Taking Stock: Camels on land, canoes in water
Members of a camel herd kept outside Nairobi, Kenya at the Kapiti Research Station & Wildlife Conservancy, owned and run by the International Livestock Research Institute (photo credit: ILRI/Paul Karaimu).
The survivor species—Chico Harlan, Rael Ombuor and Malin Fezehai
Having lost many of their cattle, traditional herders are trying out a milk-producing animal that is more resilient to climate change . . . .
Cows, here and across much of Africa, have been the most important animal for eons—the foundation of economies, diets, traditions.
But now grazable land is shrinking. Water sources are drying up. A three-year drought in the Horn of Africa that ended last year killed 80 percent of the cows in this part of Kenya and shattered the livelihoods of so many people.
‘. . . The regional government had purchased the camels from traders near the border with Somalia, at $600 per head. So far 4,000 camels, as part of that program, have been distributed across the lowlands of the county, speeding up a shift that had already been happening for decades across several other cattle-dependent parts of Africa. A handful of communities, particularly in Kenya and Ethiopia, are in various stages of the transition, according to academic studies.
‘The global camel population has doubled over the last 20 years, something the U.N. agency for agriculture and investment attributes partly to the animal’s suitability amid climate change. In times of hardship, camels produce more milk than cows.
Many cite an adage: The cow is the first animal to die in a drought; the camel is the last.
‘. . . Camels can go two weeks without water, as opposed to a day or two for a cow. They can lose 30 percent of their body weight and survive, one of the highest thresholds for any large animal. Their body temperatures fluctuate in sync with daily climate patterns. When they pee, their urine trickles down their legs, keeping them cool. When they lie down, their leathery knees fold into pedestals that work to prop much of their undersides just above the ground, allowing cooling air to pass through.
One recently published paper, perhaps straying from science to reverence, called them a “miracle species.”
“They’re unparalleled in terms of domestic animals.”
— Piers Simpkin, the Nairobi-based global livestock adviser for Mercy Corps
‘And yet in much of Africa—for much of human history—their attributes haven’t been needed. For centuries, they’ve resided primarily in the driest outer ring of the continent, while cows—outnumbering camels in Africa 10 to 1—reigned in the lush river plains, in the highlands. Kenya, where the landscape can turn from green to reddish and back in an hour’s drive, has long been a middle ground: a place where some tribes use camels and more use cows, with identities forming around that choice. Because of that, neighboring tribes see the consequences of using one animal vs. the other. That has seemingly transformed Samburu County—an area the size of New Jersey that is home to the Samburu tribe—into an experiment on how livestock fare, and how humans respond, in a warming climate. . .
‘[T]here has been very little backlash to the government’s camel program, which started eight years ago. Some are also obtaining their own camels by trading cattle at markets.
Pastoralists—people who move with their livestock herds—are often described as among the most vulnerable people in the world to climate change, and their fortunes can swing based on the decisions they make about which animals to keep.
‘A 2022 research paper published in Nature Food, analyzing a huge belt of land across northern sub-Saharan Africa, noted increased heat stress and reduced water availability in some areas and said milk production would benefit from a higher proportion of camels, as well as goats, which are also more climate-resilient than cows. Camel milk is a comparable substitute for cow’s milk. It tends to be lower in fat and higher in certain minerals, said Anne Mottet, the lead livestock specialist at the International Fund for Agricultural Development. Many say it has a saltier taste. . . .’
washingtonpost.com | @WashingtonPost | @chicoharlan | @awuorombuor | @malinfezehai
West Africa’s falling fish stocks: illegal Chinese trawlers, climate change and artisanal fishing fleets to blame—Robert Paarleberg
Average fish catches by traditional fishing communities along the west African coast have declined significantly over the past three decades.
‘Along the Gulf of Guinea, stretching from Côte d'Ivoire to Nigeria, fishers launch their wooden canoes from the beach to catch small pelagic fish, like sardines and anchovies, which they sell into local informal markets to make a living. They have done this for generations, but since the 1990s, a decline in the catch has put their livelihoods at risk.
‘In Ghana, total landings of small pelagic fish fell by 59% between 1993 and 2019, despite increased fishing efforts. Landings of Sardinella aurita, a favoured species, declined from 119,000 tonnes in 1992 to just 11,834 tonnes in 2019.
‘Côte d’Ivoire has experienced a parallel fisheries decline, with its catch plummeting nearly 40% between 2003 and 2020.
‘The continuing decline in fish catches has serious implications for some of the poorest families in the region. Ghana, for example, has more than 200,000 active fishers. More than two million others along the value chain, including thousands of women who process and sell fish at markets along the coast, are now at risk as well. Already living at or below the international poverty line (US$2.15 per person per day), these communities now face further income loss. In essence, they are falling deeper into poverty.
I have researched food and agricultural policy in a dozen African countries over the past three decades, but the current west African coastal fishing crisis in the Gulf of Guinea is complex because it has multiple and reinforcing origins: climate change, illegal fishing by China, and too many African canoes in the water.
‘. . . Among the multiple threats from climate change, ocean warming is probably the least appreciated. Plenty of warming is experienced on land, but roughly 90% of the extra heat trapped by greenhouse gas is absorbed into the ocean. . . .
‘Fish are cold-blooded, so if the water becomes too warm the only means they have to regulate their body temperature is to move away. This is what they have been doing along the warming equatorial currents in the Gulf of Guinea, and it accounts for some of the fish catch decline. . . .
One study found that the maximum catch potential for Ghana, Côte d’Ivoire and Nigeria would be reduced 50% by mid-century, compared to a zero ocean warming scenario. . . .
‘Lax regulation of international fishing trawlers is a second source of the recent fish catch decline. . . . Chinese companies, thinly disguised as Ghanaian companies, currently own over 90% of Ghana’s licensed bottom trawlers. The Chinese vessels are damaging fish stocks by using illegal nets to catch too many undersized fish, including juveniles that have not yet had a chance to reproduce. . . . [M]ost of the fish they catch are exported, adding almost nothing to national food supplies.
‘Traditional fisherfolk in west Africa like to blame Chinese trawlers for diminished stocks of fish, but the increased fishing activities of their own canoes have been at least as damaging.
In west Africa there are now seven times as many canoes engaged in ocean fishing as there were in 1950. Today’s canoes have larger nets and bigger crews, and many have powerful outboard engines.
‘This expansion of the region’s artisanal fishing fleet has been driven by powerful demographic trends, including rapid rates of population growth plus steady human migrations towards the coast to escape impoverished rural farming. . . . Having more people on the coast increases commercial demand for fish consumption while providing the added labour needed to catch, process and market the fish. . . .
‘Most traditional fishing communities will have to find new sources of income to survive. This won’t be easy since roughly 40% of coastal fishermen in Ghana and Nigeria have no formal education. Non-fishing jobs will increase in the fast-growing coastal economy. If the children of today’s fishing families stay in school long enough to complete a secondary education, most will be able to make the shift.
One policy measure to keep them in school would be to provide monthly cash transfers conditioned on school enrolment and attendance. Such conditional cash transfers have been producing results in other low- and middle-income regions. Data from 75 reports drawing on 35 studies show that conditional cash transfer policies can lead to a 60% increase in school enrolment.
‘. . . For fishing communities threatened by falling fish stocks, this might be a path to future livelihood protection.’
theconversation.com | @TC_Africa
Plans to expand African vaccine production face steep hurdles—Jon Cohen (h/t Helga Recke)
Moderna’s pause on Kenya project highlights difficulties in creating a competitive vaccine sector on the continent
‘In March 2022, when the pandemic was still raging, the messenger RNA (mRNA) company Moderna announced it would build a $500 million plant in Kenya to manufacture half a billion doses of its COVID-19 vaccine annually. “This is major,” Kenyan President William Ruto said at the time. The plant would help reduce Africa’s dependence on vaccines produced elsewhere, Ruto said—a situation that had turned disastrous during the pandemic—and bring economic benefits as well.
‘But Moderna may never break ground on the Kenya factory. On 11 April, the company said it had “paused its efforts” because not a single African country had ordered its COVID-19 vaccine since 2022, leading to $1 billion in losses and write-offs. The move triggered a bitter reaction from the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (Africa CDC), which said, “Moderna is abandoning a commitment to build highly needed and relevant vaccine manufacturing capabilities in Africa.”
‘Moderna’s decision is a reality check of sorts for other schemes to increase vaccine production on the continent. Many are underway, including facilities in Rwanda, Senegal, and South Africa by the other big mRNA vaccine company, BioNTech, and an up to $1 billion investment by Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. But there is no longer much demand for COVID-19 vaccines in Africa, and shots for many other diseases prevalent there are already produced cheaply and in large volumes elsewhere, making it hard to establish a market for local manufacturers. The continent also faces a lack of trained workers and weak regulatory systems for medical products.
Producing more vaccines in Africa “is a moral imperative, and it’s economically difficult,” says Martin Friede, head of vaccine research at the World Health Organization (WHO). “So we are struck between a rock and a hard place.”
‘The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the harsh inequities in vaccine access like never before. Rich countries purchased far more doses than they needed, whereas India, home of the largest producers of shots meant for developing countries, blocked their export in March 2021 to deal with its own COVID-19 surge. By the end of 2021, when wealthy countries had fully vaccinated most of their populations, fewer than 20% of Africans had received at least one dose.
‘Establishing vaccine manufacturing plants in Africa—which currently imports 99% of all of the vaccines it uses—could help prevent this from happening again. The facilities could produce vaccines against measles, malaria, hepatitis, and other diseases during normal years and—hopefully—churn out whatever specific product is needed when the next pandemic hits. In addition to Gavi’s pledge, governments, philanthropies, and multilateral organizations have promised at least $3.5 billion to help realize this goal, according to a recent analysis by the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI). . .’
science.org | @ScienceMagazine | @sciencecohen
Global vaccine access demands combating both inequity and hesitancy—Peter Hotez
Abstract
’The world’s population suffered from lack of access to COVID-19 vaccines. Although inequities in vaccine availability for low- and middle-income countries are widely cited as a component of this lack of access, there is a related but less discussed component: vaccine refusal or hesitancy. Regarding the first component (global vaccine inequities), there are multiple dimensions to this topic and its causes, but for low- and middle-income countries, the most glaring one resulted from upstream science policies that prioritized speed and innovation at the expense of technologies that could be produced by low- and middle-income country vaccine producers. Regarding the second component (vaccine refusal or hesitancy), as COVID-19 waves swept across the United States in 2021, thousands of unvaccinated Americans perished from refusing COVID-19 immunizations. These deaths occurred because of an expanding antiscience ecosystem that now extends into low- and middle-income countries and could block the uptake of new vaccines or routine childhood immunizations. Future vaccine policies must address both elements of global access and their political identities. This recommendation reflects the author’s experiences as a vaccine scientist who both develops affordable COVID-19 and neglected disease vaccines and lives on the front lines combating vaccine refusal.
‘Retrospective analyses of the COVID-19 pandemic revealed that COVID-19 immunizations were among the most effective tools in preventing deaths and severe illness. New effectiveness estimates that cover the pandemic period when vaccines initially became widely available are impressive. . . . Globally, vaccination programs in twelve large high- or middle-income countries . . . saved up to 1.8 million lives during the period January 1–November 14, 2021. . . . Another estimate found that between December 8, 2020, and December 8, 2021, vaccinations prevented 14.4 million deaths in 185 countries and territories. . . .
Dependence on multinational pharmaceutical companies too often resulted in commitments to supply new-technology COVID-19 vaccines for North American and European nations, leaving low- and middle-income countries largely without timely access to mRNA or particle vaccines or, in some cases, adenovirus-vectored vaccines. A key lesson learned is that exclusive reliance on new technologies also came at an opportunity cost: namely, high vaccine prices and an inability to produce them in adequate quantities for low- and middle-income countries in 2021, the first year of vaccine rollout. Therefore, a tragic legacy of the multinational pharmaceutical companies—Pfizer and Moderna for COVID-19 mRNA vaccines and Novavax for particle vaccines—was how they produced vaccines that were both expensive and delivered in quantities that were insufficient to address a global pandemic.
‘. . . In some cases, the lack of access to mRNA and particle vaccines for low- and middle-income countries during the first two years of the pandemic—what some termed “vaccine apartheid”—may have fueled mistrust in the intentions and motivations of the pharmaceutical industry or allowed misinformation to circulate on social media or other forms of communication. In this sense, vaccine equity is tightly connected to hesitancy. . . .
‘There are fears that the global vaccine ecosystem might not fully bounce back and recover. The reason is growing antivaccine activism, as health freedom propaganda contaminates some low- and middle-income countries in Africa and South Asia. This activism operates through both the mainstream and social media, often employing a type of inflammatory rhetoric similar to that which caused so many to shun vaccinations in North America.
Pandemic recovery will not be sufficient to resume global vaccination campaigns without simultaneously addressing antivaccine activism. . . .
The global system of vaccinating the world’s children is under threat from antivaccine activism that arose in the English-speaking world. . . .
healthaffairs.org | @PeterHotez
The pandemic cost 7 million lives, but talks to prevent a repeat stall—Frances Stead Sellers
‘In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met — some online, some in-person in Geneva — hoping to forestall a future worldwide outbreak by developing the first-ever global pandemic accord.
‘The deadline for a deal? May 2024.
‘The costs of not reaching one? Incalculable, experts say. An unknown future pathogen could have far more devastating consequences than SARS-CoV-2, which cost some 7 million lives and trillions of dollars in economic losses.
‘But even as negotiators pack in extra hours, the goal of clinching a legally binding pact by next month is far from certain — despite a new draft document being delivered in recent days. The main sticking point involves access to vital information about new threats that may emerge — and to the vaccines and medicines that could contain that threat. . . .
‘The chief point of contention involves pathogen access and benefit sharing. In many ways, the story of the fraught pandemic accord negotiations is the story of Henrietta Lacks—the African American patient whose cancer cells were used in research for years without her family’s knowledge—retold on a global stage. Who gets to use—and profit from—samples and scientific information, which often come from disadvantaged groups?
‘High-income countries want guarantees that samples and genetic data about any new pathogen will be quickly shared to allow for the development of tests, vaccines and treatments. Developing nations, where pathogens such as AIDS, Ebola and MERS emerged in recent decades, want guarantees of benefits, such as equal access to vaccines and collaboration with local scientists.
‘Almost 20 years ago, the Indonesian government forced those contrasting priorities to the forefront by refusing to share bird flu samples. WHO member states responded by creating the Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Framework, or PIP, under which key manufacturers agree to supply 10 percent of flu vaccines they make to the WHO for distribution.
‘No such agreement exists for other pathogens with pandemic potential. . . .
‘A new agreement, [Alexandra] Phelan said, could include an obligation to share genetic sequence data and factor in public health risks when determining how medical products are shared during an emergency. Unlike in earlier outbreaks, no need exists today to wait for a pathogen sample to arrive by mail in a test tube; work on vaccines and treatments can begin based on genetic sequencing attached to an email. . . .’
washingtonpost.com | @WashingtonPost | @FrancesSSellers
Study highlights heavy global burden of infectious diseases—Chris Dall
A study published this week in The Lancet Infectious Diseases highlights the substantial impact of infectious diseases on global health.
‘The analysis of data from 204 countries by researchers with the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation estimates that 85 pathogens accounted for 704 million disability-adjusted life years (DALYs)—the number of years lost from ill health, disability, or early deaths—globally in 2019. That figure accounts for 28% of 2.54 billion DALYs attributed to all causes in the 2019 Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study.
‘The impact of these pathogens was disproportionately seen in children. Nearly 44% of the DALYs attributed to pathogens (309 million) in 2019 occurred in children under the age of 5 years.
‘According to the World Health Organization, one DALY represents the loss of the equivalent of one full year of health.
‘The study authors say their methodologic approach captures the full impact of pathogens on mortality and disability and is the most inclusive approach used to date. And they believe that their estimates, which they say highlight some pathogens that are being overlooked, can help global health leaders target areas where more research, funding, and action are needed.
"We urgently call for further research in drug development, vaccinology, and pathogen biology to innovate and accelerate drug and vaccine development for the broader group of pathogens highlighted in these rankings," they wrote.
TB, malaria, HIV had biggest impact
‘Of the total 704 million DALYs attributed to the 85 pathogens, bacterial infections were associated with 415 million, viral infections with 178 million, parasitic infections with 172 million, and fungal infections with 18.5 million.
‘The three pathogens with the largest observed impact were those causing tuberculosis (TB, 65.1 million DALYs), malaria (53.6 million), and HIV or AIDs (52.1 million). Malaria parasites were the leading pathogens for DALYs in children under 5 (37.2 million).
‘But the study also found a substantial burden associated with Streptococcus pneumoniae (38.1 million DALYs), Staphylocococcus aureus (34.5 million), and Klebsiella pneumoniae (31.1 million). In fact, S aureus was a leading pathogen according to DALY burden in 64 of the 204 countries included in the study and was associated with the sixth highest DALY burden in children under 5. . . .
The impact from these pathogens was significantly larger in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) than in high- and upper-middle-income countries, where non-communicable diseases like cancer and heart disease account for a greater proportion of DALYs.
‘When grouped by super-region, the highest fraction of pathogen-associated DALYs was seen in sub-Saharan Africa (314 million DALYs, 61.5% of 511 million total DALYs) and the lowest in the high-income super-region (31.8 million, 9.8% of 324 million DALYs). The fraction of DALYs associated with pathogens was also high in South Asia.
‘The authors say the discrepancy between poor and wealthy nations can be attributed to poor sanitation, limited access to clean water, and poor hygiene in LMICs, along with notable differences in healthcare infrastructure and access to essential medicines. They also note that, of the 85 pathogens analyzed, vaccines are available for only 22. . . .’
cidrap.umn.edu | @CIDRAP | @cvdall
Shakuntala Thilsted: shifting our approach to food systems—Tamara Lucas (h/t Brian Perry)
‘Food scientist Shakuntala Haraksingh Thilsted, Director for Nutrition, Health and Food Security Impact Area Platform for the agricultural research group CGIAR, is best known for pioneering whole-system approaches in food studies that have shaped how food systems are studied. . . . Thilsted's interdisciplinary career has influenced global policy on food systems to include nourishment. Her contributions have been recognised by awards, including the World Food Prize in 2021. . . .
‘Another shift that Thilsted has tried to bring to global thinking is to study food through a cultural lens. “This was one of the things I insisted on at the UN Food Systems Summit 2021, that we have to include tradition, such that what we do incorporates scientific knowledge and new technologies, but as well, traditional knowledge and practices. . . .
Thilsted brings this expertise, including a lens of cultural justice, to her work as a Co-Chair of the EAT–Lancet 2.0 Commission. As she explains: “I want to bring nuance about different population groups.
There is a big focus on reducing animal foods, with which I agree, but also, for example, when you go to a village in Bangladesh, a mother's aspiration is to give their child an egg and cow's milk, because she truly believes it's important for the child's wellbeing and intelligence.
So finding a balance that brings nuance is new, vital, and offers solutions for all…Importantly, the EAT–Lancet 2.0 Commission now has a focus on social equity and justice and this will resonate very well, in many different countries.”. . .
thelancet.com | @TheLancet
The missing $1 trillion—David Gelles and Manuela Andreoni
‘For the past two years, world leaders, economists and activists have called for sweeping overhauls to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund that would make the two lending institutions more adept at combating climate change.
‘Discussions about how to reform lumbering multilateral bureaucracies can get tedious quickly. But ultimately the debates are all about money. How to make more money available for developing nations that are being battered by extreme weather? And how to make sure poor countries don’t spend too much money servicing their debt?
‘Experts estimate that at least $1 trillion a year is needed to help developing countries adapt to hotter temperatures and rising seas, build out clean energy projects and cope with climate disasters. . . .
‘Starting in 2022, a burst of activity had made the prospect of such a quantum leap seem within reach. . . . But at the annual spring meetings of the World Bank and the I.M.F., which are taking place in Washington this week, reality is setting in.
While more money has become available to address climate issues over the last year or so, the sweeping reforms many had envisioned are proving to be out of reach.
‘[M]uch of the challenge comes back to money. So far, the countries that control the World Bank—including the United States, Germany, China and Japan—have not allocated huge new sums for climate issues in the developing world, and the private sector has not stepped in to fill the gap.
“The numbers do not show the kind of progress that we really need,” said Rachel Kyte, a visiting professor at Oxford and former World Bank executive. “We’ve got to get a little bit more radical.”. . .
“There’s more financing going into renewable energy in developed markets, but it’s not going into emerging markets and developing economies,” Kyte said. “That’s the big problem.”
‘Nearly as important as making more money available for climate investment is finding ways to unburden poor countries from crushing loads of debt.
‘This year, developing countries will spend over $400 billion to service their debts, the highest sum they have paid in at least two decades. And there are no signs that wide-scale debt relief is being considered at the spring meetings this week. . . .’
nytimes.com | @nytimes | @dgelles | @manuelaandreoni
A revolution in helping Africa’s poor: Cash with no strings attached—Katherine Houreld
‘. . . Traditionally, aid agencies distributed items such as food, livestock and laptops, but a frequent mismatch between donations and need meant items were often sold, stolen, broken or wasted, various studies found. So donors are increasingly moving to cash. Studies have repeatedly shown that cash is the most efficient form of aid when markets are functioning. New technology such as mobile money makes it easy to send cash directly to the world’s poorest. Governments in Togo, Brazil, South Africa and Mexico have all introduced small cash payments for poor families.
‘Although cash and voucher programs are increasingly popular, growing from $6.6 billion in 2020 to $10 billion in 2022, they still account globally for only about 5 percent of development aid and just under 20 percent of humanitarian aid, according to a 2023 report by the CALP Network, a consortium of 90 aid groups. Such programs typically give out tiny monthly sums. They also sometimes carry conditions — such as school enrollment or vaccinations — and often suffer from “ineffective targeting, unsustainable funding, and irregular payment cycles,” economists Adam Salifu and Kennedy Makafui Kufoalor said in a 2024 study.
‘Paul Niehaus, co-founder of GiveDirectly, says cash transfers can’t replace traditional aid to build roads, police forces or hospitals, but they do give recipients more choices. Poor people usually know their needs better than a bureaucrat or aid worker, he said, and lump sums offer opportunities that stipends don’t. Tiny sums, he said, can stave off starvation but not transform a life. . . .
Aid to African countries totaled $53.5 billion in 2022—slightly more than half the $100 billion that the Brookings Institution last year estimated would be needed for direct cash transfers to eradicate extreme poverty globally. . . .
washingtonpost.com | @WashingtonPost
Arresting headlines
Bird flu is infecting more mammals. What does that mean for us?: H5N1, an avian flu virus, has killed tens of thousands of marine mammals, and infiltrated American livestock for the first time. Scientists are working quickly to assess how it is evolving and how much of a risk it poses to humans—New York Times (h/t Lynn Brown)
H5N1 bird flu in U.S. cattle: A wake-up call to action—STAT News
The testing approach to H5N1 in cattle needs to change substantially—LinkedIn/Tom Inglesby (h/t Lynn Brown)
USDA faulted for disclosing scant information about outbreaks of H5N1 avian flu in cattle: With 28 herds in eight states infected with H5N1, scientists are calling on the U.S. to release more data to help them assess the risk—STAT News
Lasers, inflatable dancers and the fight to fend off avian flu: Some poultry growers are turning to innovative tactics to protect their flocks, deploying deterrents like drones, air horns, balloons and decoy predators—New York Times
Why ‘One Health’ needs more social sciences: Pandemic prevention depends on behaviour as well as biology—The Conversation (h/t Lynn Brown)
African wild dogs will soon have their own sperm bank: How artificial breeding will help them survive—The Conversation
By 2100 half the world’s children will be born in sub-Saharan Africa: Fertility rates are falling faster everywhere else—The Economist
Drought pushes millions into ‘acute hunger’ in Southern Africa: The disaster, intensified by El Niño, is devastating communities across several countries, killing crops and livestock and sending food prices soaring—New York Times
Mutated strains of an unknown drug-resistant bacteria somehow got onto the International Space Station: It’s not clear how the space bacteria may affect the health of astronauts on the ISS—or humans back on Earth—Quartz