 And thank you all for coming to this talk. I'm going to talk about zoonosis and why or if they are the lethal gifts of livestock. So a quick overview of the presentation. This is going to be a big picture of presentation. And we'll start with the whole picture of human health and disease as we enter the 21st century. And then where are these diseases coming from? Why do we fall sick? Are these legacies, souvenirs, or wages? And that will take us to the lethal gifts of livestock and what role they have in human health and disease. The next part of my talk will be presenting some recent research we've done on mapping of poverty, zoonosis, and emerging livestock systems. And I'm going to follow up and finish with talking about how we can move from mapping and measuring to managing. So to start with, human health in the 21st century. At the moment, we are 7 billion people. And by 2050, we will probably be 9 billion. To date, farming is not doing a very good job of feeding us or looking after our health. We have 1 billion people who are hungry. 2 billion people with the hidden hunger that comes from micronutrient deficiencies, iron, vitamins, minerals. But as well as that, we have 1 and 1 half billion people who are overweight or obese, all in some ways functions of a dysfunctional agricultural system. Moreover, not only does agriculture have an important role in nutrition, it also has in health. And that's going to be the main topic of my presentation. But a few stats here just to get us in the mood. Out of that 7 billion people, 55 million die each year, 18 million die of infection. That's preventable. There's no reason now why anyone should die of an infectious disease. To put it into perspective, there's lots of other preventable things that also kill people. 1.2 million die in road traffic accidents, 170,000 in fatal agricultural accidents, and 22,000 in rising from extreme weather events. So for those people who die, assuming it was only 1,000, how would they be distributed and what would they die of? Well, of that 1,000, 2,000s would live in middle income countries, and most of our roads would die from lifestyle associated diseases, cardiovascular, stroke, chronic. Around the 6th, here at the bottom, are those who die, die in high income countries, and most of them die from just being too old. They die from things like Alzheimer's and stroke and cardiac disease, things which often come at the end of a life. But up at the top is the 1,6 who die in low income countries, and what they die of are the preventables, mainly infectious diseases. So where do these infectious diseases come from? Well, when we look at diseases as a whole, we can see that most are earned, that the wages of sin may be death, but the wages of lifestyle choice is disease. So the major cause of disease in this planet is the things that the choices we make are the choices which are forced upon us, the degenerative diseases, cardiac, diabetes, stroke, allergies and asthma, which are probably reflections of a lifestyle, which is not the way we were evolved to live. Those diseases are not the focus of this discussion. What we are focusing on are the souvenirs. When we mean souvenirs, we mean the diseases people pick up from other sources, and those sources are pretty much animals. Around 60% of all human diseases are shared with animals, and of the new diseases, the new and emerging diseases, 75% are zoonotic, that is, they come from animals. Not more of those 18 billion deaths, two of the biggest killers are also zoonotic or jump from animals. And one thing where the souvenirs are different from the wages is that many of these are diseases which kill people when they're younger and the prime of their life, but when they have a future ahead of them. We're all going to die. That's one thing which is fairly inevitable. So if we want to spend scarce resources doing something about making our planet more healthy and productive, it makes sense to invest in the souvenirs, the diseases we don't need and we've acquired rather than these end of life diseases which there's less that can be done about. In fact, some economists argue that it's actually cheaper to let people die once they reach a certain age than it is to invest and try to make them better because they're not going to contribute anything much to society. The diseases which don't matter so much we call the legacies. These are the diseases that have always been with us. The diseases which humans brought with them in their evolution from non-human primates. And it's interesting to see that these diseases are pretty much concrete. So it's not the past we have to worry about. It's what we're picking up and the choices we're making. So how do these diseases get from animals into people, these 60% of diseases that are shared with animals? Bill over is the word. Here we see what you might describe what we call an epidemiology of psilvatic cycle. That's a little pathogen living in a kind of an equilibrium with its wild host. And by the usual evolutionary rules, once these pathogens have been living a long time with their hosts, they tend to co-evolve so they get a little less than a little less malignant. And then because otherwise if you kill all your hosts, it's not very good for your long-term survival. So what you tend to get is complex pristine ecosystems, lots of hosts, lots of pathogens, all kind of in what we sometimes call an evolutionary race but all staying in a relative status quo. Once you bring in humans, you can get spillover into, once humans start coming into these pristine ecosystems and start messing with them, start killing lots of animals or butchering game meat or doing the other things which happens when people invade pristine ecosystems, some of these pathogens can spillover into humans. What tends to happen when they first spillover is they're not adapted to humans, they kill them and that's it. That's what we tend to see with Ebola and Marburg. We've heard about these in Uganda, they spillover, they kill, that's it. But if they get lots and lots of opportunities to spillover to people, evolution starts kicking in too. And they now have got a new house, they've got, now got a new lease, so they're going to start being able to be transmitted more readily from human to human. The other thing which can happen with these sovietic cycles is the spillover can occur into livestock. This can be expected, humans have a certain number of contacts with livestock with wild animals but livestock have many more. So we often see that livestock can act as a sort of bridge to bring these diseases into people. And that's what we see in diseases such as the Nipah virus, in diseases such as Aden and Sorenza and Rift Valley fever. The host is out there somewhere in the wild, often we don't know where it is. It's shocking to say, we still aren't sure where the host of Rift Valley fever is, but we don't. Well, we know it gets into livestock and livestock will get into people and then again from people, they can be a dead-end host, they can get in, sick and kill and that's it. So they can gradually start adapting to humans. And some of the factors which can help this transition are increasing the number of densities, increasing the number of contacts, increasing the amount of pathogen in the environment, but also other things like the habitat change, the biodiversity, vector density, host density. One thing, and this is a little bit provocative and not everyone would agree, but I would argue that spillovers happen all the time and most of the time they just aren't any big deal. And a lot of this present effort on emerging and infectious disease is just perhaps a little bit not well directed because we're dealing with problems which are intrinsically self-limiting. However, and when you look back at history, in order for a spillover to become a disaster, in order for a spillover to become a pandemic, a civilization altering disease, you need something else. And I think this missing ingredient is great societal dislocations. And that's what history shows. The first big transition was the neolithic transition. I'm going to come back to that because it's kind of important. But some other examples, in the 13th to the 15th century, Europe went through a little ice age. We talk about climate change now getting hotter then it got colder. People got hungry, people starved, people moved. You've got black death and it kills one in three. When they opened up the new world, but when people came to the Americas, something like 90% of the population died from smallpox, from measles. This is what we call virgin soil epidemics. People who have no immunity, right? Because they haven't hung out with livestock for long enough, according to some people, just died in their droves. But it wasn't just a disease, it was the collapse of their society. The collapse of a highly advanced, highly stable, highly functioning society was destroyed from outside and the disease came in. But the riders of the apocalypse do not ride alone. Plague by itself needs war, needs famine, needs destruction. We saw the same in the First World War with the trenches and that massive societal misery which led to Spanish flu and 40 million dying, colonialization and urbanization in Africa in the early 20th century leading to HIV. And some argue and some spend millions of dollars fearing that we were about to enter a new time of unprecedented societal dislocation as we get massive population increases, massive climate change, massive global disruption, we're aiming for another big plague. The first epidemiological transition just to take us back to some history and to show how domestication leads to disease. Up at the top is when we domesticated livestock. Well, the first was the bourbon and in fact some argue the bourb domesticated us and the last is the goose and anyone who's been chased around a farm by a goose knows that there was yet to be perfectly domesticated. But between the dog and the goose there's been a long range of domestications and these have brought in a lot of diseases with them. Diseases we think have been legacy diseases, human diseases, measles, mumps, with flu, flu, smallpox, they all jumped from animals. Many of them from livestock. And of course, once this is a dynamic, once they jump in, they can jump back. I've got diseases just from people to livestock and once they were in the livestock, they came back again. So that was the link between livestock and disease and why these livestock have such an important role in human disease. The next question we have to ask is to try and put some details on this, try and put some parameters on it. If disease matters and if animals have a big role in disease, what disease matters? How much, to whom, what does it cost and what can we do about this? And in thinking through this, we tend to think at early in terms of different categories which help us get more of a handle on some of the details. And so we talk about the neglect of zoonosis. These are the diseases like TB, brucellosis, or stysocosis which have been eradicated anywhere people of money and care but persist but hang on in poor countries. We talk about the emerging infectious disease, the BSE, the SARS, the bird flu, the this valley fever, the blue tongue, the diseases which are changing their pattern and becoming more important. Then the foodborne diseases is the other big category and this is the single most important. If you're interested in human health and human death, foodborne diseases are the single most important category. And finally, other health risks and adverse ecosystems. How we farm and what this means for our health and nutrition. So in my overview, I said we would first talk a bit big picture, health, disease, where we get it and why livestock are so important. The next section I want to talk about some recent work we did on mapping poverty, zoonosis and emerging livestock systems in order to get a better handle on some of these questions of why it matters, who it matters to, how much does it matter and what we should or what we could do about this. So I'm going to present some work which was commissioned by district. These were two systematic reviews which they asked us to do. And the aim of these was to present data and expert knowledge on poverty and zoonosis hotspots. In order to prioritize areas, to target areas where prevention of zoonotic diseases can bring the greatest benefit to poor people. And this study took us down some interesting paths and came to some interesting conclusions. So I'm going to talk about it in a little bit of detail. So the methods, what we wanted to do was we wanted to update the global maps of poor livestock keepers. The first ever global map of poor livestock keepers was produced by Illry back in around 10 or 15 years ago, again commissioned by Difford. And this was a kind of a landmark map, I should say. We also wanted to map rapidly emerging livestock systems. And here we drew a lot again on Illry's expertise, especially Mario's group who've been doing a lot of big picture work on changes in livestock systems, what's happening, where it's happening, why it's driving. We also wanted to update one of the most iconic maps for people who are in the zoonosis community. And this is the map which by Kate Jones on emerging infectious diseases, which appeared in nature about 10 years ago and have been everywhere else since. We wanted to identify which were the most important zoonosis for poor people. You think we would know, but what we find is there's a dozen definitions and none of them agree. And then we wanted finally to develop the first global mapping of where zoonosis, poverty and emerging systems come together to make hotspots for maximum investment, for maximum bang for the buck. So what we did, I won't talk too much about the methods. I'll cut to the results in the interest of time. Here is the updated map of poor livestock keepers. And I think you can see just by looking at it, it's focal. Already you can see that the dark areas of the density and there's, well, salvage really jumps to mind. But even in Africa there's kind of a seven, the magic seven, you're going to see this seven coming up time and time again. So look at the seven in the map of Africa. It takes you across the coastal regions of West Africa, through Nigeria, then bound up to the Highlands and Ethiopia and right down the East Valley, through Uganda, Northern Tanzania, right down to Malawi. So what can we say in our updating of poor livestock keepers? Well, one billion poor livestock keepers depend on 19 billion livestock. Most of the livestock in the world are owned by poor people. 24 billion in the world, 19 billion in poor countries. That's a lot of opportunities for disease to spill over, 19 billion animals. What's more, what we sometimes call the Pareto law, the law of the vital fuel and the trivial many applied. Just four countries are 44% of poor livestock keepers. All countries are not equal. Livestock matter a lot, 75% of rural people and 25% of urban people depend on livestock. Now depend is one of those weevil words which we keep being asked to again shine more light on. And we don't know enough. It's amazing how little we know, despite how important this is, but our best guess is for now is when we say depend, we mean that livestock contribute typically to the 33% of household income and six to 36% of property. It's not trivial. The second map, the second map we updated was these emerging livestock systems. As we suspected, most emergence is happening in that the monogastrics, the pigs and the poultry. And of course, this we've known since the landmark papers and the livestock revolution. And our maps confirm this, that we're getting a lot of change in pigs and poultry. And again, it's focal. At the top is pigs at the bottom is poultry and you can see that it's not uniform. Some areas are pretty dark and some areas are not so dark. There's a little bit of bias in this, but I won't go into it now because it actually counters itself out that may come up in the questions. So in summary, where are we getting massive rapidly changing systems, big changes in numbers, big changes in baseline, people who may be going through a lot of experience doing this sort of farming, now doing it in a big way. And once you get naivety and massive intensification, you get problems. Poultry in several places, bullrinds in South and East Asia and pigs in sub-Saharan Africa. That's the rapidly emerging livestock system. Next, we updated the emerging infectious diseases. And what we did here, this was in a study which was originally done by Joan Derau based on 1940 to 2004 of all emerging diseases. What we wanted to do was focus just on zoonotic diseases. There's 75% that is zoonotic and also to update it from 2004 to 2012. All of these thoughts that present new potentially scary diseases. The bigger the dot, the more the outbreaks. The new are the blue. Those are the ones which happened in the last 10 years. The brown are the old. Those are the ones that happened in the 70 years before. And again, you can see a pattern here, but it's not the same pattern we saw on the other maps. What we see is that the Western USA and Western Europe are the hotspots for disease emergence. There's a reporting bias in here, but we believe that this is not just reporting bias. This actually represents emerging events. But interestingly, the blue events, the new events, they're more of those in South America and Southeast Asia as intensification takes off in Southeast Asia and South America and it starts to look more like intensive systems of the West. So, the priorities do notice. What we did here was we were interested in multiple burdens. One of the things we believe that leads to bad management as we notice is it's done sectorally. It falls between lots of chairs. World Health Organization thinks about the human burden. F.A.O. thinks about the animal burden. Other people think about the wildlife burden, but people too rarely get together and think about the multiple burden. What isn't measured isn't managed. And we think that one great step forward is just having people think about multiple burdens. So, our listing, our criteria, consisted of looking at the burdens across human health, animal health, and also ecosystems. We've got lots of listings. We assessed 56 synosis and we found together they caused a lot of problems. But the ones which were most important tended to have a wildlife interface, had a major impact in livestock and were amenable to on-farm to agricultural intervention. And just to give you some idea of the numbers, there's 600 synosis, around about 600 synosis. We looked at around about the top 50. Of that top 50, this is the human death caused by the top 13, and that's by the next 43. So, again, I think you can see it's the vital fuel in the trivial many. If you've got scarce resources and care about human deaths, you invest in the top 13, not in the bottom 43. And we already have just broken out by individuals who know. So, even in that top 13, you can see there's a difference between big killers and little killers. And sometimes the ones we hear most about and worry most about are the ones which kill these. So, we wanted to map these. What did we do? First of all, we went to the official reporting systems to try and find out where these synosis were and how this linked in with the other things we were mapping. There are several reporting systems. There's one by OIE, which is notifiable, which every OIE member has to report all their animals that died notifiable diseases. You'd think that was easy enough. There's also mappings by FAO. There's ProMed, which is an expert. There's GLUZE. There's HealthMap, which is an aggregator. That's a picture of HealthMap. And it's a pretty exciting innovation of a bot which draws the web and captures all the information on diseases. So, when we put all these together, what we found was that they were completely useless because they told us almost nothing about the burden of diseases. They told us about exciting things, interesting things. When a kid was in Buenos Aires, got bitten by a rabid dog, that showed up here. But when we were interested in what's sickening and killing millions and billions of people, it was just hopeless. Just to give you an example, Africa, and we're talking about around about 253 tropical, let's call them livestock. These are aggregated livestock units. There's around 250 million of them. We know from lots of surveys 25 million of them die prematurely every year. We estimate around half of those are from notifiable diseases. There's over 60 notifiable diseases and pretty much everything falls in there. And what's reported? Say 10 million dead, 80,000 reported. This isn't just under reporting. This is a reporting system which is not very helpful. So, we couldn't use the official reports and I'm flagging this up because it's a huge weakness. The fact that the official reports, people go on blindly and mechanically collecting this data, sending it into OIE, doing analysis, people have just done a really complicated analysis, showing all the different effects and impacts of these diseases, but they seem to take into account that they're only looking at the 80,000 that are reported and they're not the 920,000 that are not reported. And so, it's a bit of an exercise in stability. So, what we did instead was a systematic literature review. We found that the only way we could get some sort of handle on where these diagnosis are was just to keep looking through the literature, pulling it out gray, white, published, local language and get as many surveys as we could and geographically map them and see what they're doing. And in fact, we got over 1,000 studies which was enough for us to get some sort of a spatial understanding. And this is what we came up with. Where you see a dot is one or more people or animals in 100 are affected by one or more diseases per year. So, at least a 1%, at least a one in 100 second or killed. And where you get the dark is where you get the poor livestock keepers. So, this is the map you saw before. And I think again, you can see the seven. You can see that clear seven in Africa whereby the Zoonosis are linked to the poor livestock keepers. You can see quite a bit in South Asia and then some in Southeast Asia. So, there is a definite link between livestock keeping and poverty which is what we suspected. But here again, there's a lot of under reporting. So, these unlucky 13 Zoonosis stick in 2.4 billion. They kill 2.2 million people and they affect more than one in seven livestock a year. These numbers are not trivial. These are large numbers and large numbers of sickness and death. As I said, we focused on multiple burdens of Zoonosis and here are some I won't read through them in detail. But again, going across all of these surveys, the numbers are kind of frighteningly high. Round about 10% of animals with brucellosis which is a serious disease in people causing undulance, fever, infertility and then it can cause psychosis and depression and it's transmitted in the milk. If you don't boil your milk, one in 10 animals with brucellosis. 10% of animals in Africa trips reducing their productivity by 15%. 250 million livestock units say they were $500 each. You reduce their productivity by 15% we're talking large numbers here. TB, cysticocosis, bacterial foodborne diseases, all of these came up. But the bad news is that it's there and it's a big problem in animals as well as people. The good news of course is that this provides incentive-based way of tackling some of these Zoonosis because if you can manage these Zoonosis and boost your productivity by 10 or 20%, there's a strong incentive for you to do it. What we found with these studies, as Tavira said, we've been doing a lot of studies over these years and we find that too often that the human health attitude is that people should do this because it's good. You should do it to protect your own health, you should do it to protect the consumer's health. That is one of the weakest motivations of all. How many things do we not do even though we know they're good for our health? And how many fewer things do we do if they're not good for our health but they're good for someone else's health? So what we find in these informal markets where regulation is a joke and you have 100 rats in the country and 100 million animals, there's no point in going through regulation or official or telling people you should do this because it's good for you. It has to be incentive-based. People have to see a real benefit from changing their behavior either in their pocket or in their social status. It doesn't have to be money. Sometimes we focus on money. We found people will change their behavior just as much if they can get a social kick out of it. If instead of being a low status person, they get to be a high status person, they'll change their behavior. So in summary, what we found were definite hotspots, which is good because that's what the donor wanted because that's where the donor wants to invest. And this is also a nice example how science can generate evidence that is asked for by a donor and then influence his donor behavior. So it's a virtuous cycle. Poor livestock keepers, South Asia is the biggie. Emerging livestock systems, again, South Asia. Do you not think emerging infectious diseases rest your, no, not so much. Do you know South Asia greater than Eastern Central Africa? If we had to name six countries where all these come together where you get the perfect storm conditions, there are India, Bangladesh and Pakistan and Asia, Ethiopia and Nigeria and Congo, places we all love to work. So that is the overview, back to the overview. So we've talked a bit about the big picture, human health and disease in the 21st century and why livestock matter. I presented some of these findings on these studies trying to get some evidence. The evidence decision makers want in a format they can use in a way that motivates them to invest money. But now finally, I want to talk a bit about mapping, how we move from mapping to managing. Mapping is good, but sometimes, you know, there's always the paralysis by analysis which research organizations are accused of. And it's true. I mean, I was originally trained as a vet and it's like we spend all our time on diagnosis. We don't do any therapy. We never get around to actual treatment. So I think too much of the work we've done so far has been assessing, trying to know more and more and not just saying, okay, we know enough, let's go and do something, let's show that we can do something and let's try and make a difference. So this last section, I'm going to talk about how we are planning to move from mapping and measuring to managing. And this takes us me to the new CGI research program, Agriculture for Nutrition and Health which just started in January like the CRP livestock and fish which you may be more familiar with. And this brings together several, in fact, it brings together 11 CGII centers to focus for the first time on the link between agriculture and human health. It's led by IFPRI, but it has four components. Three of these components focus on human nutrition. Human nutrition is a big problem and it's probably where the donors are most interested at the moment. But one component focuses on disease and that's the component which is led by ILRI. So agricultural associated disease works at that intersection, the intersection between human health, animal health and agro-ecosystems and value chains. We sometimes talk about one health, this new integrated movement. We like to think of free health. These health, people, animals and the planet, free health which are interdependent and if they're managed separately, they won't be managed best. The aim of this component on disease is for key development implementers as well as the enablers to have the evidence, motivation and capacity. So we need to somehow generate evidence, motivation and capacity, motivation probably being the tricky one, to reduce the burden of disease through agricultural-based interventions and innovations. And that's key because of course, this whole area of human health is a very crowded, busy map and we need to kind of identify where agricultural research and agricultural-based interventions can make a difference. So what do we focus on? We focus on a big five areas which we call research activities. Two of them are under food safety. The first being risk management in these informal food markets where most of the poor people buy and sell. The second being microtoxins which are a fungal toxin in staple crops. And then under zoonosis, we have three major focuses. The first being emerging infectious disease, neglected zoonosis and then eco-health-one-health which is a kind of a capacity-building paradigm. Cross-cutting disease and appearing in all of them is a focus on gender and equity. Gender is quite important in disease because it's both a biological and a social determinant of exposure and vulnerability to disease. Equity likewise, poverty, age, other issues can very much affect susceptibility and vulnerability. The second is capacity-building. This is key to change and we mean capacity-building at all levels from decision makers to science community to the actual farmers and value chain actors. Of course, we won't be doing that directly. That's not our comparative advantage but we can develop pilot tools and new approaches which can then be taken up by development sector. And third, communication and influence. So how to get these messages out? How do we move from outputs to outcomes? And how do we show how those outcomes can contribute to impact? There are some key assumptions or hypotheses and this is based on five to 10 years work on this. They're not written in stone. They're things we need to generate even more evidence about and many people would disagree with some or all of these. So first of all is that the informal food markets are the most important for poor buyers and consumers and will be no super marketization here and will be into the next few decades, at least in the countries we care about where there are most poor people. Current food safety regulation isn't ineffective and unfair. We know it. We know it can even be paradoxical. It can make things worse. It's kind of like the Somalia story. Once you've got rid of the government then you've removed the first constraint to export. We find in many cases these food safety regulations brought in to make things better and make things worse. And the way forward we see is through risk and incentive-based approaches. The second main area and the second main hypothesis is that these rapidly intensifying and organizing systems are really something the planet has never experienced before in this level and at this rate and it really does have the potential to bring about something very nasty. We talked back at the beginning of great societal dislocations of the Neolithic transition of these massive claves which wiped out 90% of the population. I'm not saying it's a fact. It may not even be probable but it's certainly something which cannot be ignored. And at the moment we are woefully ignorant of the dynamic strivers and emergence of what's going on in these new novel never before seen systems, especially around South Asia, Southeast Asia and parts of the peri-urban areas of African cities. And here we think innovative surveillance. I showed you the surveillance we've got. 920,000 dead, 80,000 reported. So here we need innovative surveillance and whole-chain interventions. These are profit-driven, demand-driven, rapidly emerging value chains and we need to work with the chain, not just work here and there in a piecemeal approach as we have been in the past. I said big areas, the coal spots, we sometimes see these as hot spots. These are places which are bubbling up, rapidly changing, doing strange things, lots of innovation going on, lots of possibilities for things to pop out of the cooking pot. But then we also have the coal spots, the neglected genosis, the pastoral areas where you still have hundreds of millions of people cut off from markets, cut off from these kind of emerging rapid opportunities, getting poorer and poorer, digging themselves deeper into poverty. And for these people, they're the ones who are getting the burden of these neglected genosis. This is the closest. You don't get 50s of those now anymore in Vietnam where you've got rapidly growing pig, pig highly innovative pigkeepers. You get it in places in Uganda where pigs are still scavenging and people don't use latrines. So these people are still suffering from neglected genosis which have been eradicated everywhere anyone has got enough money and real power and they're symptoms of poverty really. They're symptoms of the whole complex. This is not a place for civil bills approaches. This is a place for integrated approaches taking a community-wide, a gender approach, an equity approach that deals with all the symptoms and not just the disease. So those are our assumptions and how those assumptions affect what we're going to be working on as we try and see how agriculture can do its little bit to help better manage these diseases. And I'm going to give you just a few examples before we finish and close for questions. So here is one thing we're doing this year is conducting rapid integrated assessment of food safety, zoonosis and nutrition in five high potential 3.7 livestock and fish value chains. So you all know livestock and fish has made the decision to focus just on nine value chains in the whole world and really transform them. Bring all of research, bring that with the development partners to really change these value chains to move millions of people out of poverty. And these value chains are pre-selective as being one of these hotspots I was talking about, rapidly changing, rapidly intensifying, not going on. Livestock and fish care about production, they care about increasing productivity. They're not necessarily thinking about, there's one of the externalities of this that they unleash new diseases on the world or that they make lots and lots of people sick by giving them more and more pork which is full of salmonella and trichonalosis and things like that. So we see an added value of food safety working with those value chains, starting not just with CRPs, we went seven, that's easy, it's an early, but also with all the CRP value chains. And also, you know, in many of these areas, food safety is not a standalone concern but if we can piggyback it onto lots of other activities, then we can make it go further. Just a quick example here, well, I won't, but Ebbola asked me about pigs and Ebbola and Uganda some time because it's rather scary. Highlight two, and I mentioned this is also, I won't go into it now, but how mapping and measuring this liquid in and mapping and measuring the hotspot is already starting to inform donor agendas. And we also want to be part of that funding, as we can be, to help manage what we have measured in that. And then a third is how these integrative approaches can start making a difference. And these are highlights of things we've done during the year, the whole of the CRP-4 has done during the year, publishing special editions on urban zoonosis, starting a new project on how the pathogens flow in Nairobi from baguette, abattoir, to the dumps, to the slums, to the hospitals, to Illry campus, and back and forth. EcoHealth One Health, we set up and we're supporting two new centres in Southeast Asia and we're looking at the barriers and bridges for government for doing things differently. Rift Valley fever, how does climate change and irrigation cause disease to jump around? We think it does, we want to know how. Pathogen hunting, here in our biotech, there's a big pathogen hunting facility and now a biorepository. What are the implications of these new diseases getting into new systems? The integrating, the putting together, instead of doing everything separately, putting together human and livestock disease surveys, we're doing that in Kenya, Laos, Vietnam, China, there's some maps from Laos, and developing and testing new diagnostics. One of the main here has been the Cysticicotus. So in conclusion, here and now, from take-home messages, this is what I'd like people to think about, here and now the burden, the sickness and death, the human sickness and death caused by neglected zoonosis is much, much higher than by emerging disease and most are very manageable. Moreover, the Pareto law applies of the vitro few and the trivial many. So these are places where we can and must act, to alleviate human misery. The second to emerging infectious diseases are not so scary by themselves, but when you get a great societal dislocation, then they can be kind of civilization altering. And are we farming on the brink of chaos? We don't know. And it's kind of important that we find out because this is one of the big questions for humanity's future. Moreover, if the societal dislocation is the missing, if the ingredient X, the thing nobody is talking about, but which is actually true, we need to think about that, not just the disease. And my final point is that agriculture, we argue and we think the presentation shows has an important role in integrated approaches to improve human health, animal health and the health of the planet. I'm just listing some of the various chapters and papers which this presentation was based upon and where you can get more information if you're scared or skeptical or anything like that. I'd like to acknowledge the mapping and spillover work which was funded by UK Difford and was partnered from different institutions and the CRP 4.3 team who's work I'm representing across food safety, microtoxins, emerging infectious disease, Zanotus eco health, and then the many people who support and with that, turn it over to questions and Tazira, I think, to moderate.