Table 7 Interventions discussed by different stakeholders to increase pyrethroid use
Possible intervention | Main strengths | Main weaknesses |
|---|---|---|
More sensitisation to communities | Education can address the many information gaps in disease transmission, the rationale for pyrethroid use and improve application strategies | Sensitisation has been on-going sporadically since 1998. Requires long-term engagement through repeated campaigns to significantly alter behaviour |
The nature of poverty in a subsistence-level economy will mean that the cheapest product will attract the most support | ||
Creation of village bylaws | Creates collective ownership and a locally agreed enforcement strategy | Difficult to implement and sustain since the region is still recovering from decades of conflict and economic marginalisation |
Most communities are not willing or able to enforce spraying routines collectively | ||
Encouragement of private sprayers | Increases supply of pyrethroids through the private market | Services are available in many areas but face challenges since farmers spray at different intervals |
Cattle can be organised every month for village-wide spraying | People support mass cattle treatments if they are free of charge or subsidised | |
Strengthens access to veterinary services | Sprayer groups, such as those established through SOS, require incentives to reach the poorest communities and to make spray services a viable business as selling other veterinary services to farmers is seen to be more lucrative | |
Provides local skills development and employment | ||
Cultivation of community spray groups | Group motivation facilitates compliance | Has been used in the past with little success |
Government/NGOs provide initial free inputs | Groups often fall apart due to insufficient local ownership | |
Rehabilitation of dips | Transfer of responsibility to government | Population density prevents/deters farmers from the movement of cattle |
Regular full body wash | User fees do not have local support | |
People would rather spray according to their own schedule | ||
Subsidise pyrethroid products | Equalises the perceived discrepancy in price (ml for ml) between pyrethroids and amitraz compounds | Requires continued outside financial support from public or private bodies |
Removal or alteration of subsidy can become a barrier to uptake and adoption | ||
Educate veterinary shops and animal health workers | Relatively quick and can improve the skills of animal health workers | Shop owners and animal health workers already understand the benefits of pyrethroids but stock amitraz to meet customer demand |
Government restriction of amitraz acaricides | Fastest solution that would avoid difficulties of facilitating behaviour change from farmers | In a liberalised economy, market restriction requires support from the central government, which could take a long time |
Informal regulation of the market | Avoids the need for behaviour change and engaging in formal policy change | Requires political will at the district level |