Using a One Health approach to assess the impact of parasitic disease in livestock: how does it add value?

Human population increases, with greater food demands, have resulted in a rapid evolution of livestock food systems, leading to changes in land and water use. The scale of global livestock systems mean that changes in animal health status, particularly in parasite levels, have impacts that go beyond farm and sector levels. To quantify the true impact of parasites in livestock, frameworks that look at both resources and services valued in markets and those that have no true market value are required. Mitigating the effects of parasitic disease in livestock will not only increase productivity, but also improve animal welfare and human health, whilst reducing the environmental burden of livestock production systems. To measure these potential benefits, a One Health approach is needed. This paper discusses the types of methods and the data collection tools needed for a more holistic perspective and provides a framework with its application to coccidiosis in poultry. To build a body of knowledge that allows the ranking of parasite diseases in a wider animal health setting, such One Health frameworks need to be applied more frequently and with rigour. The outcome will improve the allocation of resources to critical constraints on parasite management

Methods for the Assessment of Livestock Development Interventions in Smallholder Livestock Systems

This Working Paper presents a framework for assessing the impact of livestock diseases on the household economy and at local level. The framework is designed to help decision and policy makers in their selection of pro-poor livestock interventions. It should also help to protect them from making decisions under unwanted pressure from strong, non-objective political voices. The immediate users of the assessment methods presented in the Working Paper are expected to be consultants who have to evaluate interventions on behalf of their clients. These clients may be multi and bi lateral donors and, possibly, NGOs. Other users of the output could be governments receiving aid and communities receiving support. The author has drawn upon past experience to provide case histories to illustrate how the methods work in practice but he acknowledges that input from others working in this field will be important. Not only will further development work be required on the methods themselves, but it will be important to present the analysis and results in a format that is attractive and easily understood by policy makers. The Paper proposes a methodology that involves, initially, a rapid assessment to identify potential interventions and select the most promising for further analysis. Secondly, methods are proposed for making a more rigorous assessment of the selected interventions. Household and local economy models are used to determine their likely impact. The final step would involve implementing a selected intervention and then monitoring its impact. The results will refine the models and provide useful data for future policy making. The many flow charts, matrices, tables and figures that illustrate the conceptual framework that is the core of this Working Paper will be of special interest to those working on household economy modelling as a means to assess the pro-poor impact of livestock policies at local and regional level.Livestock, animal, production, health, interventions, prioritisation, modelling, households, Bolivia, Kenya, India, Livestock Production/Industries,

Improving the use of economics in animal health - Challenges in research, policy and education.

The way that an economist and an animal health professional use economics differs and creates frustrations. The economist is in search of optimizing resource allocation in the management of animal health and disease problems with metrics associated with the productivity of key societal resources of labour and capital. The animal health professional have a strong belief that productivity can be improved with the removal of pathogens. These differences restrict how well economics is used in animal health, and the question posed is whether this matters. The paper explores the question by looking at the changing role of animals in society and the associated change of the animal health professional's activities. It then questions if the current allocation of scarce resources for animal health are adequately allocated for societies and whether currently available data are sufficient for good allocation. A rapid review of the data on disease impacts - production losses and costs of human reaction - indicate that the data are sparse collected in different times and geographical regions. This limits what can be understood on the productivity of the economic resources used for animal health and this needs to be addressed with more systematic collection of data on disease losses and costs of animal health systems. Ideally such a process should learn lessons from the way that human health has made estimates of the burden of diseases and their capture of data on the costs of human health systems. Once available data on the global burden of animal diseases and the costs of animal health systems would allow assessments of individual disease management processes and the productivity of wider productivity change. This utopia should be aimed at if animal health is to continue to attract and maintain adequate resources

Using economic and social data to improve veterinary vaccine development: Learning lessons from human vaccinology

The drivers of vaccine development are many and varied. They include, for example, recognition of the burden of a vaccine-targeted disease, prioritisation of the multiple problems associated with a disease, consideration of the differing socio-economic situations under which vaccines are used, the influence of advocacy groups, and assessment of the feasibility of large-scale vaccine manufacture and distribution. In the field of human health, data-driven development of vaccines is becoming increasingly common through the availability of reliable information on the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) and stringent evaluations of vaccination programmes utilising empirical data on costing and effectiveness, and standardised cost-effectiveness thresholds. The data generated from such analyses allow policymakers, implementing partners, industries and researchers to make decisions based on the best, and most contextually relevant, available evidence. In this paper, we wish to explore the current use of economic and social data for the development of veterinary vaccines. Through comparison with the development of human vaccines, we will look for opportunities in animal health sciences to better integrate socio-economic data and analyses into the process of veterinary vaccine selection, development, and field implementation. We believe that more robust animal health impact assessments could add value to veterinary vaccine development by improving resource allocation and animal disease management

Review:Mitigating the risks posed by intensification in livestock production: the examples of antimicrobial resistance and zoonoses

Major shifts in how animals are bred, raised and slaughtered are involved in the intensification of livestock systems. Globally, these changes have produced major increases in access to protein-rich foods with high levels of micronutrients. Yet the intensification of livestock systems generates numerous externalities including environmental degradation, zoonotic disease transmission and the emergence of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) genes. Where the process of intensification is most advanced, the expertise, institutions and regulations required to manage these externalities have developed over time, often in response to hard lessons, crises and challenges to public health. By exploring the drivers of intensification, the foci of future intensification can be identified. Low- and middle-income (LMICs) countries are likely to experience significant intensification in livestock production in the near future; however, the lessons learned elsewhere are not being transferred rapidly enough to develop risk mitigation capacity in these settings. At present, fragmentary approaches to address these problems present an incomplete picture of livestock populations, antimicrobial use, and disease risks in LMIC settings. A worldwide improvement in evidence-based zoonotic disease and AMR management within intensifying livestock production systems demands better information on the burden of livestock-associated disease, antimicrobial use and resistance and resources allocated to mitigation.</p