Business Case and Intervention Summary
Intervention Summary
Title: Review studies to address knowledge gaps on zoonoses
What support will the UK provide?
DFID will provide up to £220,000 for the period from December 2011 to May 2012 to fund three
systematic studies on zoonoses.
Why is UK support required?
Why do we need these studies?
Occurrences of either known or new and emerging zoonoses (i.e. animal diseases naturally transmitted
to people) may be unpredictable and counterintuitive. Research gaps remain significant and may
contribute to an emergence and/or a rapid spread of zoonoses. Addressing these gaps is vital in order
to gain a better understanding of the risk factors which favour persistence or re-emergence of zoonotic
pathogens, and their socio-economic impact. It will highlight importance of zoonoses and help to shape
innovative approaches to future medium to long-term strategic research planning and policies related
to zoonotic diseases, and their management in developing countries.
DFID stakeholders strategic planning meetings on zoonoses have brought together a range of
technical and policy experts from more than 25 organisations (i.e. government, institutional and
research) from the UK and internationally to discuss research needs to aid their early detection and
control. The experts concluded that poor populations in developing countries who live in close proximity
with animals have a higher level of reliance on animals for their survival and livelihoods also bear the
highest burden of zoonoses. At the same time, the experts concluded that significant knowledge gaps
continue to exist, some of which need urgent attention. These are primarily related to differences and
deficiencies in zoonoses research and policies at local, national, regional and global level, and the
abilities of developing countries to identify and manage zoonoses.
What we will do?
To address the identified knowledge gaps, DFID will commission the following three short-term studies
to generate evidence which will facilitate medium to long term research and policy planning for
zoonoses in developing countries:
a) Mapping of poverty and likely zoonoses hotspots – The objective of this study is to provide
evidence on where (globally) the risk to the poor from zoonoses is greatest. It will provide
evidence to help inform future policies and programming on the appropriate target locations for
research implementation and uptake, based on greatest risk.
b) Collating examples of policies, institutions and stakeholders involved in managing the risks of
zoonoses – The objective of this study is to provide evidence on which types of institutions have
been involved in managing the risks of zoonoses, how they have achieved their aims where
successful, and what barriers have prevented success. It will provide evidence to help prioritise
research questions and geographical focus for future policies and programming, based on
knowledge of the potential to influence behaviours of stakeholders in managing animal
diseases in emerging livestock systems.
c) Prioritising the need for new diagnostics or treatments of zoonoses which have significant
impact in the developing world – The objective of this study is to collate information on existing
diagnostics and treatments for livestock, with the aim being to provide evidence of where there
may be opportunities for rapid progress or gaps in research on significant zoonoses. It will
provide evidence to help development of new interventions for the benefit of poor communities.
Who will be implementing these studies?
In line with Research and Evidence Divisions procurement policies and guidelines, we will send an
Invitation to Tender (ITT) to a number of targeted research institutions and organisations to see
whether they are interested in undertaking the studies. Once the proposals have been recieved, DFID
will assess each against relevant criteria and will select a successful bidder for each study in
December 2011. Successful applicants will in turn sign a contract with DFID to carry out these studies
and will have an inception meeting with DFID within 2-4 week following the signing of contracts.
What are the expected results?
What will change as a result of our support?
By commissioning these studies, DFID will provide new evidence to inform the way national and
international zoonoses programmes and policies are designed and implemented in order to directly
benefit the livelihoods of poor livestock keepers, including their health. The evidence will enable a
better understanding of the risk factors which favour persistence or re-emergence of zoonotic diseases
and their socio-economic impact on animal and public health.
The studies will also form an integral part of DFID’s contribution to the UK Global Food Security
Programme (Theme 3 - Sustainable Food production & Supply). This programme was established by
UK multi-agencies in 2010 to address the global food security challenges.
What are the planned outputs attributable to DFID’s support?
The studies will generate the following outputs which will be made publicly available to researchers,
policy makers and funders:
a) Up to date maps of poverty, livestock and potential zoonoses hotspots, supplemented by
additional information on areas of rapid change – encompassing demographic and lifestyle
change and change in numbers and types of livestock system, including interaction with wildlife.
b) An easily accessible meta-database of examples of policies, institutions and stakeholders
involved in managing the risks of zoonoses. This database will be hosted on, and integrated
into the successful bidder own external website.
c) Up to date evidence on existing diagnostics and treatments for the livestock of poor people to
that could add most value to managing the risk of zoonotic disease in emerging livestock
systems.
How we will determine whether the expected results have been achieved?
DFID will review the final draft reports of each study by 31 March 2011, and will provide comments as
necessary. We will share the draft reports with our stakeholders (e.g. World Organisation for Animal
Health, World Health Organisation, Food and Agriculture Organisation, UK Research Councils) for their
views and feedback. The final reports should be received by 30 April 2012 and will be made publicly
available on DFID’s external website.
Business Case
Strategic Case
A. Context and need for a DFID intervention
Context
Over 600 million people are estimated to be dependent on livestock, with up to 70% of them in poor,
rural areas. They are the most at risk for infectious diseases caused by zoonotic pathogens, which
affect both animals and humans. Developing countries face difficulties in sustainably utilising tools to
effectively implement control measures for zoonoses. This is mainly due to dispersed and
heterogeneous smallholder livestock systems, predominance of informal markets, poor infrastructure
and lack of resources to deliver information, interventions, and regulations(1).
Developing countries lack an evidence base for planning and targeting control efforts(1) due to little
knowledge of zoonotic causes of human disease by clinicians and policy makers, fragmentary data
collection systems collected independently and recorded and reported separately, lack of diagnostic
capacities and reliable qualitative and quantitative data on zoonotic diseases burden in affected
countries and lack of diagnostic capacity beyond referral hospitals and reference laboratories(2).
DFID stakeholders’ strategic research planning meetings, held between December 2009 and May
2011, considered the current state of research, innovations and trends that can help identify and test
targeted control strategies for zoonoses tailored to poor communities, focusing particularly on
developing countries. The stakeholders highlighted that significant research gaps still remain in
technical and policy areas. This may contribute to emergence and/or a rapid spread of zoonoses,
which may be unpredictable and counterintuitive.
There is consensus at international level that major progress in the research on the reduction of
health risks to and impact of zoonoses on poor people and their livestock in the medium to long-term,
will require a range of disciplines working together (e.g. biological science, environmental science,
mathematical sciences, public health and animal health sciences and the social sciences). This will
be a step-change to the traditional bio-medical approach in order to promote necessary intervention
research on zoonotic diseases of poor populations.
Why these studies are needed?
These studies will set the necessary basis for use of inter- and multi-disciplinary approaches to
address gaps and generate evidence to aid strategic research and selection of risk based and costeffective prevention and control options which may contribute to decreasing the likelihood of
occurrence, prevent the transmission and reduce the impact of major zoonotic diseases in
developing countries.
These gaps primarily relate to absence of relevant and timely evidence with regard to (i) spatial
distribution of the burden of zoonoses and linking these with livestock systems in developing
1
Schelling, E., Grace, D., Willingham III, A.L. and Randolph, T. 2007. Research approaches for improved propoor control of zoonoses. Food and Nutrition Bulletin (Japan):S345-S356.
2
WHO-TDR. 2001. Research priorities identified for zoonoses. (http://apps.who.int/tdr/svc/newsevents/news/zoonoses-research).
countries, (ii) consolidated evidence on successful policies and management of zoonotic diseases,
and (iii) consolidated evidence on the existing interventions for zoonotic diseases.
What these studies are going to address?
The studies will:
a) Review and update existing knowledge on poverty and zoonoses hotspots at the interface
between animals, people and wildlife.
b) Review existing knowledge, both published and those that may be available from offices of
FAO, OIE and WHO and, as appropriate, to capture examples of countries/regions where the
risk of zoonoses has been successfully managed.
c) Review published knowledge and conduct interviews to list existing diagnostics and
treatments (including good management practices) for animals and where appropriate wildlife
and to identify research questions, answers to which could aid management of the risk.
Addressing these short-term research gaps will generate evidence to assist (i) effective decision and
policy making for zoonoses detection and control, and (ii) the development of innovative inter- and
multi-disciplinary approaches to future research and policy planning in medium to long-term to
address zoonotic diseases and mitigate their impact on poor communities.
How these studies will support DFID strategy policy objectives?
The studies are consistent with the current DFID Structural Reform Plan and RED research results
offer. It supports DFID’s objective to continue to invest in providing high quality research and
evidence into cost effective and innovative approaches aimed at protecting poor people’s health,
livelihoods and increasing their income. It also supports DFID’s agriculture research priorities paper
in terms of high technical challenge and addressing the context.
The studied will facilitate development of medium to long-term and sustainable approaches to
zoonoses at technical and policy levels and will contribute towards the attainment of a number of
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in developing countries, particularly in Africa and Asia. The
programme is fully consistent with MDG 6 (Combat HIV/AIDS, Malaria and other diseases) with the
potential to contribute to MDG 1, 3, 7 and 8.
These studies will form an integral part of DFID’s contribution to the UK Global Food Security (GFS)
Programme (Theme 3 - Sustainable Food production & Supply), which was established by UK multiagencies in 2010 to address the global food security challenge.
B. Impact and Outcome that we expect to achieve
It is estimated that some 1.4 billion people continue to live in extreme poverty on less than US$1.25 a
day (IFAD, 2011). More than two thirds of them reside in rural areas of developing countries. Their
living conditions remain poor, and they depend fully or partly on livestock for their livelihoods.
Zoonotic diseases (i.e. animal diseases that naturally transmitted to people) have the highest impact
on poor people’s health in developing countries and the health of their livestock as the most common
source of their food security and livelihoods. The proportion of zoonotic diseases is more than 13
times higher in developing countries than developed countries (ILRI/RVC, 2011).
The impact of zoonoses on the livelihoods and lives of poor livestock keepers will continue to be
severe if gaps in existing knowledge on critical factors for their occurrence are not addressed in a
systematic manner to ensure strategic approach to research and evidence-based inputs into policy
making and management of zoonoses.
The main outcome of these studies is to generate evidence, which will be made publicly available
and will consist of:
d) Up to date maps of poverty, livestock and potential zoonoses hotspots, supplemented by
additional information on areas of rapid change – encompassing demographic and lifestyle
change and change in numbers and types of livestock system, including interaction with
wildlife.
e) An easily accessible meta-database of examples of policies, institutions and stakeholders
involved in managing the risks of zoonoses. This database will be hosted on, and integrated
into the successful bidder own external website.
f) Up to date evidence on existing diagnostics and treatments for the livestock of poor people to
that could add most value to managing the risk of zoonotic disease in emerging livestock
systems.
Appraisal Case
A. What are the feasible options that address the need set out in the Strategic case?
In assessing the available options, we set the following critical success criteria (CSC):
a) Quality, skills and experience of the proposed team, availability and certainty of obtaining
named individuals with quality track record in research
b) Understanding of, and adherence to, the terms of reference of the work
c) The methodological approach proposed
d) Ability to deliver to the timescale required
e) Clarity of bid
f) Quality in presenting and disseminating findings to shape future research needs
g) Value for Money; financial planning, linkage of payment to outputs
We have considered the following options against the CSC’s above:
a) Option 1 - direct contracting without any competition – although there are a limited number of
organisations that are capable of undertaking the studies, this approach would not be
consistent with DFID good practice. In addition, by going directly to one supplier we may not
necessarily maximise value for money or get the best end product
b) Option 2 – combination of direct contracting and limited competition – by combining these
two approaches we encourage limited competition amongst the key academic institutions
capable of undertaking this assignment, as well as going back to the original author to update
an existing publication. This approach ensures that we achieve value for money and
minimise the transaction costs associated with assessing multiple bids from organisations
who are not capable of undertaking the studies
c) Option 3 – full competitive process competition – given that studies are of limited scale, this
approach would involve high transaction costs for the department and add very little value for
money. In addition, as one of the studies being conducted is the refresh of an existing
publication, it would not be appropriate from a value for money or technical perspective to go
to competition for this.
Establish the “Do Nothing” counterfactual
Given the DFID’s commitment and time devoted to planning meetings over the past two years, there
will be a reputational risk to DFID if these studies are not undertaken to address significant
knowledge gaps on zoonoses as identified by national and international stakeholders. These studies
are innovative in addressing research gaps on zoonoses and have not been done before and DFID
will miss an opportunity to continue to be a significant player in helping the future research and policy
planning on zoonoses in developing countries. DFID will also miss an opportunity where strategic
and a relatively low level of investment could significantly contribute to mitigating the risks of zoonotic
diseases and reducing potential for significant costs (often measured in UK£ tens of millions to
hundreds of millions) associated with their control, particularly in developing countries.
B. Assessing the strength of the evidence base for each feasible option
In the table below the quality of evidence for each option is rated as either Strong, Medium or Limited
Option
1
2
3
Evidence rating
Limited – not consistent with DFID’s
good practices
Strong – consistent with DFID’s good
practice on appropriate use of resources
Limited – very little value for money
On this basis we have decided that Option 2 is the preferred option to undertake. We set out the
Theory of Change which underpins our evidence ratings.
a) Input
 DFID contribution of up to £220,000 to fund three new studies
b) Process (Activities)
 Agree ToR for the studies
 Send out Invitation to Tender (ITT) Pack
 Receive applications by the set deadline
 Applications received and assessed
 Successful applications selected
 Contracts awarded
c) Outputs
 Three studies completed
 Final reports approved
d) Outcome (Purpose)
 New evidence available to identify future research questions and planning related to
zoonoses, their occurrence, prevention and cost effective management in changing
natural and socio-economic environments.
e) Impact (Goal)
 DFID’s investment supports research which contributes to mitigating the impact of
zoonoses on poor people, their livestock and livelihoods
What is the likely impact (positive and negative) on climate change and environment for each
feasible option?
Categorise as A, high potential risk / opportunity; B, medium / manageable potential risk /
opportunity; C, low / no risk / opportunity; or D, core contribution to a multilateral organisation.
Option
Climate change and environment risks Climate
change
and
environment
and impacts, Category (A, B, C, D)
opportunities, Category (A, B, C, D)
C
C
C
C
C
C
1
2
3
This intervention is being launched as an ancillary to another called:”Zoonoses and Emerging
Livestock Systems (ZELS): reducing the risk to livestock and people”. Given that the activities
foreseen as part of this intervention are included in the scope of the aforementioned one, the same
analysis of Climate and Environment related impacts, risks and opportunities is being used. However,
the scoring has been slightly revised downwards because the activities that will be undertaken as
part of this intervention are expected to present a slightly lower level of opportunities.
This intervention is unlikely to have any negative impacts or to involve any potential risks for either
the environment or climate. On the other hand, the nature of the subject of the research proposed
presents some good opportunities to improve environmental stewardship and contribute to increasing
adaptation and resilience to climate change in a number of developing countries.
These opportunities are derived from the close relationship and connections that exist between
zoonotic disease, environmental management and transformation and climate change.
Evidence from scientific research suggests that the combined effects of environmentally detrimental
changes in local land use and alterations in global climate disrupt the natural ecosystem and can
increase the risk of transmission of parasitic diseases to the human population (Patz et al., 2000(1)).
The same evidence shows that there are also clear and direct linkages between the emergence
of outbreaks in zoonotic diseases and a number of natural and anthropogenic environmental
changes, including the destruction of natural habitats of animal hosts and climatic changes due
to global warming. Ecological disturbances in particular have been identified to exert an influence on
the emergence and proliferation of zoonotic parasitic diseases, such as: leishmaniasis,
trypanosomiasis, schistosomiasis and onchocerciasis. A number of human activities including:
changes in land use such as deforestation and the replacement of forests with crop farming, ranching
and human settlement; road construction; and water control systems (i.e. dams, canals, irrigation
systems, reservoirs) can also create supportive habitats for parasites and their host vectors, which
can contribute to the spreading of zoonotic diseases (Patz et al., 2000(3); WHO/FAO/OIE, 2004(4)).
Climate change is another crucial factor in the emergence and spread of existing and new zoonotic
diseases, this is because the complex nature of the human-animal interface is constantly influenced
by its effects. Climate change is disrupting natural ecosystems by providing more suitable
environments for infectious diseases allowing disease-causing bacteria, viruses, and fungi to move
into new areas where they may harm wild life and domestic species, as well as humans. Diseases
that were previously limited only to tropical areas are now spreading to other previously cooler areas.
As the climate warms and/or the winters get milder, pathogens that were restricted by seasonal
weather patterns can invade new areas and find new susceptible species. There is also evidence
that the increasing occurrence of tropical infectious diseases in the mid latitudes is linked to global
3
Patz, J.A., T.K. Graczyk, N. Geller, and A.Y. Vittor, 2000: Effects of environmental change on
emerging parasitic diseases, International Journal of Parasitology, 30, pp. 1395–405.
4
WHO/FAO/OIE. (2004). Report of the WHO/FAO/OIE Joint Consultation on Emerging Zoonotic
Diseases. 3-5 May 2004, Geneva, Switzerland. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations (FAO), World Health Organization (WHO), and World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE).
warming. Insect-borne diseases are now present in temperate areas where the vector insects were
non existent in the past e.g. trypanosomosis, anaplasmosis (Preneshni R. Naicker, 2011(5)).
Geo-climatic changes tend to affect zoonotic diseases transmitted by arthropod vectors in particular,
whilst travel, tourism and trade are the major human factors favouring the spread of zoonotic
diseases. The re-emergence of zoonotic diseases is also driven by pathogen adaptation and wildanimal migration, which can also be influenced by changes in climatic patterns. Although some
zoonotic diseases such as West Nile fever and Lyme disease can also spread to developed
countries, the effects of climate change are predicted to be worse for the developing world where
challenging socioeconomic and political environments are exacerbated by a lack of epidemiological
studies on zoonotic diseases (Preneshni R. Naicker, 2011(3)).
Social and behavioural responses can help control vector-borne disease while also improving other
ecosystem services. Public health education forms an increasingly important component of
management programs and initiatives, raising awareness about individual and communal actions that
may control vectors, their breeding sites, prevent disease transmission, and provide access to
treatment. (FAO, 2002(6); FAO, 20037; WHO/FAO/OIE, 2004(2)).
The proposed research programme promises to tackle these issues directly, hence the clear
opportunities in terms of enhancing adaptation responses and resilience to this important impact of
climate change.
C. What are the costs and benefits of each feasible option?
We have discussed and agreed with DFID procurement Department that Option 1 is not consistent
with DFID’s good practices for procurement, and that Option 3 would involve high transaction costs
which would be disproportionate to the costs of the studies.
D. What measures can be used to assess Value for Money for the intervention?
Several studies have highlighted significant costs associated with outbreaks of zoonotic diseases,
particularly new and emerging. For example, it is estimated that the direct costs of recent zoonoses
outbreaks were US$400 million for Nipah virus in Malaysia, and US$50-120 million for SARS globally
(The World Bank, 2010(8)).
In 2007, Uganda estimated to have spent US$17million (international dollars) and Vietnam US$67
million in designing systems to response to emerging and re-emerging animal diseases (Civic
Consulting, 2009(9)). These costs indicate the seriousness of the issue of zoonoses. It is expected
that these studies will help steer cost-effective research which should significantly enhance the
5
Preneshni R. Naicker (2011) The impact of climate change and other factors on zoonotic diseases;
in ARCHIVES OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY Vol. 2 No. 2:4
6
FAO (2002). Improving national animal-health policies and delivery systems. Chapter 4, In:
Improved animal health for poverty reduction and sustainable livelihoods. FAO Animal Production and
Health Papers; 153.
7
FAO (2003). Veterinary public health and control of zoonoses in Developing Countries. Summary of
comments and discussion from the FAO/WHO/OIE electronic conference. FAO, Rome.
8
The World Bank, 2010. People, Pathogens and Our Planet. Volume 1: Towards a One
Health Approach for Controlling Zoonotic Diseases. The World Bank.
(http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTARD/Resources/PPP_Web.pdf)
9
Civic Consulting, 2009. Cost of National Prevention Systems for Animal Diseases and
Zoonoses in Developing and Transition Countries. (http://www.oie.int/eng/OIEWB_Conference_1007/en_Global_Animal Health_Initiative.htm)
effectiveness of such investments.
E. Summary Value for Money Statement for the preferred option
Option 2 - combination of direct contracting and limited competition ensures that we will achieve
value for money and minimise the transaction costs associated with assessing multiple bids from
organisations which are not capable of undertaking the studies.
Commercial Case
Direct procurement
A. Clearly state the procurement/commercial requirements for intervention
As per DFID’s Research and Evidence Divisions procurement guidelines and procedures, we are
going through a targeted mini competitive process (Option 2) for 2 of the 3 studies being
commissioned. We will go directly to the original authors for the third study.
B. How does the intervention design use competition to drive commercial advantage
for DFID?
For the 2 studies we have gone to mini-competition to ensure that the preferred bid offers both a
strong technical and commercial proposal for the work. The third study is the update of an existing
publication, so we have decided to contract the original authors directly, instead of starting the work
from the scratch with a new supplier.
As part of the programme appraisal process, significant attention will paid to the commercial proposal
with our procurement department undertaking rigorous analysis to ensure that value for money is
achieved from the outset and that where possible immediate savings identified on fee rates etc.
C. How do we expect the market place will respond to this opportunity?
For the 2 studies we have identified a number of suppliers who might be interested in undertaking the
assignments. Early indications are that most of the suppliers contacted will formally respond to the
ITT in a positive manner.
D. What are the key cost elements that affect overall price? How is value added and
how will we measure and improve this?
The key cost element for this type of studies will relate to the availability of quality researchers with
the requisite skills required to undertake the work. As this work will be undertaken in the UK, the
main costs will relate to fee rates.
The commercial proposal received will include a detailed breakdown of costs on a monthly basis for
the four months required to fully complete the work. As part of the evaluation process it is important
that the bids received represent the most cost effective way to meet the overall objectives of the
programme. Bidders are expected to demonstrate how they have taken value for money into
account in their budget as well as in managing any subsequent sub-contractors.
E. What is the intended Procurement Process to support contract award?
In accordance with DFID’s procurement procedures and regulations, DFID will issue an Invitation to
Tended (ITT) to all identified potential suppliers. Interested suppliers will have 4 weeks to respond
with a proposal, which will in turn be assessed against set DFID criteria. Once successful suppliers
are identified, RED’s procurement team will issue a contract on our behalf.
F. How will contract & supplier performance be managed through the life of the
intervention?
DFID’s Lead Advisor and Programme Manager will be responsible for the day to day management of
the studies. DFID will have an inception meeting with all successful applicants within 2-4 week
following the signing of contracts. Initial payment will be made on receipt and acceptance of the draft
report. The subsequent and final payment will be made on receipt and acceptance of the final report.
Indirect procurement
A. Why is the proposed funding mechanism/form of arrangement the right one for this
intervention, with this development partner?
N/A
B. Value for money through procurement
N/A
Financial Case
A. What are the costs, how are they profiled and how will you ensure accurate
forecasting?
The total combined cost of the 3 studies is up to £220,000. Once the bids have been received,
appraised and contract awarded, DFID will work with our implementing partners to ensure accurate
financial forecasting. We will use the budget submitted as part of the procurement process as a
starting point for this discussion on monthly forecasting.
B. How will it be funded: capital/programme/admin?
Funds for this programme will come from DFID’s programme budget.
C. How will funds be paid out?
Funds will be paid out in arrears on receipt of a draft report scheduled to be recieved by 31 March
2012. Subsequent and final payment will be made on receipt of the final report which is due to be
recieved by 30 April 2012.
D. What is the assessment of financial risk and fraud?
The risk of fiduciary risk and fraud is considered to be low. Our implementing partners will be UK or
reputable academic institutions, who are well governed and managed in accordance with robust
management and audit procedures.
E. How will expenditure be monitored, reported, and accounted for?
Payments will be made in arrears based on receipt of the draft and final report. The dates for these
reports are 31 March 2012 and 30 April 2012 respectively.
Management Case
A. What are the Management Arrangements for implementing the intervention?
DFID’s Lead Advisor and Programme Manager will oversee the day to day implementation of the
studies. We will also draw on our Senior Research Fellow as and when required. In early 2012 we
will seek to establish a Steering Group to help oversee the implementation of the studies.
B. What are the risks and how these will be managed?
Given the relatively low value of the contracts let, the main risk associated with the 3 studies is
around timely delivery of the end product. We have mitigated against this risk by ensuring payments
are linked to the delivery of outputs.
C. What conditions apply (for financial aid only)?
N/A
D. How will progress and results be monitored, measured and evaluated?
DFID will work with the Steering Group to ensure the end products are fit for purpose and help meet
the needs of policy makers and inform future DFID programming on zoonoses. We will measure and
evaluate the results through the development of the future DFID programme in terms of the bids
received and further studies commissioned.
Logframe
Quest No of logframe for this intervention: