DISCONTOOLS “Disease Control Tools” Telmo Valinhas Project Manager 05 March 2008

1. DISCONTOOLS“Disease Control Tools”Telmo ValinhasProject Manager05 March 2008

2. DISCONTOOLS • Concept • Objectives • Working Plan and Structure • Time table

3. Concept • European Technology Platform for Global Animal Health (ETPGAH) – December 2004 “Develop and deliver the most effective tools for controlling animal diseases that are of major importance to Europe and to the rest of the world, thereby improving human and animal health, food safety and quality, animal welfare and market access, contributing to achieve the Millennium Development Goals”

4. Concept • ETPGAH Vision Paper – August 2005 • Strategic Research Agenda (61 recommendations) – May 2006 • Action Plan (28 major activity areas) – July 2007 • DISCONTOOLS delivers part of the Action Plan

5. Concept • Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) calls for research proposals related to “Knowledge Based Bio-Economy” platforms • “Optimising research efforts for the development of the most effective tools for controling infectious animal diseases” call designed to build on the ETPGAH work • IFAH-Europe submitted a Coordination Support Action (CSA) – “DISease CONtrol TOOLS” • Funded over a four year period (€978,660) • Starting in March 1st, 2008

6. Objectives • Primary Objective • Enable research to be optimised by public and private funders in a more effective manner • Enable new and improved tools to be developed and delivered • Control of the major diseases of animals, including zoonoses

7. Objectives • Complimentary work strands • Provide a validated database and peer review methodology in order to prioritise infectious animal diseases • Gap analysis to identify areas where: • information and knowledge of the disease is deficient • Current tools are lacking, inadequate or could be improved

8. Objectives • Complimentary work strands 3. Identify current and new technological tools that may be used to improve the ability to control infectious animal diseases • Review of existing arrangements by stakeholders • Development of methodologies to identify and evaluate nem tecnhology

9. Working Plan and Structure • Interaction of 5 synergistic work packages (WP) WP1 Establish and maintain effective management and coordination of the project involving all stakeholders • Appropriate governance structure agreed by Animal Health stakeholders

10. Working Plan and Structure WP2 Prioritise diseases • Assemble up to date information from experts (drawn from stakeholders and individuals) • Place on a public website • Invite input • Update via approval of experts • Living and evolving database

11. Working Plan and Structure WP3 Gap analysis of the priority diseases • Invite stakeholder representatives to decide on the critical gaps • Aim research at filling the gaps

12. Disease Criteria - 1 EPIDEMIOLOGY AND RISK Speed of spread Number of species involved Persistence of infectious agent Spreading potential to susceptible populations Wildlife diseases risk potential threat to animal health and public health Disease Knowledge Wildlife diseases that are a threat Dynamic (temporal, spatial, species variability) IMPACT ON WIDER SOCIETY Disease Impact on Production Economic direct impact (including cumulative cost eg enzootic vs epizootic) Economic indirect impact (social, trade) Impact on specific production and supply channels Security of food supply/Benefit for developing world

13. Disease Criteria - 2 IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH Impact on Public Health and Food Safety Risk of occurrence Impact of occurrence IMPACT ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE Impact on International Trade and EC trade due to existing regulations CONTROL MEASURES Effective prevention and control practices Tools for surveillance Tools for prevention crisis Tools for control and implementation Success of prevention and control in other countries Technology (Vaccine/Treatment) / Tool Availability Commercial Diagnostic Tools Availability

14. Prioritisation Outcome • Prioritisation model on public website • Invite input to scores for each criterion • Experts evaluate input and propose scores • Stakeholders agree priorities • Priorities will change over time – model allows for this • Target research & achieve early breakthroughs • Potentially huge benefits if we learn how to control serious zoonoses

15. Working Plan and Structure WP4 Identify and evaluate new technologies • Horizon scan for new technologies • Human health, biotechnology, crop protection, nanotechnology, chemistry, biocides, etc. • Ensure deployment in the animal health sector as early as possible WP5 Ensure the effective communication and dissemination of information from the project

16. Working Plan and Structure • Main features of the project • Stakeholders • Involvement of a wide range (EU, International) • Active participation in the governance of the project • Contribution from research through to delivery

17. Working Plan and Structure • Main features of the project • Assists • DG Research and the ERA-Net in prioritising research • DG Sanco in the context of the Community Animal Health Policy – CAHP • EFSA and ECDC in attempting to prioritise zoonoses and to look at emerging zoonoses

18. Working Plan and Structure Stakeholder Forum Agree, comment, support Secretariat Prepare, support, admin (WP1, WP5) Advisory Council Guide, endorse, support Monitor, review, decide, approve (WP1, WP5) Project Management Board Working Group WP2 Working Group WP3 Working Group WP4

19. Time table

20. DISCONTOOLS Let’s work to fight infectious animal diseases. Thank You! IFAH-Europe Rue Defacqz, 1 1000 Brussels Belgium www.ifaheurope.org