Inception phase | PANORAMA

EXPLORE ENABLING CONDITIONS

Enabling conditions determine the success of the OH integration in the project. Their accomplishment is necessary to create a suitable environment for sustainable and optimal collaborations and activities. The enabling conditions identified in the framework include a conducive political environment that encourages government and non-state actors across all relevant organisational levels to willingly collaborate; infrastructure, tools and processes that ease the sharing of data and enable the co-design of multisectoral interventions at the human-animal-environment interface; a detailed stakeholder mapping that allows the identification of strengths and potentials across different actors and promotes the establishment of valuable collaboration; and a meaningful investment that sustains the application of the One Health approach in new or existing project.

Conduct a thorough analysis of the policy context in the country of intervention, to identify government and non-state initiatives that support OH operationalisation
Analyse the infrastructures and assets already available in the project that can ease the collaboration and communication with other sectors and initiatives

The failure to meet the enabling conditions does not automatically disqualify a project to include a One Health approach. However, it may hinder the actual operationalisation of the integration within the project. Small scale initiatives that require a limited investment may represent a viable option to pilot the integration of One Health at the biodiversity-health nexus even when not all enabling conditions are met. The initiatives will help the generation of evidence and support the case of One Health among policymakers and investors, eventually boosting the enabling conditions for future interventions.

LEVERAGE MEASURES

Measures are interventions or activities that are already implemented in the project and can allow building a One Health component within its scope. They enable the operationalisation of the One Health integration in an optimal and relevant way. The framework identifies eight measures, including Education and Awareness, Policy Development, Capacity Development, Collaborative Platforms, Community Engagement, Information Sharing, Surveillance and Early Warning, and Research.

Refer to the provided definitions of each measure to ensure a correct understanding of its meaning in reference to the analysis framework
Review the project simply by looking for the gate entries and avoid jumping to quick conclusions regarding the adoption of the One Health approach

The measures proposed in the analysis framework are commonly found in biodiversity and conservation projects. The challenge here is to leverage them to allow the integration of the One Health approach in the project. The activity or component can be re-designed and re-planned working across sectors and adding the perspectives of different disciplines and actors. The transformed and integrated measure will increase its value and lead to bigger impacts at the biodiversity-health nexus.

IDENTIFY GATE ENTRIES

Gate entries are thematic areas in which the project conducts activities or actions that have the potential to link into a OH approach. They represent real opportunities to integrate and transform project goals and One Health goals into a common goal. At the biodiversity-health nexus, the framework identifies five main key gate entries: Emerging Infectious Diseases and Zoonoses, Agriculture Production and Food Safety, Climate Change and Risk Reduction, Wildlife Trade and Consumption, and Biodiversity Conservation (including Nature-Based Solutions, Protected Areas, and Wildlife Management).

Refer to the provided definitions of gate entries to ensure a correct understanding of their meaning in reference to the analysis framework

There may be more than one gate entry to the biodiversity-health nexus in the same project. However, it is recommended to focus only on one gate entry to initiate the integration of the OH approach. The process requires efforts and resources to establish new partnerships, co-design new project components, and put in place measures and infrastructures to allow the communication, collaboration, coordination and capacity building across sectors and disciplines. A narrow focus can ease the process and increase the rate of success. Evidence generated in small-scale initiatives can eventually support their replication at a wider scale and inform the development of policies on the operationalisation of One Health in biodiversity-related projects.

QUICK SCAN OF THE PROJECT

The first step of the analysis is to assess if the project is applying one or more OH principles within its scope of work. Seven OH principles, adapted from the literature, are used in the framework (i.e., multisectoral, transdisciplinary, participation, prevention, decentralisation, evidence-based, multi-scalar). Not all principles in the framework have equal value, with the multisectoral principle considered an essential component in the proposed tool. The reason for this is that the basis of One Health is the collaboration among different sectors. The framework allows multisectoral collaborations at any level, for example where an MoU has been signed between ministries, or at community level through the joint effort of village health workers, animal health volunteers and rangers.

Refer to the provided definitions of each principle to ensure a correct understanding of its meaning in reference to the analysis framework
Review the project simply by looking for the mere application of principles and avoid jumping to quick conclusions regarding the adoption of the One Health approach

A quick scan of the project gives insight into the project’s current state. If the project already applies one or more OH principles, there are immediate opportunities to design and plan a One Health component within its scope of work. However, failure to apply even a single principle does not prevent the One Health approach to be implemented, nor does it imply that the framework analysis has to stop. The quick scan of the project will help to clarify what principles need to be explored and included to successfully implement a One Health approach.

FORM A REVIEW TEAM

Once formed, a review team will lead the analysis of the project and the potential integration of the One Health approach. It is key to initiate a discussion across sectors, identify opportunities of collaboration among stakeholders, and enable the co-design of One Health components that align with and push the project goals towards a holistic approach to the biodiversity-health nexus. The review team is multidisciplinary and should be made up of all the project owners, including institutional and development partners.

Multidisciplinary composition of the review team, including experts from different sectors (e.g., conservation, animal health, human health, education, social science)
Transdisciplinary composition of the review team, including experts from different levels of intervention and with different roles (e.g., researchers, policymakers, service providers, community members)

External assessors can greatly contribute and amplify the outcomes of the project analysis at the biodiversity-health nexus. They can guide the project team through the analysis process providing a fresh and independent perspective to the project analysis. External assessors should have some sort of experience in multisectoral collaborations and One Health to guide the review team in the project analysis and identification of opportunities to integrate a more holistic approach.

ALIGNMENT OF FUND-FOR-EMPLOYMENT MECHANISM

San Juan del Abiseo Community

Richard Bazán

After the socialization and validation of the plan, the following steps are taken:

Execution of the Plan:
- Meetings to prepare the budget for each work (with quotations). These included the formation of work teams, preparation and signing of lists of workers, letters of commitment (with agreement on a fixed payment) and schedules within the project's timeframe.
FundManagement Process: The fund was distributed to the participating communities in the 2 PAs, covering the following expenditure categories:
- Purchase of community materials. Using the "Affidavit" tool for the economic payment received by the community members providing these materials.
- Purchase of construction materials (not available in the community). For this purpose, the payment vouchers were considered as means of verification, together with a Materials Delivery Record.
- Payment of local labor: a distinctive element of this mechanism that made it possible to recognize the time and effort of each inhabitant in the construction that their own community identified in their plan. To achieve this, the following tools were designed:
  - Letters of commitment, with the workday of each settler.
  - Work follow-up card, with the control of the time worked by each inhabitant.

Affidavit of receipt of payment.

The limited access to other sources of local income (labor vulnerability) allowed the involvement of people around the identified works. In addition, the openness of the beneficiary communities was key to the sustained development of each project.

In some communities, the participation of their local and community authorities was key, giving legitimacy to the works. It should be noted that during this process, neither children nor adolescents (members of the participating families) were involved in the work.

The works developed thanks to the Fund-for-Employment mechanism had to be in line with a tourism product vision; that is, in addition to benefiting the community (in terms of usability), they had to fit in with the tourism experience proposals developed for each community. The articulating and permanent monitoring role of the Field Officers ensured that the works were carried out within the estimated deadlines, under the principles of transparency, flexibility and assertive communication.

Within each community, a "Master Builder" was chosen to guide the quality of the work performed; in addition, the project provided information and reference models for the implementation of the works.

The transfer of materials was a major challenge, due to the abrupt weather changes suffered by both PAs, as a result of global warming and the instability of rainfall. Prevention and permanent communication were the keys to overcoming this obstacle.

Partnerships with local partners

Partnerships with the provincial Taskforce, which oversaw the project's activities in general, and the provincial Agriculture Extension Center and Farmers’ Union helped achieve the expected results despite travel restrictions owing to COVID-19.

Partnerships with these local partners also led to the later integration of the project’s interventions into provincial partner’s programmes.

* Engagement with all levels of government in the province, specifically, at the project's sites, was critically important to establish the partnerships

* Endorsement of the project at national level was critical to ensure provincial and local buy-in

* Widespread availability of smartphones and access to network and desktop computers was vital to ensuring progress even during the pandemic's travel restrictions

* Building strong partnerships is a risk-reduction strategy, as shown during the pandemic wherein local partners were able to conduct many activities with guidance remotely by expert staff

Documentation and dissemination of results

Wildlife surveillance for One Health intelligence

Surveillance in traded wildlife

WCS Viet Nam

Financing support for multi-sector surveillance of zoonotic diseases in wildlife and along wildlife trade chains is essential to improve understanding of pathogen diversity, disease dynamics and potential risks posed by wildlife trade, to support evidence-based decision making, monitor emerging pathogens and support targeted future surveillance and mitigation investments

Long-term financial support for sustained wildlife surveillance: in the field, in the laboratory and for associated data analysis to inform decision-makers and support reporting through One Health coordination platforms

It is a challenge to secure funding for longer than the typical short cycles associated with government priorities to really make a difference in capacity and system building. Wildlife and environment sectors typically receive less funding and attention compared with livestock and human health, despite their clear linkages to both and increasing risks of emerging diseases of wildlife origin.

Inception phase

Implementation

Monitoring

Documentation and dissemination of results

Building long-term, multi-sectoral, trans-disciplinary partnerships and capacities

Building long-term partnerships and capacity for multi-sector surveillance of zoonotic diseases along wildlife trade chains promotes and supports effective One Health collaboration from the spillover frontlines to national and international policy makers, and improved understanding of pathogen diversity, disease dynamics and potential risks posed by wildlife trade. Platforms for regular multi-sector discussion between animal health, environment, enforcement, and human health sectors, as well as with and amongst international and multi-lateral partners, is essential for open discourse and sharing of information on the risks, challenges and opportunities for pandemic prevention. This is critical to improve cross- sectoral trust, understanding, communication and coordination to increase opportunities for effective legislative change and cultural shifts.

Openness of host governments to coordination between environment, law enforcement, animal health and human health sectors and investment of time and personnel from those sectors in wildlife surveillance for One Health intelligence; patience; funding; One Health coordination platforms

Trans-sectoral coordination and support from the government is essential from the beginning to ensure effective surveillance for diseases of zoonotic origin along wildlife trade chains and to promote understanding and sharing of findings. Openness of national governments to make science-based policy changes to reduce health risks posed by wildlife trade is essential for meaningful, long-term impact.

Documentation and dissemination of results

Technical knowledge on sites, species and nurseries

The sites are heterogeneous and have different degrees of degradation, resulting in different intervention needs and opportunities. It is crucial to understand which species appear in nature as groups and to design the planting design accordingly. Mother trees, flowering periods and storability of seeds need to be known and the planting has to be adapted according to suitable planting periods. In the nursery, the focus on good root systems of the seedlings is key, requiring appropriate nursing equipment, substrate and trained staff.

- knowledge, link to research and traditional knowledge

- capacities to collect seed material from the right tree for the right place and the right purpose

- sufficient funding and training capacities

Investment of time and funding in the above-named factors pays off in form of higher survival rates, better growth, and project success. Some aspects should not be compromised, for example the size of the seedling containers and the substrate.