|HOME | DECISION TOOLS | TSETSE FAQ | BAIT TECHNOLOGIES | ABOUT US | SEARCH|
Management and socio-economics of tsetse control
Profitability of tsetse control
By profitability we mean here the relation between the costs to livestock-owners of a tsetse control technology, or combination of technologies, and their benefits. The benefits can also be viewed in practice, more or less, as the costs to livestock-owners of continuing to live with trypanosomiasis. Because any tsetse control strategy will involve a delay before tsetse populations drop to planned or acceptable levels, profitability, or lack of it, is best viewed in a medium-term timescale, after that initial decline. For economic issues relating to the period of decline, see entry/transitional costs.
The methodology presented is therefore to establish the costs to livestock owners of living with trypanosomiasis (for more information click here), and to compare them with the lowest cost per livestock-producer of tsetse control, as demonstrated by Tsetse Plan. If the costs of control are lower, there is a good case for continuing to plan control, even though other possible constraints such as transitional costs, cashflow, collective action and knowledge and attitudes will also have to be investigated and managed.
If the costs of tsetse control are greater than the costs of living with trypanosomiasis, it is highly unlikely that there will be any point in proceeding, unless government or implementing agencies are prepared to accept indefinite subsidy. This might occur where:
The profitability of tsetse control can be calculated in two ways: per head of cattle or per livestock-producer. If pour-ons are the main control technology under consideration, and because their costs are easily calculable per head of cattle, it may be easier to calculate the costs of trypanosomiasis also per head of cattle. With target technologies, it may be easier to calculate costs per livestock-producer.
While there is now a literature on the application of formal cost-benefit analyses to tsetse control (Kamuanga, 2003), we believe this can be largely by-passed in the case of small community-based programmes, for three reasons:
There is also a literature on the contingent valuation method of using large-scale structured surveys to establish “willingness to pay” for tsetse control (eg, Swallow & Woudyalew 1994; Kamuanga, 2003). This module has preferred to adopt a different approach, of establishing the various costs of living with trypanosomiasis, establishing the costs of tsetse control, and presenting the alternatives for the approval of the community, because:
For further informaton on identifying and calculating the costs of living
with trypanosomiasis click here.
Kamuanga, M. (2003). Socio-Economic and Cultural Factors in the research and Control of Trypanosomiasis. PAAT Technical and Scientific Series 4, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
Swallow, B.M. & Woudyalew, M. (1994). Evaluating willingness to contribute to a local public good - application of contingent valuation to tsetse control in Ethiopia. Ecological Economics 11, 153-161