A Simple, Collaborative Prioritization Process For Wildlife-Associated Zoonotic Diseases in Northern Tanzania

International Journal of One Health RESEARCH ARTICLE
Available at www.onehealthjournal.org/Vol.10/No.1/12.pdf Open Access
A simple, collaborative prioritization process for wildlife-associated

zoonotic diseases in northern Tanzania
Daniel Pius Mdetele1 , Q. Kagembe1 , J. Thomson1 , E. Komba2 , M. Seth3 , A. Chengula4 , E. Lipende5 ,
J. Compton6 , and K. M. Beckmann7
1. TRAFFIC International East Africa, P.O. Box 14129 Arusha, United Republic of Tanzania; 2. Directorate of Research,
Training and Extension, Tanzania Livestock Research Institute, Dodoma, Tanzania; 3. Directorate of Research
Coordination and Promotion, National Institute for Medical Research, Dares Salaam, Tanzania; 4. Department of
Microbiology, Parasitology and Biotechnology, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania; 5. Department of
Veterinary Science and Wildlife Laboratory, Tanzania Wildlife Research Institute, Arusha, Tanzania; 6. TRAFFIC Global
Office, Pembroke Street, Cambridge, CB2 3QA, UK; 7. Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh,
Easter Bush Campus, Midlothian, EH25 9RG, UK.
Corresponding author: Daniel Pius Mdetele, e-mail: [email protected]
Co-authors: QK: [email protected], JT: [email protected], EK: [email protected],
MS: [email protected], AC: [email protected], EL: [email protected], JC: [email protected],
KMB: [email protected]
Received: 12-11-2023, Accepted: 13-02-2024, Published online: 07-04-2024
doi: www.doi.org/10.14202/IJOH.2024.91-99 How to cite this article: Mdetele DP, Kagembe Q, Thomson J, Komba E,
Seth M, Chengula A, Lipende E, Compton J, and Beckmann KM (2024) A simple, collaborative prioritization process for
wildlife-associated zoonotic diseases in northern Tanzania, Int. J. One Health, 10(1): 91–99.
Abstract
Background and Aim: Zoonotic diseases are naturally transmissible infections between animals and humans. To address
these cross-sectoral health issues holistic, transdisciplinary health approaches are required. The legalization of the game meat
trade in Tanzania in 2020 has created a new value chain from wild habitats to registered game meat selling facilities in human
settlements, thus creating new human–animal interfaces associated with potential risks of zoonotic disease transmission
among wildlife, livestock, and human populations. This study aimed to apply a simple, collaborative prioritization process
to identify important zoonotic pathogens associated with wild animal taxa harvested and traded for game meat consumption
in northern Tanzania.
Materials and Methods: A prioritization process was conducted to identify and rank zoonotic diseases associated with
wildlife in the Arusha, Kilimanjaro, and Manyara regions of northern Tanzania to help determine the zoonotic disease risks
associated with the game meat value chain. Two districts from each region were selected for this study. The prioritization
process was conducted through an expert workshop that involved 41 participants, including a District Veterinary Officer,
Public Health Officer, and District Game Officer from each district, as well as national One Health focal persons, zonal
Veterinary and Laboratory Officers, scientific researchers, and a representative from the national Game Meat Selling
Advisory Committee.
Results: Experts identified 11 common zoonotic diseases reported in these regions, of which anthrax, rabies, brucellosis,
Rift Valley fever, and bovine tuberculosis were considered the most important. This finding is broadly consistent with the
national priority list for zoonotic diseases.
Conclusions: This approach was time-efficient and cost-effective. In Tanzania, multi-sectoral planning, communication,
and cooperation among human health, domestic animal health, wildlife health, and environmental protection have been
strengthened. In the future, we recommend regular exercises using such an approach to update the information on important
diseases and promote information sharing for epidemic and pandemic preparedness associated with the wild animal trade.
Keywords: epidemic and pandemic, expert opinion, game meat, one health, wildlife, zoonoses.
Introduction of all EID events, 60.3% are primarily associated with
Infectious diseases naturally transmitted between zoonotic transmission, with 71.8% of those events
animals and humans are usually referred to as zoo- having a source in wildlife. Emerging and re-emerg-
notic diseases. Emerging infectious diseases (EID) ing human zoonotic diseases have resulted in approx-
that cross species boundaries have garnered increased imately 2.7 million human deaths every year since
attention recently due to their potential impact on pub- the 1970s [2]. In Tanzania, zoonotic diseases such as
lic health and are of major concern globally [1]. Out bovine tuberculosis, rabies, brucellosis, anthrax, and
Rift Valley fever have been demonstrated to compro-
Copyright: Mdetele, et al. This article is an open access article mise human health, livestock productivity, and food
distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ security [3–5].
by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and Trade in wildlife and wild meat increases the pos-
reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit
to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the sibility of transmission of viral and bacterial pathogens
Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. from wildlife to humans and of associated zoonotic
The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://
creativecommons.org/ publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data
diseases [6]. Following the publication of the Game
made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. Meat Selling Regulations in Government Gazette
International Journal of One Health, EISSN: 2455-8931 91
Available at www.onehealthjournal.org/Vol.10/No.1/12.pdf
no. 84 of February 7, 2020, the rapidly expanding Prioritization Tool [16] to prioritize zoonotic diseases
game meat trade in Tanzania raised concerns about of greatest national concern for Tanzania. The work-
the potential for known and novel pathogens of a zoo- shop participants identified rabies, Rift Valley fever,
notic nature to spread from wildlife through various and other viral hemorrhagic fevers (Marburg, Ebola),
human–animal interfaces (including hunting, slaugh- zoonotic influenza, anthrax, human African trypano-
ter, preparation, transport, and sale of wild meat) to somiasis, and brucellosis [15] as priority zoonotic dis-
infect humans and livestock. This concern occurred eases in decreasing order of importance.
at the same time as the increase in public health con- TRAFFIC, a global non-governmental organiza-
cerns related to severe acute respiratory syndrome-re- tion specialized in research, analysis and developing
lated coronavirus and other zoonotic diseases at a solutions to improve legality, sustainability, and safety
global level. Multiple studies have highlighted risks of the trade in wild plants and animals, commenced a
of pathogen transmission and zoonotic disease from project titled “Reducing Risks in Tanzania’s Game Meat
wild animal trade [7–9]. Industry: Developing a Model for Safe, Sustainable,
Global health problems require interdisciplinary, and Legal Supply” with the support of United States
intersectoral expertise and close cooperation between Agency for International Development (USAID)
government, non-government, and educational agen- and the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale
cies to achieve optimal health for people, animals, and Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), in 2020. The project was
the environment. Given the increasing emphasis on developed to increase understanding of potential zoo-
global health, food, water, energy, and environmental notic disease risks from the newly established game
issues, the benefits of cross-sectoral and transdisci- meat trade in Tanzania, and in turn propose practical
plinary cooperation are becoming increasingly recog- interventions for risk reduction including application
nized. The One Health approach is an integrated and of a One Health approach to mitigate potential zoo-
unifying approach that aims to balance and optimize notic disease risks associated with the wild meat trade
the health of people, animals, and ecosystems sustain- in northern Tanzania. As part of an overarching disease
ably [10]. It has the potential to protect health, address risk analysis framework, a key step in the project was
health challenges such as the emergence of infec- to identify and prioritize zoonotic diseases (disease
tious diseases, antimicrobial resistance, food safety, ‘hazards’) associated with the trade, as well as to iden-
and promote the health and integrity of our ecosys- tify critical control points in the value chain of wild
tems. It recognizes the interdependencies between meat at which to target risk mitigation measures and to
human, domestic, and wild animal health. It helps build capacity for their implementation.
to address the full spectrum of disease control from This disease prioritization process needed to
prevention and preparedness to detection, response, acknowledge the geographic, socio-economic, cultural,
and management, thus contributing to global health and environmental contexts of human–animal interac-
security [11, 12]. This approach can be applied at com- tion, including wildlife, livestock, and peri-domestic
munity, subnational, national, and international lev- species in northern Tanzania. We developed a straight-
els but depends on shared and effective governance, forward workshop-based methodology to prioritize
communication, collaboration, and coordination. The zoonotic diseases of wildlife that were of greatest con-
cooperation achieved through this approach can make cern to human health and well-being in association with
it easier for people to better understand the co-ben- the wild meat value chain (where wild meat is inclusive
efits, risks, trade-offs, and opportunities to develop of game meat [legal] or bushmeat [illegal]), while also
equitable and holistic health solutions. gathering additional, related epidemiological informa-
The Tripartite Zoonoses Guide (2019), devel- tion about these diseases. This prioritization process
oped jointly by the World Health Organization, Food brought together representatives of human health, ani-
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations mal health, and wildlife management sectors.
and World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH, This study provides a detailed description of this
formerly OIE) to support countries in addressing zoo- prioritization process for wildlife-associated zoonotic
notic diseases, and the WOAH and International Union diseases. This simple approach has the potential to be
for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)’s Guidelines for replicated and adapted to other contexts of One Health
Wildlife Disease Risk Analysis (2014), are evidence prioritization and risk analysis, in particular with
of systematic approaches and global commitment to regard to trade and consumption of wild animals. This
collaboratively handling health issues [13, 14]. process elicited and analyzed experts’ perceptions of
In Tanzania, a One Health Zoonotic Disease the importance and epidemiological features of zoo-
Prioritization Workshop coordinated by the USA was notic diseases associated with the game meat value
held in March 2017, connecting Centers for Disease chain in northern Tanzania.
Control and Prevention (CDC) with input from rep-
resentatives of human health, livestock, agriculture, Materials and Methods
wildlife, environment, research, and higher educa- Ethical approval
tion sectors [15]. This two-day workshop used a five- Ethical approval was obtained from the Tanzania
step semi-quantitative One Health Zoonotic Diseases Commission for Science and Technology (COSTEC)
permit No. 2022-811-NA-2022-0256 and Tanzania commonplace diseases that would be less commonly
Wildlife Research Institute (TAWIRI) Permit No. AB. investigated by, or reported to, health authorities.
235/325/01/84.
Prioritizing zoonotic diseases
Study period and location
Each group was asked to discuss and come up
The expert workshop was held at Sokoine with a list of the most common zoonotic diseases
University of Agriculture (SUA) for five days observed in humans in their respective districts in the
(November 21–25, 2022). During this period, the past 10 years.
co-organizers convened for two days for preparation These diseases were then ranked under each of
and planning, followed by a three-day meeting with the following categories:
the invited experts. The workshop gathered experts • Prevalence in that district
from six districts of northern Tanzania: Monduli and • Socio-economic impact
Arusha districts of the Arusha region, Moshi and Siha • Availability of effective medical interventions
districts of the Kilimanjaro region, and Babati and • Likelihood of potential transmission (epidemic
Simanjiro districts of the Manyara region. The dis- potential) from one person to another
tricts were selected specifically because they are focal • Severity of disease in people according to the cri-
geographic areas for the trade in wild meat, as previ- teria used in the 2017 CDC workshop described
ously identified by TRAFFIC field research (unpub- above [15].
lished data). A District Game Officer (DGO), District However, unlike the 2017 CDC workshop, only
Veterinary Officer (DVO), and Public Health Officer zoonotic diseases observed over the past 10 years in
(PHO) were invited to constitute a multi-sectoral the respective districts were considered by this group
expert team from each selected location. One Health of experts (as opposed to the prioritization of diseases
focal points were invited from Tanzania’s Ministry that had not yet been detected in Tanzania). Another
of Health, Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries, and difference was that our prioritization process purely
Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism. In addi- used rankings (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.) and drew on expert
tion, zonal Veterinary Officers and a zonal Veterinary judgment through elicitation of group opinion in the
Laboratory Officer from the northern zone of Tanzania manner of participatory disease surveillance [17],
attended the workshop. Researchers from the National making this method distinct, time-efficient, and more
Medical Research Institute (NIMR), Tanzania cost-effective than the 2017 CDC process.
Livestock Research Institute (TALIRI), TAWIRI, For ranking, groups generated ranks ranging
and SUA also participated, together with the chair of from 1 to 9 for the highest- to lowest-priority dis-
Tanzania’s Game Meat Selling Advisory Committee eases respectively. The ranks across the five criteria
(GMSAC). A total of 41 participants contributed to the were summed, and the disease with the lowest rank
workshop, thus informing the prioritization process. was considered the top-priority zoonotic disease for
Data collection and analysis that particular district (Tables-1–6). Group discus-
Six groups corresponding to the study districts sions were followed by a plenary session in which
were formed, each of which comprised experts from each group presented their findings to a larger audi-
the different professional fields represented in the ence of experts. This was followed by a wide-rang-
workshop. The responsibilities of the experts were to ing discussion, which allowed the groups, where
share their opinions and experience based on their field appropriate, to revise their list and rankings based
of expertise and experience in their respective districts. on experience and feedback from other experts.
They were asked to list the zoonotic diseases observed All information gathered during the discussions
in their respective districts and rank them according to was captured in a simple table on a flip chart and then
their importance based on stipulated criteria, while epi- entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. A copy of
demiological information related to these diseases was the Excel sheet was then created where the diseases’
discussed and documented, as described below. The final ranks were reversed to create scores, such that a
list of observed diseases represented those of particu- disease with a rank of one out of five listed diseases
lar concern or note to the invited experts, as opposed to was assigned a score of 5; a disease ranked five out
Table-1: Results of ranking of the listed wildlife‑associated zoonotic diseases for Arusha district.
Zoonotic disease Ranking criteria, where 1 = highest rank and 5 = lowest rank Overall
ranking
Prevalence Socioeconomic Availability of Epidemic Severity Overall
impact intervention potential sum
Rabies 1 3 5 1 1 11 1.5
Anthrax 2 1 4 2 2 11 1.5
Brucellosis 3 2 3 4 4 16 3.5
Bovine tuberculosis 4 5 1 3 3 16 3.5
Porcine taeniasis 5 4 2 5 5 21 5

Table-2: Results of ranking of the listed wildlife‑associated zoonotic diseases for Babati district.
ranking
Anthrax 1 1 5 1 2 10 1
Rabies 2 3 4 3 1 13 2
Yersiniosis 5 4 1 2 3 15 3
Brucellosis 3 2 3 4 5 17 4
Bovine tuberculosis 4 5 2 5 4 20 5
Table-3: Results of ranking of the listed wildlife-associated zoonotic diseases for Monduli district.
ranking
Rabies 1 4 2 3 1 11 1
Anthrax 2 1 1 2 6 12 2
Rift Valley fever 8 2 8 1 2 21 3
Human African trypanosomiasis 4 7 3 5 7 26 5
Bovine tuberculosis 5 5 6 7 4 27 6.5
Porcine taeniasis 7 6 5 6 3 27 6.5
Sparganosis 9 9 4 9 8 39 8
Leptospirosis 6 8 9 8 9 40 9
Table-4: Results of ranking of the listed wildlife‑associated zoonotic diseases for Moshi district.
Zoonotic Ranking criteria, where 1=highest rank and 5=lowest rank Overall
disease ranking
Prevalence Socio economic Availability of Epidemic Severity Overall
Anthrax 1 1 5 1 1 9 1
Rabies 2 5 4 2 2 15 2
Salmonellosis 3 2 2 5 4 16 3.5
Leptospirosis 4 4 1 4 3 16 3.5
Table-5: Results of ranking of the listed wildlife‑associated zoonotic diseases for Siha district.
Zoonotic disease Ranking criteria, where 1=highest rank and 4=lowest rank Overall
ranking
Anthrax 1 1 4 1 1 8 1
Rabies 2 3 3 2 2 12 2
Table-6: Results of ranking of the listed wildlife‑associated zoonotic diseases for Simanjiro district.
Zoonotic disease Ranking criteria, where 1=highest rank and 5=lowest rank Overall
ranking
Prevalent Socioeconomic Availability of Epidemic Severity Overall
Anthrax 2 2 3 2 2 11 1
Rabies 3 3 4 4 1 15 3
Rift valley fever 5 1 5 1 3 15 3
of five was assigned a score of 1; and so on [17]. The Thereafter, another sheet was prepared to collate the
purpose of reversing the ranks to create scores was to results from all districts: the districts were added in
give equal weight to diseases that were not recorded the columns and all diseases were listed in the rows.
in a particular district, that is, a zero score (Table-7). Scores were added for each disease in each district. If
Table-7: Combined scores for identified wildlife‑associated zoonotic diseases for all the six study districts.
Diseases Overall scores (reversed ranks) for each district Overall

importance (rank)
Arusha Siha Babati Monduli Moshi Simanjiro Overall
sum
Anthrax 4.5 4 5 8 5 5 31.5 1
Rabies 4.5 3 4 9 4 3 27.5 2
Brucellosis 2.5 2 2 6 1 3 16.5 3
Rift Valley fever 0 0 0 7 0 3 10 4
Bovine tuberculosis 2.5 1 1 3.5 0 1 9 5
Human African trypanosomiasis 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 6
Porcine taeniasis 1 0 0 3.5 0 0 4.5 7
Leptospirosis 0 0 0 1 2.5 0 3.5 8
Yersiniosis 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 9
Salmonellosis 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 2.5 10
Sparganosis 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 11
For each district, the ranks in Tables-1–6 are reversed such that a disease with the lowest rank in Tables-1–6 is assigned
the highest score for that region. The disease with the highest score across districts is then given an overall rank of
number one, the disease with the lowest score is given the lowest overall rank, and so on.
a disease was not included in the district, it was given Related epidemiological data
a zero score. Finally, the scores for each disease were Table-8 presents the combined results from the six
summed, and the diseases with the highest scores were study districts concerning the seasonal occurrence of
considered as the greatest priority diseases (Table-7). these wildlife-derived zoonoses. In general, experts from
a majority of districts indicated that rabies has no sea-
Related epidemiological data
sonal predisposition. However, in the Arusha and Babati
In addition, expert opinions concerning the epi- districts, anthrax was most common during dry spells,
demiological parameters of these zoonotic diseases in whereas in Moshi and Simanjiro districts, it was most
wildlife were collected, including the following: common during wet seasons. For Monduli and Siha, it
• Seasonality of diseases in wildlife for the past was noted that it was common all the time. Experts from
decade (2013–2022); all districts agreed that brucellosis and bovine tuberculo-
• Species of domestic animals and wildlife affected; sis may occur at any time throughout the year. Seasonal
• Routes of transmission between humans, domes- variation in other diseases was considered to be limited.
tic animals, and wildlife; Table-9 presents responses regarding the host ranges
• Perceived origins of human, domestic animal, and of these diseases across the study districts. Anthrax, bru-
wildlife disease outbreaks; and cellosis, porcine taeniasis, and bovine tuberculosis pre-
• Morbidity and mortality rates among humans, dominantly affect wild ungulates in northern Tanzania,
domestic animals, and wildlife. which are the taxa most commonly associated with the
This information was collected using the same wild meat value chain [18–22]. It was considered that
process and at the same time, as described above. rabies was mainly affecting animal species that were not
Results targeted or traded for the purposes of game meat. Rift
Zoonotic diseases identified Valley fever is known to affect wildlife; however, experts
A total of 11 zoonotic diseases were identified do not consider it possible to describe the wild species
by different groups across the six districts, with four affected due to the lack of available data.
to nine zoonotic diseases identified per district. Of Table-10 provides information on perceived trans-
these, there were three diseases, rabies, anthrax, and mission routes and Table-11 provides information on
brucellosis in the lists of all six groups. Some dis- perceived sources of zoonoses associated with wildlife.
eases, such as yersiniosis (bubonic plague) (Babati), This information is provided separately for humans,
human African trypanosomiasis (Monduli), spargano- domesticated animals, and wild animals. These find-
sis (Monduli), and salmonellosis (Moshi), occurred ings indicate potential for zoonotic disease transmission
in only one district. Tables-1–6 show the results of both directly and indirectly along the wild meat value
ranking the listed zoonotic diseases based on the set chain. Rabies cannot be transmitted through the con-
criteria for the six study districts. Table-7 presents a sumption of game meat but can be transmitted during
summary of scores (reversed ranks) for all diseases the acquisition (hunting) of wild animals, which can be
in all the study districts. For each district, the overall regarded as an initial step in the wild meat value chain.
ranks in Tables-1–6 are reversed such that a disease Table-12 presents expert opinions on rates of
with the lowest score is assigned the highest score. morbidity (i.e., illness) and mortality as a consequence
The disease with the highest score across districts is of these zoonoses in human, wildlife, or domestic ani-
then considered most important, the disease with the mal populations across the study districts. Overall,
lowest score is given the lowest importance (lowest the mortality and morbidity rates due to these dis-
overall rank), and so on. eases were low for most human and wildlife diseases.
Table-8: Expert opinion on seasonality in occurrence of wildlife‑associated zoonotic diseases in the northern Tanzania for
the past 10 years (2013‑2022).
Disease Arusha Siha Babati Monduli Moshi Simanjiro

Rabies All times All times All times All times Dry All times
Anthrax Dry All times Dry All times Wet Wet
Brucellosis All times Dry All times All times All times All times
Porcine taeniasis* N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Bovine tuberculosis All times All times All times All times N/A All times
Yersiniosis N/A N/A Wet N/A N/A N/A
Human African trypanosomiasis* N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sparganosis N/A N/A N/A Wet N/A N/A
Rift Valley fever* N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Leptospirosis N/A N/A N/A N/A All times N/A
Salmonellosis N/A N/A N/A N/A All times N/A
*Experts were unable to state the seasonality due to insufficient data.
Table-9: Expert opinion on host species affected with wildlife‑associated zoonotic diseases in the northern Tanzania.
Disease condition Affected hosts

Human Wildlife Domestic animals
Rabies All Jackals (Canis sp.), hyena (Hyaenidae), wild dogs, goats, sheep, cattle,
dog (Lycaon pictus), monkey (Cercopithecidae), cats, donkeys
Bat-eared Fox (Otocyon megalotis), zebra
(Equus spp.)
Anthrax Mostly men Zebra, eland (Taurotragus oryx), wild pig cattle, pigs, goats, sheep
(Sus scrofa), impala (Aepyceros melampus),
buffalo (Syncerus caffer), Lesser kudu
(Tragelaphus imberbis), elephant (Loxodonta
africana), gazelle (Antilopini), and wildebeest
(Connochaetes spp.)
Brucellosis Mostly women Buffalo (majority), wildebeest cattle, pigs, sheep
Porcine taeniasis Mostly men Warthog (Phacochoerus africanus), bush pig goats, cattle, pigs, sheep
Bovine tuberculosis Yes Wildebeest cattle, sheep, goats
Yersiniosis* Yes N/A N/A
Human African Yes N/A N/A
trypanosomiasis*
Sparganosis* Yes Grant’s Gazelle N/A
Rift Valley fever Yes Yes cattle, goats, sheep
Leptospirosis* Yes N/A dogs
Salmonellosis* Yes N/A poultry, pigs, calves
*Experts were unable to state the wild and/or domestic species affected due to insufficient data.
Table-10: Expert opinion on probable transmission routes of wildlife‑associated zoonoses among different hosts in
northern Tanzania*.
Zoonotic disease Probable routes of transmission

Wild‑Human Domestic‑Human Wild‑Domestic
Rabies Bites, contact with Bites, contact with saliva Bites
saliva on bruised skin on bruised skin
Anthrax Ingestion (meat), direct Ingestion, direct contact, Ingestion through contaminated
contact, inhalation inhalation pasture (herbivorous) and carcass
Brucellosis* N/A Ingestion of undercooked Ingestion through contaminated
meat and milk pasture (herbivorous)
Bovine tuberculosis* N/A Ingestion of undercooked N/A
meat and milk
*Experts felt unable to state some transmission routes for brucellosis and bovine tuberculosis, and did not give any
transmission routes for remaining diseases (porcine taeniasis, yersiniosis, human African trypanosomiasis, sparganosis,
Rift Valley fever, leptospirosis, and salmonellosis), in light of insufficient information.
Anthrax and Rift Valley fever are considered to cause environmental health, are crucial for effective zoo-
a moderate amount of morbidity and mortality in notic disease surveillance, prevention, and control
domestic animals (livestock). [23]. We identified 11 priority wildlife-associated
zoonotic diseases in northern Tanzania using a consul-
Discussion
tative, multi-sectoral approach based on One Health
One Health approaches, which recognize the principles. This collaborative prioritization process
interconnectedness of human, animal, and promoted, enhanced, and facilitated communication
Table-11: Expert opinion on probable origins of outbreaks of wildlife‑associated zoonoses among different hosts in the
northern Tanzania*.
Zoonotic disease Probable source of outbreak

Human Domestic animals Wild
animals
Rabies* Dog bite Dog bite N/A
Anthrax Direct contact, meat consumption Direct contact Direct contact
Brucellosis* Consumption of unpasteurized milk Direct contact, contaminated feeding N/A
and undercooked meat utensils, carcasses, and feeds
Porcine taeniasis* Consumption of undercooked meat Contaminated feeds/grazing N/A
Bovine tuberculosis* Consumption of unpasteurized milk Inhalation N/A
and undercooked meat
*Experts felt unable to state the origin of outbreaks of these diseases in wild animals and were unable to give any
information regarding outbreaks of remaining diseases (yersiniosis, human African trypanosomiasis, sparganosis, Rift
Valley fever, leptospirosis, and salmonellosis), in light of insufficient information.
Table-12: Expert opinion on the rate of morbidity and mortality in relation to wildlife‑associated zoonotic diseases in
northern Tanzania.
Disease condition Morbidity Mortality

Human Wildlife Domestic animals Human Wildlife Domestic animals
Rabies Low Low Low Low Low Low
Anthrax Low Low Moderate Low Low Moderate
Brucellosis Low Low Low Low Low Low
Porcine taeniasis Low Low Low Low Low Low
Bovine tuberculosis Low Low Low Low Low Low
Yersiniosis* Low N/A N/A Low N/A N/A
Human African trypanosomiasis* Low N/A N/A Low Low Low
Sparganosis* Low N/A N/A Low Low Low
Rift Valley fever Low Low Moderate Low Low Low
Leptospirosis Low Low Low Low Low Low
Salmonellosis Low Low Low Low Low Low
*Experts felt unable to provide complete information due to a lack of available data. Interpretation of qualitative
ratings: Negligible=Occurrence is possible in exceptional circumstances; Low=Occurrence probable in some districts;
Moderate=Occurrence is probable across districts; High=Occurrence is considered common .
between game officers and veterinary and public health and were, therefore, of most importance with respect
officials regarding the occurrence and nature of zoo- to the wild meat trade, whether supplied through legal
notic diseases associated with wild animals in north- game meat or illegal bushmeat value chains, both of
ern Tanzania. This activity has contributed to capacity which have been associated with transmission of zoo-
building for early detection and response to known or notic and other pathogens worldwide [26]. The diseases
unknown zoonotic disease outbreaks in these districts. identified and prioritized in this study have also been
These One Health principles have been recommended reported in various Tanzanian studies [e.g. 3–5, 7, 15].
for identifying potential outbreaks and hotspots of However, the results contrasted with a study that cov-
zoonotic diseases associated with wildlife trade [24], ered multiple East African countries, including Burundi,
in line with Tanzania’s One Health Strategic Plan for Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda, and Uganda, from
the period 2022-2027 [25], which recognizes the need 1920 to 2017, which reported 21 zoonotic diseases prev-
for transdisciplinary efforts focusing on human, ani- alent in the region [27]. Our approach highlights the need
mal and environmental health to control and prevent to expand the scope, focus, and quality of such studies to
disease. Agricultural intensification, human population adequately address the public health, animal health, and
growth, urbanization and human encroachment into social and economic threats posed by zoonoses.
wildlife habitats are evident in Tanzania as drivers for The prioritization workshop was efficient, cost-ef-
zoonotic disease transmission and emergence. fective, and time-efficient. It is important to note that
In this study, we documented 11 wildlife-asso- information was shared between public health officials,
ciated zoonotic diseases normally experienced in the veterinarians, and wildlife officers. The combination
Monduli, Arusha, Moshi, Siha, Babati, and Simanjiro of these specializations offered wildlife officers (who
districts of northern Tanzania. The five most important normally move around protected areas) an opportunity
diseases for public health and well-being were con- to understand the importance of health issues related
sidered to be anthrax, rabies, brucellosis, Rift Valley to wild animals, with which they regularly have con-
fever, and bovine tuberculosis (in decreasing order of tact during their work. The multi-sectoral approach is
importance). Anthrax, brucellosis, Rift Valley fever, and a model of cooperation and elicitation that supports
bovine tuberculosis are associated with wild ungulates One Health and the global health security agenda by
improving coordination, cooperation, and communica- overall health at local and national levels in Tanzania,
tion at the human–animal–environment interface, which linked to regional East African and global One Health
is aimed at addressing common health threats in humans, contexts. It has improved multi-sectoral planning,
domestic animals, and wildlife. This work has helped communication, and collaboration for human, animal,
to strengthen communication channels for the preven- and wildlife health in northern Tanzania, especially
tion, detection, and response to disease outbreaks at with reference to the management needs of the rapidly
this interface and to build capacity for improving health developing game meat industry. We recommend reg-
outcomes across systems. This cooperation can contrib- ularly holding such meetings in the future to promote
ute to the early detection of animal diseases and to pre- information sharing to systematically embed a One
paredness, resulting in economic savings. Reducing the Health approach to disease surveillance, understand-
time required to respond to disease outbreaks helps to ing, and response, particularly associated with the wild
prevent potentially costly and long-running outbreaks. animal trade where multiple government agencies need
Strengthening the capacities of public health officials, to co-ordinate their efforts across jurisdictions. These
veterinarians, and game officers can improve the resil- participatory approaches are highly recommended for
ience to future epidemics or pandemic emergence. zoonotic disease prioritization at subnational, national,
The findings from the workshop compared well and international scales and can also be applied in the
with those of the CDC’s national zoonotic disease prediction of novel pathogens and future preparedness
prioritization exercise in 2017 [15], which also deter- for known zoonotic and other diseases.
mined anthrax, brucellosis, and Rift Valley fever to
be among the highest priority threats. Rabies was the Data availability
most highly ranked disease in the CDC workshop and The supplementary data can be available from
the second most important disease in this exercise. the corresponding author on a request.
Beyond the risks of rabies associated with sourcing
Acknowledgments
(e.g., during hunting), there was less concern regard-
ing rabies at the other nodal interfaces in the wild meat We would like to acknowledge the experts:
supply chain. Our approach was deliberately limited to DGOs, DVOs, and PHOs from all study districts,
common zoonotic diseases observed in this geographic One Health focal persons from Ministries responsible
area of northern Tanzania, unlike the CDC-led which for Health, Livestock, and Wildlife researchers from
considered all current and potential future zoonotic NIMR, TAWA, TAWIRI, TALIRI, and SUA and the
diseases, e.g. zoonotic influenza, which has never GMSAC for sharing expertise and experiences; local
been reported in Tanzania. Nevertheless, having iden- government authorities in Arusha, Monduli, Babati,
tification, treatment, and control strategies in place for Simanjiro, Moshi, Siha district, ministries and other
existing zoonotic diseases improves the likelihood that institutions for allowing their staff to attend and share
anything novel that does not respond to existing diag- their expertise in the expert workshop. The workshop
nostic and management protocols can still be detected. was funded by the USAID Wildlife TRAPS Project
The prioritization method gave experts the oppor- (Grant No: AID-AID-EGEE-IO-13-00002), with addi-
tunity to revise their scores following group discussion, tional support from the International Alliance Against
thus developing a stronger consensus, similar to more Health Risks in Wildlife Trade and the GIZ Global
structured expert elicitation methods, such as the Delphi Programme for Pandemic Prevention and Response,
process [28]. However, several caveats should be consid- One Health (Grant No: 81279050). All collaborating
ered in future iterations of this process. As nine diseases partners are greatly thanked for their financial and tech-
were identified in Monduli and fewer in other districts, nical support. TRAFFIC is thanked for coordinating,
the overall scores were slightly weighted for this district. organizing, and leading all project activities.
Our ranking criteria were considered to be equally import-
Authors’ Contributions
ant in the prioritization process, whereas in the CDC
approach workshop, the criteria were weighted according DPM, QK, JC, JT, and KMB: Conceptualized
to their perceived importance to experts. However, the and designed the study. DPM, EK, MS, EL, AC,
simplicity of the process we have described in this current and QK: Drafted the manuscript EK, MS, EL, and
study makes it easy to replicate in other contexts. AC: Gathered and analyzed the data. JC, JT, and
Conclusions and Recommendations KMB: Edited the manuscript. All authors have read,
reviewed, and approved the final manuscript.
A list of priority wildlife-associated zoonotic dis-
eases affecting human and animal health that could Competing Interests
also impact livestock productivity, food security, and The authors declare that they have no competing
biodiversity conservation in northern Tanzania was interests.
successfully established and realized using a multi-sec-
Publisher’s Note
toral One Health prioritization approach. Our approach
offers an opportunity to acknowledge shared interests, Veterinary World (Publisher of International
set common goals, and enhance teamwork to benefit Journal of One Health) remains neutral with regard
to jurisdictional claims in published institutional uploads/2021/10/global-health-security-agenda-annual-re-

affiliation. port.pdf Retrieved on 14-06-2023.
13. The World Health Organization (WHO), Food and
References Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO),
and World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE). (2019)
1. Jones, K.E., Patel, N.G., Levy, M.A., Storeygard, A., Taking a Multisectoral, One Health Approach: A Tripartite
Balk, D., Gittleman, J.L. and Daszak, P. (2008) Global Guide to Addressing Zoonotic Diseases in Countries. World
trends in emerging infectious diseases. Nature, 451(7181): Health Organization, Geneva.
990–993. 14. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), and
2. Xiao‑Xi Zhang, Jing‑Shu Liu, Le‑Fei Han, Shang Xia, International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
Shi‑Zhu Li, Odel Y. Li, Kokouvi Kassegne, Min Li, Kun (2014) Guidelines for Wildlife Disease Risk Analysis. OIE,
Yin, Qin‑Qin Hu, Le‑Shan Xiu, Yong‑Zhang Zhu, Liang‑Yu Paris, p24. Published in Association with the IUCN and the
Huang, Xiang‑Cheng Wang, Yi Zhang, Han‑Qing Zhao, Species Survival Commission.
Jing‑Xian Yin, Tian‑Ge Jiang, Qin Li, Si‑Wei Fei, Si‑Yu Gu, 15. Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2017)
Fu‑Min Chen, Nan Zhou, Zi‑Le Cheng, Yi Xie, Hui‑Min Li, One Health Zoonotic Disease Prioritization for Multisectoral
Jin Chen, Zhao‑Yu Guo, Jia‑Xin Feng, Lin Ai, Jing‑Bo Xue, Engagement in Tanzania. https://www.cdc.gov/onehealth/
Qian Ye, Liz Grant, Jun‑Xia Song, Geoff Simm, Jürg Utzinger, pdfs/tanzania-report-508.pdf Retrieved on 16-09-2023.
Xiao‑Kui Guo, and Xiao‑Nong Zhou. (2022) Towards a 16. Rist, C.L., Arriola, C.S. and Rubin, C. (2014) Prioritizing
global One health index: A potential assessment tool for one zoonoses: A proposed one health tool for collaborative deci-
health performance. Infect. Dis. Poverty, 11(1): 57. sion-making. PLoS One, 9(10): e109986.
3. Carugati, M., Biggs, H.M., Maze, M.J., Stoddard, R.A., Cash- 17. Araba, A.A., Hendrick, S., Jones, B., Mariner, J. and
Goldwasser, S., Hertz, J.T., Halliday, J.E.B., Saganda, W., Mehta, P. (2009) A Manual for Participatory Disease
Lwezaula, B.F., Kazwala, R.R., Cleaveland, S., Maro, V.P., Surveillance Practitioners. Available from: https://cgspace.
Rubach, M.P. and Crump, J.A. (2018) Incidence of human cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/367/birdflu-manual_
brucellosis in the Kilimanjaro Region of Tanzania in the final.pdf. Retrieved on 12-08-2023.
periods 2007–2008 and 2012–2014. Trans. R. Soc. Trop. 18. Kiffner, C., Peters, L., Stroming, A. and Kioko, J. (2015)
Med. Hyg., 112(3): 136–143. Bushmeat consumption in the Tarangire-Manyara ecosys-
4. Mwakapeje, E.R., Assenga, J.A., Kunda, J.S., Mjingo, E.E., tem, Tanzania. Trop. Conserv. Sci., 8(2): 318–332
Makondo, Z.E., Nonga, H.E., Mdegela, R.H. and 19. Ceppi, S.L. and Nielsen, M.R. (2014) A comparative study
Skjerve, E. (2017) Prevention, detection, and response to on bushmeat consumption patterns in ten tribes in Tanzania.
anthrax outbreak in Northern Tanzania using one health Trop. Conserv. Sci., 7(2): 272–287.
approach: A case study of Selela ward in Monduli district. 20. Martin, A., Caro, T. and Borgerhoff Mulder, M. (2012)
Int. J. One Health, 3: 66–76. Bushmeat consumption in western Tanzania: A comparative
5. Mwakapeje, E.R., Høgset, S., Fyumagwa, R., Nonga, H.E., analysis from the same ecosystem. Trop. Conserv. Sci., 5(3):
Mdegela, R.H. and Skjerve, E. (2018) Anthrax outbreaks 352–364.
in the humans-livestock and wildlife interface areas of 21. Mfunda, I.M. and Røskaft, E. (2010) Bushmeat hunting
Northern Tanzania: A retrospective record review 2006– in Serengeti, Tanzania: An important economic activity to
2016. BMC Public Health, 18(1): 106. local people. Int. J. Biodivers. Conserv., 2(9): 263-272.
6. Katani, R., Schilling, M.A., Lyimo, B., Tonui, T., 22. Rentsch, D. and Damon, A. (2013) Prices, poaching, and pro-
Cattadori, I.M., Eblate, E., Martin, A., Estes, A.B., Buza, T., tein alternatives: An analysis of bushmeat consumption around
Rentsch, D., Davenport, K.W., Hovde, B.T., Lyimo, S., Serengeti National Park, Tanzania. Ecol. Econ., 91(4): 1–9.
Munuo, L., Stomeo, F., Tiambo, C., Radzio-Basu, J., 23. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020). National
Mosha, F., Hudson, P.J. and Kapur, V. (2019) Microbial Center for Emerging Zoonotic Infectious Diseases. https://
diversity in bushmeat samples recovered from the Serengeti www.cdc.gov/onehealth/who-we-are/one-health-office-
ecosystem in Tanzania. Sci. Rep., 9(1): 18086. fact-sheet.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Ffanyv88.com%3A443%2Fhttps%2F-
7. Aruho, R., MacLeod, E.T., Manirakiza, L. and Rwego, I.B. www.cdc.gov%2Fonehealth%2Fmultimedia%2Ffactsheet.
(2021) A serological survey of brucellosis in wildlife in four html. Retrieved on 10-06-2023.
major National Parks of Uganda. BMC Vet. Res., 17(1): 95. 24. Lee, M.A.G., Valeza, V.J.S., Yan, J.P.H. and Cruz, R.A.L.
8. Bengis, R.G., Leighton, F.A., Fischer, J.R., Artois, M., Mörner, T. (2022) Zoonotic pathogens from illegally traded wild-
and Tate, C.M. (2004) The role of wildlife in emerging and life justify adopting the one health perspective in disease
re-emerging zoonoses. Rev. Sci. Tech., 23(2): 497–511. response. Philipp. Am. Acad. Sci. Eng., 15(1): 1–16.
9. Rush, E.R., Dale, E. and Aguirre, A.A. (2021) Illegal 25. Tanzania One Health Strategic Plan. (2022) https://
wildlife trade and emerging infectious diseases: Pervasive www.pmo.go.tz/uploads/documents/sw-1677564782-na-
impacts to species, ecosystems and human health. Animals, tional%20one%20health%20strategic%20plan%20
11(6): 1821. 2022%20-2027.pdf. Retrieved on 11-07-2023.
10. Adisasmito, W.B., Almuhairi, S., Behravesh, C.B., Bilivogui, 26. Smith, K.M., Anthony, S.J., Switzer, W.M., Epstein, J.H.,
P., Bukachi, S.A., Casas, N., Becerra, N.C., Charron, D.F., Seimon, T., Jia, H., Sanchez, M.D., Huynh, T.T.,
Chaudhary, A., Ciacci Zanella, J.R., Cunningham, A.A., Galland, G.G., Shapiro, S.E., Sleeman, J.M., McAloose, D.,
Dar, O., Debnath, N., Dungu, B., Farag, E., Gao, G.F., Stuchin, M., Amato, G., Kolokotronis, S.O., Lipkin, W.I.,
Hayman, D.T.S., Khaitsa, M., Zhou, L. (2022) One health: Karesh, W. B., Daszak, P. and Marano, N. (2012) Zoonotic
A new definition for a sustainable and healthy future. PLoS viruses associated with illegally imported wildlife products.
Pathog., 18(6): e1010537. PLoS One, 7(1): e29505.
11. Hamisi, N.M., Dai, B. and Ibrahim, M. (2023) Global 27. Kemunto, N., Mogoa, E., Osoro, E., Bitek, A., Kariuki
health security amid COVID-19: Tanzanian government’s Njenga, M. and Thumbi, S.M. (2018) Zoonotic disease
response to the COVID-19 Pandemic. BMC Public Health, research in East Africa. BMC Infect Dis., 18(1): 545.
23(1): 205. 28. Rowe, G. and Wright, G. (2001) Expert opinions in forecast-
12. USAID. (2020) Strengthening Health Security Across ing: the role of the Delphi technique. In: Armstrong, J.S.,
the Globe: Progress and Impact of U.S. Government editor. Principles of Forecasting: A Handbook for
Investments in the Global Health Security Agenda 2020 Researchers and Practitioners. Norwell, Massachusetts:
Annual Report. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/ Kluwer Academic Publishers. 125–144.
********

A Simple, Collaborative Prioritization Process For Wildlife-Associated Zoonotic Diseases in Northern Tanzania

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Simple, Collaborative Prioritization Process For Wildlife-Associated Zoonotic Diseases in Northern Tanzania

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Simple, Collaborative Prioritization Process For Wildlife-Associated Zoonotic Diseases in Northern Tanzania

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of One Health RESEARCH ARTICLE

Available at www.onehealthjournal.org/Vol.10/No.1/12.pdf Open Access