Annexes
ANNEX I
ANNEX II
(a) Report of a Round Table Meeting on the Threat of Merger of T. b. gambiense and T. b. rhodesiense in Uganda
(b) Report of the Programme Against African Trypanosomiasis (PAAT)
(c) Recommendation from the Biofarm Consortium Roundtable
 

(c)        RECOMMENDATION FROM THE BIOFARM CONSORTIUM ROUNDTABLE 

            The Biofarm Consortium held a Round Table meeting on Friday 30th September 2005 during the 28th ISCTRC meeting in Addis Ababa.  The Round Table organisers are grateful to the ISCTRC and especially to Dr. Solomon for arranging this meeting. 

Moderator: William Shereni (Zimbabwe)

Rapporteur: David Rogers (UK)

            The Round Table began with a presentation by the Biofarm Consortium (comprising the Bioeconomy Association, ICIPE Ethiopia, BioVision, Helvetas, PRAXIS Ethiopia and the Ethiopian Social Rehabilitation and Development Fund) of the aims and objectives of this approach.  Later discussion centred around the relative merits and likelihoods of tsetse/disease suppression versus eradication and the most likely routes to these rather different ‘end-points’.  The meeting also considered the relative merits and costs of insecticidal targets and traps for tsetse suppression/eradication.  The following conclusions and recommendations arise from the discussions held during the Round Table

            The aim of Biofarm is food security and the well-being of rural people; its goal is sustainable development through community-led empowerment.  Its main objective, therefore, is not eradication, although this may come about as a result of successful suppression.   As an example, less than one year after Gurage farmers’ request for help – because their cattle were killed by trypanosomiasis – animals could be re-introduced into the area and infection rates were reduced to below 15% across an area of 100 km2.  This success was achieved using the Biofarm adaptive tsetse management approach to tsetse suppression (suppression traps are placed in current tsetse hot-spots as detected by previous rounds of fly monitoring).  The farmers themselves felt that they had immediate benefits from this approach at sustainable costs.  For Biofarm, tsetse and trypanosomiasis control is not the end-point of its activities, but the entry-point.  Following on from tsetse suppression the people requested help with human health problems and the project therefore also provided advice and bednets for malaria control, advice on HIV/AIDS in the community and advice on family planning.  Income generation from bio-farm activities leads to higher school enrolment.  Finally marketing advice is provided to the community.  In other words, Biofarm provides a responsive, integrated approach to addressing the problems experienced by (and expressed by) the local community.  The total project costs (for tsetse control right through to marketing advice) work out at about $2,500 per km2 (project duration about three to five years), and many of these costs are one-off (for the provision of information, education, training) rather than recurrent.  The consortium suggests that participatory schemes elsewhere have been less successful firstly because they are not always demand-driven and secondly because tsetse/trypanosomiasis control is often the only help given, rather than part of a ‘package’ of assistance in line with the problems faced by the local community.  The Round Table heard that the FITCA project in Uganda has essentially adopted a similar approach to that of Biofarm in Ethiopia.  The Round Table suggests that this alternative to the current PATTEC method of dealing with tsetse/trypanosomiasis should be thoroughly investigated.

Recommendation 1: 

            We RECOMMEND that ISCTRC investigates the success of the participatory approach in Ethiopia and Uganda.  If success is recognised, then the approach should be encouraged in other tsetse-affected regions of Africa.

            The Round table welcomes the “Integrated Impact Assessment” tool being developed by ILRI, Nairobi, with USAID funding.  It notes that monitoring and impact assessment has to be carried out on an annual basis in order to adapt strategy, management, scope and policy.  It hopes that this tool will be used as widely as possible, by individuals, institutions, programs and projects, when it becomes available from about mid-2006. 

Recommendation 2:

            We recommend to the ISCTRC that the cost-effectiveness of all tsetse and trypanosomiasis projects is quantified in order to choose the most efficient method for the farmers and communities in tsetse-infested regions.