Table 7.

Interventions discussed by different stakeholders to increase pyrethroid use

Possible intervention	Main strengths	Main weaknesses
More sensitisation to communities	Education can address the many information gaps in disease transmission, the rationale for pyrethroid use and improve application strategies	Sensitisation has been on-going sporadically since 1998. Requires long-term engagement through repeated campaigns to significantly alter behaviour
		The nature of poverty in a subsistence-level economy will mean that the cheapest product will attract the most support
Creation of village bylaws	Creates collective ownership and a locally agreed enforcement strategy	Difficult to implement and sustain since the region is still recovering from decades of conflict and economic marginalisation
		Most communities are not willing or able to enforce spraying routines collectively
Encouragement of private sprayers	Increases supply of pyrethroids through the private market	Services are available in many areas but face challenges since farmers spray at different intervals
	Cattle can be organised every month for village-wide spraying	People support mass cattle treatments if they are free of charge or subsidised
	Strengthens access to veterinary services	Sprayer groups, such as those established through SOS, require incentives to reach the poorest communities and to make spray services a viable business as selling other veterinary services to farmers is seen to be more lucrative
	Provides local skills development and employment
Cultivation of community spray groups	Group motivation facilitates compliance	Has been used in the past with little success
	Government/NGOs provide initial free inputs	Groups often fall apart due to insufficient local ownership
Rehabilitation of dips	Transfer of responsibility to government	Population density prevents/deters farmers from the movement of cattle
	Regular full body wash	User fees do not have local support
		People would rather spray according to their own schedule
Subsidise pyrethroid products	Equalises the perceived discrepancy in price (ml for ml) between pyrethroids and amitraz compounds	Requires continued outside financial support from public or private bodies
		Removal or alteration of subsidy can become a barrier to uptake and adoption
Educate veterinary shops and animal health workers	Relatively quick and can improve the skills of animal health workers	Shop owners and animal health workers already understand the benefits of pyrethroids but stock amitraz to meet customer demand
Government restriction of amitraz acaricides	Fastest solution that would avoid difficulties of facilitating behaviour change from farmers	In a liberalised economy, market restriction requires support from the central government, which could take a long time
Informal regulation of the market	Avoids the need for behaviour change and engaging in formal policy change	Requires political will at the district level