FAO: Cutoff of USAID-Funds Boosts Risk of Animal Infectious Diseases

Interview

Global Food Journal: What was your reaction when you learned about USAID’s funding cuts?

Keith Sumption: Disbelief and overwhelming sadness. Having been FAO’s Chief Veterinary Officer between 2020 and 2024 leading FAO’s work on preventing the next pandemic, I could not believe that this core component of the international system for preventing pandemics originating in animals could be dismantled overnight. Epidemics of animal disease have increased in the past five years, yet the program to coordinate prevention, preparedness and response on the animal side has had a major funding cut and was practically shut down.

Removing at a stroke the funds for the FAO Emergency Center for Transboundary Animal Diseases (ECTAD) to function is very frightening. The message this decision seemed to send is the opposite of the global lesson we learned from COVID-19: we need to scale up pandemic prevention, preparedness and emergency response at every level with immediate international coordination to prevent the spill-over of animal diseases to humans.

On the human level I was sad knowing the extraordinary dedication and knowledge of experts working in this program across 50 countries. Suddenly – it would appear – the message was that their work was not valued any longer and their expertise could be discarded.

Why do we need an Emergency Center for Transboundary Animal Diseases?

Around 75 percent of recent emerging infectious diseases are of animal origin. Animal diseases can rapidly spread across borders and they can jump between species. Countries are no longer distant from each other. The situation changes daily and new events emerge from all over the world that need to be constantly assessed. No country is free of risk! Migratory birds carry avian influenza, and insects that transmit diseases can be blown across borders even across the sea. As a result, we can suddenly face a serious health crisis.

In order to manage these risks, we need international surveillance, which has a cost and does not come automatically. Without a coordinated effort, such as ECTAD provided, crucial information will not flow between countries and international organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) or FAO. Without effective coordination, support to countries most at risk battling disease outbreaks will be too little, too late. Single outbreaks can easily reach regional or global levels. ECTAD’s advantage was that it supported national and regional centers in many vulnerable countries and enabled building back better in countries following epidemics.

How successful was ECTAD?

ECTAD was the largest support program for strengthening country capacity in the field of animal diseases across the world for two decades. Its impact has been enormous. Before ECTAD, in 2004, there was really nothing like it. Often expert missions were sent too late, the response and follow-up was chaotic and inadequate.

What ECTAD has achieved is remarkable. It provided a system for the flow of information on animal disease outbreaks from 51 of the most at-risk countries. Its initial focus was Asia, driven by emerging avian influenza pandemic risks, thereafter Africa and the Near East, driven by avian influenza, Ebola and MERS Coronavirus, and more recently included Central and South America and Central Asian countries. It covered most of the ecosystems in which virus spillovers to domestic animals and humans are expected to first occur.

Quickly zoonotic diseases became priorities in many countries, thanks to the work of ECTAD. National thinking changed towards more resilient, safer animal production systems, using better farm practices, reducing the need for anti-microbials.

ECTAD also supported the construction of safe laboratories with more than 2500 staff trained. Today we have, for example, at least 13 labs in West and Central Africa that can locally test organisms that can transmit diseases and send samples and key data immediately for international surveillance. Before, it could take weeks, if ever, before samples could be shipped. This system helped to identify potential candidate viruses for new vaccines for pandemic control.

Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone – countries at high risk of zoonotic epidemics such as Ebola – are now better able to detect animal zoonoses at national level and react immediately.

In Asia alone, over 30’000 professionals were trained in preventing and responding to animal disease outbreaks. ECTAD also helped establish an Early Warning Hub for Asia and the Pacific to support ASEAN countries in regional disease detection, risk assessment and coordination.

ECTAD’s work was also vital to make the fight against antimicrobial resistance a priority in around 50 countries. Antimicrobials are heavily used and often misused in animal and plant production as well as human health. Antibiotic resistance occurs when bacteria develop defenses against antibiotics designed to kill them. ECTAD was able to work across Ministries of Agriculture, Health and the Environment, helping to develop new national anti-microbial-resistance plans that also include animal health.

Was FAO ECTAD involved in ensuring control and security of veterinary labs handling dangerous pathogens?

Absolutely, it was one of the most significant parts of ECTAD’s priorities in countries. Laboratories receiving animal samples in developing countries have always had a high potential exposure to zoonotic organisms that can transmit diseases. The number of laboratories has increased as the needs exploded for rapid testing, including the highest-containment labs handling dangerous pathogens.

ECTAD teams assisted countries in improving biosafety – where lab workers’ safety is the goal – and biosecurity – to contain pathogens within the laboratory. They supported over 180 front line laboratories in around 35 countries in Africa and Asia alone. These laboratories had been identified by those countries as critical for their surveillance systems. Over a decade they trained several thousand staff and established the vital national information systems for rapid reporting and follow up.

In crisis situations FAO rapidly delivered vital laboratory and biosafety equipment from ECTAD emergency stockpiles to speed up the testing capacity of labs in epidemics. It was vital to protect the often underpaid and underrecognized front-line laboratory staff, to keep them healthy and prevent them from exposure and transmitting diseases.

Why are veterinary services in developing countries in an often dire situation?

In many countries, almost all animal health is provided by the private sector, that is, paid for by livestock owners and delivered by private sector paraprofessionals and veterinarians. They focus mainly on treatment of diseases but not on prevention services. Prevention is always better than cure, but the reality is that preventive actions do not happen without supportive policies and a willingness to pay from public funds or through public-private-partnerships.

Traditionally the official vet services were underfunded and neglected even within the Ministries of Agriculture. In many countries, they often have resources to only record disease outbreaks. Medical services, while far better funded, usually spend almost nothing on prevention and when it comes to zoonotic diseases, the situation is even worse. So what is a priority for the world is usually near the bottom for funding – vet services especially. That’s why the financial and training support from ECTAD was so crucial.

Could the closure of ECTAD favor the spread of animal diseases worldwide?

Yes, it could. We have seen in the last decade an alarming spread of infectious diseases, across whole regions and jumping between continents. That will continue in the future. That’s why we need to be constantly on alert. This is not the time to be reducing support to vulnerable countries. We were relatively lucky with COVID-19 that it had only minor animal-to-animal transmissions compared to human-to-human. The avian influenza outbreaks we are now facing, like in the US, are much more complex, with highly pathogenic avian influenza viruses adapting in real time to wild and domesticated animals.

What should come after ECTAD?

The challenge after the withdrawal of USAID from ECTAD will be to create a new effective model for international support for the animal health sector in vulnerable countries. Each needs to build at least some basic national crisis capacity, connected and supported by an international coordination mechanism. Such a program should be financed with solid and sustainable resources as part of an integrated national pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. Both animal and human health services should avoid competition and work together – following the “One Health” approach.

However, as COVID-19 has taught us that the next pandemic will always be different to the previous, we cannot rely alone on national systems in face of rapidly emerging new threats. We absolutely need to maintain and improve supportive coordination actions, to rapidly risk assess new events and diseases, but also to slow the rate of spread of new epidemics to buy time since actions such as closing borders, or procuring vaccines have huge implications. Now is not the time to fly blind into the fog of emerging viruses or go back to short-sighted ad-hoc and piecemeal solutions to combat disease outbreaks in vulnerable countries that could lead to the next pandemic.

Interview: Erwin Northoff.