The objective of this paper is to stimulate debate on the factors that
determine when, where and how it might be appropriate to involve
communities in tsetse control operations. Its purpose is not, therefore,
to advocate community participation in all situations but rather to
provide a framework to facilitate decision-making.
In recent years the participation of local communities in tsetse control
has been widely promoted and is even a prerequisite for funding by many
donors. This emphasis on community management of tsetse control reflects
policy changes in other areas of natural resource management where
communal resources are involved. However, in the case of tsetse control,
little attention has been paid to the context within which community
participation is expected to operate and to the appropriateness of
participation as a strategy in different contexts. The discussion has
focused on technical issues, and not only have community aspects been
overlooked but the role and capacity of other partners which are
necessarily involved in any control exercise have also been ignored
and/or taken for granted.
This article explores these issues in cases where traps and targets are
the principal technologies being proposed for tsetse control. Although
some other technologies have also been implemented with a degree of
community participation, the specific properties of traps and targets
and their use raise a number of unique issues, such as the necessity for
a coordinated group effort, since individual action has been
ineffective. The article therefore pays particular attention to how
programmes have approached this problem, although much of the discussion
will be equally applicable to other situations where community
involvement is under consideration. It begins with a brief overview of
programmes with an element of community participation, followed by a
discussion of variables to be considered in determining appropriate
strategies and developing action plans based on task sharing by the
various partners involved. It concludes by highlighting major concerns
and suggests how the planning process might move forward. The discussion
is based on documentation from the FAO Regional Tsetse and
Trypanosomiasis Control Programme (RTTCP) and individual tsetse control
pro-grammes in sub-Saharan Africa in addition to the authors' own
ongoing comparative study in Kenya, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
Information on projects visited during the course of this study is
provided in Table 1.
K Barrett, C Okali. Partnerships for tsetse control: community participation and other options. World Animal Review (FAO) (1998) 90: 39-46.
Partnerships for tsetse control: community participation and other options