Animal Health Matters - Checklist

Checklist for Mitigating Wildlife Health Impacts in USAID-Assisted Projects

We believe that if USAID staff seek answers to the following questions when reviewing project proposals (regardless of sector, regardless of whether the project is classified as research or not) before deciding whether or not to fund them, and routinely include these questions as part of project monitoring and evaluation procedures, then many potentially unforeseen negative impacts on wildlife health can be precluded. Some of the questions relate inherently to animal welfare issues, which of course overlap with conservation issues when one is dealing with endangered species.  Many proposals/projects will be easy to apply this protocol to, as they will not involve many activities relevant to the questions. But running through this brief “checklist” will likely reveal potentially significant environmental issues that otherwise would likely have been overlooked. These types of issues are perhaps not thoroughly addressed through Federal Regulation 216 Agency Environmental Procedures.

It should also be clear that judging the answers to some of the following questions might in some cases be beyond the purview of USAID expertise, and beyond what can be reasonably articulated in a primer such as this. We strongly suggest that USAID develop a peer review process when proposals related to the management / handling of wild and domestic animals are being considered. Ad hoc or more permanent committees that include relevant USAID staff as well as outside expertise on domestic and wild animal health may be needed from time to time. One obvious source of such outside scientific expertise to consider is the IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) Veterinary Specialist Group (VSG). More information on this and other expert groups can be found in the appendices.

In the interest of efficiency, USAID might consider including these questions in its Requests for Proposals (RFPs) so candidates seeking development assistance actually have the opportunity to answer these questions directly themselves as part of the application process.

Project Checklist for Mitigating Wildlife Health Impacts (not all questions are applicable to all proposals from all sectors of USAID assistance):

1) Does the proposed work comply with relevant local, national, and international laws, regulations, treaties, agreements, and conventions as related to biosafety, animal health, human health, endangered species, trade, phytosanitation,  property rights, etc.?

(a)  Are the handling, transport, and chain of custody procedures for biological samples clearly articulated by the proponent?

(b)  Are all permits in order (CITES, USDA, host country)?

2) Does the applicant describe precautions that will be taken to ensure the protection of human health during this project and address issues related to biosafety, occupational safety, tourism, and zoonotic diseases (diseases transmissible between animals and people)? Are project staff adequately protected from project–related health risks (e.g.- abattoir workers exposed to potentially infected animal carcasses), and are animals adequately protected from human diseases (e.g.- are game guards patrolling a gorilla reserve trained in basic hygiene / sanitary procedures and screened / vaccinated for diseases common to people and great apes)?

3) Does the applicant describe precautions that will be taken to ensure the protection of wildlife and livestock health during (and after) the project? Have potential disease  transmission  risks been adequately addressed in the planning phase of the project? (This question also pertains to any pets or livestock project staff may wish to have on-site!) What type of risk assessment analysis has been applied?

4) Does the applicant describe appropriate steps for safely moving animals, animal products, and/or animal waste to prevent disease transmission and / or ‘downstream’ impacts?

5) Has the proponent evaluated the potential environmental impact of any project-related animal or other wastes / run-off, pharmaceutical agents, biologics, drug residues, food additives, or pesticides through toxicity or pathogenicity for non-target species (including soil and water invertebrates and microbes) or through bioaccumulation through the food chain? Has the proponent listed all such materials that will be utilized within the context of the project?

Lobster Decline- USA (NY)- www.promedmail.org New Agriculturalist [edited] 15 January 2003 Pesticides are the suspected cause of a devastating decline in the lobster population off the coast of New York. Preliminary tests on lobsters from Long Island Sound have found traces of pyrethroid, and researchers believe this may be linked to [the management of] an outbreak of West Nile virus [infection] in New York last year. In an attempt to prevent another outbreak of the virus, which is spread by mosquitoes, several eastern coastal states sprayed large quantities of insecticide. Although the US Environmental Protection Agency restricts spraying to land, scientists have surmised that heavy storms caused by Hurricane Floyd at the time of spraying may have washed large amounts of the pyrethroid chemicals into the sewers that flow into the Sound….

6) If habitat modifications such as barrier fences, roads, dams, or other water diversions are part of the project plan, has the proponent considered the adverse impacts on wildlife such as a loss of access to water, shifts in prey base, changes in disease vector ecology (e.g.- altering flowing into standing water), or interruption in migratory routes? Evaluating potential human health impacts is also obviously critical here.

7) Does the project include the lethal control of disease reservoir or vector species (e.g.- killing of bison that leave Yellowstone National Park because of concerns related to possible brucellosis transmission to cattle), and if so have environmental impacts been minimized and justified? Have non-lethal alternative approaches been considered?

8) When elimination of disease vector species is part of the proposed project (eg- tsetse fly eradication to eliminate trypanosomiasis), have follow-on changes in land-use patterns been adequately anticipated and evaluated for sustainability?

Clearing tsetse flies and creating the infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.) for people to move into fundamentally unsuitable  areas is, unfortunately,  a subsidy for the settlement of often marginal, semi-arid lands.  People migrate into these ‘frontiers,’ displacing existing traditional  land uses and cultures- and may initially thrive on the accumulated soil nutrient stocks.  Once these soils have been exhausted, the increased population will likely become dependent on urban subsidies and food aid to survive. Globally,  many of the most severe impacts on the conservation of biodiversity probably result from subsidies to agriculture on marginal lands (David Cumming, pers. comm.).

9) If the project uses domestic or wild animals, does the applicant describe the role of the principal investigator and each co-investigator involved in the project and list their animal-related experience and training? Does the applicant describe the level of experience obtained by project personnel with the species and/or techniques specifically involved in the project? [Note: Specific experience should be required, particularly for work with capture, chemical restraint, and surgery of animals. Listing of coursework, certificates, or degrees is not in itself sufficient.]

10) If the project involves wild animals, does the applicant describe the capture and handling methods used? If the movement of live animals is involved, does the applicant provide detailed descriptions of protocols and equipment to be used, and of transport plans?

11) Are biological samples being collected / analyzed from the animals in the project, particularly those animals that are members of an endangered species?

(a) If so, the applicant must explain why and describe collection, storage and biosafety techniques to be utilized.

(b)  If not, the applicant must explain why not. It is an honor and a privilege, for example, to handle a member of an endangered species.  Every opportunity to safely take samples and learn from a wild animal being handled for other research or management purposes should be considered and evaluated within the context of USAID’s conservation objectives.

12) Has the proponent addressed other project scenarios with disease transmission risks between humans, domestic animals, and/or wildlife? Risks can accompany projects that involve, for example, ecotourism, effluent discharge, waste management, road-building, construction, forest conversion, logging, water diversion, sustainable use, and contact between species through fences. What type of risk assessment analysis has been applied?

13) If hunting or culling are occurring, has the proponent considered the adverse effects of artificial selection (e.g.- tusklessness trait on the rise in elephants in Uganda, Tanzania- populations with significant historical poaching pressures).

14) If the project proposes the collection of animal products or biological samples through lethal means, have non-lethal alternative approaches been explored?

15) If non-lethal methods are not available and the collection of animal products or biological samples is deemed justified / necessary, does the applicant describe methods of euthanasia to be used and demonstrate that project personnel are qualified to implement them?

16) Where appropriate, does the proposal outline protocols and demonstrate that capabilities are in place for postmortem (necropsy) examination procedures of animals that die due to project-related activities? If an animal’s death relates directly or indirectly to project activities, it is important to determine exactly what went wrong in order to avoid repetition of mistakes.

17) If animals are being moved as part of the project:

(a) Has the applicant identified the health risks to source and recipient populations?

(b)  Has the applicant addressed relevant precautionary criteria as published by the IUCN Species Survival Commission Re-Introduction Specialist Group, Invasive Species Specialist Group, Conservation Breeding Specialist Group, and Veterinary Specialist Group? (See Appendices).

(c) Has the applicant considered potential adverse effects of introducing non-endemic genetic stock (effects of genetic dilution, hybridization, potential declines in disease resistance) or of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) [intermixing with native gene pools, beyond-site (non-target) impacts]? That is, how has it been determined that the proposed benefits of such introductions exceed the potential risks?

(d) Does the project meet the “IUCN Guidelines for Re-introductions”? These guidelines were developed specifically to provide practical recommendations to those planning, advising, carrying out, or monitoring reintroduction exercises.  Any project that does not meet the basic criteria outlined in this document should be subjected to further scrutiny, including direct discussion with the proponents as to why the project fails to address IUCN-recommended best practices.

(e) In line with the above, does the proponent compare the alleged benefits of releasing an animal into a particular habitat to the potential risks related to the introduction of disease or deleterious genes?

(f) Does the proposal demonstrate that protocols/facilities to be used for confining animals meet minimum requirements for humane confinement? Some basic information on animal welfare / confinement standards can be found in the appendices.

(g) Has the applicant included an evaluation of the potential for animal escape? Risks (beyond the obvious ones to the animal itself) depend on the species and situation, but could include physical danger to humans, animal and human disease risks, as well as danger to ecosystems if the project involves a non-native wildlife species (i.e.- a potential alien invasive species: projects involving non-native wildlife species should certainly be discouraged, as per point 18). Does the proponent described plans for emergency response / mitigation if escape occurs?

18) Is the introduction of non-endemic species proposed as part of the project? If so, does the applicant:

(a) Justify why the project must use non-endemic species and address the potential risk of the species becoming invasive?

(b) Demonstrate that they have researched the inherent potential of the species for invasiveness (see Appendix for “IUCN Guidelines for the Prevention of Biodiversity Loss Caused by Alien Invasive Species” and other references)?

19) Is the proponent prepared to deal with the potential injury of animals through project-related activities? For example, if a capture procedure is to be undertaken for research or management purposes, how are injuries to be dealt with? Are provisions in place to deal with irreparably harmed animals in terms of humane euthanasia? Particularly for projects involving threatened or endangered species, it is important to determine exactly what went wrong, in order to avoid repetition of mistakes.  Projects that have demonstrated sound conservation reasons for handling threatened or endangered animals should also be prepared to carry-out post-mortem examinations of any animals that die in the process. Such examinations include the collection of appropriate tissues and other samples to maximize what is learned from the animal when an unfortunate post-mortem exam opportunity does arise. Such situations are best avoided by using ‘best practices’ at all times, as implied by this checklist.

Back to Table of Contents