Foot and mouth disease in West and Central Africa

Four zones were identified as primary sources of infection in West and Central Africa (Fig. 1). They correspond to zones with a high density of animals: – borderline Benin – Niger – Nigeria; – borderline Niger – Mali – Burkina Faso; – junction of Benin – Burkina Faso – Niger (W Regional Park or Tapoa region); – Lake Chad and Adamao regions from Chad, Cameroon and Central African Republic. The secondary infection zones result from the spread of infection from primary zones within the country and reach all West African countries.

Livestock movements

Infection zones

The risk zones (Fig. 2) depend on cattle population and animal movement, which are considered the highest risk factor for the occurrence of the disease in the region. The role of wildlife in West Africa in the dissemination of FMD in West and Central Africa has been assessed as not important because of the low density of wildlife in the region.

0 <1 1-5 5-10 10-20 20-50 50-75 75-100 >100

Currently, all activities related to FMD are documented and reported by the West and Central African FMD subnetwork, which operates within the West and Central Africa network of National Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory for highly pathogenic avian influenza and other transboundary animal diseases (RESOLAB). Two laboratories were nominated as FMD animators. These are the Central Veterinary Laboratory in Bamako, Mali, and the Accra Veterinary Laboratory in Accra, Ghana.

The animators were given the mandate to: – collect and disseminate available information on FMD activities in member laboratories to the network (website); – make a comprehensive report on RESOLAB activities related to FMD to the international community; and – when possible, contribute to the organisation of regional workshops and training programmes related to FMD.

The animators presented their 2011 findings (Figure 3, Tables VI and VII) at the annual meeting of RESOLAB, held in December 2011 in Bamako, Mali.

1 Benin 22; A, O, SAT 1, SAT 2 39; A, O, SAT 1, SAT 2 2 Burkina Faso 13; no virus 32; no virus 3 Mali SAT 2 4; no virus 4 Nigeria 10; no virus 17; no virus 5 Senegal 2; no virus 6; no virus 6 Togo FMDV, report missing 42; O, SAT 1 7 Côte D’Ivoire 10; SAT 1 15; no virus 8 Ghana 43; sera positive 39; no virus 9 Democratic Republic of the Congo 2; A, C?, SAT 1 Not reported

1 Benin Dr Aplogan Gilbert Luc No information 2 Burkina Faso Dr Quattara Lassina No information 3 Cameroon Dr Simon Jumbo Dickmu 267 suspected samples shared between Pirbright, Bostwana Vaccine Institute, Plum Island Labs for analysis

4 Cape Vert Dr Maria Évora and Francisca Barbosa dos Santos No information

5 Central African Republic Dr Mokondji Domitien No information

6 Congo (Dem. Rep.of the) Dr Leopold Mulumba No information

7 Congo Brassaville Dr Jean Ikolakoumou No information 8 Côte D’Ivoire Koffi Yao Mathurin No outbreak as at the period 9 Chad No information No information 10 Equatorial Guinea No information No information 11 Gambia Mr Borrie Jabang No report outbreaks during period 12 Gabon No information No information 13 Ghana Dr Joseph Adongo Awuni No outbreaks reported. Conducted retrospective analysis of bovine sera 14 Guinea Bissau Dr Malam Bacar Djassi No activity 15 Guinea Conakry Dr Souleymane Diallo No information 16 Liberia Mr Roosevelt G. Gweh No activity 17 Mali Dr Abdalla Traore Three outbreaks reported and samples were being tested

18 Niger, Nigeria, Sao Tome & Principe, Senegal No information No information

19 Sierra Leone Dr Mohammed Barrie No activity 20 Togo Mr Felix Awoumi Sera collected from outbreak for AVL

The overall conclusions were:

– FMD is endemic in West Africa with various serotypes and topotypes circulating; – outbreaks are reported but virus detection is not done, probably because of the following factors: i) farmers attempt treatment and hence do not report ii) late reporting by farmers to veterinary personnel and iii) improper sampling and sample handling. – inadequate diagnostic capacity of member laboratories.

The RESOLAB made the following recommendations to countries: – undertake extensive sensitisation of field veterinary personnel on the need to be vigilant on the reporting of

FMD outbreaks; – provide laboratory support for field veterinary personnel to ensure proper sampling of FMD outbreak cases;

– strengthen laboratory capacities for FMD diagnosis (training of personnel and equipment); – submit timely sample to Reference Laboratories for virus isolation and serotyping; and – embark on aggressive FMD control measures (in the long term).

Presently, countries implementing the roadmap for the progressive control of FMD, which was adopted in January 2009 in Nairobi during the FAO/OIE Global Framework for the progressive control of Transboundary Animal Diseases (GF-TADs) workshop on the development of a long-term action plan (roadmap) for improved surveillance and control of FMD in Africa (Table VIII), seem not to have achieved any substantial results. This is most likely because there is little or no incentive for the control of the disease in the region and the restriction of livestock movement in this region seems impossible.

Countries 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Benin 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 Burkina Faso 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 Côte d’Ivoire 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 Gambia 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 Ghana 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 Guinea 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 Guinea-Bissau 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 Liberia 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 Mali 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 Niger 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 Nigeria ? ? 0 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 Senegal 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Sierra Leone 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 Togo 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 Cameroon 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 Cape Verde 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 Central African Republic 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 Chad 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 Congo (Dem. Rep. of the) 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 Congo (Rep. of the) 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 Equatorial Guinea 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 Gabon 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 Sao Tome and Principe 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 2 2

The control strategy being implemented in the region is based mainly on the vaccination of dairy cattle in the peri-urban zones and the early diagnosis of the disease for an early response to content outbreak.

In Mali, the following measures have been put in place for the control of FMD: – vaccination of 300,000 cattle (risk zones, 100,000; peri-urban, 50,000; and cattle used as beast of burden, 150,000) two times during the first year and once a year for the next four years; – early detection and good management of outbreaks; – collection of samples and shipment to laboratories; – reinforcement of the control of livestock movement; – reinforcement of capacity building; and – informing and sensitising livestock owners and other stakeholders.

In the Republic of Côte D’Ivoire, the control strategy is based on the vaccination of dairy cattle and cattle used as beast of burden, while in Senegal the main measure regarding FMD control is the vaccination of dairy cattle. Other countries in West and Central Africa have not developed any specific strategy for the control of FMD.

In order to effectively control FMD in West and Central Africa, there will be a need for a concerted regional effort within the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS) (including assessment of the progress made along the progressive control roadmap) and a common understanding between the two regions on the most comprehensive strategy to adopt. This should be based on early identification of infected and high-risk areas and transparency in disease information-sharing. In addition, combinations of FMD control activities with other disease control activities will need to be worked out. Furthermore, international assistance will be imperative to initiate FMD control in West and Central Africa.

1. Couacy-Hymann E., Aplogan G.-L., Sangare O., Compaore Z., Karimu J., Awoueme K.A., Seini A., Martin V. &

Valarcher J.-F. (2006). – Étude rétrospective de la fièvre aphteuse en Afrique de l’Ouest de 1970 à 2003. Rev. Sci.

Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 25 (3), 1013–1024. 2. Vosloo W., Bastos A.D.S, Sangare O., Hargreaves S.K. & Thomson G.R. (2002). – Review of the status and control of FMD in Sub Saharan Africa. Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 21 (3) 437–449.

M. Mulumba (1), P. Bastiaensen (2), B. Hulman (1), G. Matlho (3) & G. Thomson (4)

(1) Secretariat of the Southern African Development Community (SADC), Plot 54345, CBD, Gaborone, Botswana (2) World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), Plot 4701, Mmaraka Road, 25662 Gaborone, Botswana (3) Botswana Vaccine Institute (BVI), Plot 6385/90 Lejara Road, Gaborone, Botswana (4) TADScientific, P.O. Box 1607, Brooklyn Square, Pretoria 0075, South Africa Correspondence: MulumbaM@arc.agric.za

The epidemiology of foot and mouth disease (FMD) in southern Africa is complicated by the dominance of buffalo-maintained and transmitted Southern African Territories (SAT) serotypes, which co-evolved with buffalo over approximately 900 years. So far, most countries of the region have prevented SAT viruses from becoming endemic in livestock populations by rapid elimination of infection when it has spilled over into cattle. Nevertheless, there are indications that in some countries SAT serotype infections are now also endemic in cattle. Serotypes O and A also occur in northern parts of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region, but there is no indication that wildlife maintains non-SAT serotypes. FMD control in the SADC region is based on combinations of methods depending on the export status of countries; these include separation of animal populations – wild and domestic – by fencing systems to create FMD-free zones, control of movement of animals and their products, routine vaccination and surveillance. Countries in the region that export beef to high-value markets employ all these measures. Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Swaziland made good progress in managing FMD between the late 1970s and the turn of the 21st Century, probably largely because of the use of improved FMD vaccines manufactured locally from the late 1970s onwards. However, since 2001 the situation has deteriorated, with intervals between FMD outbreaks becoming shorter while individual outbreaks lasted longer and were more difficult to control. Outbreaks characterised by mild or unapparent infection have also become more evident. In an effort to improve this situation, SADC has teamed up with development partners, international and regional FMD reference laboratories, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) to implement measures, focused initially on mapping the FMD viruses circulating in wild buffalo populations and cattle at the wildlife/livestock interface, to satisfy requirements of the Progressive Control Pathway for FMD (PCP-FMD). SADC is developing a strategy that will include a roadmap for the management of FMD in the region to guide this process.

Buffalo – Foot and mouth disease – Southern African Territories serotypes – Vaccination.

The presence of transboundary animal diseases (TADs) and the escalating costs of their control, coupled with the ever increasing costs of regulation and meeting export standards for beef exporters from southern Africa (8) is a major constraint to the development of the livestock industry in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region. Of all the TADs in the region, foot and mouth disease (FMD) has been identified by the Chief Veterinary Officers of SADC Member States as a disease of strategic importance for the whole region. Apart from limiting market access for livestock commodities and impeding regional integration, the disease is increasingly being considered as a hindrance to improving the livelihoods and food security needs of livestock communities. In the SADC region, FMD is unique because of the role played by wildlife, particularly the African buffalo (Syncerus caffer), in the epidemiology of the disease (9), even if transmission of the virus from buffalo to livestock is inefficient.

The involvement of buffalo in the epidemiology and, therefore, outbreaks of FMD is resulting in continued conflict between wildlife conservation and livestock development.

The Southern African Territories (SAT) types predominate in the SADC region. In southern Africa, as in other parts of the continent, the epidemiology of FMD is influenced by two different, but sometimes overlapping, patterns, namely a cycle in which wildlife maintains and spreads the disease to other susceptible domestic animals and wild ungulates and a cycle that is maintained within domestic animals, independent of wildlife. In southern Africa, the former cycle predominates due to the presence of African buffalo, the only wildlife species for which long-term maintenance of FMD has been described (3, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12). The lack of the latter cycle in some countries in southern Africa may also be because some countries in the region have been adept at preventing SAT viruses becoming endemic in cattle populations. The African Development Bank-funded ‘Strengthening institutions for the risk management of transboundary animal diseases’ (SADC TADs) project embarked on a buffalo sampling exercise with a view to determining the FMD viruses circulating in wild buffalo populations in the region’s national parks. The samples are being tested at the Botswana Vaccine Institute (BVI), the Onderstepoort Veterinary Institute (OVI), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) Reference Laboratory for FMD at Pirbright in the United Kingdom. The data collected from the exercise will form part of the information that will be used to update the SAT serotype database developed with the assistance of the EU-funded FMD project (2007–2009) and to develop, and later update on a regular basis, the region’s FMD strategy. They will also be used by BVI to quickly react to FMD outbreaks in different parts of the region with, hopefully, faster production of vaccine suitable for each outbreak. The region’s agriculture/livestock ministers have committed to continue the sampling exercise on an annual basis beyond the project’s life.

The progressive control pathway (PCP) for FMD proposes a stage-wise approach, allowing for a regional or ecosystem-based synchronisation between countries, similar to the approach known as OIE rinderpest pathway followed under the Global Rinderpest Eradication Programme (GREP), now concluded. The FMD PCP consists of six stages ranging from zero, where there is continuous FMD virus circulation with no reporting or control actions, to five, where a country is ready to be officially recognised by the OIE as free without vaccination. The OIE currently recognises only three categories for countries with regards to FMD: 1. countries not free from FMD (PCP Stages 0–3) 2. FMD-free countries or zones practising vaccination (PCP Stage 4) and 3. FMD-free countries or zones where vaccination is not practised (PCP Stage 5). However, the region felt it was important to utilise the full classification spectrum of the six stages because of the diversity of countries with regard to FMD control within the region. The table below summarises the status and desired ambition of the countries in relation to the PCP stages they wish to attain over the next ten years from 2011 (Table I). The classification was arrived at after a consultation of countries without formal OIE recognised status for FMD, conducted in March 2011 under the auspices of OIE and FAO (13).

Angola 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 Angola (zonal) 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 DRC 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 Malawi 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Malawi (zonal) 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 Mozambique 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Mozambique (zonal: Tete, Manica) 2 2 3 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 Mozambique (zonal: South) 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4

Seychelles Hist freed 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Tanzania 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 Tanzania (Mainland:zonal) 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 Tanzania (Islands: Zanzibar, Pemba) 1 1 2 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 Zambia 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Zambia (zonal) 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 5 Zimbabwe 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Zimbabwe (zonal) 1 2 3 3 3 4 4 5 5 5

Table courtesy of OIE SRR-SA

The region has, in the last ten years, witnessed an increase in the formation of transfrontier conservation areas (TFCAs). Currently, the list of existing and proposed TFCAs in the region stands at 17. The largest TFCA in the region is the Kavango-Zambezi (KAZA) TFCA, spanning five southern African countries – Angola, Botswana, Namibia, Zambia and Zimbabwe – and centred on the Caprivi–Chobe–Victoria Falls area (Fig. 1). The KAZA TFCA covers an area of approximately 287,132 km², almost the size of Italy (300,979 km²), and includes no fewer than 36 formally proclaimed national parks, game reserves, forest reserves and game/wildlife management areas, as well as intervening conservation and tourism concessions set aside for consumptive and non-consumptive uses of natural resources (see www.kavangozambezi.org). Given that livestock are traditionally pivotal to societies that live in TFCAs and the immensity and geographical span of most TFCAs, it is inevitable that people, wildlife and livestock live together in most parts of the KAZA TFCA.

In Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Swaziland excellent progress was made in managing FMD from the late 1970s to the turn of the 21st Century. The dramatic fall in the rate at which outbreaks occurred over that period was probably largely because of the production of FMD vaccine locally from the late 1970s onwards. However, since 2001 the situation has deteriorated, with intervals between FMD outbreaks becoming shorter while individual outbreaks last longer and are more difficult to control.

1. Ai-|Ais/Richtersveld Transfrontier Park (treaty signed) 2. Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park (treaty signed) 3. Limpopo/Shashe TFCA (MoU signed) 4. Great Limpopo TFCA (treaty signed) 5. Lubombo TFCA (MoU signed) 6. Maloti-Drakensberg Transfrontier Conservation & Development Area (MoU signed) 7. Iona-Skeleton Coast TFCA (MoU signed) 8. Liuwa Plain-Mussuma TFCA (MoU pending) 9. Kavango-Zambezi TFCA (MoU signed) 10. Lower Zambezi-Mana Pools TFCA (MoU pending) 11. Malawi/Zambia TFCA (MoU signed) 12 – Niassa-Selous TFCA (conceptual phase) 13. Mnazi Bay-Quirimbas Transfrontier Conservation & Marine Area (TFCMA) (conceptual phase) 14. Chimanimani TFCA (MoU signed)

Courtesy of Peace Parks Foundation 2013

The SADC region follows a dualistic approach to the control of FMD. The countries that export to the lucrative markets employ a combination of the following control options: − Separation of livestock from infected wildlife populations (fencing being the primary tool). Game-proof fences have been erected to restrict the movement of cloven-hoofed animals all regularly maintained and patrolled and intended to constitute physical barriers to movement (6). Fencing remains a controversial issue in the region attracting the ire of those concerned with environmental issues (2) and those advocating transfrontier conservation areas, who argue for the removal of fences to allow free movement of game. − Routine vaccination of cattle in high-risk areas (in and adjacent to infected buffalo populations). Bi- or triannual vaccination of cattle in proximity to infected zones populated by buffalo complements these other measures. This is done in conjunction with the ongoing surveillance of cattle in endemic areas (8) and/or high-risk areas (10). − Stamping out if the populations involved are small. In South Africa and Botswana, when FMD outbreaks have occurred in the designated FMD-free zone, they have sometimes been controlled by the compulsory slaughter of infected and in-contact animals when relatively small numbers of animals are affected (7). This is not without controversy, especially over issues of compensation.

− Movement control of susceptible animals and their products. In most exporting countries animal movement control is administered through a permit system under authorisation of the veterinary department. It is supported by livestock identification and traceability measures including branding, eartags and a networked database (in the case of Namibia) and micro-chipped reticular boli (in the case of Botswana’s Livestock Identification and Trace Back System), and enforced with roadblocks (8). − High levels of surveillance often carried out irrespective of whether or not the disease is present. It is becoming increasingly difficult to justify the high expenditure related to active disease surveillance, especially in the absence of overt clinical disease in cattle. However, since infection will always be present in buffalo populations, surveillance cannot be done away with. These approaches have achieved considerable success over 60 years in the exporting countries (see Fig. 2). Until the late 1990s outbreaks were rare and, when they did occur, they were quickly controlled and a successful (but preferential, in terms of tariffs) beef export system emerged. That is now under severe threat because of the increase in both frequency and severity of outbreaks, especially over the last ten years.

Courtesy of M. Atkinson

Non-exporting countries of the region control FMD outbreaks through: − Vaccination of cattle following an outbreak. Vaccination is hardly routine but is carried out following an outbreak of FMD as part of the control measures. − Movement control of animals from and into outbreak areas. Even though, on paper, movement restrictions may form part of the national control strategy, it is usually the case that these restrictions are rarely maintained for long periods after an outbreak. The lack of funds to sustain permanent roadblocks is a major contributing factor to the ineffectiveness of this control option in the non-exporting countries. It is also often difficult to justify such expenditures to the treasury in the absence of tangible returns from the livestock sector because the country is not generating income from exports of livestock products. − Active surveillance is also constrained due to inadequate funding. The region’s only FMD vaccine producer, the Botswana Vaccine Institute (BVI), has, in the last four years, made significant improvements to the quality of the vaccine. This follows field trials in Malawi, Botswana and Namibia to evaluate the effectiveness of the vaccine and vaccination. The culmination of these efforts was new recommendations on the vaccination frequency, an increase in the payload of the vaccine and the commissioning of the new production plant at BVI that has the capacity to produce a purified vaccine. In summary, the seven main thrusts of the strategy under development are gaining knowledge of virus strains circulating in the wild buffalo population, designing effective vaccination programmes in the region, improving