How MCF is Impacting Namibia's Remaining Blue Wildebeest

Blue Wildebeest in Etosha National Park

Malignant Catarrhal Fever (MCF), otherwise known as Snotsiekte in Namibia & South Africa, greatly impacts both nature reserves and cattle farmers in the region, with little agreement between sides. Recently imposed, poorly researched legislation enforcing a 10 m double fence on farms where wildebeest are kept have devastating consequences not just the landowner, but also on the ecosystem as a whole. This article dives into the reality of the situation, and the evidence behind why these regulations are unnecessary.

Background Information:

The Blue Wildebeest (connochaetes taurinus) were once one of the most numerous grazing herbivores species in northern Namibia, occupying most of the western 70% of the country (over 142 million acres), likely in their hundreds of thousands. But since the late 1500's, the expansion of cattle farming by early European settlers greatly diminished these populations, restricting the remaining animals north of the Namibian Veterinary fence. South of the fence, cattle & sheep farms now occupy most of their historic range and though some individuals occur on game farms south of the fence, many cattle producers strongly opposing their return. Not only can they compete directly with livestock for food and water, but Blue Wildebeest also better adapted to the desert heat and vegetation, a factor that's leading many farmers to switch to game farming as aridification spreads across the country.

Hence in 1987 the Namibian Directorate of Veterinary Services issued a regulation aimed at minimizing the risk of MCF outbreaks in cattle. These, in a nutshell, were......

1. To create a disease buffer zone, all wildebeest had to be kept in camps separated from neighbouring properties by a second fence at least 10m from the first. This also applied to neighbouring game farms each stocking wildebeest, and farms bordering National Parks (defying logic)

2. Specific fencing requirements were laid down for wildebeest camps (7 strands of wire etc.) and only game farms/camps complying with these requirements would, following a DVS inspection, be registered as wildebeest camps.

3. All movement of wildebeest to be limited to, and from specified, registered wildebeest camps certified by the department. No wildebeest may be moved without a permit issued by Veterinary Services

Even though sheep are internationally considered a significant source of MCF infections in cattle, the regulations made no mention of sheep and their role in the disease, nor are any control measures in place concerning sheep and cattle contact.

Around 2015 there were intensive discussions and meetings involving the Namibia Professional Hunting Association (NAPHA), DVS and Namibia Agricultural Union (NAU), where alternative means of MCF control and especially compensation schemes were discussed. During these meetings, it became clear that especially the NAU and Livestock Producers Organization (LPO) were the main driving force insisting on the double fence regulation being enforced, despite of the absence of scientific support for such measures.

Following legal investigation led by NAPHA, it was found that the “regulation” enforced by DVS was actually a non-binding internal memo and that couldn't be enforced. This was followed by a few years during which DVS could not enforce their “regulation” and frequently issued transport permits for wildebeest to non-registered farms and camps. This ended In December 2018, when the Double Fence Regulation was written into law and now stringently enforced by the DVS. This law was passed without any public consultation, likely a deliberate act to avoid the numerous objections to the issue.

What is the MCF?

Malignant catarrhal fever, commonly also referred to as MCF or Snotsiekte, is caused by a group of viruses similar to the Herpes virus that has a world-wide distribution. The two most important viruses causing MCF in cattle are the Alcelaphine Herpesvirus 1 (AlHV-1) found in wildebeest, and the ovine herpesvirus 2 (OvHV-2) found in sheep. Both wildebeest and sheep are asymptomatic carriers of the disease (they do not get sick). Within the natural wildebeest distribution range in Africa, AlHV-1 is the most important (but not only) source of infection of cattle, whereas the OvHV-2 strain is responsible for many MCF outbreaks in buffalo in SA, as well as the vast majority of MCF infections outside of the African continent.

In cattle, MCF is has low morbidity and high mortality (few animals in a herd are infected but most that do die). MCF symptoms, though suggestive are not diagnostic for the disease, since they are also commonly seen with bacterial pneumonia, bovine viral diarrhea (BVD), infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR) and importantly, foot and mouth disease (FMD). Disease outbreaks often result in conflict situations developing between cattle- and game ranchers, with claims for compensation potentially ending up in court.

One important thing to note about MCF is that because it is global in distribution, it poses no risk to the export permits that Namibia have obtained to legally send their cattle to the EU. Hence, it does not impact the industry as a whole, but rather just a few individuals out of neighbouring herds.

How is it transmitted:

The carrier hosts (wildebeest or sheep) shed the virus into the environment via oral, nasal, and possibly ocular secretions. The susceptible hosts are infected through inhalation and ingestion of virus-laden secretions following close contact with the carrier, however infections of MCF have occurred in cattle with no carrier hosts present within kilometres. An arthropod vector (e.g., fly or midges etc.) is likely playing a significant role in this regard. Since cattle do not shed the virus, they are considered a dead-end host, which eliminates the risk of cattle to cattle transfer of MCF.

The important thing to not is that MCF shedding doesn't occur at a consistent rate throughout the wildebeests life. Instead, the most intense shedding period occurring in the first 4 months of the animals life, and then significantly decreases by around 120 days old. Additionally, vertical transmission (between the calf and it's mother) is extremely rare. What this means is that there's a 4 month "season" for this disease each year, for cattle ranchers to move their stock away from wildebeest calving grounds.

There are also a number of factors the rate of spread and prevalence within a population. These include...

1. Viral stability under local environmental conditions - The MCF virus is unstable in the environment (outside the host) and, in hot, dry weather loses over 99.9% of its infectivity within 3 hours. This fact likely accounts for a low incidence of MCF in Namibia when compared to other regions of Africa.

2. Spatial considerations - close contact between the carrier and susceptible species, and a cool, moist environment increase the risk of disease transmission.

3. Stressful situations in the carrier host increases virus shedding, while stress experienced by cattle will increase their susceptibility to MCF infection.

How many MCF cases occur per year?

Cumulative Monthly Incidence of MCF in Namibia 2018-2023

In a report published by Wildlife Vets Namibia, over a six-year period (between 2018-2023) only 106 samples were submitted to the CVL for PCR testing. Of these, 26 tested positive for MCF of wildebeest origin and 2 of MCF of sheep origin (from the Khomas region). Even though very few samples were submitted, you can clearly identify the months April to August as high-risk months in Namibia.

Similarly in South Africa, the wildebeest-associated MCF mostly occurs in the Limpopo and North West provinces, and demonstrates two distinct peaks. The first peak is associated with the wildebeest calving season in December and January and occurs from January to May, with the highest numbers in early April. A second, more important peak, occurs from September to November and correlates with the weaning of wildebeest calves and the mating season a few months earlier.

Though this number is likely considerably smaller than the actual number of cases across the country, it does indicate that the disease is relatively rare, especially considering the vast number of both cattle and sheep in Namibia (2.5 million & 2.4 million respectively).

Are Double Fences an Effective Solution?

The thought pattern behind double fences is that if you can separate all physical contact between cattle and wildebeest, you can eliminate the possibility of transmission between the two species. But as discussed above, the nature of the disease indicates otherwise, and may actually exacerbate the problem.

You see, even with a double fence, you are still going to get disease transmission, because flies don't care at all about fences. As long as there are cattle within a 5,000 m radius of the wildebeest herd, there will always be a reasonable chance of disease transmission, even though it will occur at a very low rate.

But the true negative impact lies in practical implications of constructing wildebeest camps. Since double wildebeest fence costs over 34,000 NAD per km (around $1,800 USD), even a small 400 hectare camp (barely appropriate for a small herd of wildebeest) can cost nearly 1 million NAD ($55,000 USD). Because of this, game farmers are forced to dramatically reduce the roaming space for wildebeest into ecologically unnaturally small camps, where each individual is in close contact at all times. And with close contact, not only does the rate of bodily fluid sharing increase, but so also does the overall stress level of the herd, two factors that actually increase the rate of transmission. Hence, all the additional effort, expense, and time of approving wildebeest camps with double fences puts an unnecessary economic strain on game farmers, and produces no positive outcomes for either parties.

What are some more ecologically sound alternatives?

By moving cattle away from wildebeest during the calving season, you can greatly reduce the chance of MCF transmission.

To answer this, we need to look at a nation at the other side of the continent, that today hosts the largest remaining populations of Blue Wildebeest on the planet. Tanzania. Home to nearly 2 million free ranging blue wildebeest, along with an additional 33.9 million cattle and 33 million goats and sheep, the peoples of this nation have considerable experience dealing with the disease transmission risks of livestock and wildlife interacting. In order to minimize the window of disease transmission, the semi-nomadic pastoralist communities of the Serengeti grasslands would move their herds 10+ km away, avoiding the wildebeest calving season almost completely. Though this scale of movement is likely unachievable by most cattle producers, traditional knowledge like this does indicate that creating a effective spatial barrier of the behalf of the cattle is the best solution, rather than fencing the two apart.

The next best solution is a vaccine, administered to the cattle population, that can stop disease transmission in the first place. Though there currently doesn't exist a commonly available vaccine, but in 2016 a vaccine was trialed on cattle populations in Tanzania, and was shown to provide partial protection to cattle against MCF, reducing the rate of infection by 56%. A vaccine like this would not only be more effective than double fencing regulations, but it would also be substantially cheaper, saving significant money for Namibian game ranchers and wildlife reserves.

What's been the economic & ecological loss to game farmers and reserves?

Currently, The trophy hunting industry makes up around 14% of the tourism industry (and around 3.2% of Namibia's total economy). And as the country continues to suffer from the impacts of increased desertification (likely caused by climate change), drought-tolerant wildlife serves an essential role as not only a revenue source, but as a renewable food source. Part of making game reserves economically viable (both high and low fence operations), landowners rely on low inputs to reduce overheads, whilst maintaining the integrity of the ecosystems they occupy. Strict double fencing regulations for wildebeest heavily undermines this.

You see, many game ranches prefer to erect their wildebeest camp in one corner of their farm, and due to cost constraints these camps are small (sometimes as small as 400 ha) and are inadvertently over-stocked (facilitating overgrazing an erosion) to allow enough trophy production. For a species that usually ranges over millions of acres in massive herds, these small camps are incredibly stressful, and with increased stress comes increased virus excretion and a increased risk of cattle infliction. This problem is so evident, that it's highly likely that wildebeest camps may actually increase the risk of MCF outbreaks on neighbouring farms.

Additionally, since the double fence rule has been enforced, the demand for live wildebeest has declined drastically, resulting in a dramatic drop in prices obtained through the sale. Game farmers with big herds of wildebeest suddenly have a asset with minimal market value, that costs more to maintain than they earn of it's harvest. So despite the fact that Namibia contains millions of acres of viable wildebeest habitat, some of the most of any nation in Southern Africa, populations are now falling dramatically.

What would the economic gain of more Wildebeest on the landscape?

Currently in Namibia, value is derived from two key revenue sources, Trophy Hunting and ecotourism. The trophy value is easiest measure, with most trophy quality wildebeest bulls generating around $800-$1,200 USD per animal, and cull animals selling for a bit less, at around $300-500 USD. The ecotourism value is much harder to measure, as it can't be measured on a per-animal basis, but rather the value of entire herds. The presence Blue Wildebeest likely won't create much additional value for ecotourism operators, but in areas where they gather in large numbers, such as Etosha national park or the Famous Serengeti migration, they can be a major attraction.

Purely on an trophy and meat basis, a single Blue Wildebeest bull brings in around 1.5-3x the price of the average cattle produced in areas of low fertility and rainfall, and 5-16 x the value of a sheep or goat raised in the same region. This is despite each wildebeest consuming significantly less food or water (around half as much as a cow) requiring almost no overhead costs to produce compared to cattle, and being significantly better at surviving against predators and the elements compared to sheep and goats. So the economic upside for not only for wildlife only game reserves, but also traditionally livestock based farmers looking to diversify the free-ranging wildlife revenue. But with wildebeest populations currently being suppressed by unnecessary restrictions, this potential economic gain is currently unrealized.

Finding Solutions:

In a country with abundant wilderness, finding a balance between livestock and Wildlife in Namibia will always be a contentious issue. On both sides, there has to be a give and take, to balance the economic needs of the nation, with the needs of the environment that sustains it's people. But opting for exclusionary tactics, where Blue Wildebeest are banned from inhabiting such a huge area of the country and confined to small enclosures, is not balance at all.

At Faunus, we are dedicated towards blending biodiversity conservation with economics, and creating value out of wildlife is the best way to do that. Because of this, we'll always advocate for wildebeest to be allowed to roam free range, as they did for thousands of years prior to European arrival in Namibia. This benefits communities, local economies that depend on their presence for both Hunting & Ecotourism, and it benefits the ecosystem as a whole.