INTEGRATION OF TSETSE CONTROL USING LOW-COST TARGETS WITH FARMING ACTIVITIES AMONG CULTIVATORS IN PALLISA, KUMI AND APAC DISTRICTS, UGANDA.

 INTEGRATION DE LA LUTTE CONTRE LES TSETSE A L’AIDE DES ECRANS AU COUT ABORDABLE ET DES ACTIVITES AGRICOLES CHEZ LES PAYSANS DES DISTRICTS DE PALLISA, KUMI ET APAC EN OUGANDA

 Josue O. Okoth1 & William Nanyeenya2

1The Community Based Vector Control Organization (COVECO) P. O. Box 806, Tororo, Uganda
Tel. 045 45 171/077 413 166, E-mail dircoveco@softhome.net, josokoth@yahoo.com
2Livestock Health Research Institute, P.O.Box 96, Tororo, Uganda
Tel 077 441471,  E-mail williamnanyeenya@hotmail.com.

Correspondence: Dr. Josue O. Okoth, PhD

The Community Based Vector Control Organization (COVECO) P.O.Box 806, Tororo, UgandaTel.045 45 171/077 413 166, E-mail dircoveco@softhome.net, josokoth@yahoo.com, www.covecoug.org

Résumé

            Cette communication rend compte des efforts déployés par le secteur privé pour intégrer les activités agricoles à la lutte contre les tsétsé en utilisant des pièges mono-écrans, des épouvantails ainsi que des toiles à sac et des écrans rapiécés teintés de noir et de bleu. Cinq méthodes de diffusion, à savoir : des ateliers, des films vidéo, des représentations théâtrales, des contacts personnels et des émissions radiophoniques ont été expérimentées pour évaluer leur efficacité à sensibiliser les paysans. Des données économiques ont été recueillies pour examiner les indicateurs initiaux de référence des technologies de lutte contre les tsétsé et les types de connaissance au sein des communautés avant l’intervention.

            Les résultats indiquent que le piège mono-écran avait le taux d’adoption le plus élevé. Sur les 800 pièges achetés par les paysans, 50 % étaient efficaces. Au moins 7.650 tsétsé ont été capturées. 395 toiles teintées, 456 épouvantails et 32 écrans rapiécés ont été fabriqués et utilisés par les paysans. Bien que les émissions radiophoniques, les représentations théâtrales et les films vidéo aient bénéficié d’une plus grande audience, 50 % des personnes possédant des pièges/écrans ont affirmé avoir été informées lors de l’atelier, et 35 %  par des échanges de visites entre paysans. Le succès du projet dépendait donc du niveau d’interaction entre le personnel de vulgarisation, les agents d’exécution et les paysans. Ces résultats sont pris en compte dans le cadre des stratégies de développement durable en Ouganda.

Mots-clés : Secteur privé, lutte contre les tsétsé, outils au coût abordable.

Summary

            This paper reports on efforts made by private sector, to integrate farming activities with tsetse control using mono-screen traps, scarecrows, painted black and blue sackcloth and patchwork screens. Five dissemination methods, namely workshops, video films, drama, personal contacts and radio bytes were tested for their effectiveness in creating awareness among farmers. Economic data were collected in order to examine the start-up reference indicators for tsetse control technologies and knowledge patterns within the communities prior to intervention.

            The results indicate that mono-screen trap had the highest adoption rate. Out of 800 traps acquired by farmers, 50% were functional. At least 7,650 tsetse flies were trapped. 395 painted sackcloth, 456 scarecrows, and 32 patchworks screens were made and used by farmers. Although radio, drama and video shows had wider coverage, 50% of those with traps/targets claimed they got information from workshop and 35% from farmer-to-farmer visits. The success of the project therefore depended on how much interaction there was between extension personnel, implementers and farmers. These results are discussed in relation to sustainable development in Uganda.

Key words: Private sector, tsetse control, low-cost tools

Introduction

            Economic importance of tsetse in Uganda was first realized during the epidemics of the early 1900s when Glossina pallidipes and G. palpalis fuscipes (=G. fuscipes fuscipes) were implicated as vectors of sleeping sickness (Langland, 1967). Anima Trypanosomiasis is widespread in Uganda and is a major constraint in livestock production and productivity.  Livestock sub-sector in Uganda contributes 17% of the agricultural GDP (APSEC, 1997). Methods used to control tsetse included insecticide application to resting sites (which included aerial spraying), bush clearing and selective elimination of tsetse hosts. These methods were not sustainable and caused environmental concerns. These difficulties became more complicated when G.f.fuscipes, the main vector for both animal and human Trypanosomiasis in Uganda became peri-domestic, breeding and resting in vegetations such as coffee, banana and Lantana camara thickets close to homesteads (Okoth, 1986 and 1987) 

            Under the prevailing circumstances, the use of traps and targets would be most appropriate. Some success has been reported with the use of impregnated traps to control tsetse population in South-Eastern Uganda (Lancien et al. 1990). The success was mainly due to the provision of trap materials and expertise from overseas. In the 1980s, Uganda started implementing economic structural adjustment programmes. One of the major objectives underlying this policy was reduction in Government expenditure and getting private sector more proactive in both domestic and export trade. Government was obliged to liberalise trade and to remove subsidies from traded goods, including agricultural inputs and service delivery. This meant that rural farmers had no option but to turn to methods of vector control on self-help basis for sustainable development.

Materials And Methods

Study area

            The project was carried out in three districts, namely Pallisa, Kumi and Apac. In Apac, the study was carried out in Ibuje and Akokoro, in Kumi, Kidongole and Ngora, and in Pallisa, Kameke and Budaka counties. The vegetation cover for Pallisa and Kumi are similar; being mainly savana type with some forest and riparian vegetation. Much of the vegetation had been encroached upon and some forests turned into rice fields. It is in this artificially managed ecosystem where tsetse flies now thrive.

            The main source of income is agriculture. Animal Trypanosomiasis was recorded to be among the common diseases. In Apac district, Trypanosomiasis ranked as number one among livestock diseases.

Study design

Technologies being introduced

            The project was scaling up the use of five different intervention technologies, namely mono-screen trap (Okoth, 1991), scarecrow, painted sackcloth and tree trunk, and patchwork targets (Okoth, 1999a). To encourage participation and for the community to develop a sense of ownership, farmers paid for trap materials at a subsidized rate of a fifth. Other targets were not subsidized.

Awareness creation

Training workshop:

            Small-scale farmers were trained in tsetse and Trypanosomiasis control methods with emphasis on the use of traps and targets. During the training, the participants participated in making the traps and targets. Plate 1 shows a demonstration on how to make a tree screen. Many participants were not sure whether in fact they knew what tsetse looked like. At the end of each workshop, teams and their leaders were selected by participants to take care of the project at the grassroots and to be contact farmers and models. Members of the teams came from each parish in project sub-counties.

Plate 1: Demonstration to paint a tree screen during a training workshop in Kumi

Video film shows

            Two documentary video films were shown in selected sub-counties. One was showing community participation in tsetse control in Busoga and the other one was showing community participation in tsetse control and trypanotolerant breeds of cattle in West Africa. The film from West Africa was mainly about nagana while from Busoga was about sleeping sickness. The video film shows were followed by discussions on the message delivered.

Drama shows:

Forty-eight existing drama groups were trained in drama skills and methods of tsetse control in order for them to disseminate tsetse control messages during their usual drama activities in their localities. The plays tell the story of sleeping sickness, the use and failure of traditional methods to cure the disease and the promotion of effective methods by health workers. The plays end with visits by scientists who are invited by local leaders to sensitize the community to participate in tsetse control using traps and targets.

Radio spots:

Radio spots on tsetse control using traps/targets were used. Radio Warr played the spot in Luo for Apac listeners and Radio Kyoga Veritas played in Ateso for Kumi and Pallisa listeners. The radio spots were pre-tested in Lou in Apac district. As the project progressed, the radio spot messages also changed in progressive manner.

Farmer-to-farmer contacts:

 Farmers who attended or accessed any of the dissemination channels above were expected to spread the information through farmer-to-farmer visits and to promote the project activities. This was complemented by project implementers’ personal visits to farmers. Plate 2 shows one of the implementers’ sensitization visits in Pallisa district.Tsetse Control Handbooks were distributed to participating farmers, especially those with traps/targets.

Plate 2: Sensitization of farmers to participate in tsetse control in Budaka, Pallisa district.

Economic data collection:

            Baseline data were assessed in order to examine the start-up reference indicators for tsetse control techniques and knowledge systems within the communities prior to intervention. Relevant factors determining choice of tsetse control techniques from the five technology alternatives to be provided by the project were also addressed.

            Formal and semi-formal data collection methods were used. Formal survey procedures and standard questionnaires using direct farm household interviews were utilized to elicit data from the primary sources. Key informant surveys and focused group discussions formed the basis of qualitative data collection. Checklists on community farms and tsetse management issues were developed to facilitate qualitative data capture.

            Multistage and stratified sampling procedures were used to obtain samples for primary data collection.  Cultural background, tsetse fly concentration, human population density, natural resource endowment and farm management systems were the stratifying factors.

            A total of 293 respondents were selected for the survey. These included 95 for Kumi, 100 from Pallisa and 98 from Apac. 

            Descriptive statistics was used to summarize the household, farmer and farm characteristics. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and chi - square tests were used to examine relationship between quantitative variables.

Results

Tsetse control activities

            Seven hundred and twenty (720) small-scale farmers were taught in 12 training workshops (4 workshops per district). They in turn trained other farmers through farmer-to-farmer visits. The project  increased the level of knowledge on tsetse fly identification from 0.4% to 100% among the participating farmers. Sixteen video shows about community participation in tsetse control were conducted in all the districts. It is estimated that at least 4000 people attended the film shows. A total of 48 drama groups were trained but only 12 were active in acting plays related to tsetse and Trypanosomiasis control. Forty- nine plays were acted in Kumi, 15 in Pallisa, and 5 in Apac districts. It is estimated that at least 1000 people attended the plays in all the districts.

            Results on the effectiveness of dissemination methods on the adoption of the various technologies being promoted showed that workshops and farmer-to-farmer visits were most effective (Table 1).   These enabled farmer to translate the message into action by making traps/targets

Table 1: Dissemination methods and farmer adoption of tsetse control, April 2004.

            In the last one-year, small-scale farmers have acquired 780 sets of trap materials: these included 540 in Apac, 120 in Kumi and 120 in Pallisa districts. Of these, the number of traps currently functional in each district is: 255 in Apac, 61 in Kumi and 50 in Pallisa districts. Farmers trap tsetse in the field all the time. Any member of the family can set traps. They record trapped flies in a designed form for monitoring purposes. Tsetse catches by farmers are shown in Table 2. This number is less than the actual number caught because farmers claimed  that ants eat off their flies either in traps or in storage, leaving only wings or legs.

            Adoption of targets had just started and 395 painted sackcloth screens, 456 scarecrows dressed with black and blue skirts and 32 patchwork screens were made by farmers. No painted tree screen has yet been made mainly due to the difficulty in selecting appropriate trees of the right sizes and in the right places and positions.

Baseline study results

            Average land size per household was higher (LSD = 7.18, p = 0.05) in Apac (11.57acres; ranging from 0.5 to 100acres) compared to Kumi (3.76 acres; ranging from 0.5 to 50 acres) and Pallisa (5.25 acres; ranging from 0.4 – 29 acres).

            Chi square results show that there was a real association between male -headed households and presence of cattle in those households (c2 = 10.7, p = 0.05).  This means that technologies that associate cattle herding to or as a tool of attacking the tsetse control should be incorporated in men’s activities.  Similarly women headed households should be largely considered for crop biased tsetse control targets like scarecrows.

            Cattle numbers per household results showed that mean cattle herd sizes were significantly higher (17) in Apac district compared to Kumi (7) and Pallisa (4) {LSD = 13.7, p = 0.05}. These results suggest two implications for project implementation namely concentration of more efforts in Apac to deter cattle from being an effective reservoir for human tsetse but also bias project implementation towards tsetse control targets set in pastures like traps, screens, tree trunks. Use of acaricides with insecticidal effects like spot on and tsetse tick could be explored.

Table 2: Trap catches by fly species by district, April 2004.

            The bulk (60 %) of the farmers did not know of any control method for tsetse flies (Figure 1).  Of these 56.7 % were from Pallisa, 38 % from Kumi and only 5.3 % from Apac.  Some (18.3%) farmers stated that traps could be used to control tsetse flies - 80 % came from Apac and 20 % from Kumi.  It can therefore be deduced that farmers in Apac were more aware of control methods for tsetse and that those in Pallisa were least informed of how to deal with the tsetse fly problem.

Figure 1:  Application of tsetse control methods in Kumi, Pallisa and Apac

            Many farmers (56 %) knew the specific disease that tsetse flies cause in humans  (Figure 2).

            Of the  farmers who linked tsetse flies to sleeping sickness 42 % were from Apac, 36 % from Pallisa and 22% were those from Kumi.   Only 22 % of the farmers knew that tsetse flies are responsible for nagana in cattle.  A reasonable number of farmers either had thought that tsetse flies had no effect on cattle (15 %) and humans (8%).  Some farmers stated that they did not know that tsetse flies had any effects on cattle (20 %) and humans (11%).  A few farmers thought that the problem of tsetse flies to humans is that they merely bite them (10 %).  A good number stated that tsetse flies cause disease in human beings but could not name it.

Figure 2: Farmers’ knowledge of tsetse fly and disease in humans

            Tsetse fly –cattle relationship indicates that of the farmers who stated that the fly had no effect on cattle 49 % were from Pallisa, 40 % from Kumi and only 11 % from Apac (Figure 3.  The farmers who knew that tsetse flies were responsible for nagana are distributed as follows; 57 % from Apac, 31% from Pallisa and 13 % from Kumi. 

Figure 3:  Farmers’ Awareness of Vector - Disease Relationship in Cattle

            Data obtained on farmers’ application of tsetse control methods shows that close to 60 per cent of the households sampled did not know of any tsetse control methods whereas 45 % applied no technology targeted towards tsetse control (Figure 4).  Of these 50 % came from Kumi, 20 % from Pallisa and 30 % from Apac.  About 37% 0f the farmers stated that through spraying their cattle tsetse control was being affected although it was not confirmed that acaricides used had insecticidal effects.  Of these 51 % were from Pallisa, 41 % from Apac and 8 % from Kumi.  About 16 % of the farmers knew that by clearing bushes the tsetse fly population could be reduced.  In view of this cultural control together with smoke as a repellant was being applied by about 15 % of the households.  Farmers knew that traps could be used to control tsetse flies although none of them had ever laid any for the purpose.

            It is therefore logical to conclude that most farmers sampled in Kumi were not exercising control of tsetse flies whereas about 50 % from both Pallisa and Apac claimed to be using a combination of acaricides and cultural methods of tsetse fly control.

Discussion

            Some successes have been reported on community participation in tsetse control in Uganda (Okoth et al, 1991; Okoth, 1999a, 1999b). The motivation for their participation being their own health affected by sleeping sickness. In addition, South-East Uganda where these studies were made is the traditionally sleeping sickness area where awareness has been created over the years.

            The present study is being carried out in a non-traditional sleeping sickness area, targeting on the control of Animal Trypanosomiasis. Farmers ranked nagana as number one among the livestock disease constraints. Most small-scale farmers, faced with economic problems still do not give control of this livestock disease a priority. They consider vector control as a long-term investment and argue from the traditional perspective that control of tsetse is the work of Government and if they participated, Government should pay them.

            However, in spite these difficulties, our preliminary results show that 46.9% of those who acquired trap materials are actually trapping tsetse flies and all of them can identify tsetse which was not previously the case. The adoption rate of mono-screen trap is higher because it catches tsetse flies that farmers can see and this is a major motivation. Painted sackcloth has taken the second position. Farmers deploy scarecrows only during the ripening of crops such as rice and maize. This is the period of the year when there is a higher proportion of mature tsetse flies in the population. These mature flies are more likely to carry infections. The use of scarecrows is therefore strategic and can reduce transmission of Trypanosomiasis.  Some farmers claim that it was difficult to obtain materials for the rest of packages, namely patchwork and painted tree screens. They also claimed that more demonstrations on them were necessary.

            The number of traps/targets being used is still too few to have an impact on tsetse populations. The required trap density for reduction of tsetse population is between 8 and 10 per square kilometre depending on the vegetation type. Considering tsetse re-invasion is a serious problem, when this trap density is achieved, monitoring tsetse population will be done in central position allowing peripheral traps to act as barriers.

            Although many people got information about the project through radio, drama and video shows, the actual skill to make the trap/target was lacking. These dissemination channels were merely back-ups for workshops and farmer-to-farmer visits. It means, therefore, that the basis for success of this project lies on how well interaction between extension personnel and farmers and among farmers is developed. Results on the baseline economic study indicated generally that farmers have little knowledge on economic loss due to animal Trypanosomiasis. This lack of clear knowledge is a major constraint in involving farmers to control tsetse as vectors. Adequate sensitization of farmers on the economic importance of tsetse is therefore vital. This makes tsetse control by community a slow process. It requires a well thought out strategy for sensitization and mobilization of the community.

            A process of involving farmers to control tsetse flies using low-cost technologies and integrating it with farming activities has begun. This is a totally new approach which in a long run will be integrated with Government efforts for sustainable livestock development in Uganda. This approach has the advantage of empowering the community in tsetse control and therefore creating more technicians unlike the current approach of using a few trained personnel at the Ministry of Agriculture Animal Industry and Fisheries.

Acknowledgement

            This study received financial support from NARO/DFID Client-oriented Agricultural Research and Dissemination Project.

References

Agricultural Policy Secretriat (APSEC) (1997).  Economics of crops and livestock Production. Ministry of Finance and Economic Development, Kampala

Lancien, J., Muguwa J., Lannes, C., and Bouvier, J.B. (1990). Tsetse and human Trypanosomiasis challenge in south East Uganda. Insect Science and its Application 11,411-16

Langland, B.W. (1967).  Sleeping sickness in Uganda 1900 – 1920. Occasional Paper No.1 Department of Geography, Makerere University College.

Okoth, J.O. (1986). Peridomestic  breeding sites of Glossina fuscipes fuscipes Newst. in Busoga, Uganda and epidemiological implications for Trypanosomiasis. Acta Tropica 43,283 – 6

Okoth, J.O. (1999a). Integration of tsetse control with farming activity among cultivators in South-Eastern Uganda: A preliminary report. Bulletin of Animal Health and Production in Africa 47,15 – 18

Okoth, J.O. (1999b). Tsetse and Trypanosomiasis control problems in South-East Uganda: past, present and alternative strategies. Schweiz Med Wochenschr 129,1091 – 8

Okoth, J.O. Kapaata, R. (1987).  A study of the resting sites of Glossina fuscipes fuscipes (Newstead) in relation to Lantana camara thickets and coffee and banana plantations in the sleeping sickness epidemic focus, Busoga, Uganda. Insect Science and its Application 8,57 -60

Okoth, J.O., Kirumira, E.K., Kapaata, R. (1991). A new approach to community participation in tsetse control in the Busoga sleeping sickness focus, Uganda. A preliminary report. Annals of Tropical Medicine and Parasitology 85,315 -22