Pilanesburg Resolution

First, Do No Harm... But How? Animal Health Scientists from Around the Globe Provide Suggestions to the Development Community Through the Pilanesburg Resolution

In July, 2001, at a meeting of animal health science professionals from more than 30 countries held in South Africa’s Pilanesburg National Park, the Wildlife Disease Association and the Society for Tropical Veterinary Medicine jointly prepared and released a resolution calling for the recognition of animal health sciences as critical to the design and management of sustainable wildlife and/or livestock-based programs. This resolution, targeted at the international donor community, encourages agencies to consider potential wild and domestic animal health impacts when development projects (particularly those related to livestock development) are being planned or implemented. The two professional societies, representing thousands of scientists and meeting together to address the issue of diseases transmitted between domestic and wild animals, wished to emphasize the interrelatedness of development actions and the environment, the potential for adverse consequences in projects that neglect to consider animal disease issues, and the importance of considering the true and overall costs and benefits of attempting to address animal health issues to natural as well as human-made production systems when evaluating or trying to define project sustainability. The resulting Pilanesburg Resolution reads as follows:

Resolution by the Wildlife Disease Association and the Society for Tropical Veterinary Medicine calling for international donor community recognition of animal health sciences as critical to the design and management of sustainable wildlife and/or livestock-based programs:

* Whereas, contact and resource competition between wildlife and livestock continuously expand as more and more land comes under some from of human use;

* whereas, wild and domestic animals have many diseases in common and both groups can and do play different roles in disease epidemiology, and recognizing that these interrelationships can have significant implications for disease prevention or control schemes;

* whereas, livestock-based and wildlife-based activities are undertaken separately as well as jointly as primary modes of sustenance, economic betterment and support of rural livelihoods, with the sustainability thereof inextricably linked to ecologically appropriate land-use choices;

*whereas, the sustainable management of livestock as well as the conservation of wildlife require ground-level stewardship, including disease surveillance, by those communities closest to and most dependent on these resources;

*whereas, numerous governmental and nongovernmental organizations worldwide provide financial resources, incentives, leadership, and advice targeted at boosting productivity and sustainability of the livestock and/or natural resource management sectors without always recognizing concomitant disease implications, which can be significant and complex;

*whereas, limited funding streams for wildlife and/or livestock initiatives require prudent use;

*whereas, donor organizations seldom possess sufficient internal expertise regarding the myriad disease issues implicit in ensuring the success of wildlife and/or livestock-based programs; and

*whereas, the Wildlife Disease Association and the Society for Tropical Veterinary Medicine, along with other local, national, and international organizations, represent professionals who possess unique skills, knowledge, and experience with wild and domestic animal diseases and their underlying causes, ecological relationships, and economic implications.

Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Wildlife Disease Association and the Society for Tropical Veterinary Medicine urge those organizations contemplating the funding and implementation of programs involving wildlife or livestock resources to:

*encourage projects that foster integrative approaches to livestock production, food security, human health, economic growth, democracy and governance, biodiversity conservation, and natural resource management in order to build upon synergies among these sectors while precluding conflicting policies and/or negative impacts on either livestock or wildlife health;

*formalize steps in their project design, environmental impact assessment, and implementation processes which address wildlife, livestock, and rangeland health issues and their implications for sustainability and thus success, recognizing that these projects may alter fundamental relationships between animal hosts and potential pathogens and parasites;

*when contemplating projects involving domestic and/or wild animals, establish relationships with appropriate wildlife and domestic animal health-oriented organizations and recognized local, national, regional, and international experts, thereby identifying an appropriate pool of professionals who can assist in ensuring the inclusion of timely, science-based advice in planning, implementation, and monitoring processes; and

*put a premium on local human capacity-building to address the long-term technical needs of development activities that require expertise in domestic animal health and wildlife health by building adequate support into project design and implementation so as to engage local expertise and to foster capacity-building at professional as well as community levels as a first-tier priority within and beyond the life-spans of such programs.

The resolution was unanimously adopted by both professional groups, and has since been distributed to more than 30 international aid organizations including the United Nations Development Program, the World Bank, and the US Agency for International Development. It is the hope of the Wildlife Disease Association and the Society for Tropical Veterinary Medicine that the ideas conveyed in this way will influence development projects that have historically had profound impacts, good and bad, on land-use planning and practices in developing nations.

Back to Table of Contents