sick) Type Cost Month(s) Type Cost Cattle Fiebre (Fever)

- - - Lacayotre, berro, Edible oil, Water.

20 Bs.

Mordedura de murcielago (Vampire bat bites)

Spray with Baygon

20 Bs. 3 times/year - -

Suchera (could be rabies)

- - - Sell the animal 700 Bs. Loss 500 Bs.

Sheep Fiebre (fever)

- - - Orcheta, malva, oil. Half a day of work

10 Bs. Goats Ceguera (blindness)

- - - Soap for the eyes, sugar, Chile seeds.

2 Bs.

Pigs Enfermedad del chancho (Pig disease)

- - - Soapy water Liquid from local plant (Penca)

50 Bs.

Hens Moquillo - - - Lemon

Vinegar Feather

3 lemons per hen. 1 bottle for 10 hens. 3 Bs.

An economic analysis of different disease control and prevention options can be useful to identify the most appropriate options. The following section presents an economic analysis of rabies control that was carried out during a workshop Sopachuy, Chuquisaca, Bolivia (Camacho et al., 1999).

Losses caused by Bovine Rabies

Deaths during an outbreak – 5% of the herd

Production losses – milk, meat and work – 100%8 in the case of sick animals

Average price of a an animal Bs. 1,100

Treatment or vaccine9

•

Vaccine, (Live virus, viva cepa R) provides protection for 3 years, but its efficacy is only 80%. The cost of the vaccine is Bs. 2.50.

8 Some communities salvage part of the carcass, but during the workshop it was recommended that producers

should not try to salvage part of the carcass 9 Information provided by the veterinarian who facilitated and participated in the workshop



Vaccine (dead virus, muerta) lasts for 1 year with an efficacy of close to 100%. The cost of the vaccine is Bs. 2.50.

•

The dead virus vaccine was chosen, due to poor efficacy of the live virus vaccination and also because it is more complicated to run vaccination campaigns once every three years.

Profitability of control

Taking an example of a herd of 100 cattle10

Costs without vaccination - 5 animals die of bovine rabies and each animal is worth Bs. 1,100.

Total cost = 5 x 1,100 = Bs. 5,500

Costs with vaccination. All animals need to be vaccinated once a year which is a cost of Bs. 2.50 per animal. There are no deaths due to bovine rabies.

Total cost = 100 x 2.50 = Bs. 250

The control is profitable and remains profitable if the price of vaccine rises to Bs. 55 or the producer has a rabies outbreak once every 20 years.

An economic analysis is relatively easy for disease like rabies or anthrax that generally kill animals. However, it is much more difficult with diseases that cause economic losses in terms of production, fertility or abortions. Experience in Bolivia showed that this was too difficult during a PALD workshop and it is recommended that an economic analysis is not attempted for the more complicated diseases.

Finally, it is possible to ask the participants to identify the factors they feel are associated with the presence of a disease. Table 10 shows the results from this type of analysis for rabies, blackquarter and anthrax in a workshop held in Camiri, Santa Cruz Department, Bolivia. Table 10. Results from an analysis of the factors that influence the presence of rabies, blackquarter and anthrax from a workshop held in Camiri, Santa Cruz Department, Bolivia (Rushton et al. 2000a) Diseases Factors that influence the presence of the disease Rabies Increasing temperatures

Increase in the number of vampire bats searching for food Poor vaccination Poor vampire bat control

Blackquarter and Anthrax

Fields contaminated with the bodies of dead animals Animals that die are not burnt and buried Poor vaccination

10 The herd size was selected to make the calculations easier



FUTURE ACTIONS

To ensure that the process of the disease study did not remain in the form of a report, many of the workshops in Bolivia requested the participants to think of future animal health actions that they wanted to take place in their region. To facilitate the generation of ideas, participants were given a card and asked to write down two actions. Sufficient time was allowed for participants who could not read or write to be helped by facilitators or participants. The cards were then collected and arranged according to subjects by the facilitator, who then led a discussion to identify 4 or 5 actions that were achievable and could be completed in the next 6 to 12 months. Table 11 shows the actions identified in a workshop held in Comanche, La Paz Department, Bolivia. Table 11. Future animal health actions identified during a workshop held in Comanche, La Paz Department, Bolivia (Rushton et al., 2000b) Actions in Coro Coro Date Institutions Coordination Training in Tympanismo, internal and external parasites

Three areas Santa rosa, Muro Pilar , Janko Marka April 2001

UNIVEP Report with information on control strategies, SEMTA, Municipio de Coro Coro

SEMTA Brito Choque, Eusebio Espinoza Municipio de Coro Coro

Actions in Comanche Date Institutions Coordination Training in Tympanismo, internal and external parasites and FMD

Coordination of the activity Dec. 2000 to Jan 2001

CODECO-SEMTA President and managing director SEMTA; Municipio Comanche Jorge H.; Tayka Marka Comanche Jach’a Mallku

President and managing director of SEMTA Jorge H. Jach’a Mallku

Technical assistance No date specified

APROSAN SEMTA logistical support; Municipio

-----------------

Presentation of report on the PALD

Dec 2000 UNIVEP Dr. Rommy Viscarra

Dissemination of the information in the report

Dec 2000 SEMTA SEMTA

WORKSHOP EVALUATION

The final phase of the Bolivian PALD workshops was an evaluation to allow participants the opportunity to give opinions about the process. In Bolivia, the evaluation was carried out by giving each participant three different coloured cards and asking them to write:

- the good points,

- the bad points, and

- their recommendations for the future.



This information was included in an annex of the reports on the PALD workshops.

PALD Workshop Reports

The format of the Bolivian PALD workshop reports was the following:

1. Introduction

2. Analysis of the departmental livestock economy, the most important livestock systems and the relationship between the livestock sector and poverty.

3. Departmental and private sector support for the departmental livestock sector. This contained information on municipality budgets and the number agricultural and veterinary professionals that work in the different institutions.

4. Results of the PALD workshop.

5. Analysis of the diseases identified during the PALD as being priorities. This included information on the disease and the control and prevention of that disease.

6. Conclusions and recommendations based on the PALD workshop results and the analysis of secondary data.

Points 2 and 5 used secondary information for the analysis and presentation of potential control strategies.

Copies of the reports were sent to institutions working in the region where the PALD was carried out, the town hall, Prefecture (Departmental Government) and the Ministry of Agriculture.

Therefore, the reports included a mixture of secondary information, results from participatory methods and scientific information on livestock diseases. Here they used triangulation of information to verify results and control methods.

THE USE OF SCIENTIFIC METHODS TO SUPPORT PALDS

Many of the PALDs generate as many questions as they answer. For example the disease “orina de sangre11” or “mea sangre” was identified as being an important animal health problem in cattle in many Bolivian workshops, but generally the producers could not say if it was due to babesiosis or poisoning due to eating toxic plants. There was also much confusion between “fiebre12” and “fiebre aftosa13” that were often words used for a number of different diseases. One way to refine the information is to interview the producers during the PALD to collect information on the symptoms of the disease they have named. Here it is

11 Translates to bloody urine 12 Fever 13 Directly translates to foot and mouth disease, but as mentioned above in local language it did not always

mean this specific disease



important to be curious and open minded. Although the disease stated by the producers might mean something else to the veterinary professional it is important to verify if it really is that disease. Again it is emphasized that the language in the field is different from technical language and it is important to refine the information using technical knowledge and a participatory approach. The type of interview required is no different from that used to investigate a disease outbreak, but obviously there is no access to the animal.

However, there are diseases that will be identified where it is not possible to determine their presence or absence during the PALD nor their prevalence. For example, FMD was often quoted as being an important disease, but questions about the disease sometimes indicated that it was not FMD and in other situations that FMD had not been seen in the area for years. The promotion of FMD control had created a situation where it still remained important at field level.

These types of problems call for funds to be available to carry out sero-survey to determine the presence or absence of the disease and their prevalence. In 2001 two livestock disease studies in two regions of Bolivia carried out workshops which were followed by sero-surveys. Therefore, they used a combinations of participatory and scientific methods to prioritise livestock diseases. In one study the workshops were used to select the producers for the sero-survey and in both studies the selection of laboratory tests was based on the PALD results. In the study in the tropical zone of Cochabamba the PALDs identified abortions as being a problem and the serum was tested for IBR and brucellosis. In the study in the Cintis, the PALDs found that symptoms relating to classical swine fever were reported and the pig serum samples were tested for this disease14.

Finally, a sero-survey provides an opportunity to collect information on livestock populations and production parameters. This does not need to be very detailed, animal numbers per farm and some idea of the age of different groups of animals is sufficient. In the study in the tropical zone of Cochabamba cattle production parameters were estimated and also the most important cattle breed were determined (Rushton et al, 2001b). In the study in the Cintis the average herd or flock size per household was combined with secondary data on the number of households in the area to estimate livestock populations in the different regions of the zone (Rushton et al., 2001c). The latter information was then used to look at the regional output of livestock products.

PALD and regional strategies – the case of Chuquisaca Department, Bolivia

Graphic 4 presented how PALDs at field level can help generate information that is useful for regional animal health actions and strategies. However to achieve this objective it is important to classify the region into similar zones and carried out PALDs in each zone. Dr Eduardo Camacho who worked in the Prefecture of Chuquisaca Department began a

14 The area did not vaccinating against CSF.



process to develop a departmental plan for the livestock sector in Chuquisaca (Rushton et al, 2001a). The first part of this process was the classification of the Department into the following zones:

- Valleys of Tomina y Azurduy

- The Chaco

- The Cintis

- The area close to Sucre

In each zone a PALD workshop was carried out (see Graphic 11) Graphic 11. PALDs carried out in Chuquisaca in 1999 and 2000 (Camacho et al 2000).

Sopachuy November 99

Muyupampa January 2000

Machareti January 2000Camargo July 2000

Tarabuco April 2000

Chuquisaca

Camacho et al (2000) produced a departmental report identifying the most important livestock disease problems in Chuquisaca, which was based on the results from the PALD workshops.

SUMMARY

PALDs can be an important part of strengthening a surveillance system and generating information on the disease priorities of producers. A format of a PALD has been tested in more than 30 workshops in Bolivia in tropical, valley and Altiplano regions. The method has been refined further during disease investigations in the tropical zone of Cochabamba and the Cintis, Chuquisaca. This experience has shown that it is important to combine the PALD workshops with scientific investigations. The results from a PALD are useful in directing



scientific investigations and the scientific investigations can confirm the importance of diseases identified during the PALD. The scientific investigations can also provide information on livestock populations, systems and production parameters, which are required to look at the impact of livestock disease.

The process generates much information and it is important to return to the communities to discuss animal health actions to improve the control and prevention of priority disease. Therefore the following section presents information on methods of returning information to producers, and meetings of coordination and monitoring.



MEETINGS TO RETURN INFORMATION, COORDINATE AND MONITOR ANIMAL HEALTH ACTIVITIES

INTRODUCTION

The information generated by PALDs and other investigations does not have any value if it remains in reports and there is no feedback at field level. It is necessary and important to present the results to producers and institutions in the areas affected by the identified animal health priorities. The method of presentation depends on the target group:

• Producers who participated in the workshops.

• Producers who participated in the sero-survey.

• Sponsors of the study.

• Institutions in the area.

There is the need to carry out the following:

• Feedback to the producers on the results of the PALD, secondary data analysis and where funds were available sero-surveys.

• Where there is sufficient information production of extension material on priority animal health problems.

• Coordination meetings with local authorities and institutions to present possible animal disease control strategies.

The latter activity is particularly important where disease control requires coordinated actions of producers and institutions and where these actions requiring financing.

FEEDBACK OF RESULTS AND EXTENSION MATERIAL

With information generated from PALD on animal health priorities it is possible to develop extension material about animal health and the control of livestock diseases in the following format15:

• Pamphlets - In a format that is easily understandable and clear for producers and where necessary translated to the local language

• Cassettes – These are important where the local language is spoken rather than written

15 This type of material was developed and distributed after the Cintis disease study



• Video – that allow producers to see images of diseases and clears presentations of the symptoms

• Radio programme in the form of a soap opera. As with the pamphlets the messages should be clear and easily understandable to producers and where necessary translated into the local language.

The extension material is an important part of the feedback of information from the PALD and sero-survey. It is recognized that the presentation of results is important, but producers are generally looking for information about the control of diseases that are important to them. It is possible to present to results and the extension material in the following ways:

• Workshops, which also provide an opportunity to discuss future actions in animal health.

• Directly to the producers in their houses or farms. Producers who had participated in the sero-survey carried out in the Cintis, Chuquisaca, Bolivia were presented with an envelope containing the laboratory results of the animal tested and a letter explaining what the results meant. They were also presented with a set of pamphlets that contained extension material on animal health priorities. This generated much confidence in the activities at field-level.

Feedback of results and presentation of information on animal health provides an opportunity to discuss control methods with producers. However, there are diseases that require the coordination of local authorities, institutions and communities and method of achieving this more general participation is different from the feedback process.

COORDINATION AND MONITORING MEETINGS

Generally coordination or monitoring meetings have a formal format. However, participatory methods can add considerable value in the planning of disease control and planning activities. It is suggested that the following tools are useful in this process:

- Maps or plans to identify communities, producers and/or animal populations (Waters-Bayer and Bayer, 1994 pages 67-73).

- Maps or plans to identify animal movement.

- Institutional diagrams to identify the key institutions in the control and prevention of animal disease (Waters-Bayer and Bayer, 1994 pages 94-96; Slocum, 1994 pages 127-130).

- An agreement matrix to identify activities, dates and institutions and people who are responsible for the activities (see table 11 for an example).

Graphic 12 shows the possible order of the use of the identified participatory tools.



Graphic 12. The use of participatory tools in coordination meetings.

Matrix with activities, communities, dates, intitutions and people responsibe for the activities

Agreements

Institutional diagram

Flow diagram (identify leaders and contacts of communities)

Map(identify communities, livestock, producers and animal movement)

The objective of these meetings to reach agreements on actions with regard the control or prevention of priority diseases. It is likely that one meeting will be insufficient in this process, especially if there is a need to make agreements about financing. Finally, if the actions are agreed there is need for monitoring meetings to determine progress of the plans or strategies agreed during the coordination.

SUMMARY

Feedback of results and extension material about animal health priorities to producers is a key aspect in the participatory process of a livestock disease study. The presentation of extension material is an opportunity to put power about animal disease control into the hands of the producers. Coordination and monitoring meetings are also critical for diseases that require the participation of different groups and to guarantee that results from a study are followed by concrete actions. These meetings can benefit from the use of participatory methods to identify the roles of institutions, communities and people in the implementation of future animal health activities. Finally it is stressed that for these meetings to have real value the participants should have the power to make decisions on the allocation of human resources and where appropriate finance.



CONCLUSIONS This guide has been written based on experiences in the development of a livestock disease surveillance system in Bolivia between 1998 and 2001. This project found that the initial List A disease focus had little interest to many producers. These producers did not feel involved or listened to, so it was not possible to say that there existed a network of field contacts. Therefore, this project began a process of disease prioritisation at field level using a Participatory Appraisal of Livestock Diseases (PALD) workshops in different regions of the country. These PALDs were successful in generating information on the opinions of producers on their animal health priorities, but they lacked methods to confirm the presence or absence of diseases and the resources to implement animal health actions to address priorities. There is a need to combine participatory and scientific methods to prioritise disease at field level and also to have sufficient resources to follow-up the study with feedback and coordination activities. These activities strengthen the veterinary service at field level, improve the animal disease surveillance system and hence improve the quality of output from the veterinary epidemiology units. However, it is important to stress that these activities need to continue to have a strong foundation of more conventional veterinary epidemiology activities and here politicians are important in making long-term commitments to support strong field activities.

The hypothesis of the guide is that veterinary epidemiology and its associated surveillance system should be promoting the use of economic and human resources in areas that have the most impact at the farm-level and also for the livestock economy. If these activities are not achieving this aim then it is likely that the surveillance system is not generating reliable information.

In conclusion of this guide it is important to reflect on the questions raised by Cooke and Kothari (2001) concerning participation:

1. Do participatory facilitators override existing legitimate decision-making processes?

2. Do group dynamics lead to participatory decisions that reinforce the interests of the already powerful?

3. Have participatory methods driven out others which advantages that participation cannot provide?

It is hoped that the way in which participatory methods can be used in veterinary epidemiology has covered these questions. With respect to the first question it is stressed that there is need to consult with producers and coordinate animal health actions with them and the authorities and institutions in the area. This ensures that it is not an isolated process. The combination of participatory and scientific methods make it less likely that the process can hijacked by powerful groups and also that there is not the assumption that participatory methods alone are sufficient.



But perhaps the most important message of the guide is that veterinary epidemiology needs to use a mixture of methods, but requires the participation of all the actors in a veterinary information system:

• producers,

• veterinary professionals and technical staff,

• veterinarians,

• administrators, and

• politicians.

And that the work does not end with a PALD workshop or a disease investigation, it is a dynamic process that prioritises diseases and generates actions that affects the priorities and future actions. Where there exists a dynamic process of disease prioritisation and related actions, that involves producers, veterinary professionals and politicians, a region or a country can truly say that they have a reliable surveillance system. This is a description of an ideal system, which needs a vision that provides sufficient resources at field level for the producers to have confidence in the systems above them. In this it is interesting to note that good technical work is good politics and that good technical work requires the participation of all the actors.



REFERENCES Blackburn, J. (Editor) (1998) Who Changes? Institutionalizing participation in development.

Intermediate Technology Publications, London, UK. pp 199.

Catley, A.; Irungu, P.; Simiyu, K.; Dadye, J.; Mwakio, W.; Kiragu, J.; Nyamwaro, S.O. (2002a) Participatory investigations of bovine trypanosomiasis in Tana, River District, Kenya. Medical and Veterinary Entomology, 16, 1-12.

Catley, A.; Osman, J.; Mawien, C.; Jones, B.A.; Leyland, T.J. (2002b) Participatory analysis of seasonal incidences of diseases of cattle, disease vectors and rainfall in southern Sudan. Preventive Veterinary Medicine (in press)

Catley, A.; Okoth, S.; Osman, J.; Fison, T.; Njiru, Z.; Mwangi, J.; Jones, B.A.; Leyland, T.J. (2001) Participatory diagnosis of a chronic wasting disease in cattle in southern Sudan. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 49, 95-113.

Catley, A. (1999) Methods on the move. A review of veterinary uses of participatory approaches and methods focussing on experiences in dryland Africa. IIED, London, UK

Camacho, E.; Guzmán, L.; Serrudo, A.; Rushton, J.; Angus, S. y las comunidades de Sopachuy, Tarvita, Azurduy, Serrano, Villar, Monteagudo y Tomina (1999) El Sector Pecuario en el Departamento de Chuquisaca y la Priorización de las Enfermedades Animales en los Valles de Chuquisaca. UNIVEP, Santa Cruz, Bolivia.

Camacho E.R.; Rushton, J.; McGrane, J.; Eulert, E.; Villegas, F.; Villarroel, M; Lora, D. (2000) Resumen de la Priorización de las Enfermedades Animales en el Departamento de Chuquisaca. UNIVEP, Santa Cruz, Bolivia.

Cook, W.; Kothari, U. (2001) The case for participation as Tyranny. In Participation. The new Tyranny? Edited by Cooke, W and Kothari, U. Zed Books, London, UK. pp 1-13.

Eulert, E.; McGrane, J; y Rushton, J (2000) Diagnóstico Rural Participativo – una herramienta para identificar y priorizar las enfermedades animales y fortalecer el sistema de vigilancia. COSALFA, Buenos Aires, Abril 2000.

IIED (1994) RRA Notes Number 20 - Special Issue on Livestock. IIED, London, UK

Kaner, S. (1996) Facilitator’s Guide to Participatory Decision-Making. New Society Publishers, Canada. pp 255

Kumar, K. (1993) Rapid Appraisal Methods. World Bank Regional and Sectoral Studies. The World Bank, Washington DC, USA. pp 218

Mariner, J.C. (2001) Manual on Participatory Epidemiology – Method for the Collection of Action-Oriented Epidemiological Intelligence. FAO Animal Health Manual 10. FAO, Rome Italy.

McCracken, J.A.; Pretty, J.N.; Conway, G.R. An introduction to Rapid Rural Appraisal for Agricultural Development. IIED, London, UK

Murithi, F. and Rushton, J. (1996) The Role Of Livestock In The Mixed Farming Systems In Embu District, Kenya – final report. KARI/ODA Socio-Economics and Epidemiology Project. ODA, Nairobi, Kenya.

Narayan, D. (1996) Toward Participatory Research. World Bank Technical Paper Number 307. The World Bank, Washington DC, USA. pp 265

Oakley, P. (1991) Projects with people. The practice of participation in rural development. International Labour Office, Geneva, Switzerland. pp 284



OIE (2002) Diseases of the OIE Classification http://www.oie.int/eng/maladies/en_classification.htm

Rushton J. (1991) The cattle and buffalo economy in the Bangalore district of India with specific reference to the impact of animal diseases on the households maintaining these animals. MSc thesis, University of Reading, Reading, UK. pp 189.

Rushton, J. (1993) Assistance To Rural Women In Protecting Their Chicken Flocks From Newcastle Disease. FAO Project TCP/RAF/2376. FAO Rome, Italy.

Rushton, J. (1995) Assistance To Rural Women In Protecting Their Chicken Flocks From Newcastle Disease – Final Report. FAO Project TCP/RAF/2376. FAO Rome, Italy.

Rushton, J. (1996) Emergency Assistance For The Control Of Newcastle Disease. FAO Project TCP/ZIM/4553. FAO, Rome, Italy.

Rushton, J.; Angus, S.; McGrane, J.; Eulert, E.; Orozco, C. y Aguirre, O. (1999) La Red de Vigilancia Epidemiológica en Bolivia. Presentado en el Seminario International sobre Aspectos de la Vigilancia Aplicados a la Gestión Sanitaria en Areas con Diferentes Status del Fiebre Aftosa con y sin Vacunación, Porto Alegre, Brasil 15 al 17 de marzo 1999.

Rushton, J.; Villarroel, M.; Camacho, E; Ortiz, B.; Gallardo, F.; McGrane, J.; Eulert, E; Sonco, M.; Valdez, C.; y las comunidades del Chaco (2000a) El sector pecuario y la priorización de las enfermedades animales en el Chaco de los departamentos de Santa Cruz, Chuquisaca y Tarija. MAGDR/UNIVEP, Santa Cruz, Bolivia.

Rushton, J.; Viscarra, R.; Aparicio, M.; Lucuy, M.; Bautista, R.;y los sectores de Comanche, Kella Kella, Rosapata, Cantuyo, Ballivian, Sirpa, Santa Rosa, Muro Pilar, Corocoro y Kumpucu (2000b) La priorización de las enfermedades animales en la primera y cuarta secciones de la Provincia Pacajes del Departamento de La Paz. MAGDR/UNIVEP, Santa Cruz, Bolivia.

Rushton, J.; Villarroel, M.; Villegas, F.; Angus, S.; Viscarra, R.; Dick, F.; Linzer, K. (2001a) Metodologias Participativas Para La Epidemiologia Veterinaria. MAGDR, La Paz, Bolivia

Rushton, J.; Viscarra, R.; Villegas, F.; Orozco, C.; Hoyos, G.; Eulert, E. (2001b) Estudio de las Enfermedades Animales en el Chapare. DAI, Cochabamba, Bolivia

Rushton, J.; Viscarra, R.; Baptista, R; Lucuy, M. (2001c) Estudio Epidemiológico y Socio Económico en Sanidad y Nutrición Animal en los Seis Municipios de las Provincias Nor Y Sud Cinti del Departamento de Chuquisaca. PASACH, Camargo, Bolivia.

Slocum, R.; Wichhart, L.; Rocheleau, D.; Thomas-Slayter, B. (editors) (1995) Power, Process and Participation – Tools for Change. Intermediate Technology Publications, London, UK. pp 251

Theis, T.; Grady, H.A. (1991) Participatory Rapid Appraisal for Community Development. A Training Manual based on Experiences in the Middle East and North Africa. IIED, London, UK. pp 150

Thomas-Slayter, B. (1995) A brief history of participatory methodologies. In Power, Process and Participation – Tools for Change. Edited by Slocum, R.; Wichhart, L.; Rocheleau, D.; Thomas-Slayter, B. Intermediate Technology Publications, London, UK. pp 9-16.


http://www.oie.int/eng/maladies/en_classification.htm


Waters-Bayer, A.; Bayer, W. (1994) Planning with pastoralists: PRA and more. A review of methods focused on Africa. GTZ working paper. GTZ, Eschborn, Germany. pp 173

World Bank (1996) The World Bank Participation Sourcebook. The World Bank, Washington DC, USA. pp 259



BIBLIOGRAPHY

IN ENGLISH

Web Pages

IIED Website with information on participatory methodologies:

http://www.iied.org/resource/index.html

Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, UK website:

http://www.ids.ac.uk/ids/

World Bank website on Participatory Rural Appraisal

http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/sourcebook/sba104.htm

“Community-based Animal Health and Participatory Epidemiology Unit” (CAPE) website

http://www.cape-ibar.org

IN SPANISH

Web Pages

Departamento de Programas de Investigación y Desarrollo (DPID) de la Universidad Nur, Their general web page is

http://dpid.nur.edu/

and their page on participatory methodologies is

http://dpid.nur.edu/biblioteca/dpid/participa/

Reports and books Abbot, J y Guijt, I. Cambiando perspectivas para apreciar el cambio: Enfoques participativos

para monitoreo del Medio Ambiente. IIED/Universidad Nur, DPID, Santa Cruz, Bolivia.

Beaudoux, E.; de Crombrugghe, G.; Douxchamps, F.; Gueneau, M-C.; Nieuwkerk, M. (1992) Supporting Development Action from identification to evaluation. MacMillan Press Ltd, London, UK. pp 187

Bejarano, M. R. y Soriano, R. (1997) Metodología práctica para la incorporación de genero en proyectos de desarrollo rural. Ministerio de Desarrollo Humano, La Paz, Bolivia.

Bejarano, M. R. y Soriano, R. con ACLO, El Ceibo, IPTK, PROAGRO, QHANA y SEMTA (1996) Hombres y mujeres en sectores y actividades del área rural. Datos de 50 comunidades en Bolivia. NOGUBE-COSUDE, La Paz, Bolivia.

CARE Liderazgo para el desarrollo comunitario. CARE, Santa Cruz, Bolivia


http://www.iied.org/resource/index.html

http://www.ids.ac.uk/ids/

http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/sourcebook/sba104.htm





Choque, A.; Rocha, E.; y Broekhoven, L. (sin fecha) Participación y organización de mujeres campesinas - Desarrollo Forestal Comunal En El Altiplano Boliviano. Proyecto FAO/HOLANDA/CDF "Desarrollo Forestal Comunal en el Altiplano Boliviano" Impreso en Industrias Gráficas Qori Llama • Loa 682 • Telf. 23201 • Sucre - Bolivia o (http://www.fao.org/docrep/X0219S/X0219S00.htm)

CIAT/NRI (1998) Guía del Diagnóstico Participativo Rural Enfocado en Animales Menores (en proceso de publicación)

Lawrence, A. y Eid, M. (2000) Guías metodológicas para la planificación, implementación y evaluación de proyectos de investigación participativos. CIAT, Santa Cruz, Bolivia

Linzer, K. (1995) El Diagnóstico Rural Participativo. Un método para la Planificación de Proyectos con Comunidades Rurales. CIAT Santa Cruz.

Stewart S. (2000) Aprendiendo Juntos. El Libro-fuente de Trabajo Participativo para los Agricultores, capítulos 1, 4, 11 y 12 con contribuciones de Lunquist, B.J.; Sgumaker, J. y Stoufer, K.L. Heifer Project International/Christian Veterinary Mission/UNIVEP, Santa Cruz, Bolivia

Ojeda S.; Iñigo R. (1999) Las Herramientas son para Construir. Medio y Fin de las Técnicas Participativas para un Desarrollo Comunitario. Medicus Mundi Navarra. La Paz, Bolivia.

Pretty J.; Guijt, I.; Thompson, J.; Scoones, I. (1998) Aprendizaje y Acción Participativa. Guía para Capacitadores. IIED – Adecuación DPID-NUR, Santa Cruz

Roman, M.A. (1999) Influencia cultural en el desarrollo socioeconómico de pequeños productores de las provincias Sara e Ichilo. CIAT/NRI, Santa Cruz, Bolivia

the use of participatory methodologies in veterinary ... · incahuasi, chuquisaca department,...

Documents