Vulnerability of Peasant Farmers to Climate Variability and Change in Semi-Arid Ethiopia

Vulnerability study identifies the most vulnerable systems, regions, peoples, and the contributing factors to the vulnerability. Vulnerability study in climate change context is crucial to effectively and efficiently reduce the impacts of climate variability and change. This study assessed the vulnerability of peasant farmers to climate variability and change in semi-arid Ethiopia. The semi-arid zone was categorized into southern, central, and northern semi-arid. From each semi-arid zone, sample districts and sample peasant associations were selected respectively by manual lottery and purposive sampling techniques. 396 household surveys, 12 focus group discussions, and rainfall and temperature data were used for analysis. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was used as the main analysis technique to construct the vulnerability indices. The central semi-arid zone with the vulnerability index of -3.07 was highly vulnerable at χ²(2) =43.9986, P ≤ 0.05, while the northern semi-arid zone with the vulnerability index of 4.83 was the least vulnerable. The lack of access to a clean drinking water source, main road, and market center were among the factors that contributed to farmers’ vulnerability to climate variability and change in central semi-arid Ethiopia. The lack of access to information, small farmland holding size, and lack of multipurpose trees on the farmland are among the factors that have to be addressed in northern semi-arid even if it is relatively the least vulnerable. The level of farmers’ vulnerability to climate variability and change and the contributing factors to farmers’ vulnerability varies in semi-arid Ethiopia. Vulnerability reduction measures need to be specific to each semi-arid zone and priority needs to be given according to their degree of vulnerability. Keywords: Peasant Farmers, Vulnerability, Climate Change, Semi-Arid Ethiopia DOI: 10.7176/JEES/10-5-07 Publication date:May 31st 202

Emergence and spread of two SARS-CoV-2 variants of interest in Nigeria.

Identifying the dissemination patterns and impacts of a virus of economic or health importance during a pandemic is crucial, as it informs the public on policies for containment in order to reduce the spread of the virus. In this study, we integrated genomic and travel data to investigate the emergence and spread of the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.318 and B.1.525 (Eta) variants of interest in Nigeria and the wider Africa region. By integrating travel data and phylogeographic reconstructions, we find that these two variants that arose during the second wave in Nigeria emerged from within Africa, with the B.1.525 from Nigeria, and then spread to other parts of the world. Data from this study show how regional connectivity of Nigeria drove the spread of these variants of interest to surrounding countries and those connected by air-traffic. Our findings demonstrate the power of genomic analysis when combined with mobility and epidemiological data to identify the drivers of transmission, as bidirectional transmission within and between African nations are grossly underestimated as seen in our import risk index estimates

A year of genomic surveillance reveals how the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic unfolded in Africa.

The progression of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic in Africa has so far been heterogeneous, and the full impact is not yet well understood. In this study, we describe the genomic epidemiology using a dataset of 8746 genomes from 33 African countries and two overseas territories. We show that the epidemics in most countries were initiated by importations predominantly from Europe, which diminished after the early introduction of international travel restrictions. As the pandemic progressed, ongoing transmission in many countries and increasing mobility led to the emergence and spread within the continent of many variants of concern and interest, such as B.1.351, B.1.525, A.23.1, and C.1.1. Although distorted by low sampling numbers and blind spots, the findings highlight that Africa must not be left behind in the global pandemic response, otherwise it could become a source for new variants

The evolving SARS-CoV-2 epidemic in Africa: Insights from rapidly expanding genomic surveillance.

Investment in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) sequencing in Africa over the past year has led to a major increase in the number of sequences that have been generated and used to track the pandemic on the continent, a number that now exceeds 100,000 genomes. Our results show an increase in the number of African countries that are able to sequence domestically and highlight that local sequencing enables faster turnaround times and more-regular routine surveillance. Despite limitations of low testing proportions, findings from this genomic surveillance study underscore the heterogeneous nature of the pandemic and illuminate the distinct dispersal dynamics of variants of concern-particularly Alpha, Beta, Delta, and Omicron-on the continent. Sustained investment for diagnostics and genomic surveillance in Africa is needed as the virus continues to evolve while the continent faces many emerging and reemerging infectious disease threats. These investments are crucial for pandemic preparedness and response and will serve the health of the continent well into the 21st century

The evolving SARS-CoV-2 epidemic in Africa: Insights from rapidly expanding genomic surveillance

INTRODUCTION Investment in Africa over the past year with regard to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) sequencing has led to a massive increase in the number of sequences, which, to date, exceeds 100,000 sequences generated to track the pandemic on the continent. These sequences have profoundly affected how public health officials in Africa have navigated the COVID-19 pandemic. RATIONALE We demonstrate how the first 100,000 SARS-CoV-2 sequences from Africa have helped monitor the epidemic on the continent, how genomic surveillance expanded over the course of the pandemic, and how we adapted our sequencing methods to deal with an evolving virus. Finally, we also examine how viral lineages have spread across the continent in a phylogeographic framework to gain insights into the underlying temporal and spatial transmission dynamics for several variants of concern (VOCs). RESULTS Our results indicate that the number of countries in Africa that can sequence the virus within their own borders is growing and that this is coupled with a shorter turnaround time from the time of sampling to sequence submission. Ongoing evolution necessitated the continual updating of primer sets, and, as a result, eight primer sets were designed in tandem with viral evolution and used to ensure effective sequencing of the virus. The pandemic unfolded through multiple waves of infection that were each driven by distinct genetic lineages, with B.1-like ancestral strains associated with the first pandemic wave of infections in 2020. Successive waves on the continent were fueled by different VOCs, with Alpha and Beta cocirculating in distinct spatial patterns during the second wave and Delta and Omicron affecting the whole continent during the third and fourth waves, respectively. Phylogeographic reconstruction points toward distinct differences in viral importation and exportation patterns associated with the Alpha, Beta, Delta, and Omicron variants and subvariants, when considering both Africa versus the rest of the world and viral dissemination within the continent. Our epidemiological and phylogenetic inferences therefore underscore the heterogeneous nature of the pandemic on the continent and highlight key insights and challenges, for instance, recognizing the limitations of low testing proportions. We also highlight the early warning capacity that genomic surveillance in Africa has had for the rest of the world with the detection of new lineages and variants, the most recent being the characterization of various Omicron subvariants. CONCLUSION Sustained investment for diagnostics and genomic surveillance in Africa is needed as the virus continues to evolve. This is important not only to help combat SARS-CoV-2 on the continent but also because it can be used as a platform to help address the many emerging and reemerging infectious disease threats in Africa. In particular, capacity building for local sequencing within countries or within the continent should be prioritized because this is generally associated with shorter turnaround times, providing the most benefit to local public health authorities tasked with pandemic response and mitigation and allowing for the fastest reaction to localized outbreaks. These investments are crucial for pandemic preparedness and response and will serve the health of the continent well into the 21st century

The Application of GIS and Remote Sensing in a Spatiotemporal Analysis of Coastline Retreat in Rufisque, Senegal

This paper is aimed at analyzing the phenomenon of shoreline retreat in the locality of Rufisque from 1978 to 2018 mainly using geospatial data and field visits. A set of Landsat images from different dates at 10 year intervals was then acquired through the United States Geological Survey platform and shoreline change analysis was run using the Digital Shoreline Analysis System. In addition to that desktop work, interactions with local residents allowed the determination of ongoing adaptation strategies actually in place to cope with coastal erosion. The study showed that Rufisque is subject to serious rates of erosion reaching −19.48 m/year from 1978–1988, close to −8 m/year from 1988–1998, −5.88 m/year from 1998–2008 and −6.67 m/year from 2008–2018. Beside that coastal erosion, it has been noticed that the coastline also experienced in some of its parts cases of accretion reaching 4.94 m/year for 1988–1998, 7.29 m/year from 1998–2008 and 7.68 m/year during the period 2008–2018. In terms of surfaces, Rufisque’ shoreline respectively lost 156.81 ha (1978–1988), 80.55 ha (1988–1998), 6.94 ha (1998–2008), 12.93 ha (2008–2018) and in the same note gained 2.86 ha (1988–1998), 32.51 ha (1998–2008) and 19.16 ha (2008–2018) attesting to the fact that the coastline is subject to both spatiotemporal changes. Finally, this study also reveals that while authorities’ reaction is taking place at much lower pace, local communities are actually using their ingenuity to put in place strategies to tackle coastal erosion

Barriers to and determinants of the choice of crop management strategies to combat climate change in Dejen District, Nile Basin of Ethiopia

Abstract Background Climate change without adaptation is projected to impact strongly the livelihoods of the rural communities. Adaptation to climate change is crucial for least developed country like Ethiopia due to high population and dependency on agriculture. Hence, this study was initiated to examine the barriers to and determinants of the choice of crop management strategies to combat climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concepts of climate change response provided the framework. Stratified and snowball sampling techniques were employed to select a sample of 398 households. The household survey was employed to collect data on current adaptation strategies. Logistic regression was used to analyse the determinants of the choice of adaptation strategies. Logistic regression analyses were carried out at p ≤ 0.05. Results Small farmland size, agro-ecology, farmland location, financial constraints, and lack of skills were the major barriers to adoption of crop management strategies. Age, farming experience, income, family size, government experts’ extension services, agro-ecology setting, and crop failure history of households significantly affect the choice of most of the crop management strategies. Conclusions Socio-economic and institutional factors determined rural communities’ ability and willingness to choose effective adaptation strategies. Policy priority should be given based on agro-ecology and households demand of policy intervention such as providing extension services and subsidizing the least adopted strategies due to financial constraints

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health