Business Case and Intervention Summary
Intervention Summary
Title: Zoonoses and Emerging Livestock Systems1 (ZELS): reducing the risk to
livestock and people
What support will the UK provide?
DFID will provide up to £12.53 million over a period from 2012 to 2018 to fund innovative and high
quality research on the risk factors which favour persistence or (re)-emergence of zoonotic diseases
(i.e. naturally transmitted from animals to people), and their socio-economic impact. The appearance of
zoonotic diseases is unpredictable, and their rapid spreads have demonstrated potential for significant
economic losses, including loss of life of animals and people. Over the past decade and a half, several
episodes of zoonotic diseases have averaged in global economic losses of nearly US$7billion/year.
The programme will use inter- and multi-disciplinary approaches to incentivise partnerships and
innovation with southern partners and provide a step change in the accessibility of evidence and
technologies available to inform decision makers on how to minimise animal and human health risks of
zoonotic diseases associated with the rapidly changing nature of livestock production systems in
developing countries. This will include (i) improved methods and novel technologies for the detection,
prevention (including in wildlife species), diagnosis and treatment of zoonotic diseases, (ii) identification
of cost-effective systems which will facilitate the early notification (including in wildlife species),
monitoring and control of the presence of zoonoses in livestock and humans, (iii) options for the
implementation of appropriate risk management strategies to decrease the impact of zoonoses on poor
people and their livestock, including managing the livestock/wildlife interface, (iv) innovative ways of
promoting increased awareness of the risks amongst those involved in the livestock value chain, and
(v) identification of various policies (e.g. animal health, public health, and environment) and institutional
changes with the potential to decrease the risk of zoonoses both developing in animals and being
transmitted to humans.
These outputs will contribute to improving livestock health and productivity and the health of poor
people associated with livestock systems in developing countries where the risks of zoonoses are high.
This will be measured by increased productivity and health of livestock in emerging livestock systems
where zoonoses are prevalent and decreased burden of human sickness attributable to zoonoses
these countries.
Why is UK support required?
What need we are trying to address?
We live in a rapidly changing world, in which the human population is expected to reach more than 9
billion by 2050. The average use of natural resources per person is increasing. Globalisation, trade and
climate change are predicted to increase the pressure on many of these resources. We are also
witnessing the movement of expanding human populations into new habitats, bringing people and their
livestock into closer contact with wildlife.
Within this context the demand for livestock products is rapidly increasing. This has resulted in a
number of changes in traditional farming practice, particularly in developing countries. These changes
1 Emerging livestock systems are defined as small scale livestock systems appearing in developing countries in
response to the rising demand for animal products such as meat and milk. This programme will also include
wider impacts of the emerging livestock systems on the food supply chain from farm to consumption .
1
include an increasing density of livestock being raised in close proximity with people, the encroachment
of grazing livestock onto land unsuitable for such use, and opportunistic livestock keeping (e.g. periurban indoor rearing).
These pressures may impact on the health of the livestock themselves. As a consequence, they may
lead to increasing risks for the livelihood and health of humans. One of the key human health risks
which may arise is increased exposure to infections transmitted from animals to humans. These
infections are referred to as zoonoses and may be caused, for example, by bacteria, viruses and
parasites. They can range from those commonly prevalent in a country (i.e. endemic) to new and reemerging zoonoses (i.e. exotic) carried between countries. This initiative will focus on how the risk of
zoonoses (particularly those which impact on the poor) can be decreased.
A recently completed DFID funded study shows that zoonoses are a contributing factor to 50% of all
livestock losses. The study also found strong evidence that “zoonoses are absolutely and relatively
more important in low-income countries compared to high-income countries”. In low-income countries,
infectious diseases are responsible for nearly 40% of the burden of human sickness and death, and
20% of this is attributable to zoonoses or diseases recently emerged from animals.
What we will do to tackle this problem?
DFID will provide £12.6m over 6.5 years to fund a Zoonoses research programme, which will
commission research teams to generate robust evidence to help inform policy making at a national
level on risk based and proportionate interventions in the context of the complex and on-going changes
in human and animal populations and in the environment. The programme will address (i) significant
research gaps in technical and policy areas on zoonotic diseases, and (ii) will address zoonoses in a
systematic (i.e. ‘holistic’ - inter- and multi-disciplinary), rather than fragmented (e.g. ‘silo-based’ biomedical) approach to contribute to sustainable poverty reduction.
Who will be implementing the support we provide?
The commissioning will be led by the UK Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
(BBSRC). It is a joint initiative between DFID the BBSRC, the Economic and Social Research Council
(ESRC) the Medical Research Council (MRC) and the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC).
This programme will also contribute to the Global Food Security Programme, and Living With
Environmental Change and Global Uncertainties – security for all in changing world. Up to £18m in
total is available to fund high quality proposals. - £12m from DFID, up to £2m from BBSRC, up to £1m
from ESRC, up to £1m from NERC and up to £2m from MRC,
What are the expected results?
The expected results from the FY 2012/13 and 2013/14 (Development Phase) will be the establishment
of the programme, including its governance and management arrangements, and the successful
completion of a joint call for proposals.
The expected results from the FY 2013/14-2017/18 (Implementation Phase) will be improved and/or
new rapid fields tests, drugs, vaccines, and risk based disease control interventions (i.e. reporting,
surveillance, disease control), including identification of various policies (e.g. animal health, public
health, and environment) and institutional changes with the potential to decrease the risk of zoonoses
both developing in animals and being transmitted to humans.
It is anticipated that, through i) the appointment of a knowledge broker; ii) a commissioning process
involving workshops to bring researchers and users together from the conception of projects; and iii)
the breadth of basic/strategic through to applied inter-disciplinary science within projects, will result in a
better understanding of how the context and characteristics of changing livestock systems, within the
broader regional and global environmental and socio-economic context, affect the risks of emergence,
2
development and transmission of diseases to livestock and/or humans, with an understanding of the
behaviour of individuals, communities and governments in monitoring, reporting and managing the
risks.
Business Case
Strategic Case
A. Context and need for a DFID intervention
What is the need for intervention?
Zoonotic diseases are usually broadly referred to as infections (e.g. viral, bacterial, fungi) or
infestations (e.g. internal and external parasites) that are naturally transmitted between animals and
humans. Clinical characterisation in a susceptible host may vary from no signs to severe signs of the
disease. The figure below shows the prevalence of different agents in causing the most important
zoonoses (see Figure below)(ILRI/RVC, 2011).
Zoonotic pathogens are an integral part of the environment we live in. Both domestic and wild
animals play a critical role in maintaining and amplifying the pathogen in nature (Woolhouse and
Gowtage-Sequeira, 2005). As such, they remain the most common source of zoonotic pathogens for
humans.
3
Susceptible populations become exposed to infection via one, or a combination of different infection
routes. The most common infection routes are (i) direct contact with infected host(s); (ii) ingestion of
contaminated food, water or other organic matter such as faeces, urine or saliva; (iii) inhalation of
contaminated air or dust; (iv) exposure to infected arthropod vectors such as mosquitoes, fleas and
ticks; (v) exposure to contaminated animal and healthcare equipment) (Hammill and others, 2007).
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. In
Africa, for example, there are some 270 million pastoralists, who live on about 43% of Africa’s total
land mass. Livestock or livestock-related activities contribute at least 50 percent of total value
of marketed production and subsistence production consumed by an average pastoralist household
(African Union, 2010).
A DFID funded study found that zoonoses have a significant 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. They comprise 20% of all causes of infectious diseases in people. Of these,
82% had a wildlife reservoir, 74% had a domestic animal reservoir and 60% had both wildlife and a
domestic animal reservoir. The proportion of zoonotic diseases is more than 23 times higher in
developing countries than developed countries (ILRI/RVC, (2011). Zoonoses contribute to 50% of
livestock losses. Within these, 50% are losses in cattle, followed by 42% of losses in poultry and 6%
in small ruminants (sheep and goats) (The World Bank and the TAFS Forum, 2011).
Women are particularly susceptible to some zoonotic diseases due to their exposure to raw milk,
manure, raw meat and animal birth fluids. Zoonoses can add to the health problems of the poor,
particularly those with Tuberculosis or HIV/AIDS. Recently published GALVmed reports (GALVmed,
2011; GALVmed, 2011a) on the gender and social dimensions of livestock keeping in Africa and Asia
suggest that a majority of those affected by HIV/AIDS in Africa are female-headed households, and
that AIDS affected households are the most vulnerable to food insecurity and poverty.
What is demand from policy-makers?
Experience so far, in generic terms, has shown that occurrences of either known or new and
emerging zoonoses may be unpredictable. They may demonstrate no obvious logical links between
the overall impact and the change to one component of the ecosystem (Craig and others, 2004). This
4
requires programmes with the scope to research complex social and ecological systems that favour
these occurrences, rather than focus on interplay between the pathogen, host and the environment.
Recent outbreaks of zoonotic diseases (i.e. Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, a severe
respiratory disease in humans caused by a virus originating from small mammals; Highly Pathogenic
Avian Influenza H5N1 – a disease of humans caused by a virus originating from poultry) have
highlighted that countries cannot act in isolation (RVC/FAO, 2010). This has led to international policy
makers’ and stakeholders calls for more horizontal interaction among the disciplines and the sector
agencies, departments, and ministries that are responsible for public health, medical professions,
veterinary services, and the environment (World Bank, 2010).
DFID strategic planning meetings on zoonoses, including national and international stakeholders,
were held between 2009 and 2011 and concluded that:
a)
Zoonotic diseases remain a significant burden on public and animal heath in developing
countries. Poor people and their livestock are particularly vulnerable in terms of their
health and livelihoods;
b)
Significant research gaps remain in technical and policy areas on zoonotic diseases
related to animal and veterinary public health, public health, wildlife health, Agriculture
and Ecosystems, information and communication technology, socio-economics and
mapping, including markets for products to manage zoonoses;
c)
Zoonotic diseases need to be addressed in a systematic (e.g. ‘holistic’ – interdisciplinary), rather than a fragmented (e.g. ‘silo-based’ bio-medical) approach, to
ensure a sustainable contribution to poverty reduction. A ‘holistic’ approach will ensure
gathering of robust evidence in the context of complex and on-going changes in human
and animal populations and the environment to help inform policy making and
interventions proportionate to risks.
d)
The programme purpose should be to decrease the impact of zoonoses on the health of
poor and vulnerable communities and health and productivity of their livestock.
What we will do to address the need?
DFID funds will help to establish a substantive research programme to function as an integrated and
co-ordinated inter- and multidisciplinary framework which is appropriately governed and managed in
order to address specific research questions and deliver useful research outputs. This research will
inform and guide effective national and international policy in zoonoses, and provide input into
policies related to other areas such as agriculture and hunger, health, nutrition, climate change,
gender and growth.
Research supported by this programme will use innovative approaches 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 make a step change in the accessibility of evidence available
to inform decision makers on how to minimise the health risks associated with the rapidly changing
nature of livestock production systems in developing countries, focusing on those risks which impact
on the livelihoods and health of poor people.
The step change will result from combining (a) a better understanding of how the context and
characteristics of such livestock systems, (within the broader regional and global environmental and
socio-economic context), affect the risks of emergence, development and transmission of diseases to
livestock and/or humans, with (b) an understanding of the behaviour of individuals, communities and
governments in monitoring, reporting and managing the risks. This will be achieved through the
appointment of a knowledge broker (to facilitate interactions between researchers and users
5
throughout the lifecycle of projects), a managed 2-stage commissioning process to create
partnerships which cross disciplinary boundaries and bring the decision-maker/researcher
communities closer together and through the breadth of research (from basic to applied) which it is
anticipated will occur within projects, due to the funding collaboration between DFID and the
Research Councils.
Why we will fund it and what it will consider?
The programme will generate evidence to help with the selection of risk based and cost-effective
prevention and control options which may contribute to decreasing the likelihood of occurrence,
prevent the transmission, and reduce the impact of major zoonotic diseases on poor people and their
livestock. The programme will fund excellent research with high potential impact and will incentivise
partnerships with southern institutions.
The programme provides an innovative way in which a range of disciplines will be working together. It
recognises 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 short to medium-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). Therefore, the programme’s
research scope will be multi-level, interconnected and clearly focused on the outcome of reducing the
impact of zoonoses on poor people and their livestock (see Figure below):
National &International context
International health standards
Trade regulations
Public & animal health regulations
Environmental change
Local Context
Inputs and outputs to/from system
Environmental
Institutional
Cultural
People
Livestock
Wildlife
Research to decrease
disease transmission
and/or severity of its
effect by better
understanding of
context, pathways of
transmission and
factors affecting them
Disease transmission
The programme will broadly consider the following:


Zoonotic infections: including endemic, and new and emerging zoonotic diseases caused
by viruses, bacteria, fungi, protozoa and other parasites;
Reservoirs of disease: understanding the dynamics of infectious agents in livestock &
wildlife populations, and ecological processes involved in their distribution, maintenance and
6







abundance in environmental reservoirs;
Host/pathogen interactions: the biological context that involves understanding the biology
of pathogens, their virulence mechanisms, the response elicited by the host when challenged
with these pathogens, and the interactions between a pathogen and its host;
Transmission pathways: interconnections between animal and human health, and the
prevalence, processes and dynamics of multiple transmission pathways (e.g. livestock and
human contact with wildlife, vectors, and zoonotic organisms in air, soil and water within the
livestock system; within herd and between livestock species; and processes in the food chain
from production through to consumption). This includes the exposure and risks to neighbours,
potential consumers and traders;
Livestock and food systems: the characteristics of the livestock systems and options for
managing risks, including (but not limited to) which species (and breeds) are kept, how they
are managed and how and where the products are marketed and used (for home
consumption or trading);
Impacts of disease: the impacts and burden of zoonotic diseases on the health status of the
livestock keepers, their communities and their livestock and people wherever there is a threat
of zoonotic disease spreading and taking on wider endemic or epidemic/pandemic forms;
Environmental context: the broader environmental context and on-going environmental
changes (e.g. global and regional climate change, land use and habitat change) and possible
trajectories of disease dynamics within which the systems are located, including (but not
limited to) the interactions between livestock and resources such as food and water and their
interactions with wildlife species or known vectors of disease, and risks posed by the local
environment;
Institutional context: the ‘institutional’ context (national and international, formal and
informal) including (but not limited to) policies relating to animal and human health, and the
avoidance and management of outbreaks; and issues of politics and power that shape the
relations between government officials (such as public health officials), and others in positions
of authority or respect likely to provide advice, (such as veterinary and medical professionals)
and other stakeholders such as feed suppliers and traders:
Socio-economic context: The socio-economic context, including absolute and relative levels
of poverty within particular communities, the social and economic structures and practices
that shape livestock systems and people’s interactions with livestock and wildlife, the
prevalent cultures, norms and belief systems which impact upon people’s behaviour under
differing circumstances and contexts. This will also include how people evaluate risk and take
decisions under conditions of uncertainty, and what are the informal sources of information
and advice to which people turn including forms of indigenous knowledge and local culture.
It is anticipated that research challenges will be addressed therefore through a mix of (i) Topic
Specific Project Grants and (ii) Research Partnership Grants. The former are smaller more targeted
projects addressing specific research gaps in knowledge which are likely to constrain delivery at the
systems level. The latter are envisaged as larger systems-level projects, aimed at understanding the
functioning of various parts of the system, as well as the system as a whole and which will thereby
deliver the type of integrated output required of a step change in evidence provision. Where
appropriate, links between the two types of grants will be encouraged to ensure that research outputs
from Topic Specific Project Grants are effectively integrated into Research Partnership Grants
projects.
How this approach fits with DFID strategic policy objectives?
The programme will facilitate development of long term and sustainable approaches at zoonoses
technical and policy levels that will contribute towards the attainment of a number of Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs), particularly in Africa and Asia. The programme is fully consistent with
MDG 6 (Combat HIV/AIDS, Malaria and other diseases) with potential to contribute to MDGs 1, 3, 7
and 8.
7
The programme will contribute to the UK multi-partner programmes in: Global Food Security
(www.foodsecurity.ac.uk), Living With Environmental Change responding to the resource challenge
“to promote human well-being, alleviate poverty and minimise waste by ensuring a sustainable
supply of water, food and other biological resources” (www.lwec.org.uk) and Global Uncertainties security for all in changing world (www.globaluncertainties.ac.uk). These programmes provide
opportunities for collaboration with relevant UK-funded research programmes e.g. Environmental and
Social Ecology of Human Infectious Diseases(2), Ecosystem Services for Poverty Alleviation(3),
Ecology and Evolution of Infectious Diseases(4).
The programme is consistent with the current DFID Structural Reform Plan and RED Research
Results Offer. It supports DFID’s objective to continue to invest in cost effective and innovative
approaches which are aimed at protecting poor people’s health, livelihoods and increasing their
income by reducing livestock losses. It also supports DFID’s agriculture research priorities paper in
terms of innovation, high technical challenge and research into use.
B. Impact and Outcome that we expect to achieve
Impact
Historically, the returns of livestock research are not well quantified. Therefore, this programme has
will include such research to better quantify impacts.
At a local level, the outcomes of the programme are expected to have impact on:
a) Preventing and mitigating economic losses associated with zoonotic diseases through
improved animal health, food production systems and public health, including other
determinants of public health (e.g. income, well-being, access medical care, social status,
childhood development, employment and working conditions). For example, zoonoses
contribute to 50% of livestock losses. (The World Bank and the TAFS Forum, 2011). In
humans, the proportion of zoonoses is more than 23 times higher in developing countries
than developed countries resulting in some 149 million of DALY (Disability Adjusted Live
Years) lost (ILRI/RVC, (2011). Thus, the benefits will be measured in the prevention of illness
and death of millions of livestock while maximising livestock production and productivity, and
improving human health.
b) Maximising the production and productivity of animals will increase food security and improve
nutrition of poor people. By reducing animal losses due to zoonoses, there will be more meat
and milk available and the extra protein available in the household could contribute to
increasing diversity in diets. For children, this will also mean that their potential for learning is
increased because of nutrition and specific diet components found in milk and animal protein.
This will also contribute to increased interaction between livestock and crops from the point of
nutrient recycling, soil fertility and the sustainability of mixed livestock-crops systems as one
way of spreading risks to livelihoods in case of animal or crop losses. For example, some
studies estimated that the net present value “of vaccine research for animal trypanosomosis
is estimated to be at least US$288m with an internal rate of return of 33% and a benefit-cost
ratio of 34:1, given an adoption period of 12 years, a maximum adoption rate of 30%, a
2
http://www.mrc.ac.uk/Fundingopportunities/Calls/ESEI/index.htm
3
http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/programmes/espa/
4
http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=5269
8
discount rate of 5%, and 30% probability of the research being successful within 10 years”
(Kristjanson and others, 1999).
c) At local level, positively impact on rural income and food security by facilitating risk based
measures for trade in livestock and their products. The benefit will be measured in increases
in rural income, including protection of human health and wellbeing. For example, one study
estimated that financial gains from investing in either treatment of diseased animals or
prophylactic treatment of herds against animal African trypanosomosis will result in the
averages benefit-costs ratios for treatment and prevention of 5.71 and 1.35, respectively
(Salifu and others, 2010).
At a national level, these results are expected to provide evidence for policy making on proportionate
risk management of zoonoses in terms of preparedness, prevention, response and recovery. The
benefit will be in maximising the use of resources from community to official levels which could easily
switch from ‘business as usual’ to an ‘emergency’ and vice versa with minimum disruption. It will also
ensure better awareness and readiness of poor countries to respond accordingly. For example, the
total calculated incremental funding needs to bring the zoonotic disease prevention and control
system up to OIE and WHO standards in the World Bank client countries is estimated to range from
US$1.9 billion per year (under modest assumptions of the importance of zoonotic diseases) to US$
3.4 billion (under higher disease prevalence assumptions). This is based on the extrapolation of data
from this report to 139 countries (60 low and 79 middle income countries) across different geographic
regions with some preliminary assumptions made (refer to results section) with the expected rate of
return varying from 14 to 123 percent annually depending on the assumptions on regarding the
reduction of the disease risk, the severity of the outbreak, and the prevalence of the disease (World
Bank, 2012, in press)
At the international level, these results are expected to contribute to better aligned international
policies and responses in terms of research needs, control, trade and the movement of animal
products, and people. The benefit will be in the sustained and structured coordination of key national
and international organisations and proportionate and evidence supported risk-based and prioritysetting zoonoses risk management policies. For example, based on conservative assumptions,
efficiency gains between US$184 million and US$506 million per year or 10-16 percent could be
expected if cooperation between the sectors, under the “One Health” approach, would be established
(World Bank, 2012, in press).
Outcome
The major outcome will be new evidence and innovative technologies which is accessible to
decision-makers on how to minimise animal and human health risks of zoonoses in relevant socioeconomic context of developing countries. To achieve this outcome, it is expected that the main
outputs will be collaborative research which generates high quality innovations of relevance to, and
usable by, developing countries, and adding value to developing country science and policy-making
through establishment of relevant partnerships to identify opportunities to minimise the impact of
zoonotic diseases. These innovations will include interventions as well as technological advances
(see Theory of Change below) such as:



Improved methods and novel technologies for detection and prevention (including in wildlife
species), diagnosis and treatment of zoonotic diseases which may be applied as necessary
to the livestock owned by poor people and to poor people themselves;
Identification of cost-effective systems, which will facilitate the early notification (including in
wildlife species), monitoring and control of the presence of zoonoses in livestock and humans;
Options for implementation of appropriate risk management strategies to avoid or decrease
9


disease and therefore reduce the impact of zoonoses on poor people and their livestock,
including managing the livestock/wildlife interface;
Innovative ways of promoting increased awareness of the risks amongst those involved in the
livestock value chain. Promoting the take-up of acceptable and practical ways of minimising
those risks;
Identification of policies (e.g. animal health, public health, environment) and institutional
changes with the potential to decrease the risk of zoonoses both developing in animals and
being transmitted to humans.
As such, the programme will provide a step-change in the accessibility of evidence available to
decision-makers to address growing problem of zoonoses. Through a Knowledge Broker and close
interaction with those in the frontline dealing with zoonotic disease incidents, the implementation of
the outputs of the programme should be rapid and hence able to decrease the geographical, social
and economic impact of the zoonotic disease.
Control of a zoonosis requires early and rapid actions. For example, a typical episode of zoonotic
disease may have a pathogen originating in wildlife, then passing to livestock (which often remains
undetected or monitored), and then from livestock to humans, at which point the rate of spread of
infection may be rapid. The case for control of zoonotic diseases is compelling as it is estimated that
the economic losses from six major outbreaks of highly fatal zoonoses between 1997 and 2009
amounted to at least US$80 billion(5) On average the losses were $6.7 billion per year.
Appraisal Case
A. What are the feasible options that address the need set out in the Strategic case?
To achieve the Impact and Outcome, we have set the following key success criteria:
a) Delivering high quality research with development relevance and potential for impact –
high quality research products delivered on time to high standards, clear ‘tailor-made’ and ‘fit
for purpose’ reports and policy briefs to suit technical and non-technical audience at local,
national and international level. Successful research proposals are expected to demonstrate
excellent innovative inter and multi-disciplinary research (including an appropriate mix of
social, natural, mathematical, medical and veterinary science) based on quantitative and
qualitative research methods, and how the anticipated outputs will contribute to delivering the
programme goal.
b) Developing and facilitating partnerships with southern partners – partners will be
selected on the basis of the following criteria: (1) high quality research and technical product
delivery, (2) the development component and impact on health and livelihoods of poor people,
(3) clearly outlined roles and responsibilities and performance of management systems, (4)
having effective and efficient plans in place to identify and address failures of partners to carry
out the tasks; (5) ability to produce regular progress reports – technical and financial, and
case studies with emphasis on impact.
c) Developing and facilitating uptake of new technologies and control tools by southern
partners – new technologies will be made available to researchers and policy makers to (1)
create potential for communication and awareness, (2) build on willingness of communities
and policy makers to participate in zoonoses control to maximise benefits at the household
level; (3) ensure right mix of field and empowerment methods which are gender sensitive.
5
Nipah virus (Malaysia), West Nile Fever (USA), SARS (Asia, Canada, other), HPAI (Asia, Europe), BSE (US,
UK), Rift Valley Fever (Tanzania, Kenya, Somalia)
10
d) Governance & management - clear focus on facilitating links between research, policy,
business and local community networks, delivery, reporting and impact, M&E Strategy.
The following options have been considered as feasible and assessed against the key success
criteria:
a) Option 1 - UK Research Councils Partnership. This option will bring together the Biotechnology
and Biological Sciences Research Council; Medical Research Council; Natural Environment
Research Council; Economic and Social Research Council).
b) Option 2 – Open competition for a consortium – This option would involve a world-wide call for
organisations to work together to bid for management of the £18million fund.
c) Option 3 – Counterfactual: Do not invest in this programme and spend on other research
options through other channels. We could save £12million to invest into our other research
priorities such as (a) speeding up adoption of technological innovation by smallholders at scale in a
cost-effective and sustainable way, (b) strengthening the evidence base by exploring the constraints
facing small-holder farmers and the way in which these might be overcome, and (c) increase the
availability of technological innovations through translation of new and existing research into new
products and their commercialisation by working with both the public and private sector.
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
Evidence rating
Strong evidence - already established and tried and tested mechanisms to
commission research through a joint open call for research proposals. DFID already
has joint initiatives with relevant UK RC on programmes to areas such as agriculture,
climate change, for example.
Strong evidence of creating partnerships to deliver new technologies through a joint
call for proposals
Strong evidence of clearly outlined roles and responsibilities and performance of
management systems other joint initiatives with BBSRC, including effective
partnerships with southern partners (i.e. SARID, CIDLID, SCPRID) and reporting
2
Limited - no such organisation currently exists, it would involve high transaction costs
both in terms of human and financial resources, in addition to the time taken to set
up and implement robust governance and management arrangement
Limited – we could continue to address individual diseases as there is currently no
systematic and inter- and multi-disciplinary programme in place to address zoonoses
from a holistic perspective as widely acknowledged by the international community
and recommended by the stakeholders
3
Theory of change for preferred option
We set out the Theory of Change which underpins our evidence ratings for the preferred option:
a) Impact (Goal)

Improve livestock health and productivity and the health of poor people associated with
livestock systems in developing countries where the risks of zoonoses are high
11
b) Outcome (Purpose)

Evidence and technologies available to inform decision makers on how to minimise
animal and human health risks of zoonotic diseases associated with changing nature of
livestock production systems
c) Outputs

Collaborative research generates high quality research products of relevance to, and
usable by developing countries

Add value to developing country science and policy making by:
 Improved methods and novel technologies for detection and prevention
(including in wildlife species), diagnosis and treatment of zoonotic diseases
which may be applied as necessary to the livestock owned by poor people
and people themselves;
 Identification of cost-effective systems which will facilitate the early notification
(including in wildlife species), monitoring and control of the presence of
zoonoses in livestock and humans;
 Options for implementation of appropriate risk management strategies to
decrease the impact of zoonoses on poor people and their livestock, including
managing the livestock/wildlife interface;
 Innovative ways of promoting increased awareness of the risks amongst those
involved in the livestock value chain. Promoting the take-up of acceptable and
practical ways of minimising those risks;
 Various policies (e.g. animal and veterinary public health, public health,
environment) and institutional changes considered with the potential to
decrease the risk of zoonoses both developing in animals and being
transmitted to humans;
 Creating sustainable partnerships.
d) Input (Activities)


Establish partnership with the UK Research Councils to support the programme to
address the issues of zoonoses from technical to socio-economic and environmental
aspects,
Run collaborative research projects to deliver quality research products of relevance to
and useable by developing countries, enhance the scientific capacity of southern
partners and build research networks.
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.
12
Option
1
2
3
Climate change and environment risks
and impacts, Category (A, B, C, D)
Livestock do have a negative impact on
the
environment
and
produce
greenhouse gases, dependent on
numbers and the efficiency of the
production systems (B)
Same as above as only mode of delivery
changes
Same as above as only mode of delivery
changes
Climate
change
and
environment
opportunities, Category (A, B, C, D)
The results of this research should
contribute positively by decreasing GHG
emissions per kg livestock product
produced (A)
The demand for livestock products, particularly in Asia, is driving up the number of livestock kept for
production purposes. This intervention is likely to decrease the number of animals which need to be
kept to meet this demand and thus is unlikely to have any negative impacts or to involve any potential
risks for either the environment or climate. On the other hand, given the involvement of the NERC
community, 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).
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; WHO/FAO/OIE, 2004).
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
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, 2011).
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
13
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, 2011).
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; FAO, 2003; WHO/FAO/OIE, 2004).
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?
The Option 1 - UK Research Councils Partnership
In terms of value for money, DFID will leverage funds up to £6million. This will be the first time that
the Agriculture Team will enter into a partnership with four UK RCs, which brings together animal
health, public health, socio-economic and environment related skills and experiences to generate
research for the benefit of this programme.
All UKRCs have strong track record of delivering high quality research. This partnership will enable
integrated research to be funded to address macro-priorities for zoonoses beyond the current, and
traditional, disease specific research issues. The UKRCs have an effective peer review mechanism
in place to provide for the selection of projects and delivery of a strong evidence base.
We consider that the participating UKRC’s have robust systems in place for selection and
management of partners. A UK RC partnership will encourage the engagement of southern partners.
The selection of the partners will be based on their quality of experience in the fields relevant to
zoonoses through a combination of searching for relevant expertise, invitation, open call and peerreview. This is an innovative approach that will ensure a standardised approach, methodologies and
quality systems. This represents a very good value for money in terms of commissioning research
and innovation.
In our experience with other BBSRC programmes the transaction costs remain low. BBSRC will be
the lead RC for this programme. DFID funds will be used to fund administration of the programme,
which is around 4.48% of the DFID funds for the programme (£12million). In the context of DFID
funds, of the 4.48% of the administrative fund, 43.78% will be used by BBSRC to run the ZELS
Secretariat, including the time from a senior post holder in BBSRC because of the complexity of the
programme. The remaining 56.22% of the fund will be used to run the assessment panels and for
meetings with scientists following an outline joint call for proposals, and a call for full proposals. This
ensures that the administrative costs of the programme continue to represent a good value for money
for DFID.
The Agriculture Team already has three programmes (i.e. SARID, CIDLID, SCPRID) that are carried
out by one of the UK RCs (i.e. BBSRC). All programmes continue to score high on DFID’s Annual
reviews. BBSRC will be the lead RC in this programme.
The Option 2 - Open competition for a consortium. This option would involve a competitive
process. Given that no such organisation currently exists, this would involve high transaction costs
both in terms of human and financial resources, in addition to the time taken to set up and implement
robust governance and management arrangements. DFID would have to run a competitive tendering
process to try and bring together all the relevant sciences to deliver research for this programme.
This option could in theory deliver a Consortium that can create the scientific partnerships, incentivise
14
researchers and bring all disciplined together, however RED experience to date on establishing
consortiums has been mixed.
Given the breadth of scientific disciplines required and the range from basic through to applied
sciences, there is currently no such stand-alone organisation in place and the risks of a new
consortium being established to take this programme forward would be very high. This option works
well for smaller amounts of money, where the remit is rather narrower than the one proposed here.
Recent difficulties in commissioning RPCs in one specific region (e.g. the South East Asian) provide
evidence of the risks involved.
If a consortium were to be established it would take a considerable amount of time and resources to
get up and running. By going down this route it is uncertain that we would attract joint funding from
the participating UK Research Councils. RED’s experience to-date suggest that while research
excellence may be ensured in this way, there is no guarantee that effective linkages and interdisciplinary partnerships required for successful delivery of this programme would be established and
function in a most cost-effective way. This option would not represent good value for money for DFID
The Option 3 – Counterfactual – We would continue to engage in animal health through other DFID
funded initiatives which addresses specific and very limited number of zoonotic diseases, such as
GALVmed (two zoonoses addressed – Rift Valley fever and Porcine Cysticercosis, African Animal
trypanosomosis), CIDLID (a project on drug dosing on animal trypanosomosis), or strategic
partnership with BMGF (bovine Tuberculosis). If DFID does not invest in this programme:




While the current DFID programmes in animal health are very important in addressing specific
diseases, there is currently no systematic and inter- and multi-disciplinary programme in place
to address zoonoses from a holistic perspective as widely acknowledged by the international
community and recommended by the stakeholders. Collaboration with the partner UKRCs
enables more strategic and basic research to be funded, which has the potential to make
more significant advances in finding solutions for a number of zoonotic diseases.
The knowledge gaps would continue to have negative impact on progress in developing new
reliable and cheap pen-side diagnostic tests, new effective and safer drugs, and new vaccine
to manage many zoonoses, and their effective uptake by stimulating markets for such
products. We could, for example, invest in GALVmed to expand their operations, however,
GALVmed would require significant technical scaling up to address zoonoses from the holistic
perspective, and would be required to expand its resources considerably to accommodate the
design of this programme, which will significantly increase administrative costs at the expense
of research and the quality of the outcome of the programme.
It is highly likely that zoonoses would continue to significantly contribute to poverty despite the
potential for intervention strategies that could mitigate their impact on poor livestock keepers,
and small mixed-crop-livestock farmers in Africa and Asia. We could, for example, invest into
our bovine TB programme, however, this programme is at its early stages and considered as
a high-risk/high-pay off programme. The only potential for significant scaling up of funds for
this programme would depend if the new vaccine prove to be effective. Even in that case, we
would be addressing one zoonotic disease only.
National policies, decisions and actions, or their lack of, would continue to have unintended
consequences that could help zoonotic diseases to flourish and continue to pose threat and
cause harm to local poor populations, and potentially the global community.
The economic case for urgent evidence to manage the increasing risk of zoonoses, in countries
where the demand for livestock products is increasing, has already been made. No UK funder on its
own has the remit to invest in research across the disciplines and need for basic through to applied
approaches, with the links to users embedded from project concept stage. This was clear during the
discussions with the Research Councils and their enthusiasm for involvement in tackling this growing
global challenge.
15
Conclusion: Option 1 - UK Research Councils Partnership represents the best value for money
for DFID as the programme will deliver the best possible outcome for developing countries through
inter- and multi-disciplinary research partnerships which is focused on a greater number of zoonotic
diseases caused by viruses, bacteria and parasites.
D. What measures can be used to assess Value for Money for the intervention?
Bringing together a UKRC’s partnership to work on zoonoses programme will form a very strong
platform to ensure high quality science working to generate products for use by policy and decision
makers. All partner UKRC’s have a proven track record in managing research initiatives. We also
require that the main components of the project are effectively targeted vis-à-vis funding levels and
be substantiated with appropriate financial reports (see section on Management).
Livestock productivity adds value and has multiplier effects on local economies. Households with
marketable livestock can sustain cash incomes needed for improved food security and also create
labour opportunities. Increased risks from livestock diseases threaten to reduce benefits from this
vital food and trade resource.
For example, CDC estimates reported by the World Bank (2010), for the direct costs of recent
zoonoses outbreaks include $400 million for Nipah virus in Malaysia. $11,000 million for BSE in the
UK, and $50-120,000 million for SARS globally. The World Bank, 2010 estimates a US$10 billion
investment in 49 low income developing countries is required to establish a one new ‘One Health’
framework. In 2007 Uganda and Vietnam estimated to have spent $17million and $67million
(international dollars) on national prevention systems allowing early detection and rapid response to
emerging and re-emerging animal diseases (Civic Consulting, 2009).
These costs indicate the seriousness of the issue of zoonoses. It is expected that the ZELS
programme should significantly enhance the effectiveness of such investments.
Commercial Case
Direct procurement
A. Clearly state the procurement/commercial requirements for intervention
In accordance with DFID procedures we will sign an MoU with BBSRC as the lead UK Research
Council. This approach is consistent with all our current joint initiatives with BBSRC. BBSRC will
manage and administer the funds on our behalf, with input and assistance from the funding partners.
The MoU with BBSRC as the lead RC will state contributions from other partners. It will also state
that any disputes will be resolved between DFID and BBSRC as the lead RC.
The MoU will govern the implementation of the project, including transfer of funds to BBSRC and
administration of the Independent Advisory Group work. On this basis, BBSRC will develop and sign
MoUs with the other partners (i.e. ESRC). BBSRC’s grant-awarding processes will apply for all
research initiatives under this programme.
B. How does the intervention design use competition to drive commercial advantage for
DFID?
BBSRC will undertake the management and administration of the programme. As part of the
programme there will be a call for research proposals and these will be assessed by sub-panels to
16
ensure high quality science, development and impact as well as maximum value for money. This
rigorous analysis will ensure that only high quality proposals which meet all the success criteria will
be considered for funding. All awarded projects must involve southern partners and women
applicants will be particularly encouraged to apply.
Through DFID’s participation in the selection process, we will pay particular attention to ensure that
Value for Money is achieved from the outset, and where possible identify savings.
C. How do we expect the market place will respond to this opportunity?
BBSRC will manage the commissioning process and the awarding of grants on our behalf, but all the
RCs will make their research communities aware of the opportunity. Given the positive response of
the RCs to date we anticipate considerable interest in this proposal from across the research
community both in the UK and overseas. The call for research proposals will be undertaken in a
competitive manner to ensure that all research organisations with the requisite skills and expertise
will be given an opportunity to apply.
D. What are the key cost elements that affect overall price? How is value added and how will
we measure and improve this?
All projects will be subjected to a two stage-peer review process which will ensure that all projects
selected provide the best science and are relevant to the development and impact needs of the
programme.
BBSRC will ensure that all the proposed research initiatives are channelled into a single funding
arrangement to reduce the overheads and transaction costs. Allocation of funding will then be subject
to a peer-review and assessment process managed by BBSRC on behalf of all of the funding
partners. The project will ensure that both development and science objectives are prioritised and
ensure that research is directed towards global development objectives rather than bilateral UKsouthern countries partnerships. We will continue to monitor this on a yearly basis as part of our
annual review process.
E. What is the intended Procurement Process to support contract award?
As per DFID guidelines and procedures, there will be no competitive tendering process for this
programme directly by DFID. All subcontracts undertaken by BBSRC will be done in accordance
with the requirements as set out in the MoU.
F. How will contract & supplier performance be managed through the life of the
intervention?
Each legal agreement (i.e. contract) with successful projects will be subject to BBSRC contractual
arrangements. The legal agreements will have funding payment schedules associated with
deliverables, including regular reports (e.g. progress reports, annual reports, final reports, as
appropriate). BBSRC will require all contracted projects to provide a minimum of 2 case studies,
either short (up to 500 words), or longer, as appropriate to the project. The frequency of the progress
reports will vary depending on the project (from every 2 months to every 6 months).
17
Indirect procurement
A. Why is the proposed funding mechanism/form of arrangement the right one for this
intervention, with this development partner?
As per DFID’s rules and procedures, DFID will sign an MoU with BBSRC.
B. Value for money through procurement
Value for money will be ensured with BBSRC and their subcontractors. Specifically they will:


Identify key suppliers where innovation, value for money and impact are inherent in the
design and thereby deliver improved quality.
Through research collaboration it drives effectiveness and results in high quality products and
encourages open competition where appropriate.
In addition, the MoU with BBSRC will ensure that robust mechanisms to assess the cost
effectiveness of the programme are put in place. As part of this process, we will draw on existing
experience within DFID on the management and administration of sub contracted partners to ensure
the most cost effective model is adopted. This will be reviewed on an annual basis as part of the
annual review process.
Financial Case
A. What are the costs, how are they profiled and how will you ensure accurate
forecasting?
The total cost of the programme to DFID is estimated at £12.53 million over six and a half years. The
first two years are designated as ‘Development Phase’. The subsequent four and a half years are
designated as the ‘Implementation Phase”.
At this stage, the estimated indicative costs are as follows (see table). These will be fully reviewed
once the grants are awarded.
Table: estimated indicative costs
Y1 (12/13)
£100,000
Y2 (13/14)
£150,000
Y3 (14/15)
£1,430,000
Y4 (15/16)
Y5 (16/17)
Y6 (17/18)
Total
£3,250,000 £3,800,000
£3,800,000
£12,530,000
In order to ensure accurate financial forecasting we will work with BBSRC on a regular basis to
ensure DFID has up to date information on spend and realistic forecasts going forward. As part of
this process we will draw heavily on experience elsewhere in the team to ensure that expenditure is
profiled accurately based on other DFID and BBSRC jointly funded initiatives.
B. How will it be funded: capital/programme/admin?
The programme will be funded from DFID Research and Evidence Division’s Programme budget.
The estimated DFID costs are presented in the Table below.
18
C. How will funds be paid out?
The funds will be disbursed in accordance with the MoU. The MoU will be consistent with that used
in other BBSRC initiatives and will outline the payment schedule. Payments will be made on receipt
of a valid invoice (assuming all DFID ADAMANT checks are met) supported by a break down of
expenditure.
D. What is the assessment of financial risk and fraud?
As BBSRC are one of 7 UK research councils funded by the Department for Business, Innovation
and Skills (BIS) they are subject to robust auditing and accounting requirements. BBSRC will ensure
that any subcontracts let conform to international standards when it comes to audit, accounting and
counter fraud procedures.
E. How will expenditure be monitored, reported, and accounted for?
BBSRC will provide DFID with a copy of its Annual Audited Accounts and Annual Report which will
set out the progress made against agreed work plan and objectives.
In accordance with DFID’s standard MoU, each invoice received will be supported by a breakdown of
costs being claimed. A Deputy Programme Manager will be responsible for ensuring due diligence in
the disbursement of funds, and for taking any appropriate action as deemed necessary.
Full details of expenditure and predicted future spend by financial year against the annual workplan
will be included in BBSRC’s annual report to DIFD and agreed /monitored by RED.
Management Case
A. What are the Management Arrangements for implementing the intervention?
DFID and each of the partner UKRCs will nominate a representative who will jointly oversee the
programme (the Funding Committee).
DFID oversight and coordination within the Agriculture and Research Team will be two-fold:
a) Financial management, value for money, measurements of annual progress against agreed
workplans, the logframe deliverables and milestones - will be overseen by the Team’s Deputy
Programme Manager
b) Technical advice drawing on experiences from other team members as cross-cutting advisers
for Annual Review meetings – will be overseen by a Livelihoods Adviser in the Team
The programme will be led by BBSRC. The Funders Committee will comprise of the following
organisations from the UK:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
DFID - Department for International Development (the Funder)
BBSRC - Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (the Funder)
NERC - Natural Environment Research Council (the Funder)
ESRC - The Economic and Social Research Council (the Funder)
MRC - Medical Research Council (the Funder)
Defra - Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (an observer)
FSA - Food Standards Agency (an observer)
19
Defra and FSA have indicated a potential interest in contributing funds, dependent on the proposals
submitted. Other organisations may be invited as observers.
Figure below outlines proposed arrangements
Draft 1: ZELS – Governance structure
Funders Committee
(Executive decision making body)
Independent Advisory
Group
ZELS Management Unit
Knowledge
Broker
ZELS Secretariat
Legend
Reporting
Advising
Liaising
Based on DFID’s experience and lessons learned from the past and current programmes with the
Research Councils, a streamlined management structure has been agreed as outlined below. In this
structure, roles and responsibilities are clearly outlined to ensure there is no potential for any confusion,
or overlap, in terms of the delivery of expected outcomes. It also ensures feedback between all the
parties involved in order to maximise the programme performance.
A.1: Strategic Direction - Funders Committee (FC)
Decision making
 The Funders Committee will be chaired by DFID and BBSRC will be deputy chair.
 It will be made from the Officials and will include a representative from each funding partner.
 It will be the programme’s executive decision making authority and all funding partners’
interests will be fully represented. It will set and drive commissioning and managing ZELS and
develop annual reporting structure of projects,
 It will meet as often as required until the Assessment Panel meeting that will consider the full
proposals. Subsequently, it may meet annually (or twice a year), possibly alongside meetings of
an Independent Advisory Group (IAG) to fulfil a monitoring role (see section A.2),
 It will agree and approve peer review process and composition of the Assessment Panel which
will assess the proposals on scientific excellence, relevance to the scope of the call and impact
(see section A.4),
20

It will be supported by the BBSRC Secretariat which will arrange meetings (see section A.3.2).
Non-decision making
 Observers – other government departments that have an interest in zoonoses but do not have a
financial stake will be invited to attend the meeting as appropriate.
 A Knowledge Broker – the role would be reporting and advising, not decision making. He/she
can attend meetings by invitation from the Funders Committee and present technical reports on
new and emerging knowledge, liaisons and communications as directed by the Committee for
use by various stakeholders (see section A.3.2 below).
 ZELS Secretariat – BBSRC ZELS Secretariat will be responsible for ensuring delivery of the
programme. Secretariat will arrange and attend Funders Committee meetings to provide the
regular progress reports including operational, management and financial reports (see section
A.3.1 below). It will also provide an administrative support to the IAG (see A.2)
 ZELS Management Unit (see section A.3 below) will ensure effective liaison and cooperation for
the programme.
A.2: Independent Advisory Group (IAG)












It will report to the FC and , provide independent advice to the ZELS programme on strategic and
technical aspects of the programme;
It will provide quality assurance of the ZELS programme annual review and monitor progress of
funded projects;
It will comprise members from key stakeholders nominated by the FC and will mainly be drawn
from the Assessment Panel following their completion of the Assessment process;
The members of FC may attend IAG as observer;
It will have a Chair selected by the FC Committee. It will be supported by the ZELS
Management Unit (i.e. Knowledge Broker who will liaise with ZELS Secretariat to deliver this
function);
It will provide advice on any other knowledge needs that may arise during the life of the ZELS
programme that may be commissioned via smaller scale reviews, studies or consultation process
in consultation with the FC;
Undertake other matters that the FC may request or delegate;
Each member will declare ‘no conflict of interest’ or provide a declaration of any potential, real or
perceived conflict of interest. The final determination of suitability will rest with the FC;
Facilitate contact with other initiatives and processes where appropriate via the Knowledge
Broker;
It will be a sounding board for both Knowledge Broker and FC;
IAG will meet annually for the duration of the programme which will coincide with the Annual
Grant Holders workshop. The ZELS programme will set aside funds for T&S (economy class).
Estimated time requirements will be as agreed by the FC. (Note: For budgetary planning
purposes, this time may be up to 3 days per year (travel, meeting, preparation) for the members
and up to 5-7 days per year for the Chair). The FC may also consider a provision of honoraria, if
appropriate
Advise the FC on the timing of an independent external review of ZELS. DFID will set aside
funds for this review.
BBSRC will have strong measures in place to monitor for, and avoid any potential for conflict of
interest. This will be reviewed by the Funding Committee on an annual basis or as required.
A.3: ZELS Management Unit
BBSRC will:
21


Be responsible for executing the ZELS programme using its technical, financial and procurement
systems.
Will plan, organise and coordinate a joint call and Assessment Panels in consultation with the
Chair of the Panels.
ZELS will be implemented by the Project Management Unit, which will provide for effective liaison and
cooperation for the two main functions:


Management of the commissioning process, followed by regular contact with the individual
projects to answer queries on expenditure, ensuring reports are delivered etc., and
A Knowledge Broker who will be responsible for facilitating effective liaison between key
stakeholders and researchers, including facilitating interactions between projects where
appropriate.
A.3.1: ZELS Secretariat
BBSRC will nominate people to fulfil the following roles from within the secretariat:
 Be a senior member of BBSRC responsible for delivering ZELS programme;
 Liaise with the FC on the Knowledge Broker contract;
 Report directly to the FC and ensure delivery of the FC instructions;
 Be accountable for ensuring effective and good management of the ZELS budget;
 Provide regular written reports and any required verbal updates on specific items at the FC
meetings (i.e. relating to above).
The ZELS Secretariat will:
 Coordinate with the Knowledge Broker to ensure synchronised and clearly delineated reporting to
the FC and IRAG related the ZELS programme overall operational management and
implementation, and knowledge, evidence and communication emerging from the ZELS
programme;
 Work closely with the Knowledge Broker to run ZELS programme, implementation meetings (e.g.
workshops) and regular meetings with PIs in order to facilitate effective collaborations and
generating research and knowledge outputs in an integrated and co-ordinated manner. These
meetings will be held as per time table determined by the ZELS Secretariat in consultation with
the FC;
 Be managed by BBSRC and supported by the following teams within BBSRC: finance,
contracting and procurement, Je-S system, Research grants, administrative support and
communications;
 Have a decision making authority on operational and non-strategic matters and will provide all
administrative and financial management functions related to calls and grants;
 Make recommendations to the FC on any strategic matters related to the implementation of the
programme, as requested by the FC;
 Manage calls for proposals on behalf of the FC and will have resource to ensure adequate
support is available to assist southern institutions in the application and grant issuing and ongoing grant administration;
 Inform successful applicants that they must be prepared to host one of the grant holder’s (PIs)
meetings and include the costs in their proposals;
 Remind PIs of the FC’s need for case studies, stories, communication needs and ensure that the
Knowledge Broker has access to data;
 Liaise with the Knowledge Broker and prepare the programme annual report or any other report
as specifically required by the FC;
 Will liaise with the ZELS Project Manager and Knowledge Broker to organise a workshop(s) and
regular annual PIs meetings;
22
ZELS will provide funds for administrative costs of running the programme. These funds will be
available from the total DFID’s budget. The secretariat will be accountable to the lead RC (BBSRC)
A.3.2: A Knowledge Broker
This post is not a ‘classic’ project manager post. This post is vital to ensure accessibility of the results
to ‘front-line’ users and to accelerate the speed with which the research knowledge is generated and
taken up. The post holder will effect this in 2 ways. Firstly by facilitating the initial connections between
potential users and the researchers (this will avoid over selection of teams who have existing links,
whereas breakthroughs may come from those who have not yet made the links). Secondly, by keeping
in contact with users in the front line (FAO, OIE, WHO and national offices) they will be able to facilitate
the transfer of knowledge at the earliest possible stage. This is particularly important given the potential
for rapid spread of zoonoses, with serious economic consequences if appropriate action is not taken
early (for details see the ToR below).
BBSRC will manage a tender process and a contract for a Knowledge Broker on behalf of the Funders
Committee. DFID will produce the specification for the post and estimated cost.
BBSRC will hold the contract with the Knowledge Broker and ensure that the terms of the contract are
met, on behalf of the funders. The Knowledge Broker's work plan will be determined by the Funders'
Committee, from whom the broker will receive direction and provide reports as required;
The Knowledge Broker will:












Act as a designated contact point of the ZELS programme to facilitate and co-ordinate the flow of
knowledge and information between the projects teams and relevant international (e.g. WHO,
OIE, FAO) and national organisations;
Facilitate interactions between the ZELS projects to ensure that synergies can be maximised
through sharing of emerging knowledge;
Maintain contact with and awareness of progress in other relevant projects and/or programmes
and provide on-going context to projects;
Be outsourced and funded from the ZELS programme budget, which has set aside funds in the
total DFID’s share of funds;
Report directly to the Funders Committee and IAG;
Provide a ‘bigger picture’ view of the research being undertaken, identify on-going and emerging
knowledge gaps and communication with a view of advising the Independent Advisory Group
(IAG) and the Funders;
Ensure regular communication and liaison with grant-holders to provide information to the
Funders and the Independent Advisory Group on emerging evidence and knowledge from
individual projects;
Liaise with the IAG to develop a clear and effective programme impact plan, for approval by the
Funders Committee which will define the beneficiaries and stakeholders and provide a plan for
engagement with all appropriate organisations;
Will coordinate with the ZELS Secretariat to ensure synchronised and clearly delineated
reporting to the FC and IAG related to knowledge, evidence and communication emerging from
ZELS projects, and the ZELS programme overall operational implementation;
Will work closely with the ZELS Project Manager to run ZELS project implementation meetings
(e.g. workshops with stakeholders) and regular annual meetings with PIs in order to facilitate
effective collaborations and generating research and knowledge outputs in an integrated and coordinated manner. These meetings will be held as per time table determined by the FC;
Facilitate interactions between the projects to ensure that synergies can be maximised through
sharing of emerging knowledge and best practice;
Liaise with the Project management sub-unit to monitor the delivery of key objectives and
milestones of the funded projects;
23

Liaise with the Project management sub-unit in preparation of the programme annual report or
any other report as specifically requested by the FC;
Liaise with the Project management sub-unit to develop the programme communication plan for
approval by the FC and to publicise the programme outputs and outcomes for the Funders
purposes;
Liaise with the Project management sub-unit and the funders’ communication teams to deliver
appropriate end-of programme activities highlighting the key findings and achievements of the
programme;
Visit projects as agreed with the FC in advance.



A.4. Joint call for proposals
In terms of a joint call for proposals, DFID and the participating UKRC’s have agreed that BBSRC will:

Use a single set of rules for the call for Topic Specific Projects and Research Partnership Grants
under this programme:

These types of projects will be carried out by small multi-partner teams to address
questions which are specific in nature, but which may be relevant to a number of livestock
systems. Each proposal is expected to require a multi-disciplinary team, since a key
criterion across the whole programme is the relevance of the research to poor people and
their livestock. The programme will receive applications for Topic Specific Grants on any
topics which address the goal of the programme, provided they are supported by
evidence that the topic is a priority (relevant to the goal of the programme). Female
scientists are encouraged to apply;

Research Partnership Grants will support high quality innovative research, which takes a
holistic approach, conducted by multi- and inter-disciplinary teams of researchers.
Research will be targeted at the delivery of integrated outcomes relevant to the overall
programme objective. Details of planned interactions (or preferably partnerships) with
relevant stakeholders (expected to include animal, public or environmental health
officials, poor people, community leaders, international institutions, pharmaceutical
companies, fiscal institutions, landlords, etc) will form a key component of the proposals.
Research Partnership will add value by generating new knowledge in areas where
evidence is weak and ensuring that new knowledge reaches those who can make use of
it as well as responding to relevant emerging issues not envisaged at the outset of the
programme. Female scientists are encouraged to apply.

Award grants on the basis of research quality and development impact relevance. For Topic
Specific Grants, UK researchers normally eligible for Research Council funding, and/or DFID
funding, and non-UK researchers based in recognised higher education institutions, research
organisations or organisations with a credible research capacity would be eligible to apply. In
addition to this eligibility, the proposed team for Research Partnership Grants must
demonstrate evidence of a true working collaboration and delivery of successful outputs
working with stakeholders to address zoonoses problems in sub-Saharan Africa and/or Asia.
The nature of the partnership(s) will be scrutinized during the outline assessment process. The
role and responsibilities of each individual named applicant should be clearly defined, and
proposals should describe clearly the value added by their working together

Ensure that all research initiatives are relevant to Sub-Saharan Africa and/or South Asia and
have a meaningful impact on animal and public health and improving food safety and security
in these regions. All applications must include an eligible UK partner who leads on the
administration of the award, but the scientific lead can be with the overseas institution.
24

Ensure that the programme funds only proposals that demonstrate evidence of a true working
collaboration. The nature of the partnership(s) will be scrutinised during the outline assessment
process to ensure geographic proportionality.
A.5: Proposed timetable
What?
BBSRC
Terminology
1
Call for proposals
a) draft call
call issued
b)
RFP (outline) received
c)
d) shortlist proposals
Full proposals
e)
f)
Peer review full proposals
g) Final selection projects
h) Awards announced
Projects start (funding made
i)
available from)
Launch call for
the outline
proposals
Closing date for
outline
proposals
Panel Meeting
Invitation sent
to applicants
requesting
submission to
full proposals
Closing date for
full proposals
Panel Meeting
By when?
Who?
February-March 2012
1 May 2012
BBSRC
BBSRC
BBSRC
26 June 2012
BBSRC
10 September 2012
28 September 2012
BBSRC
BBSRC
22 January 2013
BBSRC
3 July 2013
October 2013
Feb/March 2014
BBSRC
BBSRC
BBSRC
BBSRC, as the lead UK RC has adopted a number of fundamental principles regarding ownership,
rights distribution and knowledge dissemination for the management of intellectual property (IP). All IP
related decisions will be evaluated and made on a case-by-case basis in line with these fundamental
principles:
All intellectual property rights in all material (including but not limited to reports, data, designs, whether
or not electronically stored, and technologies) produced by the investigator(s) or the investigators’
personnel, and arising from research funded through the programme, will be the property of the
investigators’ institution(s). The investigators’ institution(s) will grant to each of the funders of the
programme, if requested, a world-wide, non-exclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free licence to use all such
material. However, if investigator(s) wish to apply for a patent for a particular application arising out of
the information, they may request that publication of data is withheld until the patent has been applied
for. After that time, the data must be made freely available.
The funders should be consulted about any request of this kind at an early stage, and any licence(s)
granted must be managed in a way that is consistent with the core principles of Global Access, i.e. that
the findings of the research would be disseminated promptly and broadly, and that products and
technologies arising from the knowledge gained would be made available and accessible at reasonable
cost to people most in need in developing countries.
B. What are the risks and how these will be managed?
Risk
Probability
Impact
How risks will be minimised/mitigated
Funding is no longer
Low
Medium
Funding commitments from partners are strong
following protracted discussion to ensure full
25
available from one of
the funders or is
delayed
agreement with the aims and objectives of the
programme. Nevertheless the withdrawal of
funding would have a significant impact on the
research
The call document will describe the aims,
objectives and desired outcomes of the
programme. All proposals will be sifted by
BBSRC to ensure compliance with the terms of
the call. Only those which are compliant will be
permitted to proceed to assessment. If an
insufficient number of proposals fall within the
programme remit, a further call will be issued
with a revised set of criteria.
BBSRC systems are oriented to ensuring one
reporting system for all. BBSRC’s own risk
assessment and management regime operates
a number of sanctions that will apply to all
institutions under this project that fail to comply
with the terms of conditions of their grants.
The call for proposals and reporting systems
put emphasis on the need to articulate
pathways to impact from the outset, and to
proactively manage communications aspects.
We will monitor the translation of research
closely and will be prepared to intervene
directly to ensure this is addressed.
Proposals received in
response to call are not
relevant to programme
goals
Low
Medium
Research partners do
not perform/abide by
reporting requirements
Low
Medium
Low
Medium
Low
Medium
To mitigate this risk the selection criteria will
include both high quality science and
development relevance and impact. Through
regular reporting mechanisms we will monitor
the development of the collaboration, and if
there is any indication that the stated objectives
were not being met then remedial action would
follow. Publicising the research, including
among potential users, will be a theme of the
annual PI’s meetings.
Medium
Low
The call will be widely promoted. BBSRC is
confident that it will attract lots of interest.
Medium
Low
In line with other Government Departments and
non-Departmental Public Bodies, the BBSRC
has put in place a range of policies and
procedures to maintain quality in the research it
funds and to ensure effective and efficient use
of public funds. Through peer review and
expert advice, BBSRC gives grants only to
institutions recognised as bona-fide research
institutions and provided those institutions and
award-holders are willing to adhere to BBSRC
terms and conditions. All UK researchers and
their institutions will be subject to BBSRC’s
general eligibility rules to ensure that their
status, and the duration and nature of their
employment are appropriate to undertake a
research project. The eligibility of researchers
at non-UK institutions will be determined based
on the criteria of the remaining funding
Research partners do
good quality research
but fail to share
findings with other
stakeholders thus not
maximising benefits of
research.
In giving research
grants to proposals
selected on the basis
of the quality of the
science, the findings
will be too esoteric to
be taken up in
developing countries.
Insufficient proposals
received in response to
call
Research proposals
are of poor scientific
quality or poor
development relevance
and impact quality
26
Proposals represent
high risk science
Medium
Low
partners.
Proposals of poor scientific and development
relevance and impact quality will receive a
lower recommendation for funding. If, at the
initial assessment stage, too few proposals
demonstrate high quality science and
development relevance and impact, a further
call may be issued with a revised set of criteria
agreed by the funders.
The pursuit of innovative science with
translational potential is intrinsically high risk.
BBSRC has experience in managing such
research projects. The assessment panel may
award a grant on a conditional basis.
Conditions would incorporate milestones and
deliverables to be met before additional funding
increments can be released. Failure to meet
these conditions can result in project
termination at the discretion of the assessment
panel. The funding model adopted for each
project will be carefully chosen to best manage
risk whilst remaining flexible.
C. What conditions apply (for financial aid only)?
Not applicable
D. How will progress and results be monitored, measured and evaluated?
BBSRC will provide data on applications received, rejected and awarded. BBSRC will provide an
annual project report that will outline the progress made under each grant, including impact. Wherever
possible, data should be disaggregated by gender in line with DFID requirements and gender analysis
should be in-built from the outset. This format is underpinned by the log-frame.
BBSRC will hold annual meetings of Principal investigators, the outcomes of which will be scrutinised
by the programme Independent Research Advisory group. The Group will report their assessment of
the progress to the FC before the regular annual review of the programme is due to be undertaken by
DFID.
A summary part of the annual report will provide composite report of achieved outcomes of all grants
under the programme. This will provide the basis for an annual report to be completed by DFID and to
draw any wider conclusions. This approach will enable DFID and partner donors to demonstrate that
the project is:





Working and achieving its goal in the most cost-effective way;
Providing evidence base input into development policy;
Seeking new scientific collaboration partnerships;
Effectively working on development of, and transferring new technologies to end-users;
Ensuring value for money in its activities.
The Funders Committee will place an emphasis on monitoring and evaluation (including impact
evaluation) of the evidence to demonstrate that the awarded project initiatives are innovative and
contribute to the goal. There will be a formal external independent evaluation of the project and its
impact, including on capacity building in the year 3 following the full implementation. Mechanisms for
this evaluation will be agreed by the Funders Committee.
27
Quest No of logframe for this intervention: 3446097
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
IFAD, (2011). Rural Poverty report 2011. International Fund for Agricultural Development, 00142
Rome, Italy.
Hazel, P. (2007). All Africa Review of Experiences in Commercial Agriculture. World Bank and FAO,
World Bank, Washington, DC, USA.
Woolhouse, M. E. J., Gowtage-Sequeira, S (2005). Host range and emerging and re-emerging
pathogens. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 11, 1842–1847.
Hammill, A., Giannikopoulos, D., Karesh, W. (2007). SARS and Avian Influenza: Exploring the role of
conservation and veterinary health in addressing zoonotic diseases in Asia. In: Poverty, Health and
Ecosystems: Experience from Asia, Asian Development Bank and International Union for
Conservation of Nature, p.242.
RVC/FAO, (2010). ‘Pro-Poor HPAI Risk Reduction’ Research Project. Pro-poor HPAI Risk Reduction:
Lessons from Southeast Asia and Africa, Phuket, Thailand (http://www.hpairesearch.net/Workshops.html).
Craig, S., Artsom, H., Bowie, W.R., Drebot, M., Fraser, E., Leighton, T., Morshed, M., Ong, C.,
Patrick, D. (2004). Perspective on emerging zoonotic disease research and capacity building in
Canada. Canadian Journal of Infectious Diseases and Medical Microbiology, Vol.15, No.6, 339-344.
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.
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.
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.
Preneshni R. N., (2011) The impact of climate change and other factors on zoonotic diseases.
Archives of Clinical Microbiology, Vol. 2, No. 2:4.
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).
The World Bank and the TAFS forum, (2011). World Livestock Disease Atlas – a Quantitative
analysis of Global Animal Health Data. (http://www.tafsforum.org/livestock-disease-atlas.html), p.104.
The World Bank, (2010). People, Pathogens, and Our Planet. Volume 1: Towards a One Health
Approach for Controlling Zoonotic Diseases.
(http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTARD/Resources/PPP_Web.pdf.), p.74.
African Union, (2010). POLICY FRAMEWORK FOR PASTORALISM IN AFRICA: Securing,
Protecting and Improving the Lives, Livelihoods and Rights of Pastoralist Communities. Department
of Rural Economy and Agriculture, October 2010, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, p44.
ILRI/RVC, (2011). Wildlife/domestic livestock interactions. A final report to DFID. (Quest No.
3112117), p.119.
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)
GALVmed, (2011). (Prepared by Beth A. Miller) The Gender and Social Dimensions to Livestock
Keeping in South Asia: Implications for Animal Health Interventions. 7 March 2011, p.48.
GALVmed, (2011a). (Prepared by Beth A. Miller) The Gender and Social Dimensions to Livestock
Keeping in Africa: Implications for Animal Health Interventions. 7 March 2011, p.48.
Ilemobade, A.A. (2009). Tsetse and trypanosomosis in Africa: The challenges, the opportunities.
Onderstepoort Journal of Veterinary Research, 76, 35-40.
FAO (1983). Africa animal trypanosomosis. Part 1. Disease and Chemotherapy
(http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/ah809e/AH809E02.htm)
Oluwafemi, R.A. (2009). The impact of African animal trypanosomosis and Tsetse fly on the
livelihoods and well-being of cattle and their owners in the BICOT study area of Nigeria. The Internet
Journal of Veterinary Medicine, Vol.5. No.2.
Shaw, A.P.M. (2009). Assessing the economics of animal trypanosomosis in Africa – history and
current perspective. Onderstepoort Journal of veterinary Research, 76:27-32.
28
23.
24.
25.
Kristjanson, P.M., Swallow, B.M., Rowlands, G.J., Kruska, R.L., de Leeuw, P.N. (1999). Measuring
the costs of African animal trypanosomosis, the potential benefits of control and returns to research.
Agriculture Systems, 59, 79-98.
Salifu, A-W, Asuming-Brempong, S., Alhassan, R. (2010). Benefit-cost analysis and socio-economic
considerations of trypanosomiasis control and treatment in Northern Ghana. African Journal of
Agricultural Research, Vol.5(17), 2281-2288.
World Bank (2012). People, Pathogens and Our Planet. Volume 2. The Economics of One Health (in
press).
29