Review of Rinderpest Control in Southern 1989-2000

Prepared for the Community-based Animal Health and Epidemiology (CAPE) Unit of the Pan African Programme for the Control of Epizootics (PACE)

Bryony Jones

March 2001

Acknowledgements

The information contained in this document has been collected over the years by southern Sudanese animal health workers, UNICEF/OLS Livestock Project staff, Tufts University consultants, and the staff of NGOs that have supported community-based animal health projects in southern Sudan (ACROSS, ACORD, ADRA, DOT, GAA, NPA, Oxfam-GB, Oxfam-Quebec, SC-UK, VETAID, VSF-B, VSF-CH, VSF-G, Vetwork Services Trust, World Relief). The individuals involved are too numerous to name, but their hard work and contribution of information is gratefully acknowledged.

The data from the early years of the OLS Livestock Programme (1993 to 1996) was collated by Tim Leyland, formerly UNICEF/OLS Livestock Project Officer. Disease outbreak information from 1998 to date has been collated by Dr Gachengo Matindi, FAO/OLS Livestock Officer (formerly UNICEF/OLS Livestock Officer).

Rinderpest serology and virus testing has mainly been carried out by National Veterinary Research Centre, Muguga, Nairobi.

Any errors or omissions in this review are the fault of the author. If any reader has additional information to correct an error or omission the author would be grateful to receive this information.

For further information contact:

CAPE Unit PACE Programme OAU/IBAR PO Box 30786 Nairobi Tel: Nairobi 226447 Fax: Nairobi 226565 E mail: [email protected]

Or the author: Bryony Jones PO Box 13434 Nairobi Tel: Nairobi 580799 E mail: [email protected]

2

CONTENTS

Page 1. Introduction 5

2. Cattle Population and Sub-populations 5 2.1 Cattle Population Estimates 5 2.2 Cattle Sub-populations 6 2.3 Major Cattle Movement between Sub-populations 8

3. Rinderpest Disease Outbreaks 9 3.1 Outbreak Reporting Methods 9 3.2 Rinderpest Outbreaks 10 3.3 Goat Surveillance for PPR and Rinderpest 14

4. Rinderpest Vaccination 14 4.1 Rinderpest Vaccination Figures 14 4.2 Vaccination Coverage 14

5. Sero-monitoring 13 5.1 Sero-monitoring Methods 13 5.2 Sero-monitoring Results 14

6. Information Deficits and Recommendations 14

References 16

Annexes Annex 1. Table 1.1. Southern Sudan Cattle Population Estimates Annex 2. Maps Map 1 Southern Sudan; Physical Features Map 2a Southern Sudan; Regions Map 2b Southern Sudan; Counties/States Map 3 Southern Sudan; Main Ethnic Groups Map 4 Southern Sudan; Cattle Husbandry Systems Map 5 Southern Sudan; Areas under Government and Rebel Control Map 6 Southern Sudan; Cattle Sub-populations Map 7 Maps Showing Rinderpest Outbreaks by Year Annex 3. Rinderpest Vaccination Figures Annex 4. Table 5. OLS Livestock Programme Rinderpest Serology 1991-2000

Tables/Graphs Table 1.1 Summary of Cattle Population Estimates 4 Table 1.2 Southern Sudan Cattle Population Estimates A1-1 Table 2 Rinderpest Disease Outbreak Reports/Rumours 1992-2000 10 Table 3 Goat Sero-surveillance for Rinderpest and PPR 12 Table 4.1 Annual Rinderpest Vaccinations A3-1 Table 4.2 Annual Rinderpest Vaccinations; percentage A3-2 cattle population vaccinated Table 4.3 OLS Livestock Programme Northern Sector 13 Rinderpest Vaccinations 1996-2000 Table 5 OLS Livestock Programme Rinderpest Serology 1991-2000 A4-1 Graph 1 Annual Rinderpest Vaccinations; percentage cattle population A3-4 vaccinated per zone

3

Abbreviations

ACORD Agency for Co-operation and Research in Development ACROSS Association of Christian Resource Organisations Serving Sudan ADRA Adventist Development and Relief Association AHA Animal Health Auxiliary CAHW community-based animal health worker CAPE Community-based Animal Health and Participatory Epidemiology Unit CAR Central African Republic DOT Diocese of DRC Democratic Republic of Congo ELISA enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation GAA German Agro-Action GOS Government of Sudan ICRC International Committee of the Red Cross NGO non-governmental organisation NPA Norwegian People’s Aid NVRC National Veterinary Research Centre OAU/IBAR Organisation of African Unity - Interafrican Bureau for Animal Resources OLS Operation Lifeline Sudan PACE Pan African Programme for the Control of Epizootics PARC Pan-African Rinderpest Campaign PPR Peste des Petits Ruminants SC-UK Save the Children – SPLA Sudan People’s Liberation Army SPLM Sudan People’s Liberation Movement SSIM Independence Movement UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund VSF-B Veterinaires sans Frontiers – Belgium VSF-CH Veterinaires sans Frontiers – Switzerland VSF-G Veterinaires sans Frontiers - Germany

4

1. Introduction

This review aims to present within one document information related to rinderpest control in southern Sudan from the period during which the Operation Lifeline Sudan (OLS) Southern Sector Livestock Programme has been operating; 1989 to 2000. The review aims to be an information resource for the development of the rinderpest elimination strategy for southern Sudan, as part of the global rinderpest eradication effort.

The review focuses mainly on the rebel-controlled areas of southern Sudan (southern sector) where it is more difficult for the government veterinary services to collect information, with the aim of complementing Pan-African Rinderpest Campaign (PARC) Sudan information and obtaining a comprehensive picture of the rinderpest status of the southern region of Sudan.

The information presented has been collated from the internal files, database and reports of the OLS Livestock Programme Co-ordinator, and has been collected over the years of the programme by southern Sudanese animal health workers, United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)/OLS and non-governmental organisation (NGO) personnel, and has been reported to UNICEF/OLS Livestock Project as the co-ordinating agency of the OLS Livestock Programme. The role of OLS Livestock Programme Co-ordination has recently been taken over by Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO)/OLS. There are gaps in the available information and the important deficits are discussed in section 6.

2. Cattle population and sub-populations

2.1 Cattle Population Estimates

The size of the cattle population in the southern region of Sudan has been estimated using various methods by the Government of Sudan (GOS) and by the OLS Livestock Programme (Table 1.1 below, Table 1.2 in Annex 1).

Table 1.1 Summary of Cattle Population Estimates

1975-7 1998 OLS Southern OLS Northern Sector GOS Aerial GOS (3) Sector working areas not included in Census (1) figures working figures Eastern 797,774 1,545,805 529,850 Torit, Lafon, , , , 229 590,464 83,500 -

Jonglei 1,404,553 1,284,517 1,202,000 Bor, Pibor, New Fangak 1,428,092 1,894,803 1,433,400 , Kodok, Nasir, Longucuk, Bentiu, Mayom, Renk 700,719 1,660,000 - 4,965,793 Northern Bahr el 1,227,707 874,000 Wau, Aweil, Raga Ghazal TOTAL 5,559,074 10,281,382 5,782,750 1-2 million 6.8 – 7.8 million

During 1975-7 a national aerial livestock census was carried out by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources, which estimated the total population of the southern region to be 5.6 million (1). A concurrent ground survey indicated that there was an estimated net cattle population growth of 12% (1).

A second aerial survey was carried out in 1983 covering the Jonglei Canal area by the National Council for Development of the Jonglei Canal Area, Ministry for National Planning (2). Bor, , , and Fangak Districts were surveyed during both wet and dry seasons. The total population varied from 471,339 in mid wet season to 784,669 in late dry season. Since the districts surveyed make up approximately half of the Jonglei region, it is not possible to make a direct comparison with the 1975-7 survey.

Cattle population figures provided by Government of Sudan in 1998 give an estimated population of 10,281,382 for the southern region (3). The method of data collection is not known to the author.

5

The OLS Southern Sector Livestock Programme has been attempting to estimate the cattle population in the accessible rebel-controlled areas (southern sector). Whenever an agency starts activities in a new area an estimate is made, and this is periodically updated. Various methods of estimation have been used and include: • questioning key informants, • direct observation in villages and cattle camps, • participatory mapping, • listing of chiefs and their cattle camps or villages, • household surveys, • vaccination figures. In most of the pastoralist and agro-pastoralist tribes it is taboo to ask how many cattle a person owns. This makes direct questioning, household surveys, or obvious counting of cattle very difficult. When asking about the overall population of an area, key informants tend to exaggerate figures. This may be because they don’t know the real figure or due to pride or because a higher figure might bring increased animal health inputs. Estimation by listing chiefs and their cattle camps or villages can also result in exaggerated figures for similar reasons. The best method for estimation is probably a combination of several of the above methods to allow cross checking of figures.

The OLS Livestock Programme estimates for 1993 to 2000 have been collected by UNICEF and NGOs using one or more of the above methods. Figures for each administrative area therefore vary in accuracy. When estimating the population, experience has shown that it is important to be clear which geographical area is being estimated and whether it is the wet or dry season population. The wet season population of a given area includes the cattle in their permanent ‘highland’ villages or camps, whilst the dry season population may include cattle entering from neighbouring areas for dry season grazing. The population in a given area may vary considerably between years because of displacement due to insecurity, return of previously displaced people, and loss of cattle through raiding, disease or increased off take due to famine. Some major changes since the 1975-7 aerial census include: - an overall increase in cattle population, - heavy loss of cattle in (Jonglei) and Northern Bahr el Ghazal due to raiding, - increased cattle-keeping in Western Equatoria due to displacement of agro-pastoralists into the region, and - frequent raiding and displacements of cattle in Upper Nile and Jonglei regions.

Based on all the various estimates, the author has drawn up a ‘best estimate’ to give working population figures for the southern sector areas. Detailed estimates for the government-controlled areas have not yet been obtained. In the author’s opinion it is likely that the overall estimate for the southern region is 6.8-7.8 million cattle (southern sector total of 5.8 million plus 1-2 million in government-controlled areas). There is need for regular estimation of cattle populations using a variety of complementary methods in order to cross check these working figures and correct them as necessary.

2.2 Cattle Sub-populations

The majority of cattle in the southern region of Sudan are communally grazed and transhumant. In the wet season most cattle are on the higher ground in or near villages, whilst in the dry season they move to the lower lying grasslands along rivers and swamps. Based mainly on geographical boundaries, ethnic groups and seasonal movements, the cattle population can be divided into sub-populations (Annex 2, maps 1-6).

2.2.1 Geographical boundaries (Map 1) The western and southern border of southern Sudan is mountainous and forms the tsetse belt from Raga through Wau, south Tonj, south , Tambura, Yambio, Maridi, Mundri, Yei, south Juba, , and Torit to west Kapoeta. The tsetse fly, which transmits trypanosomiasis, has prevented cattle-keeping in these areas, although there are small but significant cattle populations in Kajo Keji, parts of Torit and west Kapoeta.

Some of the major rivers form boundaries between ethnic groups and their cattle. However, some major dry season grazing areas are along the Nile where neighbouring populations share grazing e.g. between Bor and . There is seasonal movement of cattle across the Nile between Phou and Liech States, and movement of cattle across the Nile for trade from Yirol to Bor. The swamps along major and minor rivers become physical barriers during the wet season as the rising water levels push cattle towards the higher ground. As the dry season starts the floods recede and the cattle follow, grazing the toic (seasonally flooded grassland) and mingling with neighbouring populations.

2.2.2 Administrative Boundaries (Maps 2a and 2b) The administrative boundaries have varied over time and the different political groups have different divisions and names for each area. The administrative boundaries shown in Maps 2a and 2b are a hybrid of Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) counties (Northern Bahr el Ghazal, Lakes, Western and and part of Jonglei) and South Sudan Independence Movement (SSIM) States (Upper Nile and part of Jonglei) related to areas of rebel control. The administrative boundaries mainly follow physical and ethnic boundaries.

6

2.2.3 Ethnic Groups (Map 3) There are a large number of ethnic groups in the southern region of Sudan. In the agricultural areas of western Bahr el Ghazal there are Luo-speaking tribes. In Western Equatoria there are the Azande. In Eastern Equatoria there are the Moro, Kakwa, Madi, Acholi and Pari. In Jonglei along the Ethiopian border there are the Kachipo and the Anuak. All these tribes are predominantly sedentary cultivators and keep almost no cattle.

Some sedentary agricultural tribes keep a small but significant number of cattle. These include the Burun and Shilluk in Upper Nile, and the Letuka, Lopit and Moro in Eastern Equatoria.

The main cattle-keeping tribes are the large nilotic tribes of Dinka and Nuer inhabiting most of Northern Bahr el Ghazal, Lakes, Upper Nile and part of Jonglei, the Karamajong-related tribes of Toposa, Jie and Nyangatom in Eastern Equatoria, and the Didinga, Boya and Murle of eastern Equatoria and Jonglei.

To the north of the southern region are the nomadic pastoral Baggara and Fellata tribes that move south into northern Bahr el Ghazal and Upper Nile during a few months of the year for dry season grazing.

2.2.4 Cattle Husbandry Systems (Map 4) Cattle-keeping in the southern region can be broadly divided into four types: • sedentary agriculture; very few cattle are kept. This includes the western and southern counties that are included in the tsetse belt and individual ethnic groups along the Ethiopian border and the Shilluk tribe in Upper Nile, • agro-pastoralist transhumant; on the lower-lying savannah and flood plains of northern Bahr el Ghazal, Lakes, Jonglei and Upper Nile, large numbers of cattle are kept. There are seasonal movements between wet and dry season grazing areas. • transhumant pastoralist; in the semi-arid area south east of the Nile in the eastern part of eastern Equatoria (Toposa, Nyangatom and Jie) and the eastern part of Jonglei (Murle), there are many cattle following seasonal movements. • nomadic pastoralist; enter the southern region from the north only during the dry season.

2.2.5 Political Control (Map 5) The civil war in the southern region is fought between the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) with various other rebel factions with varying allegiances to one or other of the two. Map 5 shows the approximate areas currently under control of the Government, the SPLA, and other factions. Areas of control vary greatly with time, and relatively stable areas can become very insecure and vice versa. The conflict has had various effects on different cattle populations at different times. It has • prevented traditional sharing of grazing areas by neighbouring cattle populations, • interrupted traditional trade routes, • exacerbated traditional raiding patterns, • altered transhumant migration patterns, and • displaced cattle-keeping communities.

Based on the factors listed above the following division of the southern Sudan cattle population into sub-populations is suggested (Map 6). The sub-populations broadly follow ethnic groups, which in general follow administrative boundaries.

Cattle Sub-Populations I. East of the Nile

1. South East Zone 1A. , western part of Kapoeta County; Didinga, Boya, Letuka, Lopit, Pari, Achole and Madi ethnic groups. Includes the government-held areas of Torit town and Lafon. The population has minor trade and minor seasonal migration links with Uganda. 1B. Eastern Kapoeta County; Toposa and Nyangatom. The population has major trade and major seasonal migration links with Turkhana, Kenya. Includes government-held Kapoeta and Riwoto. 1C. Pibor County; Murle, Jie and Anuak tribes. The population has minor trade links with Ethiopia. Includes government-held Pibor. 1D. Bor County; Bor Dinka. Includes government-held Bor town.

2. North East Zone 2A. Phou State, western part of ; Gaweir and Lou Nuer. 2B. Eastern part of Bieh State (Diror, Akobo and Nyandit Districts); Lou Nuer, and southern part of Latjor State; Jikany Nuer. This population has minor trade and major seasonal migration links with Ethiopia. 2C. Latjor State and Sobat; Jikany, Nuer, Burun, and Dinka. Large numbers of Fellata cattle seasonally migrate into this area from the north. The area has a minor trade link with Ethiopia. It includes the government-held town of Nasir. 7

2D. Renk; government-held area. 2E. Fashoda; Shilluk. Large numbers of Fellata cattle seasonally migrate into this area from the north. It includes the government-held town of Malakal. Geographically it is west of the Nile, but the area has stronger links with the sub- populations in the east of the Nile North East Zone.

II. West of the Nile

3. North West Zone 3A. Liech State; Nuer, and Ruweng County; Dinka. This area trades large numbers of cattle to the north. 3B. Tonj, Gogrial, and Wau Counties; Dinka and Luo tribes. 3C. Twic, Aweil East, Aweil West Counties; Dinka. There is a major seasonal migration of cattle into this area from north and major trade out of the area to the north. 3D. Raga and government-controlled parts of Wau; Luo tribes. 3E. Terekeka, Yirol, Rumbek, Mundri Counties; Dinka, Mundari, Moru.

4. South West Zone 4A. Tambura, Yambio, Maridi, Yei and part of Juba; Azande, Kakwa and other agricultural tribes. This area receives large numbers of cattle from Bahr el Ghazal for local slaughter and for onward trade to mainly Uganda, with small numbers passing to DRC and CAR. 4B. Juba and Terekeka Counties under government control; Mundari and Bari tribes. 4C. ; Moro and other tribes. Some cattle are traded to Uganda.

2.3 Major Cattle Movements between Sub-populations

2.3.1 Raiding Raiding of cattle is a traditional activity amongst most of the pastoralist and agro-pastoralist tribes, and is usually reciprocal. • There is localized raiding between and amongst Nuer and Dinka tribes in North West and North East Zones. • In the South East Zone intertribal raiding is very common between Toposa, Didinga, Boya, Letuka, Lopit, Jie and Murle. • Nomadic northern tribes raid North West and North East Zones. However with the ongoing civil war and increased availability of weapons, raiding of cattle has been carried out on a larger scale and more violently. In addition, looting of cattle has been carried out by Government soldiers, militias and rebel armies to feed soldiers and for trade. As mentioned in section 2.1 this has had a particular impact on the cattle population of Bahr el Ghazal (3B and 3C), causing a significant reduction in cattle ownership and cattle numbers due to looting of cattle and their transportation to the north, and on the cattle population of Bor County (1D) which were heavily raided and slaughtered in 1992 by a rebel army.

2.3.2 Trading The major cattle trade routes include; • from North West to the north, • from North West to South West and onward trade to CAR, Congo and Uganda, • from Yirol (3E) and Phou (2A) to Bor (1D), • from government-held Pibor (1C) to government-held Juba (4B), • from Akobo (2B) and Latjor (2C) to Ethiopia, • from Kapoeta (1A and 1B) to Kenya, • from Torit (1A) to Uganda, • from Kajo Keji (4C) to Uganda.

2.3.3 Sharing of Grazing Resources Sharing of grazing resources is greater within sub-populations than between, however there are some significant linkages: • the northern tribes enter the North West and North East during the dry season, • cattle from Wanding, Akobo and Nyandit districts (2B) move to Ethiopia for shared grazing with the Ethiopian Nuer during the dry season, • some Didinga cattle (1A) move to Uganda for dry season grazing, • Yirol (3E) and Bor (1D) share grazing areas along the Nile, • cattle from Liech State (3A) move across the Nile to Phou State (2A) for dry season grazing, • there are shared grazing areas at the borders between Gogrial (4B)and Twic (4C), between Tonj (4B) and Rumbek (4E), between Liech (4A) and Tonj/Gogrial (4B) and Rumbek/Yirol (4E).

8

2.3.4 Marriage Payments In most of the cattle-keeping tribes of southern Sudan there is a tradition of paying dowry for brides. This involves the payment of an agreed number of cattle by the husband’s extended family to the bride’s extended family, and is a substantial type of cattle movement within sub-populations. Marriages are sometimes arranged between neighbouring populations including different ethnic groups, and are a small but significant type of cattle movement between sub- populations. Marriages between sub-populations and the associated exchange of cattle are one way of cementing good relationships and reducing conflict.

3. Rinderpest Disease Outbreaks

3.1 Outbreak Reporting Methods

In the first few years of the OLS Livestock Programme, 1992-94, rinderpest outbreaks were reported through radio, by letter or during co-ordination meetings, by local veterinary personnel and investigated by mainly UNICEF veterinarians. Outbreak reporting and investigation were limited to the few areas that could be accessed. From 1995 onwards an increasing number of areas could be accessed and an increasing number of agencies were involved in developing community-based animal health programmes1. Local veterinary personnel would then pass outbreak reports to their supporting field veterinarian for investigation. The information was then passed to UNICEF via radio, project reports or during co-ordination meetings. Not all outbreak information was passed on, some reports were incomplete, and follow up was not always carried out. In 1998, UNICEF/OLS realised the need to develop an improved system for disease outbreak reporting and investigation to: • stimulate routine reporting of disease outbreaks and maintain centralised records for southern Sudan, • improve the quality and quantity of outbreak reports, • improve investigation and follow up of outbreak reports, especially sample collection for laboratory confirmation, • gather baseline data on epidemic diseases to assist in planning control measures, • ensure all rumours of rinderpest and rinderpest-like disease were reported and followed up, and • establish a rinderpest rumour register. An additional veterinarian was recruited (funded by OAU – IBAR - PARC) to be the focal point for disease outbreak reporting and investigation. With advice from PARC, he developed disease outbreak reporting and investigation guidelines which included reporting by radio message, an outbreak report form and instructions for investigation and sampling of a possible rinderpest outbreak. The focus of the guidelines was rinderpest but they could be applied to other disease outbreaks. They were disseminated as a manual to all field veterinarians and to the local Animal Health Auxiliaries (AHAs) and Stockpersons. Training in use of the guidelines was provided during the VSF-Belgium AHA and Stockperson training courses. The veterinarian also carried out field visits to investigate possible rinderpest outbreaks or co-ordinated the follow up of reports by NGO or UNICEF veterinarians.

There are no laboratory facilities within southern Sudan, although in recent years a small number of NGOs have provided microscopes in some field bases. A basic veterinary laboratory supported by SC-UK and UNICEF/OLS was set up in 1995 in Lokichokio, the logistical base on the Kenya-Sudan border from which most flights and vehicles depart to southern Sudan. The laboratory was able to carry out parasitology of faeces, blood smears, lymph node smears, and skin scrapings, and brucellosis testing of sera. The laboratory also received, stored and forwarded serum for rinderpest antibody testing, and tissue samples for rinderpest virus testing.

Rinderpest antibody testing and rinderpest virus testing was carried out at the National Veterinary Research Centre (NVRC), Muguga, Kenya. Some samples were sent to Pirbright, United Kingdom. The storage and transportation of tissue samples from southern Sudan through Lokichokio to Nairobi and delivery to the laboratory is complex and delays are frequent at one or more stages, causing deterioration of samples. To date differential diagnosis of rinderpest has not been carried out. NVRC, Muguga is able to test for Mucosal Disease, Infectious Bovine Rhinotracheitis and Malignant Catarrh, but lacks the resources to make these tests available at all times. Most outbreak diagnoses have therefore been based on history and clinical examination and few laboratory samples have been collected, preventing confirmation of diagnoses. To encourage sampling, outbreak sampling kits were developed by UNICEF/OLS for distribution to all field bases, to ensure the necessary equipment for rinderpest samples was available. These kits were introduced to some locations during 2000 and the distribution is continuing in 2001.

With the increased attention to outbreak reporting since 1998, the quantity and quality of outbreak reports has improved. The follow up of rinderpest rumours has also improved although it has not always been possible due to problems of access or security. Sample collection has increased but is not routinely carried out, and there are still problems with the logistics of delivering samples to the laboratory.

1 ACROSS, ACORD, ADRA, DOT, GAA, NPA, Oxfam-GB, Oxfam-Quebec, SC-UK, VETAID, VSF-B, VSF-CH, VSF-G, Vetwork Services Trust, World Relief 9

3.2 Rinderpest Outbreaks (Table 3 below, Annex 2 - Map 7)

3.2.1 South East Zone Rinderpest was confirmed in 1992, 1993 and 1995 in eastern Kapoeta. It was confirmed in Torit and west Kapoeta in 1998 and there were a number of rumours from east Kapoeta and Pibor. Some of these were investigated and no disease was found, whilst others were not fully investigated. In 1999 there was a report from Loudo, an area under government control. Disease surveillance in the neighbouring areas under southern sector showed no rinderpest and a delay in the northern sector investigation prevented full investigation.

At the end of 2000, reports came from the Jie tribe via Pibor (government area) and in early 2001 there were rumours of deaths in wildlife in Pibor County. These reports are still being investigated at the time of writing. The South East Zone is thought to contain endemic foci of rinderpest. There is little or no animal health service coverage of large areas of the zone and little or no vaccination in these areas.

3.2.2 North East Zone There have been no confirmed outbreaks of rinderpest in this area since before 1992, however access and coverage has been very low, so it is possible that in the early years rinderpest could have been present but was unreported. In 1997 there were some reports from Bieh and Phou States and in 1999 a report from Ulang, Latjor State. These were not fully investigated due to security problems. A report from Nyandit, Bieh State in 1999 was not fully investigated due to security problems but a CAHW gave a clear description of rinderpest-like disease affecting one small herd. Ring vaccination was carried out and there were no further cases. Several reports were received in 2000, but follow up showed other diseases or no disease was found.

This zone could be harbouring rinderpest endemic foci, in particular along the Sobat river, an area that is difficult for both northern and southern sectors to access. Rinderpest vaccination in this area has been very low and outbreak reports have been difficult to follow up properly.

3.2.3 North West Zone In 1992 there were widespread outbreaks in Liech, Tonj and Gogrial. Rinderpest was again confirmed in Liech in 1993. Since that time the majority of rinderpest rumours were found to be another disease or no disease was found. In 1997 an NGO veterinarian saw a small number of cases of rinderpest-like disease in one herd in Buaw, Liech. No samples were collected. Ring vaccination was carried out and there were no further cases. In 1997 there were reports from the northern part of Liech State under government control. These were not fully investigated. In 1999 there was a rash of reports from Tonj and Gogrial from the eastern toics neighbouring Liech State. Investigation showed these to be associated with the movement of Nuer cattle into these toics due to a new Dink-Nuer peace agreement and a fear that the incoming cattle might bring rinderpest.

There have been no rinderpest outbreaks in Yirol and Rumbek counties since before 1992. In 2000 a case of rinderpest- like disease was investigated near Billing, Rumbek. Samples were rinderpest virus negative. Ring vaccination was carried out and there were no further cases.

3.2.4 South West Zone This is an area with a very low cattle population. There have been no confirmed reports of rinderpest since before 1992.

10

Table 2: Rinderpest Disease Outbreak Reports/Rumours 1992-2000

Key Positive/assumed positive rinderpest (in bold) Negative/assumed negative rinderpest 1. Clinical disease and lab confirmation 3. Clinical disease with lab negative 2. Clinical disease diagnosed by veterinarian 4. Rumour investigated by veterinarian, other disease found 2A. Clinical disease diagnosed by AHA/SP/VA 4A. Rumour investigated by AHA/Stockperson, other disease found 5. Rumour investigated by veterinarian, no disease found 5A. Rumour investigated by AHA/Stockperson, no disease found 6. Rumour not fully investigated * other disease outbreak reports ? details of follow up unclear

Population 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 1A. Torit Feb-Lopit Hills Oct-Loudo, Torit 6 Aug-Bira, County, Kapoeta 1 5 County West Feb-Labone 2 Aug-Lauro 2 Aug-Lafon (GOS) 2 *1 * 4 *1 *4 1B. Kapoeta Feb- Mar-Muruangipi, Jan-Narus, Aug-Namurupus Jul-Khurjip/ Oct-Jie, Kapoeta County East Wakobu, Kapoeta 2 Kapoeta 1 5 Napotpot, 6 Kapoeta 1 May-Muruangipi 2 Mogos, Riwoto 5 Aug-Lonyang- Kapel, Kapoeta 6 Sep-Lopet, *1 Kapoeta 6 *4 *3 1C. Pibor Apr-Pochalla ? Feb-Kasingor 6 Apr-Nyalangolo, *1 County Boma 6 *1 1D. Bor County Sep-N. Bor 6 *1 Feb-Paluer, Bor 5 2A. Phou State, Jan-Waat ? Jun-Waat ? Apr-Waat 6 Jan-Motot, Bieh 4 Bieh State West Apr-Cuil 6 Feb-Pading, Bieh *1 Apr-Ayod 5 *4 5 Dec-New Fangak (GOS) 6 2B. Bieh State Wanding ? Aug-Nyandit 6 Feb-Tangyang 4 East, Latjor *3 State South 2C. Latjor State, April-Ulang 6 Mar- Mading 5 Sobat May; Maiwut 5 *1 *3 2D. Renk (GOS)

11

Population 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2E. Fashoda *1 3A. Liech State, Jun-Leer 2 May-Mankien 2 May-Nhial Diu, Mar-Duar 5A Jan-Wicok 6 April-Pabuong 5 Ruweng County July-Leer 2 Mankien, Nyal 5 Apr-Buaw 2 Oct-Nhial Diu 4 Sep-WUN 5 Dec-Bentiu *5 (GOS) 6 *4 *8 *1 3B. Tonj, Mar-Manghol, Thiet ? Feb-Mapel ? May-Kuajok 5 Sept-Ajiep, Gogrial, and Gogrial 2 Apr-Akop ? Oct-Alek, Gogrial 5 Gogrial 4A Wau County Mar-Manyiel, Jun-Paliang ? Oct-Mayen Gogrial 2 Jurmanager, Toch, Jun-Thiet, Tonj 2 Gogrial 6 Jul-Thiet, Tonj 2 Oct-Akop, Tonj 5 Sept-Luanyaker, Nov-Kongor, Akop, Gogrial 2A Tonj 5 Oct-Thiet, Tonj 1 *2 *2 * 3 *16 *9 3C. Twic, Aweil Mayen Abun ? May-Aweil West Feb-Malual West, Feb-Malualakon East, and Aweil 5A A. West 4 4 West Counties Feb-Mayen Abun, June-Ajakkwach, Twic 4 Twic 5 *1 *2 *2 * 1 *1 *4 3D. Raga, Wau (GOS) 3E. Terekeka, Yirol 4 Yirol 4 Feb-Billing, Yirol, Rumbek, Jul-Agangrial Rumbek 3 and Mundri 4 Sept-Akot, Counties Rumbek 5 *7 *1 *5 *6 *13 *2 4A. Tambura, Apr-Maridi ? Yambio, Maridi, Yei and Juba *1 *3 *3 Counties 4B.Juba and Terekeka (GOS) 4B. Kajo Keji *1 *2 County Rinderpest 1 9 2 1 0 1 4 0 0 Positive Total Rinderpest 1 9 6 9 6 10 12 11 13 Report Other Disease 0 0 0 3 17 8 16 43 52 Reports

12

3.3 Goat Surveillance for Peste des Petits Ruminants and Rinderpest

During 1996-98 a small number of sera (101) were collected from goats with the aim of confirming the presence of Peste des Petits Ruminants (PPR) in southern Sudan. The samples were tested by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for rinderpest and PPR. Goats in Tambura (5) and Liech (5) were rinderpest sero-positive (samples collected in October 1996). Finding sero-positive goats in Liech is not surprising considering the 1993-94 outbreaks in the area. The cause of rinderpest sero-positive goats in Tambura is not clear, since the cattle population in the area is very small and transient, and there had been no know rinderpest outbreaks. However it is possible that the goats might have been traded form Bahr el Ghazal. This highlights the importance of background details of the goats if goat surveillance is to be used in the future.

Goats in Tambura (3), Liech (1), Yirol (21), Bor (17) were positive for PPR. Samples from Yirol and Bor were collected in the dry season after a wet season when there was high goat mortality. In hindsight it appears that there may have been a PPR outbreak in these neighbouring areas. At the time people from Bor were purchasing large numbers of goats from Yirol for restocking.

Table 3 Goat Surveillance for Rinderpest and PPR

Year Location Zone No. Samples Rinderpest +ve (%) PPR +ve (%) 1996 Tambura 4A 10 5 (50) 2 (20) 1998 Tambura 4A 7 0 1 (14.3) 1996 Leer 3A 24 3 (12.5) 1 (4.2) 1996 Nhial Diu 3A 6 2 (33.3) 0 (4 not tested) 1997 Lankien 2A 3 0 0 1998 Pagin ? 3 0 1(33.3) 1996 Aliap 3E 22 0 21 (95.4) 1996 Yomciir 1D 20 0 14 (70) 1997 Panyagor 1D 5 0 3(60) TOTAL 100 10/100 (10) 43/96 (44.8)

4. Rinderpest Vaccination

4.1 Rinderpest Vaccination Figures

Table 4.1 in Annex 3 shows the annual number of cattle vaccinated against rinderpest by sub-population in OLS southern sector. These figures are derived from the vaccination monitoring forms filled in by the local animal health workers and submitted to OLS Livestock Programme by UNICEF and NGOs. These figures are not complete because some vaccination has been carried out but forms have not been submitted for a variety of reasons; poor filling of forms and submission by community-based animal health workers (CAHWs), supervisors and/or NGOs, loss of forms due to looting, insecurity, or lack of access to collect or submit forms. In addition the data for 2000 is not yet complete; forms are still being received at the time of writing. Under optimum conditions of access and security forms take approximately two weeks to reach the OLS Livestock Programme in Nairobi. However some forms can take up to one year to arrive due to insecurity or lack of road or air access. The breakdown of figures for 1992 is not available.

Table 4.2 in Annex 3 shows the cattle vaccination figures by sub-population and based on the cattle sub-population figures in section 2 the annual percentage vaccination has been calculated. This data is presented in Graph 1, Annex 3.

4.2 Vaccination Coverage

Since the start of the OLS Livestock Programme the aim has been to carry out mass vaccination in accessible areas, in line with the first part of the OIE Pathway for rinderpest eradication.

Between 1989 to 1992, vaccination was carried out free of charge by teams of vaccinators using heat labile vaccine, supported by a UNICEF veterinarian (4). There was very limited access to the rebel-held areas of southern Sudan. Most vaccination was carried out from bases in Kapoeta, Bor, Pibor, Nasir and Akon. An average of 285,000 cattle were vaccinated annually. In addition, ICRC provided 1.3 million doses of rinderpest vaccine during this period. The distribution of this vaccine is unknown, but when added to that of UNICEF, it is possible that up to 600,000 cattle were vaccinated annually.

From 1993 the livestock programme started to adopt a community-based approach to animal health service delivery, with an initial focus on rinderpest control using thermostable rinderpest vaccine (4). CAHWs were trained to carry out rinderpest vaccination as well as vaccinations and treatments for other diseases. Only parts of Equatoria were accessible by road. The rest of the rebel-held areas had to be accessed by air. Initially the number of places accessed was limited, 13 but as new airstrips were cleared and given flight permission, access expanded. In 1993 and 1994 vaccination efforts focussed on the areas with major rinderpest outbreaks; Tonj, Gogrial, Kapoeta and Liech. Gradually more NGOs joined the programme and set up community-based animal health programmes in many areas, providing a more regular presence and extension of coverage further from the airstrips. CAHWs under the supervision of Supervisors (old Veterinary Assistants, and later, AHAs and Stockpersons trained by VSF-Belgium) carried out the vaccinations. In 1996 payment for rinderpest vaccination was introduced with the aim of providing a sustainable means of remunerating the CAHWs and Supervisors.

In 1996 a similar programme was started in OLS Northern Sector, based in Khartoum, to serve the government- controlled areas of the southern region and parts of the transition zone. A summary of the vaccinations carried out in these areas by region is shown in the table below.

Table 4.3 OLS Livestock Programme Northern Sector Rinderpest Vaccinations 1996 to mid-2000

Year Equatoria Upper Nile Bahr el Ghazal Total 1996 18,021 0 10,000 28,021 1997 43,695 10,975 4,589 59,259 1998 42,964 60,200 3,854 107,018 1999 28,852 42,664 26,715 98,231 Jan-June 2000 24,075 27,900 16,414

The breakdown of these figures into specific areas has not yet been obtained but the areas covered by the northern sector were as follows: - Equatoria; Liggi, Lafon, Kaltok, Mongalla, Torit, Loudo, Kapoeta and Riwoto, , . - Upper Nile; Malakal, Nasir, Fanjak, added Pibor, Mayom and Bentiu in 1998, and Kodok, Tonga and Bor in 1999 - Bahr el Ghazal; Aweil town, Gogrial town, Raga County, Wau town and surrounding area.

Since the peak of almost 1.8 million vaccinations in 1994, in spite of increasing geographical coverage, vaccination levels have fallen to approximately 0.5 million per year since 1998. The reasons for lower vaccination figures include: • no rinderpest outbreak in most areas, reducing demand by cattle keepers, • after one or more vaccination campaigns, reduced presentation of cattle for re-vaccination by cattle keepers, • some major cattle areas have become inaccessible or very insecure; Liech, Ruweng, Latjor, Sobat, Phou, Bieh, Torit and West Kapoeta, • in addition to the above, some areas have never or rarely been accessed due to lack of capacity; Kapoeta east, Pibor, Fashoda, most of Western Equatoria, • demand from communities for NGOs to address other animal health priorities, • demand from agencies and donors to address broader food security issues, • disruption of vaccination activities by drought, famine, insecurity, political disputes, withdrawal of flight permission, and • reduced demand from cattle keepers because of payment.

When a community-based animal health programme starts and progresses in a new area, there appears to be a common pattern of vaccination figures. In the first 1-2 years demand for rinderpest vaccination is high, local animal health workers are very active in carrying out rinderpest vaccination, and vaccination figures reach up to 80%. These figures then drop in subsequent years as, with the absence of rinderpest outbreaks, the cattle-keepers’ and animal health workers’ priorities change. Demand for vaccination only rises again if there is a rumour of a rinderpest outbreak within the area or in a neighbouring area.

5. Sero-monitoring

5.1 Sero-monitoring Methods

Serum samples for monitoring rinderpest sero-conversion after vaccination have been collected intermittently from different parts of southern Sudan since the rinderpest vaccination programme started. The available serology results are presented in Annex 4, Table 5. A total of 2,364 sera have been tested and results provided. Some results for 1998-2000 (approximately 1,000 samples) are still to be received.

In 1995 a consultant developed a random sampling system for sero-monitoring in southern Sudan, however this has not been implemented. A simplified system was developed that involved the annual collection of 40 samples from each of 10 cattle camps in a given area. No area has ever managed to do this due to; • difficulties of random sampling when access is limited, • lack of cattle handling facilities makes it a strenuous and time-consuming activity, • blood-sampling is not immediately accepted by cattle-keepers, requiring discussion and persuasion, 14

• serum collection is given lower priority than other activities, • difficulties of handling, storing and transporting serum from the field to the laboratory, • delays in reporting of results has discouraged further sampling. Samples have therefore been collected in an ad hoc way by field veterinarians and supervisors depending on their ability and interest. The number of samples collected in each sampling area and in each year are therefore small, reducing the significance of any analysis. In addition samples are not randomly selected. They tend to be collected from the more accessible cattle camps and herds, and from the more willing cattle keepers. In some cases sampling has been carried out to assess the level of immunity before carrying out a new vaccination campaign when no recent vaccination has been done. In other cases it has been carried out within a few months of a campaign to assess sero-conversion.

Most samples have been recorded on the standard OLS sero-monitoring form, which includes information on age group and vaccination status. However because ear-notching is not comprehensively carried out, vaccination status recorded is based on information from the cattle-keeper. The reliability of this source may vary depending on whether the person present is the owner, long-term keeper, young person or neighbour.

Until 1998, all serum were collected as liquid serum. In 1998 filter papers for serum collection were introduced, and although there have been some initial problems with their use (inadequate coverage of the filter paper with blood) they seem to have stimulated increased serum collection activities and eliminated problems of storage and transport of serum samples.

Serum samples or filter papers are submitted to the NVRC, Muguga for rinderpest antibody ELISA. There have been a series of problems related to use of this laboratory; • lack of funding for resources and personnel has prevented purchase of reagents and ELISA kits for extended periods and has prevented testing from being carried out quickly because staff are committed to other duties, • payment for laboratory services was introduced but invoices arrived late and UNICEF payment procedures were slow; prices for laboratory procedures did not cover actual costs, • when testing was carried out there were delays in sending the results to UNICEF. The cumulative effect of these problems has caused results to be received up to two years after serum collection. As mentioned above, these delays are a major discouragement for field level workers to collect further samples.

5.2 Sero-monitoring Results

In spite of the low number of samples and the bias towards sampling cattle that have been recently vaccinated, some observations can be made.

The percentage of sero-positives in the overall population (vaccinated, unvaccinated and unknown vaccinations status) ranges from 46.7% to 81.6% with an average of 71.7%. Out of the 11 sub-populations sampled, 8 have percentage immunity levels of greater than 70%.

Out of the known vaccinated population, 79.2% are sero-positive, with a range from 55.6% to 91.2%. Out of the 9 sub- populations sampled with known vaccinated cattle, 6 showed the proportion of sero-positives to be greater than 75%, indicating that in most areas, vaccination was being carried out effectively.

Out of the known unvaccinated population, 56.7% are sero-positive with a range from 18.9% to 100%. Out of the nine sub-populations sampled with known unvaccinated cattle, seven show the proportion of sero-positives to be less than 70%. One group of 80 unvaccinated cattle sampled in Naita, east Kapoeta in 1997 showed a sero-prevalence of 81%, possibly indicating a recent outbreak of rinderpest in the area.

Limited serological testing of sheep and goats for PPR indicates that the disease is likely to be present in most parts of southern Sudan (section 3.4). No PPR serology has been carried out in cattle. The contribution of PPR sero-conversion in cattle to rinderpest immunity and its effects on sero-conversion after rinderpest vaccination are therefore not known.

6. Information Deficits and Recommendations

Due to the ongoing conflict in southern Sudan some areas are very difficult to access and therefore information on these areas is minimal or absent. Where a community-based animal health programme has been previously established, local trained animal health workers are usually able to maintain basic services including vaccination and disease reporting and investigation, if the supporting NGO or UNICEF/FAO is able to maintain communication and basic supplies through short, opportunistic visits. However, rapid and comprehensive rinderpest outbreak investigation, especially sample collection, is very difficult under these circumstances. In areas where no community-based animal health programme has ever been established, training of AHAs and/or Stockpersons has improved communication and quality of disease outbreak reports. Some of these areas have received minimal support from UNICEF through occasional visits and delivery of small quantities of vaccines and medicines, but UNICEF and NGOs have lacked the capacity to

15 fully support these areas, and the motivation of some of these isolated AHAs and Stockpersons has waned. If rinderpest surveillance is to become more comprehensive and systematic as southern Sudan progresses towards rinderpest elimination, then a more regular programme of support and remuneration for these local personnel needs to be developed and funded. Some areas have never been visited and have no known local animal health workers. These areas need to be visited for information gathering and rinderpest surveillance, establishment of communication channels, identification of local people for training to carry out surveillance, and a regular programme of visits and support developed.

The estimate of the cattle population in southern Sudan is a very rough figure and it is likely that with the ongoing conflict it will continue to be very difficult to get an accurate figure. However some improvement in the current estimates can be made: • obtain estimates of the cattle population in the northern sector areas of southern Sudan, to complement the southern sector figures, taking care not to count the same cattle twice, • update population figures as areas of access alter, • cross-check population figures using different methods where current estimates do not seem realistic.

The cattle sub-populations described in this review should be mapped in more detail to verify that the division of sub- populations suggested by the author is valid and to clarify relationships within and between sub-populations. Many areas of southern Sudan have already been mapped by livestock NGOs or UNICEF using participatory mapping techniques. Information could be extracted from the existing maps and complemented by mapping of all areas as part of the ground level planning of future rinderpest elimination activities. These maps should include wet and dry season grazing areas, cattle markets and trade routes, raiding routes, locations of animal health personnel and cold chain, roads, airstrips, and rivers, and location of last rinderpest outbreak. Copies of the maps should be submitted to a central point for collation using an appropriate computer mapping programme, to produce an overall livestock map for southern Sudan.

The collation of all rinderpest rumours from northern sector areas would improve the overall picture of rinderpest in southern Sudan. The OLS Livestock Programme needs to continue to make every effort to investigate every rinderpest rumour, and where possible obtain laboratory confirmation of rinderpest or another disease. This will not be possible unless there is a laboratory in the region that is ready and able to carry out rinderpest differential diagnosis at all times.

Systematic use of participatory surveillance methods will assist in cross-checking rinderpest rumours and investigations, and should be included in the active surveillance system for rinderpest elimination. Bearing in mind the frequent delays in rumour follow up due to access and security problems a protocol for retrospective investigation of outbreaks should be developed using a combination of participatory investigation, clinical disease searching and sero- surveillance.

A breakdown of the northern sector rinderpest vaccination figures by administrative areas should be obtained so that the distribution of rinderpest vaccination in southern Sudan can be more accurately presented.

A large number of sera dating from 1998-2000 are awaiting rinderpest ELISA testing. Once the results are received they should be entered into Table 5, Annex 4. An analysis of rinderpest sero-monitoring results by age group has not yet been carried out. Although the sample sizes are small this might provide some further indication of likely rinderpest endemic foci.

The laboratory support required for rinderpest elimination from southern Sudan needs to be reviewed, preferably through consultation between all stakeholders. Reference laboratories for rinderpest virus testing, rinderpest differential diagnosis, and rinderpest serology should be agreed upon. The financing of these services should be clarified. If NVRC, Muguga is to continue to provide laboratory services for southern Sudan, financial support needs to be secured to allow it to provide adequate services to verify the presence or absence of rinderpest in southern Sudan.

16

References

1. Sudan National Livestock Census and Resource Inventory Volume 31. The results of an aerial census of resources in Sudan from August 1975 to January 1977. Sudan Veterinary Research Administration, Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources, Khartoum, Sudan, and Resource Management and Research, Nairobi, Kenya.

2. Mefit-Babtie 1983. Range Ecology Survey, Livestock Investigations and Water Supply Draft Final Report Volume 4 Livestock Studies, Mefit-Babtie Srl, January 1983. National Council for Development of the Jonglei Canal Area, Ministry for National Planning, Government of the Democratic Republic of the Sudan.

3. MOAR 1998. Livestock Statistics and Planning Annex 9 Estimation of Livestock Population 1998. Ministry of Animal Resources, Government of Sudan.

4. Jones, B.A., Deemer, B., Leyland, T.J., Mogga, W. and Stem, E. 1998. Community-based Animal health Services in Southern Sudan; the Experience and Future. Animal Health and Production for Development. Proceedings of the IXth International Conference of Association of Institutions of Tropical Veterinary Medicine, p 107-133. Harare, Zimbabwe, 1998.

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

13 14

13

14 15 ANNEX 3. RINDERPEST VACCINATION FIGURES Table 4.1 Annual Rinderpest Vaccinations

Sub- 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 populatio n 1A Torit 21,763 10,146 917 5,615 18,671 50,418 9,392 Kapoeta West 33,741 55,524 98,632 37,788 29,970 33,711 24,246 28,774 1B Kapoeta East 50,583 63,789 27,856 50,331 27,123 36,636 33,193 1C Pibor 19,727 4,500 22,418 20,955 1,623 31,589 2547 7,630 1D Bor 82,316 120,226 230,844 15,377 37,569 15,282 7,994 30,528 31,791 2A Phou 8,005 13,889 85,588 16,558 78,554 1,204 11,671 West Bieh 64,399 117,546 20,994 18,449 43,017 25,649 18,652 2B Bieh East 2,219 8,650 35,621 9,997 9,895 33,322 12,142 1,644 4,155 Latjor South 2,765 516 2,098 6,144 2C Latjor + Sobat 16,056 49,433 200,737 107,298 628 9,018 62,965 2D Renk 2E Fashoda 39 3A Liech 151,600 241,503 242,460 357,845 95,884 63,633 29,355 105,816 Ruweng 3B Tonj 244,350 595,625 359,717 265,367 83,626 58537 87,584 54,090 Gogrial 137,050 104,150 367,049 186,810 30,015 165,916 39,649 88131 78,873 37,044 Wau 6,041 1,865 731 3C Twic 124,500 65,750 65,290 26,413 24,504 6,741 27,040 Aweil East 144,250 63,250 72,100 96,436 122,899 33,663 34,213 46,602 Aweil West 18,250 44,750 12,895 7,859 20,193 3,485 3D Raga and Wau 3E Terekeka Yirol 41,999 84,230 26,946 105,985 54,165 45,156 94,950 20,832 Rumbek 44,697 77,821 74,706 4,729 52,215 300 16,280 50,070 Mundri 14,753 10,175 25,725 2,907 4,232 4,368 2,880 4A Tambura 167 Yambio Maridi 2,118 Yei 2,736 476 Juba 4B Juba, Terekeka (GOS) 4C Kajo Keji 2,320 15,482 Southe 116,057 370,346 510,249 0 1,489,706 1,776,173 1,075,516 1,152,839 757,280 518,989 466,819 522,097 rn Sudan Total

13 Table 4.2 Annual Rinderpest Vaccinations; percentage cattle population vaccinated

Sub- 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 populatio n 1A Torit, Kapoeta 33,741 77,287 108,778 0 0 37,788 30,887 39,326 42,917 79,192 9,392 0 West % vacc 8 18 25 0 0 28 23 29 31 58 7 0 (136,850) 1B Kapoeta East 50,583 0 63,789 27,856 50,331 27,123 36,636 33,193 % vac 17 0 21 9 17 9 12 11 (300,000) 1C Pibor 0 19,727 4,500 0 0 22,418 20,955 1,623 0 31,589 2,547 7,630 % vacc 0 2 1 0 0 3 3 0 0 4 0 1 (802,000) 1D Bor 82,316 120,226 230,844 0 0 0 15,377 37,569 15,282 7,994 30,528 31,791 % vacc 137 200 385 0 0 0 26 63 25 13 51 53 (60,000) South 116,057 217,240 344,122 0 50,583 60,206 131,008 106,374 108,530 145,898 79,103 72,614 East % vacc 9 17 26 0 4 5 10 8 8 11 6 6 (1,298,85 0) 2A Phou, Bieh W 0 0 8,005 0 78,288 203,134 37,552 18,449 121,571 25,649 19,856 11,671 % vacc 0 0 3 0 33 85 16 8 51 11 8 5 (240,000) 2B Bieh E, Latjor S 0 0 2,219 0 8,650 35,621 9,997 9,895 36,087 12,658 3,742 10,299 % vacc 0 0 2 0 7 29 8 8 29 10 3 8 (123,400) 2C Latjor, Sobat 0 16,056 49,433 0 200,737 107,298 0 0 0 628 9,018 62,965 % vacc 0 2 7 0 30 16 0 0 0 0 1 9 (670,000) 2D Renk % vacc 2E Fashoda % vacc (100,000) North 0 16,056 59,657 0 287,675 346,053 47,549 28,344 157,658 38,935 32,616 84,935 East % vacc 0 1 5 0 25 31 4 3 14 3 3 7 (1,133,40 0) 3A Liech, Ruweng 0 0 0 0 151,600 241,503 242,460 357,845 95,884 63,633 29,355 105,816 % vacc 0 0 0 0 24 38 38 56 15 10 5 17 (640,000) 3B Tonj, Gog, Wau 0 137,050 104,150 0 611,399 782,435 389,732 437,324 125,140 146,668 166,457 91,865 % vacc 0 13 10 0 58 74 37 41 12 14 16 9 (1,055,00

14 0) 3C Twic, Aweil E, 0 0 0 0 287,000 173,750 137,390 109,331 157,171 78,360 40,954 77,127 Aweil W % vacc 0 0 0 0 55 33 26 21 30 15 8 15 (519,000) 3D Raga, Wau (GOS)

% vacc 3E Terekeka, Yirol, 0 0 0 0 101,449 172,226 127,377 113,621 110,612 45,456 115,598 73,782 Rumbek, Mundri

% vacc 0 0 0 0 10 17 12 11 11 4 11 7 (1,043,00 0) North 0 137,050 104,150 0 1,151,448 1,369,914 896,959 1,018,121 488,807 334,117 352,364 348,590 West % vacc 0 4 3 0 35 42 28 31 15 10 11 11 (3,257,00 0) 4A Tambura, Yambio, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,285 0 2,736 476 Maridi, Yei, Juba

% vacc 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 5 1 (58,500) 4B Juba, Terekeka (GOS) % vacc 4C Kajo Keji 0 0 2,320 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,482 % vacc 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 (35,000) South 0 0 2,320 0 0 0 0 0 2,285 0 2,736 15,958 West % vacc 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 17 (93,500) Southern 116,057 370,346 510,249 140,000 1,489,706 1,776,173 1,075,516 1,152,839 757,280 518,950 466,819 522,097 Sudan % vacc 2 6 9 2 26 31 19 20 13 9 8 9 (5,782,75 0)

15 Graph 1: Annual Rinderpest Vaccinations; percentage cattle population vaccinated per zone

45 40 35 South East 30 25 North East 20 North West 15 10 South West 5 % cattle vaccinated 0 1999 1989 1991 1993 Year1995 1997

16

ANNEX 4 Table 5. OLS LIVESTOCK PROGRAMME RINDERPEST SEROLOGY 1991-2000

Date NGO Location Number of Number Number not Unknown Sero- Sero- Samples Samples Samples Samples Samples samples vaccinated vaccinated vaccination positive negative +ve and -ve and +ve and -ve and not for retest status +ve -ve vaccinated vaccinated not vaccinated or not vaccinated tested

Sub- populatio n 1A Torit County 1991 UNICEF Torit 86 86 75 11 75 11 29/9/97 GAA Ikotos 40 38 1 1 30 7 29 6 1 3 11/10/97 GAA Ikotos 51 49 2 42 9 42 7 2 177 173 3 1 147 27 146 24 0 3 3 84.5% 15.5% 85.9% 14.1% 0.0% 100.0% Kapoeta County - West 31/3/96 ADRA 140 110 21 9 84 56 79 31 3 18 27/8/96 UNICEF Chukudum 5 5 3 2 22/4/97 ADRA Kimatong 46 33 13 28 17 24 8 4 9 1 23/7/97 ADRA Chukudum 15 14 1 10 5 9 5 206 157 34 15 125 80 112 44 7 27 1 61.0% 39.0% 71.8% 28.2% 20.6% 79.4% Sub-total 383 330 37 16 272 107 258 68 7 30 4 1A 71.8% 28.2% 79.1% 20.9% 18.9% 81.1% Sub- populatio n 1B Kapoeta County - East 1993 UNICEF Muruankipi 27 18 9 12/1/96 GAA Topotha 21 3 8 10 12 9 2 1 5 3 29/1/97 GAA Lotimor 38 29 5 4 26 11 19 9 5 1 30/3/97 GAA Naita 80 80 65 15 65 15 4/11/97 GAA Naita 44 44 20 22 0 2 Sub-total 210 32 93 58 141 66 21 10 75 18 3

17 1B 68.1% 31.9% 67.7% 32.3% 80.6% 19.4% Sub- populatio n 1C Pibor County 24/2/94 UNICEF Pibor 39 39 27 12 24/10/96 UNICEF Pochalla 3 3 1 2 Sub-total 42 0 0 42 28 14 0 0 0 0 0 1C 66.7% 33.3% Sub- populatio n 1D Bor County 1991 UNICEF Bor 39 39 38 1 38 1 7/1/96 SCF Kongor 28 28 16 12 16 12 2/5/97 SCF Kongor 20 12 5 3 13 6 7 4 3 2 1 28/8/97 UNICEF Paluer 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 Sub-total 89 80 6 3 68 20 62 17 3 3 1 1D 77.3% 22.7% 78.5% 21.5% 50.0% 50.0% Populatio 724 442 136 119 509 207 341 95 85 51 8 n 1 Summary 71.1% 28.9% 78.2% 21.8% 62.5% 37.5% Sub- populatio n 2A Phow State 1991 UNICEF Ayod 100 100 71 29 71 29 10/07/94 UNICEF Ayod 77 47 15 15 61 13 44 1 4 10 3 21/9/97 SCF OldFangak 32 16 16 12 18 12 3 15 2 209 63 131 15 144 60 56 4 75 54 5 70.6% 29.4% 93.3% 6.7% 58.1% 41.9% Bieh State - West 5/2/95 SCF 40 40 38 2 38 2 10/5/96 SCF Motot 26 25 1 18 8 18 7 1

18 20/3/97 SCF Nyirol 9 9 6 3 6 3 12/9/97 SCF Langkien 13 12 1 10 3 9 3 88 74 13 1 72 16 62 12 9 4 0 81.8% 18.2% 83.8% 16.2% 69.2% 30.8% Sub-total 297 137 144 16 216 76 118 16 84 58 5 2A 74.0% 26.0% 88.1% 11.9% 59.2% 40.8% Sub- populatio n 2B Bieh no data State- East Latjor no data State - South Sub-total no data 2B

Sub- populatio n 2C Latjor State 19/1/94 UNICEF Nasir 100 100 89 11 13/10/94 UNICEF Nasir 58 58 40 18 Sobat no data Sub-total 158 0 0 158 129 29 0 0 0 0 0 2C 81.6% 18.4% Sub- populatio n 2E Fashoda no data Sub-total no data 2E              

     Populatio 455 137 144 174 345 105 118 16 84 58 5 n 2 Summary

19

4 0 4 1 4 1 1

%

8 7 0

5

8 2 6 2 3 1 6 . 1 2 1 1 0 4 30.5% 32.8%

% % %

6 1 1

0

4 1 2 5 2 0 8 2 1 4 1 . . . 4 4 1 1 2 1 9 9 7 5 6 6

0 6 5 3 3 7 8 5 4 2 1 3 6 8.8% 8.8% 11.9%

2 0 1 1

7

0 0

2 3 0 5 0 1 1 0 7 7 2 1 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 88.1% 91.2% 91.2%

% % %

0

4 6 9 3 2 5 6 9

5

1 3 3 9 9 2 6 5 5 2 2 5 4 . . . 2 3 3 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 2 2 2 2 100.0%

1 1

6 2 0

7 3 8 0 2 8 7 8

1 5 4 6 0 2 2 3 2 8 2 1 1 6 3 4 2 2 1 5 6 1 3 2 2 1 1 0.0% 76.7% 78.1% 77.1% 20

2 2 6 6

0

3 7

8 0 2 1 6 6 3 8 6 7 9 1

9 5

2

5

5

7

7 6 2 6 1 4 3 5 6 2 2 2 2 1

4

4 8 0

2 6 4

8 1 7 0 2 0 1 1 9 3 3 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2

5

1

6 8 0 6 7 0 6 6 3 7 3 3 0 5 3 0 5 6 6 3 6 2 3 2 2 3 8 6 2 4 7 9 4 1 4 3 1 4 1 1

) j ) j

n

n

k k i u o g i o

k

a a

h

t t t t t n t r r r t o p p p p D (T i e e e (T

a a

e n e e e i i i h o o o l o

u c n n r a e e e c k k k k h h h a i i a a a a G L L L l T T T A A A A h n n b n W l Kw Ruw N A A u u P W

S F F H H B B S E E - - C C - -

O C C I I R N N

C VSF VSF

UNICEF U U VSF UNICEF UNICEF UNICEF UNICEF UNICEF VSF UNICEF UNICEF UNICEF UNICEF UNICEF UNICEF

A    

    

6 7 4 9 4 5 io io

5 6 7 7 4 5 4 4 4 7 9

6

t t

9 9 9 9 9 9 ng

9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 3 9 9 9 9 / / / / / /      A B / / / / / / / / / / / / e

9

2 0 2 1 1 1

1 9 9 3 3 1 3 3 9 3 5 7

ech

/ / / / / / / / / / / / 9 1 1 1 1 1 0 3A i / / / / / /      Tonj n 3 n 3 7 2 5 1 8 9 1 2 8 2 9 7 1 Sub- Sub- State

L 5 7 9 9 3 3

2 2 3 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2

County County

1 1 2 1 0 1 Ruw      Sub-total popula popula

 6/ 12/ 99   UNICEF Thiet 31 31 27 3 27 3 1         

 574 196 67 311 396 169 141 47 36 30 4              

 70.1% 29.9% 75.0% 25.0% 54.5% 45.5% Gogrial County 15/12/94 UNICEF Akon 52 38 12 2 36 14 27 10 7 4 2 19/10/96 SCF Akon 6 6 5 1 5 1 16/10/97 SCF Akon 23 14 7 2 14 8 11 2 1 6 1 81 58 19 4 55 23 43 13 8 10 3               

 70.5% 29.5% 76.8% 23.2% 44.4% 55.6% Wau no data County Sub-total 655 254 86 315 451 192 184 60 44 40 7

  3B           

     70.1% 29.9% 75.4% 24.6% 52.4% 47.6% Sub- populatio n 3C Twic County 12/3/98 VSF-CH Twic 18 10 8 0 18 12/3/98 VSF-CH Twic 19 10 9 5 0 2 3 14              

     37 20 17 0 0 5 0 2 0 3 32               

 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% Aweil East County 15/12/96 VETAID Wunlang 40 15 25 22 18 7 8 15 10 18/12/96 VETAID Wunlang 32 20 12 22 10 19 1 3 9 18/12/96 VETAID Malualakon 8 8 5 2 1 13/10/97 SCF Wathmuok 33 12 19 2 9 24 5 7 3 16

 2 /3/9 9   VSF-CH A. East 16 10 6 0 16         

 129 57 62 10 58 54 31 16 21 35 17              

 51.8% 48.2% 66.0% 34.0% 37.5% 62.5% Aweil West County

 23 /2/ 99   UNICEF A. West 21 14 7 6 14 4 10 2 4 1          

 21 14 7 0 6 14 4 10 2 4 1

21

0 5

2 4 2 2 5 6

% % % % %

6

2

7 6 0 7 1 0 4 0 4 . . . . . 4 1 6 4 0 6 9 0.0% 6 6 8 6 4

%

% % % % %

0

0

3

3 4 0 3 9 . 1 2 1 1 1 3 . . . . . 2 0 1 3 5 0 3 0 0 3 3 2 3 5 1

%

1

8

0

2

0 1 2 7 1 . 2 3 2 1 4 71.4% 44.4% 13.5% 14.3% 22.0% 1 100.0%

0 0

5

5

5 0 8 3 0 3 3 4 1 4 1 0.0% 28.6% 55.6% 86.0% 86.5% 85.7% 78.0%

% % % % % % % 1

7 3 0

6 1 2 0 0 3 0 3 7 8 5 1 1 ...... 7 1 5 1 1 2 3 3 0 3 4 9 0 9 6 7 5 1 1 2 2

1 7

5

4 0

2 6 9 2 9 1 3 6 1 1 4 1 8 1 30.0% 46.7% 37.0% 86.0% 80.7% 79.3% 70.2% 22

2

0 5 5

5 0

1 1 2 2 2 1 4

4

6

7 2 4 2 3 5 8 2

3

2

9

1

2 1 2 9 2 5 9 5 2 5 1

a a a

t t t

8

a a a 7 5

9

4

9 5 3 7 d d d 8 4 4 5

2 2 2 1 5 2 1 1 o o o 1 n n n

a i r

r t u p p d o

b a a n i i k l l u m A A A a M T

B C B D G Q I G

A

m m m a a a f f f x

x x

VET UNICEF

O O O        

      



io

io io

7 7 7

t

t t

ek

7 9

9 9 9         E A / / / 9 9

/ /

4 3 4

/ / / 7 5 3E uba 3C mb n 3 / /          mbura rekeka n 3 n 4 2 5 6 Sub- Yirol Sub- J

2 4 e 2 2 2 Mundri

County County County County County County County Yambio Ru Ta        T  Sub-total Sub-total popula popula Summary Popula

Maridi no data County

 6/ 10/ 99   UNICEF Morobo 7 5 2 3 4 3 2         

 42.9% 57.1% 60.0% 40.0% Sub-total 20 5 3 12 15 5 3 2 3 0 0 4A               

     75.0% 25.0% 60.0% 40.0% 100.0% 0.0% Sub- populatio n 4C Kajo Keji no data County Populatio 20 5 3 12 15 5 3 2 3 0 0 n 4

Summary             

     75.0% 25.0% 60.0% 40.0% 100.0% 0.0%   East of 1179 579 280 293 854 312 459 111 169 109 13 the Nile    (1+2)          

 73.2% 26.8% 80.5% 19.5% 60.8% 39.2%      West of 1268 597 247 424 842 356 433 123 113 106 65 the Nile

 (3+4)            

     70.3% 29.7% 77.9% 22.1% 51.6% 48.4%   Southern 2447 1176 527 717 1696 668 892 234 282 215 78

 Suda  n      

     71.7% 28.3% 79.2% 20.8% 56.7% 43.3%

23