For a farmer keeping 20 goats, losing several animals to disease can wipe out months of income. For a pastoral household, the loss of sheep or goats can remove an important source of food, cash and financial security. Yet at the national level, one of the biggest challenges in protecting these animals is knowing where disease is actually circulating and where livestock populations remain vulnerable.

Nigeria is now attempting to close that information gap.

The Federal Ministry of Livestock Development has deployed veterinary teams across 10 states for a nationwide sero-surveillance and sero-monitoring exercise covering major livestock diseases, including Peste des Petits Ruminants (PPR), Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD), Contagious Bovine Pleuropneumonia (CBPP), Contagious Caprine Pleuropneumonia (CCPP) and Newcastle Disease. Anthrax and Lumpy Skin Disease are also being monitored.

The exercise covers Adamawa, Bauchi, Benue, Nasarawa, Plateau, Ogun, Imo, Cross River, Kano and Katsina, with field operations structured around high-risk Local Government Areas, livestock movement patterns, commercial holdings and smallholder flocks.

At first glance, this may look like another livestock disease-control exercise.

It is more significant than that.

Nigeria is trying to establish something that disease reports alone cannot provide: a clearer picture of where livestock have been exposed, where immunity exists and where protection may be inadequate.

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗗𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗦𝗲𝗿𝗼-𝗦𝘂𝗿𝘃𝗲𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗔𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗧𝗲𝗹𝗹 𝗨𝘀?

The word “surveillance” is often associated with looking for sick animals.

Sero-surveillance goes further.

It involves collecting blood or serum samples and testing them for antibodies associated with particular infections. These antibodies can provide evidence that animals have previously encountered a pathogen or have developed an immune response following vaccination.

For a disease such as PPR, this information can help answer questions that field observations alone cannot.

How many animals in a particular population have antibodies?

Are there areas where immunity is low?

Do animals in a particular production system show evidence of previous exposure?

Are previous vaccination campaigns producing measurable immunity?

Where should additional disease-control interventions be prioritised?

These questions matter because a farmer may see only the animals that become visibly sick. Veterinary epidemiologists need to understand what is happening across the wider population.

However, there is an important scientific distinction.

A positive antibody result does not automatically mean that an animal currently has PPR.

For PPR, antibodies may result from previous infection or vaccination, among other factors. Conventional serological testing can therefore require additional epidemiological information and appropriate interpretation. This is one reason why the quality of sampling, vaccination records, animal history and laboratory analysis matters.

In other words, the blood sample is only one part of the investigation.

The real value comes from connecting the laboratory result to what is happening in the field.

𝗦𝘂𝗿𝘃𝗲𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗩𝘀. 𝗦𝗲𝗿𝗼-𝗠𝗼𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴

The two terms being used in the current Nigerian exercise are related, but they are not identical.

Surveillance is the broader process of systematically collecting, analysing and interpreting information about disease occurrence.

Sero-monitoring focuses more specifically on monitoring antibody responses within populations.

For vaccination programmes, this distinction is particularly important.

If thousands of animals are vaccinated, the number vaccinated is an activity figure. It tells policymakers how many animals received the intervention.

It does not necessarily tell them how many animals developed measurable immunity.

That is where serological monitoring becomes valuable.

The current exercise is expected to produce state-specific profiles showing levels of exposure and immunity and helping authorities identify populations where protection remains inadequate. The government also says the results will help assess responses to previous vaccination campaigns.

This represents a more evidence-driven approach to disease control.

Instead of asking only:

“How many animals did we vaccinate?”

the question becomes:

“What does the population look like after vaccination, and where are the remaining gaps?”

𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗣𝗣𝗥 𝗜𝘀 𝗔𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗘𝘅𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗲

Peste des Petits Ruminants is one of the most important infectious diseases affecting sheep and goats.

The disease can spread rapidly through susceptible populations and cause severe illness, production losses and mortality.

For Nigeria, the consequences extend beyond animal health.

Sheep and goats are important assets for millions of livestock-dependent households. They provide meat, income and financial resilience, particularly for smallholder farmers and vulnerable rural communities. The Federal Ministry of Livestock Development has itself described PPR eradication as an economic and social priority because of the importance of small ruminants to livelihoods, food security and trade.

The scale of Nigeria’s historical PPR problem reinforces that concern.

A recent study analysing officially reported PPR data from Nigeria’s World Animal Health Information System records 422 confirmed outbreak reports and 70,827 reported cases between 2015 and 2024. The cases were reported across all 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory.

The distribution was uneven.

The study found that North Central accounted for 23.7% of reported PPR outbreak reports, followed by South West at 20.9%, North West at 20.6% and North East at 18.5%. Bauchi alone accounted for 19,557 reported cases, or 27.6% of the national total recorded during the study period, while Katsina accounted for 6,767 cases.

But these figures require careful interpretation.

They represent reported cases, not a perfect measure of the true national prevalence of PPR.

Where surveillance is stronger, more cases may be detected and reported. Where veterinary access, laboratory confirmation or farmer reporting is weaker, disease may be underrepresented.

That is precisely why a structured sero-surveillance exercise is important.

𝗡𝗶𝗴𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗮 𝗡𝗲𝗲𝗱𝘀 𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗧𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝗢𝘂𝘁𝗯𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗸 𝗥𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘀

An outbreak report tells authorities that something has gone wrong.

Surveillance should help authorities understand where risk exists before the next outbreak becomes obvious.

That difference is critical.

Imagine two livestock communities.

In Community A, farmers have reported several animals showing signs consistent with PPR. Veterinary officers investigate and confirm the disease.

In Community B, no major outbreak has been reported.

It would be easy to conclude that Community B is safer.

But what if Community B has a large population of susceptible goats, poor vaccination coverage and frequent animal movement through a major livestock corridor?

The absence of reported outbreaks does not necessarily mean the absence of risk.

A properly designed surveillance programme can help identify that hidden vulnerability.

That is one reason the current exercise is sampling across different livestock systems, including migratory pastoral corridors, commercial holdings and smallholder village flocks.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝟭𝟬 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝗔𝗿𝗲 𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝗝𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗮 𝗠𝗮𝗽 𝗼𝗳 𝗡𝗶𝗴𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗮

The selection of Adamawa, Bauchi, Benue, Nasarawa, Plateau, Ogun, Imo, Cross River, Kano and Katsina gives the exercise coverage across Nigeria’s six geopolitical zones.

That matters because livestock disease transmission does not follow Nigeria’s administrative boundaries.

Animals move.

Pastoral herds move between grazing areas. Livestock are transported to markets. Traders move animals between communities and states. Commercial operations source animals from different locations.

A disease circulating along a livestock movement corridor can therefore become a problem far beyond the community where it was first detected.

Nigeria’s location also places it within wider regional livestock movement networks connecting it with neighbouring countries.

For transboundary diseases such as PPR and FMD, national surveillance therefore has implications beyond Nigeria’s borders.

This is also why the country’s PPR programme is connected to the wider African eradication effort led by institutions including AU-IBAR, FAO and WOAH.

𝗙𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗩𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗡𝘂𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗧𝗼 𝗜𝗺𝗺𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗚𝗮𝗽𝘀

Nigeria’s PPR strategy is increasingly moving towards a risk-based approach.

This matters because vaccinating animals uniformly across a country is not necessarily the most efficient way to control a disease whose transmission is influenced by animal movement, production systems, population density and local epidemiology.

The ultimate goal is to identify where intervention can have the greatest epidemiological impact.

That requires information.

Where are susceptible populations?

Where is immunity inadequate?

Where has disease been detected?

Where do animals move?

Where do livestock populations mix?

Where have vaccination campaigns already been conducted?

The answers can help veterinary authorities move from broad intervention towards targeted disease control.

Nigeria’s 2026–2030 PPR planning is taking place against this wider continental shift towards stronger surveillance, risk-based vaccination and coordinated action. AU-IBAR’s work with Nigeria has included reviewing surveillance, laboratory capacity, vaccination, cold-chain systems, border controls and outbreak response as part of efforts to accelerate eradication.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝟮𝟬𝟯𝟬 𝗧𝗮𝗿𝗴𝗲𝘁 𝗠𝗮𝗸𝗲𝘀 𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗘𝘅𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗜𝗺𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁

Nigeria is working towards the 2030 target for PPR eradication.

That creates a difficult timeline.

Eradication requires much more than reducing visible outbreaks. Veterinary authorities must be able to demonstrate progressively stronger control, detect remaining transmission and identify areas where susceptible animal populations remain.

This makes reliable surveillance fundamental.

The Federal Government’s current exercise follows earlier steps taken this year, including the inauguration of a 33-member National Technical Working Group on PPR control and eradication in January and a capacity-building exercise for field veterinary officers and epidemiologists in August.

The sequence is important:

Technical planning → capacity building → field sampling → laboratory analysis → epidemiological interpretation → targeted intervention.

The real test will therefore come after the samples leave the farms.

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗪𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗛𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗻 𝗔𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗦𝗮𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴?

The success of the exercise should not be judged by how many blood samples are collected.

The more important questions are:

How many samples are collected?

How representative are they?

Which diagnostic methods are used?

How quickly are results returned?

How are vaccination histories incorporated into interpretation?

Which laboratories process the samples?

How will the findings change vaccination plans?

Will states receive disease-risk maps that can guide local veterinary action?

These questions matter because surveillance is only useful when information is converted into decisions.

A laboratory result sitting in a database does not protect a goat.

A risk map does not protect a flock by itself.

The value of surveillance appears when the information leads to action: targeted vaccination, movement controls, farmer engagement, outbreak investigation, laboratory confirmation and better allocation of veterinary resources.

𝗔 𝗡𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗦𝘂𝗿𝘃𝗲𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗘𝘅𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗜𝘀 𝗔𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗮 𝗧𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗡𝗶𝗴𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗮’𝘀 𝗩𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗦𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗺

The exercise is therefore testing more than disease prevalence.

It is also testing Nigeria’s ability to coordinate a chain of veterinary functions across different levels of government.

Field veterinarians have to identify appropriate animals and collect samples correctly.

Samples have to be labelled, preserved and transported appropriately.

Laboratories have to process them accurately.

Epidemiologists have to analyse the results.

Veterinary authorities have to translate the findings into disease-control decisions.

And farmers have to receive interventions that are practical and accessible.

A weakness at any point can compromise the value of the entire exercise.

That is why the August capacity-building programme matters. The Federal Government trained field veterinary officers and epidemiologists on sampling, animal handling, sample management, biosecurity and data collection before field deployment.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗕𝗶𝗴 𝗤𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗜𝘀 𝗡𝗼𝘄 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗗𝗮𝘁𝗮 𝗪𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗥𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗮𝗹

Nigeria has spent years responding to reported PPR outbreaks.

The current approach is potentially more ambitious.

Instead of waiting for disease to become visible, veterinary teams are attempting to build a clearer picture of exposure, immunity and vulnerability across different livestock populations.

That information could become one of the most important tools in Nigeria’s attempt to eradicate PPR by 2030.

But the credibility of the programme will ultimately depend on what happens next.

If the results are robust, geographically representative and properly interpreted, they can help Nigeria identify where immunity gaps remain and where vaccination and surveillance resources should be concentrated.

If the data are poorly sampled, incompletely analysed or disconnected from subsequent action, the exercise risks becoming another set of numbers.

For the farmer, the objective is much simpler.

A healthier flock means fewer deaths, fewer financial losses and more predictable income.

For Nigeria’s livestock sector, that means stronger production and greater resilience.

And for the veterinary system, it means something even more fundamental:

knowing where the disease is before the disease tells us where it is.