Risk analysis of spillover events in wildlife in Asia

Background

A multi-sectoral perspective with data sharing and collaborative approach are necessary to address health challenges in humans, animals and the environment. WOAH led a series of three multisectoral workshops in the Asia and the Pacific region in India, Japan and Vietnam.

The workshops brought together participants from multiple sectors (public, animal and environmental health) to discuss risk analysis approach to a spillover event in their country. Besides sharing information on the current disease surveillance and reporting systems by sectors, a survey was administered to identify potential barriers to the country’s response to such an event.

Survey

The survey included sections on the following themes: connections between health systems, wildlife surveillance, wildlife disease reporting, and communication and information sharing. Later in each workshop, a plenary panel discussion further prioritised gaps highlighted by the survey and other workshop activities, with participants proposing a way forward to tackle these.

Summary of survey responses

A total of 65 responses were received from workshop participants, representing the three sectors (animal, human, environment).

Communication among sectors

Informal conversation is the most common method of sharing information among sectors (figure 1).

From a list of potential barriers to coordination and communication with other sectors, these three scored highest:

• Lack of financial resources
• Lack of human resources and workforce capacity to connect with other systems
• Lack of national information system for wildlife diseases

Surveillance systems for wildlife

Around 50% of respondents reported a presence of passive surveillance systems for wildlife at the subnational level. Only around 25% reported presence of active surveillance systems for wildlife at the subnational level. Around 50% reported presence of laboratory diagnostic facility for wildlife at the subnational level.

Just over 20% reported on a list of priority diseases for wildlife at the subnational level, but 56% did not know whether there was a list. However, many did not know whether there was such a list or not (figure 2).

The most frequently reported wildlife diseases in the country’s sub-national division were high pathogenicity avian influenza (HPAI), classical swine fever (CSF) and rabies.

Data compilation for wildlife diseases

Several methods are used for data compilation methods at the subnational level for records related to wildlife diseases. Around 33% of respondents ranked use of a spreadsheet as first or second compilation method (figure 2).

Barriers to data compilation related to disease surveillance at the subnational level found these as the highest scoring:

• Lack of financial resources
• Lack of human resources and workforce capacity to conduct surveillance (including sample collection, diagnostics and data analysis)
• Lack of prefectural/national legislation related to surveillance of wildlife diseases

For barriers to data compilation related to disease reporting at the subnational level, lack of financial and human resources were also in this case highest, and in addition the third highest was:

• Lack of expertise in wildlife disease investigations within wildlife services, including laboratories and Veterinary Services, to implement disease reporting

Information sharing

Barriers on communication and information sharing in the animal sector for wildlife diseases identified many issues at both the state/territory and central levels (figure 3), with these top three:

• Lack of resources
• Lack of formal framework
• Lack of national information system

For barriers on communication and information sharing in all sectors for wildlife diseases, the top three were the same.

Discussion

In all three countries, data sharing and reporting (especially to include wildlife health) was identified as a key gap in the risk analysis system. The need for improved communication between sectors and stakeholders, and for further capacity building related to risk analysis and risk management were further highlighted.

Proposals to improve the national systems included:

• involvement of wider groups of stakeholders (for example local community members),
• targeted training to raise national and sub-national expertise,
• development of standard operating protocols for joint investigation of wildlife outbreaks,
• further multi-sectoral simulation exercises, and
• use of advanced digitalisation to improve efficiency of data sharing and disease reporting.

Although several systemic gaps were identified, the exercise revealed strong stakeholder willingness to collaborate.

Workshops were funded by generous support from the European Union under the project “Working Together to Fight Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR)” and the government of Japan.