“`html
Understanding wildlife-livestock interfaces (IFSG)-the physical spaces where wild and domestic animals interact-and identifying interventions that can reduce disease transmission at these interfaces is essential to alleviating the disease burden on animals, humans, and economies.
As part of its mission to protect animal health around the world, the World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH) has published a new resource: Mitigating the risk of disease transmission at the wildlife-livestock interface: Practical guidance for Veterinary Services. These guidelines provide Veterinary Services with clear and adaptable recommendations to help them design effective, context-specific interventions to address health risks where wildlife and livestock occur.
Disease characteristics, such as the ability of a pathogen to survive in the environment, the mode of transmission (direct, indirect or vector), as well as morbidity and mortality rates, play an important role in IFSG. Though, they are not the only factors. IFSGs also vary across regions,livestock production systems,wildlife species,and environmental factors. These interactions are also dynamic and are strongly influenced by human activities,such as land use change,agricultural practices,and wildlife movements.
Practical interventions at the interface
Interventions to mitigate disease transmission at the wildlife-livestock interface can range from simple to complex, and can be categorized to facilitate implementation. These include measures such as improving fencing to reduce wildlife access to livestock, removing or modifying water points or feeders, and reducing the attractiveness of agricultural resources to wildlife.
Classifying actions into categories such as “priority” and “alternatives”, or “general” and “specific”, allows risk assessments to be translated into practical and applicable decisions on the ground. Priority actions can focus on measures with the greatest risk reduction potential at the interface, thru direct or structural interventions, while alternative actions offer a realistic option when constraints such as permitting or feasibility make implementation of priority measures difficult. General actions allow establishing a basic level of biosecurity through broad management practices that affect the entire farm, while specific actions are directed at clearly identified risk points, such as plots or water points.
Together, these distinctions allow the growth of action plans adapted to each farm and balance effectiveness with the practical implementation challenges faced by Veterinary Services and producers.
Biosecurity as an investment
In managing risks at wildlife-livestock interfaces, biosecurity should be considered an investment and not an additional cost.When applied correctly, biosecurity helps prevent disease outbreaks-the subsequent management of which can be extremely costly-before they occur. thus, even though the improvement of agricultural infrastructure involves initial costs, these are low compared to the costs associated with treatments, production losses and stamping out.
Mitigating risks at the wildlife-livestock interface is not a one-size-fits-all solution. Transboundary diseases such as ASF, HPAI and FMD are complex in their own way and require solutions adapted to both the specific characteristics of each disease and the specific context of each country.Countries should apply the “do no harm” principle to ensure that the solutions implemented are environmentally enduring and socially acceptable. The guidelines help countries develop tailored risk mitigation programs that reflect local realities and capabilities. By tailoring interventions, countries can better protect animal health and trade.
<
Related reading
