Bluetongue is a vector-borne viral disease which infects ruminants (such as sheep, cattle and goats) and is transmitted by biting midges. Historically, it has been endemic in the tropics and subtropics where temperature and humidity are ideal for biting midge survival. However, it began to migrate to the Mediterranean basin and Southern Europe in the late 1990s.

As data from the World Animal Health Information System (WAHIS) shows, the virus slowly moved further north to Central and Northern Europe, where—given lower temperatures and different environments—the vector was not expected to survive. This change of the disease distribution caused 28 European countries to report over 58,000 unexpected outbreaks of the disease between 2007 and 2010. 2023 saw similar epizootic events at higher latitudes in Europe due to a newly emerged serotype of the bluetongue virus—serotype 3, which is currently reported in several European countries.  

Map 1: The spread of bluetongue in Europe (2005 – 2024)

Map 1 shows the administrative areas of European countries which have reported new outbreaks of bluetongue virus through WAHIS since 2005 

The World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) is following the spread of bluetongue serotype 3 carefully as this serotype is particularly menacing—causing high mortality rates in sheep. Although bluetongue does not affect human health, it can be devastating to livelihoods. Its impact on animals, in terms of mortality and reduction of milk production, as well as indirect losses, such as impact on trade or disease-control activities, makes farmers especially vulnerable to the consequences of the disease. 

The challenge of multiple serotypes

The bluetongue virus is particularly difficult to control because it has more than 27 serotypes identified in the WOAH Terrestrial Animal Health Code, each developing differently in its host. As a result, vaccines or immunity against one serotype provides no protection against another. Because of this, the previously mentioned epizootic events linked to serotype 8 (seen in Europe between 2007-2010) have different epidemiological dynamics than those of serotype 3 which was detected in many European countries between September 2023 and October 2024.  

A shift in vector-borne diseases 

The spread of bluetongue from North Africa to Southern, Central and Northern Europe is an example of how climate change, vector habitat suitability, animal population density, distribution and movement interact to change the pattern of disease.

For a vector-borne disease to incur in a new geographical area, the vector must be able to survive in that region. And, with temperatures increasing globally, we are seeing bluetongue and other vector-borne diseases (such as Crimean-Congo fever, tick-borne encephalitis, epizootic haemorrhagic fever, and West Nile fever) spread into temperate regions following spikes in global temperature. This is especially concerning considering that around one third of the 91 diseases of terrestrial animals listed by WOAH in 2024 are vector-borne, and among them some potentially severe zoonosis. 

Map 2: The spread of bluetongue serotype 3 in Europe 

bluetongue spread in Europe map
Map 2 shows recent outbreaks in European countries which have reported cases of bluetongue virus serotype 3 through WAHIS since 2023. The presence of the disease at higher latitudes shows a shift in the disease pattern. 

Crucial too, is the changing length of the transmission season. Overwintering, which is a virus’s ability to survive through the winter and re-emerge in the spring, is impacted by climate conditions. According to Dr. Christopher Sanders, research fellow at The Pirbright Institute in the United Kingdom, climate change has likely lengthened the transmission period for the bluetongue virus. This increases the probability of the virus’s survival across seasons. “Essentially the midges are active earlier and continue their activity until later in the year,” he explains, “And that means that the gap between transmission seasons is actually reduced, which may allow the virus to overwinter more easily.” 

Controlling the spread of bluetongue

Ensuring that the movement of cattle, sheep, goats and other susceptible species does not cause long distant spread of bluetongue is key. WOAH international standards provide for science-based codes of conduct for safe international trade. When it comes to controlling the spread of the virus, vaccination campaigns remain the most effective control measure.

It is important to ensure the vaccine has been manufactured according to WOAH standards and provides protection against the specific serotype(s) circulating in the area. Vaccines against several bluetongue serotypes which reduce the spread of the virus and control clinical signs exist, but they are not always readily available. Therefore, it is essential that public and private sectors collaborate to understand the risks associated with the circulating serotypes and the demand for vaccines. The current recommendations for the surveillance of the disease can be found in the WOAH International Standards.  

Given the epidemiological situation of bluetongue,” says Paolo Tizzani, veterinary epidemiologist at WOAH, “Whose dynamics are driven by movements of the virus, the vectors and the status of vaccination coverage, determining the risk of where a vector and pathogen could establish is crucial.” Veterinary professionals play an important part in monitoring and controlling disease, as well as mitigating the future consequences of climate change.

Veterinary Services in Europe are exploring how to be more proactive in minimising the impact of climate change. Thinking outside the box with different disciplines, especially with the help of ecologists, is essential. Though it is not part of the immediate control measures, understanding the ecology of vectors remains important to better prepare us to anticipate risks and potentially identify alternative control measures.

Alexandre Fediaevsky, acting Head of the Preparedness and Resilience Department at WOAH.

Climate change affects environments, animals and humans alike. And, as vector-borne diseases move to temperate areas, surveillance becomes more important to disease prevention and control. Reporting to WAHIS is crucial to disease control, along with adopting a One Health approach that embraces innovation and collaboration. “Continuing to invest in these approaches is crucial,” insists Fediaevsky, “Especially since they benefit both animal and public health sectors.” 

In 2023, Georgia embraced a One Health approach by adopting a One Health National Action Plan, aimed at addressing the spread of vector-borne and zoonotic diseases.

Collaboration between primary agencies  in charge of protecting human, animal, and environmental health  in  Georgia—the National Centre for Disease Control (NCDC), National Food Agency (NFA), State Laboratory of Agriculture (SLA)—and international organisations, including the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) has already led to progress in controlling vector-borne diseases. One such vector-borne disease is Q-fever, an illness spread by ticks which affects mammals, birds, reptiles, arthropods and humans.  

Vector-borne diseases, which are infections spread through organisms like mosquitoes, midges and ticks, account for more than 17% of all infectious diseases worldwide. And, due to climate change, vectors are more likely to survive in places where they had previously been absent, paving the way for outbreaks in those areas. This interaction between environment and vectors makes controlling the spread of vector-borne diseases especially dependent on multi-sectorial collaboration. “As demonstrated by the COVID-19 pandemic,” says Vasili Basiladze, Deputy Head of NFA and WOAH Delegate for Georgia, “Addressing animal health is crucial to preventing outbreaks in humans. A One Health approach facilitates the early detection and control of such diseases.”  

One Earth, One Health

The One Health approach recognises that humans, animals, plants and ecosystems are interdependent, and so is their health. It encourages collaboration between sectors and disciplines to prevent, detect, and respond to emerging diseases effectively.

Collaboration to combat vector-borne diseases

No stranger to multi-sectoral partnership, Georgia’s NFA has worked collaboratively with SLA and NCDC since 2012 to facilitate data-sharing and support information flow between agencies. However, its adoption of a One Health National Plan has increased the scope and impact of disease control and prevention measures. “Vector-borne diseases have become a significant public health issue in Georgia,” says Basiladze, “The country has made significant progress in controlling them, but ongoing efforts were needed to monitor and manage the risk of disease.”  

Georgia hosted several multi-sector roundtables focused on assessing risk and the potential impacts of emerging and re-emerging vector-borne diseases. These were attended by WOAH, the World Health Organization (WHO), the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), and the U.S. Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

These multi-discipline meetings focused on enhancing prevention and control measures—including public awareness campaigns, vector control initiatives, and risk assessments which, with respect to Q-fever, is welcome in the region. “Georgia currently lacks a formal legal framework for managing Q-fever,” explains Basiladze, “While it has not reached the epidemic levels seen in some countries, it causes risks—particularly in rural farming communities. WOAH’s role is crucial as it develops international standards and supporting frameworks.” 

Setting up for success 

Georgia’s efforts align with the One Health Joint Plan of Action initiative. This plan seeks to integrate systems and build capacity to collectively tackle health threats at the animal-human-environment interface with specific attention given to controlling and eliminating endemic zoonoses, neglected tropical diseases, and vector-borne diseases. 

Basiladze encourages other countries looking to implement a One Health approach to engage in active coordination and joint health workshops. “It is also crucial to elaborate a unified health action plan,” he advises, “Create a list of priority disease in the country, and conduct a joint risk assessment.” From there, countries can begin to implement basic One Health measures like vaccination, active and passive surveillance, treatment and awareness campaigns to educate farmers and the broader public about animal diseases.  

His emphasis on collaboration and joint health efforts perfectly reflects the core principle of One Health: diseases cannot be contained in silos; their treatment requires multi-sectoral cooperation. One Health ensures that all sectors and disciplines contribute to protecting the health of animals, humans and the environment. One Health initiatives, like Georgia’s, enable Veterinary Services, communities, international organisations and public health sectors to work together to prevent the spread of disease. Because animal health is our health. It’s everyone’s health.  

When an outbreak occurs, fake news and conspiracy theories can circulate rapidly, often going viral. For those of us working in animal health, the comparison between how misinformation spreads and how viruses propagate is strikingly appropriate. 

In 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) warned that, in addition to the challenges brought by the pandemic, the world was grappling with an “infodemic” sparked by the proliferation of conspiracy theories and falsehoods about the novel virus. This marked the first pandemic in history in which misinformation spread on an unprecedented scale thanks to technological advancements and the Internet. 

A study published in the American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene estimated that at least 800 people may have died worldwide due to coronavirus-related misinformation during the first three months of 2020. At the time, it was not uncommon to see the pandemic described as a “hoax” or the virus labeled a “bioweapon” in online content.

The pandemic underscored the role that misinformation plays during health crises, contributing to the spread and impact of real-world diseases in dangerous ways. The COVID-19 emergency, however, uniquely prepared us for future infodemics, leaving behind a legacy of awareness for generations to come. 

Misinformation is a false, deceptive, misleading or manipulated information not disseminated with the intention to deceive. It is often spread by people who do not realise it is false and do not intend to cause harm.

Misinformation: a widespread challenge

Propaganda and conspiracy theories about diseases can provide people with simple and easy answers to complex questions. Throughout history, deceptive and misleading information has been used to manipulate people, especially those who don’t have the scientific knowledge to see through falsehoods, leading to widespread mistrust, anxiety and fear.  

When information is deliberately created, presented and disseminated with the intent to deceive, mislead or cause harm to advance specific agendas or distort public opinion, the phenomenon is described as ‘disinformation’.

The rise of social media has only compounded the problem. In recent years, platforms such as Facebook and X (formerly Twitter) have become places where people seek answers and reassurance during times of uncertainty, including pandemics and natural disasters. Unfortunately, these platforms also create fertile ground for unverified statements and generally harmful content.

Dr Helen Roberts, a G7 Advisor on Exotic Disease Control at the UK’s Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA), recalls a recent case involving misinformation around avian influenza in cattle. In the United States, some social media users were suggesting to drink raw milk with HPAI in it, falsely claiming that it would vaccinate people against the flu.

But it is not just social media users who fall prey to misinformation. During outbreaks, even reputable news outlets can sometimes misinterpret information from official sources. 

Identifying misinformation may be a daunting task due to its nature and pervasiveness. However, our collective resilience against it can be strengthened. 

Tackling the viral spread of misinformation

To address the problem of misinformation, a multifaceted solution is needed. On one side, scientists and veterinarians should develop the ability to debunk messages spread by “self-appointed” health experts. At the same time, journalists should embrace standard ethical principles and ensure that they report only on verified information from reliable sources. To avoid misquoting data and statistics in any in-depth coverage, accuracy – not speed – should be prioritised, particularly when it comes to sensitive topics like disease outbreaks. 

Equally important is educating the public to critically assess the news they consume. This is vital for helping individuals discern trustworthy sources and reject falsehoods. 

The impacts of misinformation stretch far beyond instilling fear and anxiety. False claims can erode public trust in government and health authorities, complicating efforts to control disease outbreaks. When authorities were investigating notifiable diseases or undertaking surveillance during the H5N1 epizootic (2020-2022) in the United Kingdom, some small-holders or backyard keepers refused to allow them on their farms, claiming that government officials were responsible for spreading the disease. There has also been a rise in resistance to vaccines, with some people claiming their pets had adverse reactions to rabies vaccines. 

Dr. Roberts emphasises the need to tailor communications to different audiences. She notes the importance of adapting language when discussing risk, particularly with pet owners. “If we are communicating with pet owners, we need to remember that animals are part of the family. Simply saying their family is at risk of rabies is not effective—it’s a rare event. Instead, explaining that certain dogs may not adapt well to family environments might be a more realistic and relatable message,” she explains.

This is why governments and scientific organisations alike need to use simple, inclusive and comprehensive language. Information about today’s wide-ranging threats should empower stakeholders—including veterinarians, farmers, and digital citizens of all ages—to make informed decisions, rather than overwhelm them with fear. 

Today’s multi-risk landscape is complex and ever evolving. Against this backdrop, WOAH is acutely aware of the importance of equipping society with the necessary tools to truly understand the hazards they face. Misinformation is no exception. As part of a coordinated effort around emergency preparedness with INTERPOL, the organisation has drafted guidelines on disinformation and misinformation in animal health emergencies which outline the nature of the problem while presenting practical solutions, tools, and strategies for overcoming it. 

As diseases continue to spread across the globe, WOAH remains committed to fostering a culture of disaster prevention and raising awareness about the dangers of misinformation in animal health. 

Diseases already affecting domestic animals worldwide – including African swine fever (ASF) and high pathogenicity avian influenza (HPAI) – are endangering wildlife too, reminds a new report, posing a significant threat to biodiversity and jeopardising efforts to eradicate these diseases.

These findings emerge from the latest Wildlife Diseases Situation Report by the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH), the periodic publication that analyses data from the World Animal Health Information System (WAHIS), the platform developed by WOAH to collect and publicly share global animal health data. 

Between January and June 2024, 55 countries and territories have reported 3,800 outbreaks in wildlife, with over 11,500 cases registered and 151 wildlife species affected by eight diseases. Ten percent of these species are at risk of extinction according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). HPAI and ASF – two of the diseases that have the biggest impact on domestic animals – were also responsible for most of the outbreaks reported: 659 and 2,863 respectively

HPAI threatens animals at risk of extinctions 

HPAI has led to the death and mass slaughter of over 557 million poultry worldwide between 2005 and 2023 and in 2024 it was detected in the Antarctic region for the first time.  

animal diseases wildlife_map of disease outbreaks affecting wildlife in 2024

Several animal diseases threaten wildlife, but HPAI proved to be particularly dangerous for animals at risk of extinction. In fact, it affected 13 out of 15 species at risk mentioned in the report, with particularly alarming cases reported in Chinese Taipei, where five black-faced spoonbills – whose population is estimated at 2,200 adult animals – died. Other notable cases include a case in a saker falcon in Hungary (estimated population between 12,200 and 29,800) and cases of 12 jackass penguins in South Africa (with an estimated population of 41,700, existing only in southern Africa). 

While HPAI usually affects domestic and wild birds, it has also been found in several species of wild mammals, raising concern about its increasing capacity to spill over between species and its zoonotic potential. Experts have closely monitored this over the years. To date, HPAI has only occasionally affected humans: mostly people working or living in close contact with animals, with limited capacity of human-to-human transmission. 

The far-reaching impact of ASF on wildlife 

African swine fever (ASF) is the most widespread disease in wildlife, in term of outbreaks reported to WOAH during the period, and the second most impactful on animals at risk of extinction (1 out of the 15 species at risk of extinction). 

animal diseases wildlife_most reported disease outbreaks in wildlife 2024

ASF currently affects millions of pigs and boars all over the world. With its significant death toll and the connected containment measures – including restrictions on animal movement and trade – ASF poses a global threat to livestock and food security. It is also becoming more difficult to eradicate, since a sylvatic (wildlife-based) epidemiological cycle has been established in many regions of the world, the report notes. 

In the Philippines, 24 Visayan warty pigs, a species surviving until today on few islands of the archipelago, have died due to ASF. WOAH warns that from a broader perspective the reduction of wild suids could be an ecological issue not only in terms of conservation, but also because of a potential increase in tensions between major predators, facing restricted access to food in their natural environment. 

The report highlights the underlying interdependence between ecosystems. The health of wildlife is deeply entwined with the health of other animals, the environment and even humans. By reporting and monitoring diseases across the animal health spectrum, we safeguard livestock, food security, biodiversity, and human health – ultimately investing in a healthier, more sustainable future. 

In 2023, Guinea rolled out a mass dog-vaccine campaign to control the spread of rabies—the first of its kind in the country. Between August and December 2023, around 90,000 dogs were vaccinated with vaccines procured through WOAH’s vaccine bank, bringing the dog-vaccine coverage to almost 70% in the capital, Conakry. A great accomplishment for Guinea, where dogs remain the main vector for the transmission of rabies, causing 99% of human cases.  

One Health in the face of zoonoses 

Much of the success of the campaign is due to Dr. Mohamed Idriss Doumbouya, Director of Guinea’s National Directorate of Veterinary Services (DNVS) and Guinea’s WOAH Delegate. He and his team collaborated with regional localities and engaged the global community to ensure the successful implementation of the campaign.

Our counterparts in the health sector are working in the One Health spirit,” Dr. Doumbouya explained, “We ensured that this initiative was truly multisectoral.” Collaboration at both regional and international levels helped convert vaccines into vaccinated dogs. Locally, cities donated refrigerators to conserve the vaccines to localities that didn’t have access to them.

Globally, partnerships with USAID, US CDC, United Against Rabies (UAR) forum and the World Bank provided on-the-ground training, post-vaccination evaluations and funding for both vaccines and vaccinators. Through his efforts, Guinea’s Veterinary Services were able to procure high-quality vaccines through WOAH’s vaccine bank, which Dr. Doumbouya credits as a large factor for the success of the campaign. “We thought that if we were to have high-quality vaccines, they had to come from WOAH,” he said. “That way we wouldn’t run the risk of vaccinating the animals with anything below standard.”  

Rabies cases in Guinea

Recurrent cases of rabies in humans as well as animals has made the disease a public health priority in the country. According to the journal Veterinary World, between 2018 and 2020, around 775 animal bites were recorded on average each year—98% of these bites were from dogs and more than 70% of these dogs were infected with rabies.

Though concentrated in the most populous regions of Guinea, no part of the country was spared. To this day, reports of rabies deaths remain a concern in localities not touched by the vaccine campaign and areas where dog vaccinations were not conducted annually.

The future of rabies control in Guinea

Spreading awareness of the gravity of the disease goes hand-in-hand with any rabies control initiative. Dr. Doumbouya advises other countries considering following in Guinea’s footsteps to make community education campaigns a part of their plan. “We are in the process of creating an educational campaign to teach the public about the gravity of rabies”, he affirmed, “As well as a waste management programme because large numbers of free-roaming dogs gather around landfills looking for food, exposing nearby communities to potential zoonoses.” 

Preparatory measures are already in place for future wide-spread dog-vaccine campaigns, as Guinea aims to procure 150,000 more vaccines through WOAH’s vaccine bank before the end of 2024, and every year after until 2030. The goal? Herd immunity for the entire dog population. So far, the campaign has touched 11 localities and plans to reach harder to access communities as more vaccines come in. In addition to this, smaller local dog vaccine campaigns and public education events have been planned for World Rabies Day, on 28 September. 

Beyond future dog vaccine campaigns and surveillance is raising awareness of the gravity of the disease. “Rabies needs to be seen as a public health problem,”
Dr. Doumbouya insisted, “I think that the authorities are really ready to support, because today, in 2024, people continue to die of rabies in Africa.

When asked if stopping the spread of dog-mediated rabies by 2030 was feasible, he did not hesitate to say yes. “I believe it’s possible. If all African countries put in place vaccine campaigns like this one. With rabies as a public health priority, the goal can be achieved.”

The world has never consumed more aquatic animal protein than today. Fisheries and aquaculture production reached a record 223.2 million tonnes in 20221, largely due to the growth of aquaculture, particularly in Asia. It is estimated that about 600 million livelihoods depend on fisheries and aquaculture, including primary workers, their families, and the entire economies supported by them. Aquatic animal production is one of the main levers for livelihoods and food security around the globe and is expected to keep growing. A 14% growth is forecast by 2030.   

The “seafood revolution”: assessing the importance of aquatic animal health  

Aquaculture will be largely responsible for this increase. It is estimated that the global seafood supply will rise from 154 million tonnes in 2011 to 186 million tonnes in 2030–an increase solely based on aquaculture. Moreover, food production systems and the way they evolve play a crucial role in addressing climate change.

In 2019, the EAT Lancet Commission recommended a shift toward plant-based diets, with a reduction in beef, poultry, pork and eggs, but an increase in seafood consumption. The aquatic animal sector has a crucial role to play in facing one of the world’s most pressing global challenges

For aquaculture to meet this demand without increasing its environmental impact or posing health risks, there is a need for continual improvements in production systems, all along the chain. Notably, the coining of international regulations and standards, including ones on aquatic animal welfare, can drive this growth along an environmentally sound path. This is where WOAH’s work comes into play.  

214 million tonnes

were produced by fisheries and aquaculture in 2020.

about

600 million

livelihoods depend on fisheries and aquaculture. 14% is the expected growth of aquatic food production by 2030.

Creating international aquatic animal health standards 

WOAH’s Aquatic Code was published in 1995, providing a separate set of specific standards for aquatic animals, along with the Manual of Diagnostic Tests aimed at laboratories. These standards are based on the best available science and provide practical approaches to aquatic animal health management. 

In order to highlight the importance of implementing these recommendations, as well as to bring together stakeholders from the aquatic sector, the first WOAH Global Conference on Aquatic Animal Health was held in Bergen, Norway, in 2006. During the following conference five years later, the Panama Declaration stressed the need for global cooperation, improved disease reporting and better capacity-building to enforce implementation of standards. Global efforts culminated in 2019, at the 4th Global Conference on Aquatic Animal Health in Santiago, Chile, where National Director of Sernapesca and current president of WOAH’s Aquatic Animals Commission, Dr Alicia Gallardo Lagno, testified on the importance of regional collaboration: “In the past, a disease caused a loss of 73% of Chile’s fish production. Our national authority took measures in line with WOAH Standards. For us, it is important to share our experience on such situations with other countries, especially in America”. It was during this conference that WOAH Director General Monique Éloit made a commitment to develop an aquatic animal health strategy.  

Advancing a global strategy for aquatic animal health 

The Aquatic Animal Health Strategy was launched two years later during the 88th General Session. “It is the basis on which we will take action, in dialogue with our partners, to pursue our vision of improved aquatic animal health and welfare worldwide,” explained Dr Monique Éloit then. She also reflected on her past experience as Chief Veterinary Officer in her country, when she realised she did not have the technical knowledge or trained staff to deal with a surge of oyster spat disease. WOAH’s Aquatic Animal Health Strategy was designed to remedy such situations, with four objectives:  

  • The development and update of scientifically sound standards to manage risks, facilitate safe trade and improve aquatic animal health and welfare. 
  • Capacity-building programmes to strengthen Aquatic Animal Health Services.  
  • Procedures, guidelines and coordinated support to improve the global response to emerging diseases
  • Leadership on animal health and welfare, to develop international partnerships and engage scientific and policy networks. 

Like every major project at WOAH’s, the Aquatic Animal Health Strategy was developed in close collaboration with Members, and Aquatic Animal Health Services to ensure the necessary tools are available for countries to act, especially by developing their own national guidelines based on WOAH’s Standards.

Improving surveillance systems with the Aquatic Animal Health Strategy 

One of the goals underscored in the Aquatic Animal Health Strategy is to get Members more involved by making standards easier to understand. This has already proven helpful: WOAH Standards were updated to better support the setting up of surveillance systems, which help obtain information on the situation and occurrence of aquatic animal diseases. Following this update, countries were able to better understand and implement the requirements for self-declaration of freedom from an aquatic animal disease

The updated standards also enable better compliance with WOAH’s Aquatic Code, especially with disease reporting, early detection and rapid response–all crucial elements when it comes to mitigating the spread of diseases worldwide. 


Have you read?

Today’s global risk landscape is complex and ever evolving. Technological advancements, climate change, globalisation and shifting demographics are just some of the factors that are leaving people, animals and the environment they inhabit increasingly vulnerable to known and emerging risks, including infectious diseases, whether they are natural, accidental or deliberate in origin.

Information overload adds yet another layer of complexity. The current digital landscape has forever changed the way we access and consume news. Social media, prominently, allows for instant information flow. At the same time, digital technologies have fragmented media, giving online audiences a wide range of channels and outlets to source information from. Against this backdrop, the ability of individuals and institutions to tell fake news from real is continuously put to the test.  

In the aftermath of the COVID-19 global crisis, international agencies, governments, scientists, the media, civil society groups and concerned citizens have been taking action to understand what the major challenges were and identify important lessons from the past.

Misinformation is inaccurate information, usually spread without harmful intent. Disinformation is inaccurate or misleading information, deliberately created and spread to cause harm to target governments, organisations or people. 

A multi-sectoral approach in a multi-risk environment 

The animal health sector is just as vulnerable to threats posed by misinformation and disinformation. In October 2022, viral online content about the spread and treatment of lumpy skin disease stirred up conspiracy theories, undermining cattle vaccination efforts and suggesting that milk is not safe to drink. The United Kingdom’s leading news source, the BBC debunked the claim using facts grounded in science and the voices of experts. This is only one of the several stories that made international headlines, highlighting how the animal health sector can be severely impacted by false narratives. 

Almost every animal disease outbreak from Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE or mad cow disease), to Foot and mouth disease (FMD), African Swine Fever (ASF) and avian influenza has been accompanied by misinformation and disinformation. 

The evolution of a multi-hazard landscape demands a new, innovative approach to detecting and responding to misinformation and disinformation. When the spread of false information is linked to criminal or terrorist activities, for instance, it requires involvement of Law Enforcement agencies.  

Ensuring global health security needs response systems which should be cross-sectoral, critical, engaged and well-informed. “Malicious actors continuously engage in harmful, multi-layered disinformation campaigns that aim to disrupt, divide, damage and undermine their targets“, argues Ben Wakefield, Senior Analyst and ELBI (Emerging Leaders in Biosecurity Fellowship) Deputy Director at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security.

In recent years we have seen clear examples of multi-layered disinformation campaigns during the COVID-19 pandemic. The animal health sector is at risk of similar disinformation campaigns, which could have a significant impact on trade and food security and make the world less stable and a less secure place for all.

Ben Wakefield, Senior Analyst and ELBI (Emerging Leaders in Biosecurity Fellowship) Deputy Director at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security 

If no action is taken, the consequences of untruthful or misleading statements can be significant, increasing the risk for animal and zoonotic diseases to quickly spread, also eroding people’s trust in authorities and undermining the health responses. This means that the response of stakeholders from all sectors needs to be prompt and well-informed.  “To dismantle malicious efforts,” continues Wakefield “animal health experts, scientists, and social scientists must come together with the security community to holistically plan and execute effective strategies.”

Multisectoral collaboration that incorporates a diverse set of expertise is an essential part of countering disinformation and ensuring that animal health remains protected.

Ben Wakefield, Senior Analyst and ELBI (Emerging Leaders in Biosecurity Fellowship) Deputy Director at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security 

It is crucial that these entities work together in a coordinated manner,” echoes Katy Carroll, expert at the UN Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institution (UNICRI). “This is due to the fact that, much like with other criminal phenomena, malicious actors usually look to exploit any gaps or vulnerabilities in prevention and response efforts in order to achieve their objectives.” 

Fighting mis- and disinformation around animal health: WOAH’s guidelines 

Within the framework of a strong partnership, the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) and the International Criminal Police Organisation (INTERPOL) recently published a set of guidelines on countering disinformation and misinformation in animal health emergencies.

The guidelines illustrate some key strategies that should be holistically planned and executed to manage disinformation and misinformation for organisations working in animal health emergencies to prepare for, detect and respond to these events. 

The threat of misinformation is nothing new. From propaganda being used to advance political agendas to manipulated messages influencing opinions, information has long been weaponised by groups and individuals alike. Yet, as ecosystems become increasingly interconnected, this threat has taken on new significance. Today’s media fragmentation, coupled with the interconnected nature of modern life and the rise of AI-generated content, makes it harder for consumers to distinguish truthful from biased, misleading or untrustworthy news.  

According to the World Economic Forum Global Risks Report 2024, disinformation is going to be the world’s top risk during the next two years. This is why implementing the right countermeasures – from public awareness to media literacy campaigns – is more urgent than ever before. “With the evolution of technology, social media and internet connectivity that we have in the present day, disinformation campaigns spread far more rapidly and with greater consequences than in previous decades” highlights Wakefield. “As a result, it has never been more important to actively counter and condemn malicious disinformation efforts, whatever their origin.” 

The development of guidelines on misinformation and disinformation in animal health by WOAH and INTERPOL was supported by Global Affairs Canada’s Weapons Threat Reduction Program. 

This article was originally published on the website of The Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction (the Global Partnership)


Have you read?

“Animal health is our health, it’s everyone’s health” is not just a slogan. It is a scientific reality, long acknowledged by professors of medicine as far back as the 17th and 18th century: animal and human health are interconnected. Zoonoses such as rabies or avian influenza have been a long-time concern for human health, as well as economic and social stability.  

By the end of the 20th century, Lyme disease, Ebola, Mad Cow disease, among others, were major issues that triggered international action. Ebola and other zoonotic diseases can be transmitted from humans to animals, such as great apes. This reverse transmission proves that the connection between animal and human health goes both ways. 

The term “One Health” reached the international stage in 2004 at a symposium organised by the Wildlife Conservation Society, following the 2002 SARS outbreak. Together, experts from around the world wrote the Manhattan Principles on One World, One Health, urging global leaders to “recognise the essential link between human, domestic animal and wildlife health and the threat disease poses to people, their food supplies and economies, and the biodiversity essential to maintaining the healthy environments and functioning ecosystems we all require.”

Bridging gaps between animal, human and environmental health

“In the following years, governments and scientists worldwide came to recognise that transdisciplinary collaboration was essential to prevent and control zoonoses, and that they should include physicians and veterinarians alongside wildlife specialists, environmentalists, anthropologists, economists and sociologists, among others”, recalls Dr Monique Éloit, outgoing Director General of WOAH.  

The concept became a true reference for international policy in October 2008 at the event of the H5N1 global outbreak, when six international organisations (the World Bank, WHO, FAO, UNICEF, WOAH and the UN System Influenza Coordination) convened at the International ministerial conference on avian and pandemic influenza at Sharm-el-Sheikh (Egypt). They released a joint “Strategic Framework for Reducing Risks of Infectious Diseases at the Animal-Human-Ecosystems Interface”, with a meaningful title: “Contributing to One World, One Health”, with direct reference to the Manhattan principles.  

A visual concept of the One Health approach

From rabies to antimicrobial resistance 

In 2010, FAO, WHO and WOAH published a “Tripartite concept note” known as the Hanoi declaration, where they presented their common vision for “a world capable of preventing, detecting, containing, eliminating, and responding to animal and public health risks attributable to zoonoses and animal diseases with an impact on food security through multi-sectoral cooperation and strong partnerships”. They decided to start by focusing on three areas of work: antimicrobial resistance, avian influenza and rabies.  

In 2017, the updated Tripartite strategy presented enlarged priorities, covering the reinforcement of national health services, the modernisation of early warning and surveillance systems, and the promotion of coordinated research. In 2018, a new Memorandum of Understanding strengthened the partnership on antimicrobial resistance.  

Rabies control: a model for One Health collaboration 

Rabies still kills around 59 000 people every year. Since 99% of the human cases originate from dog bites and scratches, the disease needs to be tackled at its animal source, by implementing large scale dog vaccination and raising awareness. It also needs action from the human health sector, to ensure access to medical care and post-bite treatment, especially in rural areas. 

FAO, WHO, WOAH and the Global Alliance for rabies control are working together toward a common goal: “Zero human deaths from dog-mediated rabies by 2030.” Building a coordinated approach for rabies serves as a model for many other diseases, and offers an opportunity to strengthen health systems worldwide.  

Broadening the scope to environmental drivers  

Although the One Health concept originated in the animal health sector, it had gradually developed as a public health and environment sector policy approach. “The context changed in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, at the Paris Peace Forum in late 2020, where world leaders called for the full integration of the environment sector in One Health, specifically calling for the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to join the Tripartite”, recalls Ing Andersen, UNEP Executive Director, in April 2024.  “We immediately began to work together on key initiatives, and in March 2022, the collaboration was formalised through the establishment of the Quadripartite. This has led to a stronger focus on upstream prevention and to a push to broaden the scope beyond zoonotic disease and antimicrobial resistance to include the environmental drivers of health risks and the health of the environment and ecosystems.” 

The world was slowly coming out of the worst of the COVID-19 pandemic, and still facing monkeypox, Ebola outbreaks, and continued challenges linked to food safety, antimicrobial resistance, ecosystem degradation and climate change. One Health appeared, more than ever, as the main approach for tackling these pressing and complex challenges. The Quadripartite presented a Joint plan of action with six action tracks inclusive of the environment, comprising the strengthening of health systems, controlling zoonotic epidemics and pandemics, food safety, and curbing antimicrobial resistance.  

WOAH takes the lead on cross-sectoral collaboration 

“Moving forward, the objective is to effectively implement One Health activities and foster positive outcomes at the country level”, said WHO Director General, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, when asked to reminisce about the Quadripartite collaboration for One Health over the years. “One example of this is our work […] with the G20 Brazil Secretariat to inject fresh perspectives into the One Health approach within political forums, with a focus on the importance of governance and knowledge sharing.” 

In March 2024, WOAH set to chair the Quadripartite rotating Secretariat for the upcoming year, with a detailed agenda focused on implementation of the One Health Joint Plan of Action, monitoring and evaluation of  the Quadripartite work, global advocacy and leveraging investment for One Health, as well as learning and training coordination. The Organisation is also championing action against zoonotic diseases through a holistic approach. 

As it celebrates its 100th anniversary, WOAH reiterates its strong commitment to animal health: more than ever, our health.  


Have you read?

The origins of WOAH date back to 1921, with a shipload of zebus travelling from India to Brazil. The zebus transited at the Belgian port of Antwerp, where they were quarantined with cattle from the United States, before being forwarded by rail to various European slaughterhouses. The zebus were infected with rinderpest, a deadly disease that quickly spread through the other imported cattle, all over Europe. The disease was already well-known in this region and others, where it had killed millions of cattle in the past, causing devastation in farms.  

This situation was mitigated by quick action from national veterinary services, but it confirmed the need for international cooperation on disease prevention procedures. At the 1921 Paris Conference, 43 countries and territories decided to establish an Office International des Epizooties. The OIE [former acronym of WOAH] was born on 25 January 1924. 

1968: the first Code to regulate trade of animals and their products  

In 1960, the Organisation launched the International Veterinary Quarantine Operation to progressively harmonise international exchanges of animals and animal commodities. After years of unprecedented efforts to facilitate standardisation, including multiple worldwide conferences, the International Zoosanitary Code was published in 1968, providing the regulatory basis for safe international trade of terrestrial and aquatic animals and animal commodities.  

A science-based and democratic approach 

Nowadays, this first Code has evolved. It is now a fully developed system organised in four sets of publications, which provide international standards to monitor, detect and control more than 120 animal diseases, to improve animal welfare, veterinary public health and to strengthen Veterinary Services worldwide:  

  • The Terrestrial Code, first published in 1968 under the name of International Zoosanitary Code, provides standards for the prevention, early detection, reporting and control of pathogens in terrestrial animals.  
  • The Aquatic Code, introduced in 1995 to extend standards on disease prevention, early detection, reporting and control to amphibians, crustaceans, fish and molluscs. 

The development of WOAH Standards relies on the dedicated and comprehensive work of specialised committees and groups, based on scientific rigor and consensus among Members, following transparent and democratic adoption procedures.

Carlos Henrique Baqueta Fávaro, Brazilian Minister for Agriculture and Livestock.

Indeed, to remain relevant with the latest scientific and technological developments as well as with feedback from their implementation, WOAH Codes and Manuals are being regularly updated through a science-based and consultative process: revisions proposed to address countries’ needs are developed by experts, discussed with Members and key stakeholders, and finally adopted each year by the World Assembly of Delegates, where each Member has one vote. 

A reference for the World Trade Organization  

When Members vote for the adoption of Standards at WOAH’s annual General Session, they commit to translating them into their national legislation. The World Trade Organization (WTO) adopted the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary measures (SPS) in 1995, which encourages its members to base their sanitary measures relating to animal health and zoonoses on WOAH Standards.  

WOAH Standards, widely recognised and adopted by WTO Members, provide a robust foundation for harmonising regulations and ensuring the safety of international trade in animal products. By ensuring compliance with WOAH Standards, nations can effectively address trade concerns, harmonise regulations, and promote smoother trade flows while upholding high standards of animal health and safety.

Jean-Marie Paugam, WTO Deputy Director General.  

For Brazilian Minister of Agriculture and Livestock Carlos Henrique Baqueta Fávaro, “WOAH Standards, recognised by the WTO as a reference in animal health and zoonoses, bring security, impartiality, and equity to international trade of animals and their products, avoiding unnecessary trade barriers.” 

WOAH has indeed become WTO’s reference organisation, reflecting the importance of health measures to facilitate safe international trade of animals and their products. This collaboration between international organisations and Members goes beyond trade: for example, “as a founding partner of the Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF), alongside FAO, WHO, the World Bank, and WTO, WOAH actively contributes to assisting developing nations in meeting international sanitary and phytosanitary standards and requirements. Concrete examples include initiatives in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and the Philippines to control the spread of African swine fever, projects in Mongolia to improve animal identification systems, and in Ethiopia to enhance SPS compliance for meat exports”, Jean-Marie Paugam added.  

Standards Animal Health_A male animal health inspector checking for signs of animal diseases in a slaughterhouse
Applying sanitary measures, an inspector checks carcasses for signs of disease in a slaughterhouse. Following WOAH Standards and recommendations on slaughter and trade is key to preventing the spread of diseases and ensuring food safety.  Photo: © WOAH/Amir Hossein Fadaee

An Observatory to monitor the implementation of standards 

WOAH acknowledges that while it is important to develop and publish international standards, these recommendations need to be effectively implemented at every international border, harbour, farm and anywhere veterinary services are being delivered in the world. In some countries, implementation can be challenged by many factors, including the lack of financial and human resources, or relevant infrastructure.  

In order to know where Members stand regarding the implementation of standards, WOAH Observatory was created to collect data and facts, and provide analyses. “WOAH Standards are the international reference in the areas of animal health, animal welfare and zoonoses. However, as with many international instruments, evidence on their actual uptake remains scarce. The Observatory is an ambitious project, largely unprecedented among international organisations, to bring transparency to the use of WOAH Standards”, said Marianna Karttunen, of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), that provided support and recommendations in the development of the Observatory.  

Following a testing phase, the WOAH Observatory published its first results in 2022. The programme is expected to reach full speed in 2025. Data is provided by Members and collected from external sources, then analysed to identify implementation gaps and provide recommendations to Members, while guiding WOAH capacity building activities and standard-setting process.  

“Other international organisations will be able to learn much from WOAH’s experience in setting up the Observatory. WOAH’s active participation in the Partnership of International Organisations for Effective International Rulemaking is therefore timely and very welcome”, Marianna Karttunen added.  

The Observatory is at the core of WOAH’s current digital transformation, in line with the principles of thoroughness, international cooperation and transparency that keep international standards still fully relevant today.  


Have you read?

Beyond the ethical obligation to treat animals with dignity, ensuring their welfare also translates into tangible benefits for various stakeholders. By prioritising animal welfare, slaughterhouses not only enhance product value but contribute to food safety and product quality, mitigating the risk of contamination and reducing instances of meat spoilage. This commitment to quality assurance not only safeguards consumer health but also enhances consumer trust and loyalty, ultimately resulting in improved economic returns and sustainability for the industry as a whole. 

Towards safer and more ethical slaughter 

To support the safe and ethical slaughter of animals for human consumption, a revised standard on animal welfare during slaughter (chapter 7.5 of the Terrestrial Code) has been adopted by the World Assembly of Delegates during WOAH’s 91st General Session.  

The standard focuses on ensuring good animal welfare conditions during slaughter operations. Notably, it provides animal-based measures to assess the level of welfare and recommends remedial and corrective actions to be applied, when necessary. Including animal welfare indicators is key to support the implementation of the recommendations included in this chapter. Moreover, through comprehensive training and competency measures, the standard emphasises the critical role of personnel in upholding ethical standards and highlights the importance of training in understanding species-specific behaviours, recognising signs of distress, and implementing preventive actions.

Additionally, the standard delves into the impact of premises design and equipment choice on animal welfare, noting considerations such as thermal comfort, ease of movement, and injury prevention. It provides detailed recommendations for handling free-moving animals during unloading and restraint, stressing the significance of preventive equipment, proper lighting, and minimising distractions to reduce stress in animals and ensure humane treatment. Furthermore, the chapter addresses welfare concerns related to stunning, promoting effective methods, along with the monitoring of stunning effectiveness to uphold ethical standards throughout the slaughter process. 

The significance of adopting international standards on animal welfare during slaughter cannot be overstated. It underscores a collective responsibility to ensure ethical treatment throughout the slaughter process, acknowledging that the welfare of animals is not just a moral imperative but a shared obligation. By prioritising animal welfare, stakeholders not only uphold ethical standards but also contribute to the wellbeing of workers and the assurance of product quality.

Furthermore, it is essential to adopt these standards to support Members who do not yet have a regulatory framework in place in this area. Providing a unified and robust set of guidelines helps ensure that all Members, regardless of their current regulatory status, can achieve a high standard of animal welfare. Therefore, it is imperative for all involved parties to protect animal welfare, recognising that doing so benefits not only the animals themselves but also the workers who care for them and the consumers who rely on safe and ethically produced products. 


Have you read?