Search

Markets, Trade, and Institutions (MTI); Food and Nutrition Policy, Adopting One Health approaches is key for addressing interconnected health challenges. Yet, how to best put One Health into practice in research-for-development initiatives aiming to ‘deliver impacts’ remains unclear. Drawing on the CGIAR Initiative on One Health – a global initiative to address zoonotic diseases, antimicrobial resistance, and food and water safety – we reflect on challenges during program conception and implementation, prompting us to suggest improvements in multisectoral collaboration, coordination, and communication. Our approach involves conducting a researcher-centered process evaluation, comprising individual interviews that are subsequently thematically analyzed and synthesized. The key takeaway is that limited time for planning processes and short program timelines compared to envisioned development impacts may impede research-for-development efforts. Yet, collaborative work can be successful when adequate time and resources are allocated for planning with minimal disruption throughout implementation. Additionally, due to the multifaceted nature of One Health initiatives, it is important to pay attention to co-benefits and trade-offs, where taking action in one aspect may yield advantages and disadvantages in another, aiding to identify sustainable One Health development pathways. Forming close partnerships with national governments and local stakeholders is essential not only to promote sustainability but also to ensure local relevance, enhancing the potential for meaningful impact. Finally, regularly assessing progress toward development goals is critical as development stands as an overarching objective.

Adopting One Health approaches is key for addressing interconnected health challenges. Yet, how to best put One Health into practice in research-for-development initiatives aiming to ‘deliver impacts’ remains unclear. Drawing on the CGIAR Initiative on One Health – a global initiative to address zoonotic diseases, antimicrobial resistance, and food and water safety – we reflect on challenges during program conception and implementation, prompting us to suggest improvements in multisectoral collaboration, coordination, and communication. Our approach involves conducting a researcher-centered process evaluation, comprising individual interviews that are subsequently thematically analyzed and synthesized. The key takeaway is that limited time for planning processes and short program timelines compared to envisioned development impacts may impede research-for-development efforts. Yet, collaborative work can be successful when adequate time and resources are allocated for planning with minimal disruption throughout implementation. Additionally, due to the multifaceted nature of One Health initiatives, it is important to pay attention to co-benefits and trade-offs, where taking action in one aspect may yield advantages and disadvantages in another, aiding to identify sustainable One Health development pathways. Forming close partnerships with national governments and local stakeholders is essential not only to promote sustainability but also to ensure local relevance, enhancing the potential for meaningful impact. Finally, regularly assessing progress toward development goals is critical as development stands as an overarching objective., Adopting One Health approaches is key for addressing interconnected health challenges. Yet, how to best put One Health into practice in research-for-development initiatives aiming to ‘deliver impacts’ remains unclear. Drawing on the CGIAR Initiative on One Health – a global initiative to address zoonotic diseases, antimicrobial resistance, and food and water safety – we reflect on challenges during program conception and implementation, prompting us to suggest improvements in multisectoral collaboration, coordination, and communication. Our approach involves conducting a researcher-centered process evaluation, comprising individual interviews that are subsequently thematically analyzed and synthesized. The key takeaway is that limited time for planning processes and short program timelines compared to envisioned development impacts may impede research-for-development efforts. Yet, collaborative work can be successful when adequate time and resources are allocated for planning with minimal disruption throughout implementation. Additionally, due to the multifaceted nature of One Health initiatives, it is important to pay attention to co-benefits and trade-offs, where taking action in one aspect may yield advantages and disadvantages in another, aiding to identify sustainable One Health development pathways. Forming close partnerships with national governments and local stakeholders is essential not only to promote sustainability but also to ensure local relevance, enhancing the potential for meaningful impact. Finally, regularly assessing progress toward development goals is critical as development stands as an overarching objective.

PR, IFPRI3; ISI, Foresight and Policy Modeling (FPM); Transformation Strategies

Dams have often been constructed for hydropower, water storage and to support socio-economic development, particularly in areas of water stress. In many places, the water stored in human-made reservoirs is essential to meet the development objectives of water supply, agriculture, industry, energy generation and other sectors. However, in the absence of adequate foresight and planning, many past dams have had considerable negative impacts on ecosystems and the livelihoods of affected communities, resulting in conflicts and health hazards. While enhanced human health and well-being could be considered as the ultimate outcome of development programs, the public health impact of dams remains an issue that is often neglected by policy makers and investors. National policies and international guidelines, such as those of the World Commission on Dams (WCD), have been used to improve planning and impact assessment of dams. Here, we provide an analysis of four large dams, across three continents, and show that they had limited consistency with WCD principles and guidelines. Moreover, health aspects were largely neglected during planning, construction and operation of these dams, but seriously undermine their intended benefits. This perspective paper discusses impacts of dams on energy and food, ecosystem health, inclusion, and ultimately human health and wellbeing. We argue that a One Health perspective, based on these four categories, can support the systematic consideration of environmental, animal, and human health determinants. A dedicated One Health approach to dams and reservoirs remains to be developed but could potentially improve how dams, both existing and future, support more inclusive development., Dams have often been constructed for hydropower, water storage and to support socio-economic development, particularly in areas of water stress. In many places, the water stored in human-made reservoirs is essential to meet the development objectives of water supply, agriculture, industry, energy generation and other sectors. However, in the absence of adequate foresight and planning, many past dams have had considerable negative impacts on ecosystems and the livelihoods of affected communities, resulting in conflicts and health hazards. While enhanced human health and well-being could be considered as the ultimate outcome of development programs, the public health impact of dams remains an issue that is often neglected by policy makers and investors. National policies and international guidelines, such as those of the World Commission on Dams (WCD), have been used to improve planning and impact assessment of dams. Here, we provide an analysis of four large dams, across three continents, and show that they had limited consistency with WCD principles and guidelines. Moreover, health aspects were largely neglected during planning, construction and operation of these dams, but seriously undermine their intended benefits. This perspective paper discusses impacts of dams on energy and food, ecosystem health, inclusion, and ultimately human health and wellbeing. We argue that a One Health perspective, based on these four categories, can support the systematic consideration of environmental, animal, and human health determinants. A dedicated One Health approach to dams and reservoirs remains to be developed but could potentially improve how dams, both existing and future, support more inclusive development.