Article

How can we mitigate disease risk at the wildlife–livestock interface?

Wildlife interface

When wildlife and livestock share the same environments, opportunities for pathogens to move between them increase. This is especially a problem when it comes to transboundary animal diseases (TADs) such as African swine fever (ASF), high pathogenicity avian influenza (HPAI), and foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) which continue to spread globally, affecting animal health and the livelihoods of the people who depend on them.  

Understanding wildlife–livestock interfaces (WLIs)—the physical spaces where wild and domestic animals interact—and identifying interventions that can reduce disease transmission at WLIs are crucial to easing the burden of illness on animals, humans, and economies.

As part of its mission to protect the health of animals everywhere, the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) has released a new resource: Mitigating Disease Transmission Risk at the Wildlife–Livestock Interface: A Practical Guide for Veterinary Services. These guidelines equip Veterinary Services with clear, adaptable recommendations to help them design effective, context-specific interventions to address disease risks where wildlife and livestock meet.

Disease characteristics like a pathogen’s ability to survive in an environment; whether transmission is direct, indirect or through vectors; and its morbidity and mortality rates play an important role in WLIs. But they aren’t the only factors. WLIs also vary by region, farming system, wildlife species and environmental factors.

These interactions themselves are dynamic and highly influenced by climate, habitat and human activities. All of these elements interacting can create complicated pathways for pathogens to spread between wildlife and livestock and vice versa.

Livestock and wildlife have similar needs: food, water and shelter. If these resources are easily found on farms, for example, and not in the surrounding environment, they can become hotspots for disease transmission. Or, if human settlements move closer to these resources, the likelihood of interactions between wildlife and humans increases, paving the way for spillover and zoonotic infection.  

Mapping out WLI risks before an outbreak can safeguard animal health during one

Mapping and understanding the characteristics of WLIs can greatly increase veterinary professional’s ability to assess how a disease might spread. It involves understanding the target disease and the scenarios in which it could spread.

Unfortunately, these are not simple tasks. Differences in disease knowledge between countries could be a stumbling block in accurately considering all of the characteristics of an outbreak; so could inaccurate or low-quality data.

However, having a well thought out, farm-specific action plan with the goal of reducing interactions between wildlife and livestock can greatly mitigate the risk of disease transmission at the WLI. These action plans can include measures like improving facilities, moving water points or feeders, and making farm resources less attractive to wildlife.

Splitting actions into categories such as “priority” and “alternative” or “general” and “specific” helps translate risk assessments into practical, workable decisions on farm. Priority actions can focus on measures with the greatest potential to reduce risk at the WLI, through direct or structural interventions, while alternative actions provide a realistic second option when constraints such as permits or feasibility make priority measures difficult to apply. General actions can establish a baseline level of biosecurity through broad management practices affecting the whole farm, whereas specific actions target clearly identified risk points such as plots or water points.

Together, these distinctions enable farm-specific action plans and balance effectiveness with real-world implementation challenges faced by veterinary services and producers alike.

Biosecurity as an investment

When it comes to risk management at WLIs, biosecurity should be thought of as an investment rather than an added cost. Biosecurity, when implemented correctly, plays a role in preventing disease outbreaks – which can be very costly to manage after the fact – before they occur. So, even though there are upfront costs to improving farm facilities, for example, they pale in comparison to the costs of treatment, production losses, and culling.

Mitigating risk at the WLI is not a one size fits all solution. Transboundary diseases like ASF, HPAI and FMD are all complex in unique ways, requiring solutions tailored both to specific disease characteristics and each country’s context. Countries should apply the “do not harm” principle to ensure that the solutions put into place are environmentally sustainable and socially acceptable. The guidelines support countries in developing tailored risk mitigation programmes that reflect local realities and capacities. By adjusting interventions countries can protect animal health and trade more effectively.

Mitigating Disease Transmission Risk at the Wildlife–Livestock Interface: A Practical Guide for Veterinary Services give Veterinary Services the tools they need to create tailored, impactful interventions where wildlife and livestock meet. Investing in mitigating disease transmission at WLIs can create a safer, more sustainable future for animals and humans alike. 

Have you read?