Community-based animal health approaches have made a considerable contribution to the global eradication of rinderpest. The combination of appropriate technology, community participation, and international rinderpest eradication gave programmes a broad-based appeal that attracted the attention of communities, governments, NGOs, international agencies, universities, research facilities, and donors. Such a diverse range of organisations invariably brings together a motley assortment of individual perspectives. The process has resulted in a significant exchange of ideas and an increased understanding of the need for alternative methods to meet a common goal. No one involved doubts the need for strong conventional veterinary capacities. However experience has shown that they are not enough to do the job in traditional production systems. Programmes must respond to the livestock owners’ needs in order to succeed and this means that an element of local control must be included.

As conventional mass vaccination campaigns had repeatedly ailed in remote pastoral communities such as the Afar of Ethiopia, the Karamajong in Uganda, Nilotic peoples of southern Sudan, and Arab and Fulani communities in eastern Chad, field studies using a participatory approach were undertaken to understand disease priorities, the dynamics of rinderpest, and the root cause of the repeated failure of vaccination campaigns in each area.

The studies highlighted how conventional vaccination was offered:

• at inappropriate times relative to grazing schedules and bodily conditions;

• at insecure locations;

• for too short a period of time; or

• not at all in some sub-sections of the community.

Veterinary staff often acknowledged these local concerns but noted that their budgets were woefully inadequate and that when money did become available, it was often at the wrong time of year relative to the farmers’ needs. In several countries it was found that government or project accounting cycles determined the timing of campaigns. Teams went to the field, fuel and allowances were spent, but the cattle simply were not there.

It was clear that a major communication gap existed between the livestock owners and veterinary services, which created a loss of confidence on both sides. Veterinary staff were rarely from the local community and often did not have an appreciation of the needs and mobility of the production system, especially in the case of pastoral communities. Also, the community structure, leadership, and conflicts were often not fully understood. Knowledge of entry points for dialogue and decision-making was lacking – veterinary staff often did not realise that services were not offered in a way that allowed livestock owners to utilise them.

Further discussion with livestock owners revealed how they identified the training of local community members, working under the guidance of the veterinary department, as a good solution for their lack of services. This led to the idea that community-based animal health workers (CAHWs) could be trained in basic animal health care and rinderpest vaccination.