 Back to you, sorry, our introductions. We have Damien Targo, who is an animal health economist with a PhD in economics from the Toulouse School of Economics. He's currently working as a program and policy support officer in Fowl, Mexico, and was previously the coordinator of ECTAD's work on socioeconomics in Asia, including performing value chain analyses, impact evaluations and the application of economic tools for animal diseases, prevention and control. We also have Claire Daley, who is an impact measurement and management professional currently working at Cargill on the USA-funded Transform Project. Claire has a master's in development studies from the London School of Economics and is interested in combining traditional and emerging evaluation approaches to help teams improve project design and implementation. I'll pass the floor over to Claire, who I must say a big thank you to for joining us very early in the morning to kickstart the session. Over to you, Claire. Thank you so much for the introduction, Ashma. And Damien, you can jump ahead to two slides from here. Great, thank you. So as Ashma said, I'm the monitoring evaluation and learning manager for the USAID-funded Transform Project, which is a five-year public-private partnership with USAID and a consortium of partners led by Cargill. At a very high level, our goal is to increase access to safe, affordable, high-quality animal source nutrition and promote global health security through improved animal agriculture practices. And you can go to the next slide, Damien. We are currently operating in India, Kenya and Vietnam across a range of species. You can see here, depending on the country. And we work across all production sectors. So that means we work with small-holder or backyard farmers all the way to large-scale commercial farmers. Next slide. Our work is organized mainly around four primary activities, which you can see over on the left. And these are activity streams or components. We won't go into all of them today, but if you are interested in learning more about Transform, please just pop a note in the chat and happy to share about our other components. Today, we're really focused on our on-farm practices component, which really focuses on building farmer's capacity to implement on-farm biosecurity, farm management, and antimicrobial use stewardship practices that reduce the risk of antimicrobial resistance, zoonotic and transboundary animal diseases, improve farmer productivity and profitability, and in turn promote our end goal, which is, again, increasing access to safe, affordable animal-sourced foods and promoting global house security. So this is our high-level theory of change for the Transform project, which is really our development hypothesis. And so as we started as a project to think about how we might actually measure our progress and our impact against this theory of change, we really grappled with the question of how we could do that effectively, especially when considering the concepts of reducing or mitigating risk exposure for farmers. And so as we were thinking about this and knowing we had to keep our budgetary and timeframe constraints in mind, we really wanted to explore further what other approaches similar projects had taken and what challenges they had experienced. And if any solutions had emerged, which is how I connected with Damien and began sharing ideas and experiences and inspired us to bring the discussion to the group. So with that, I'll hand over to Damien, who is going to provide an overview of his project that he was working on when we connected, as well as some of the emerging challenges that we have experienced ourselves or identified through some literature. So with that, over to Damien. Thank you very much, Claire. So similar to Transform, in FAO we have a couple of projects. Well, I would say many projects working on improving biosecurity practices. One of those that I've been involved is the ECTA program funded by the Global Health Security Program from USAID, which has a very similar scope to actually Transform. It's in Asia, it started in October, 2022. We'll finish in September, 27. It has more than nine countries, I think, at this point. And in the statement of work that is kind of the document that outlines the areas of work for this program, there are four focus areas for Asia. The first one is One Health Coordination and Collaboration. The second one is Building Multidisciplinary Workforce and Institutional Capacity. The third one is Technical Support for Preparedness and Response. And the last one, which is the one I will focus today, is the one on biosecurity and evidence-based policies. Another project that has been run in Asia that probably many of you have cared about is the ASF project funded by the Bureau of Humanity and the Assistance, which focus on strengthening field capacities for ASF detection and emergency response. The first two phases started from September 2019 to September 2022. In the first phase, it was basically focused on capacity building, trainers of trainers, information education and communication material. And then on phase two was trying to introduce or pilot a risk reduction approach for small colders that it has been named as CABI for community ASF biosecurity interventions. And it was pilot and evaluated in the Philippines. And now this project has moved to phase three, where the idea is to upscale this bottom-up approach, the CABI approach, which is very similar in nature to the P&P TAB approach and piloted in a variety of local contexts. So I was also involved in this project and from these two projects, I came up with different challenges that now I would like to share with you. And the idea is not only to share the challenges, but also trying to work together to find some practical solutions for everyone. I will jump straight into the challenges that we have faced to measure in the impact of biosecurity interventions. This is kind of the boring part. Claire will take over after I present the challenges and that will be a more participatory session. But basically, one of the biggest challenges is that there are good years and bad years. And imagine that, and these are just the maps of Vietnam, mapping ASF outbreaks in 2019, where the disease was not circulating in the country. And then in 2019, it was introduced and it went through throughout the country. And as this example, I can share with you many other examples from Asia. So imagine that you have implemented a very mediocre biosecurity program leading only to marginal improvements in 2018. And imagine that there is another project where you have a great team promoting biosecurity interventions and that led to great improvements in the adoption of good practices, but it happened in 2019. If you are trying to look at what is the impact of your program, then because of ASF and because of the huge challenges that it represented, then probably you will end up with the opposite results. You will have a 2019 program that didn't lead to very good results. And instead in 2018, even marginal improvements could have a larger impact than those big improvements in 2019. And the idea is that with impact evaluation, we don't want to be affected by when your program was implemented. So when we look at the literature, how this could be tackled, well, it could be that in a selected area, the unusual events and we're talking about disease outbreaks take place once every five years. So if we look at year one where there is no event, then adopting a technology to reduce risk that is costly might be seen as a bad decision. And we are going to talk a little bit more about this. But then when the problems happen, so in this case in year four, then it's good to have this risk mitigation technology. And this could be any kind of technology and I'm also talking about biosecurity as a technology. But this is not how risk reduction technologies are evaluated. So the idea is that one option that we have is to expand the timeframe of our evaluation to include at least one unusual event. Now the problem is that we don't know when this unusual event takes place. So it might be once every five years, once every 10 years, you need resources to do this monitoring and the idea is how do you convince the donor to look at this evaluation timeframe for 10 years? Where are you going to get all those resources? And that's the challenging part. So basically with this example, we usually kind of understand that before and after frameworks for impact assessment can be biased because it doesn't really control for the temporal dimension of risk. One option that we have, as I just mentioned, is to expand the timeframe for the evaluation. So you include some of these unusual events and as a risk mitigation technology, in this case biosecurity, you can kind of assess the impact. Another option that we have is to find proper control units that face the same threats over time. But there is a huge challenge in doing this because as I will show you later on, it's very hard to ensure that your treatment and control units are actually facing the same threats in an exposed way. And to put this in a more clear way, consider that you have two forms, form A and form B that look exactly the same in terms of biosecurity, practices, business models, awareness. They are exactly the same, but actually they are both located in settings with similar risk exposure. But imagine that in form B, you have the sick bird flying close to the farm that ends up infecting the farm. So the idea is that it's very challenging to control for these kind of events. Even if ex ante, the farms look exactly the same. You will have one that simply have bad luck and got infected. So the idea is how, or the challenge comes, how to find the right control units to control for any exogenous factor. In this case, it was these wild bird flying into the farm. One solution is expanding sample size and using randomization. And this is basically the randomized control trial approach where on average, we can expect that we are controlling for any exogenous factor. Now, even using randomized control trials, you will find that sometimes you are not simply controlling perfectly, it's just very challenging. And here is one example of a very nice paper in doing random control trials for poultry. They use mortality rates as the outcome variable and they actually find that the opposite results that they were expecting. So the intervention villages where they were promoting bio security had higher mortality than controlled villages. So this is one of the challenges. And then when the authors explain the results, they say that there was this unusual event in the treatment farms where that it was impossible to control ex ante. And that was kind of leading those negative results. So even with randomized control trials approach, you will face some of these challenges. Another option is to use proxies. So let's try to find outcome variables that are not affected by chance or by luck but are correlated with our outcome of interest. And for example, we can look at common pathogens like E. coli or salmonella, whose presence is correlated also with the risk of diseases. So if you have a farm with very poor hygiene, then you will expect more E. coli to be present in the farm. So that's another option that we've been thinking about. The problem with this option is that, well, first you need to make sure that you are selecting the right pathogens, but then you also have huge costs of sampling and testing. And the reality is that we don't have, in many cases, the resources to do all these. Now, also if we are thinking about unusual events and when we are thinking about the risk, the interesting part but also the challenging part about risk is that sometimes you will have good years and sometimes you will have bad years. So let's try to think, okay, how can we show the benefit of adopting biosecurity during the good years? So good year is a year where there is no outbreak. We can think that farms with very low hygiene may benefit from improving biosecurity because it reduces the risk of old disease. So if you have a program that is dealing with SMB and you are promoting biosecurity, farmers will also have benefits for controlling mastitis, for example, that is a huge production loss disease. So these benefits will materialize mainly on those farms that were doing very bad. But in general, if you are dealing with the average farm, probably you will require investments and the benefits on doing these good years will be only marginal or even you can find a decrease in profits. And this is just an example that is looking at that in an expanded way in Uganda. And what they find is that improving biosecurity at the farm node, at the production node, leads to the reduction of 6.3% in profit margins per year. It's not a lot, there are benefits of this and you can see how these benefit materialized not just at the production node, but all along the value chain that in this case lead to 7% increase. But I guess the point of this is that it's particularly when you are looking at the good years when there is no disease outbreaks, then biosecurity could actually be a cost for the farm. So the problem with doing just that is that we are not actually capturing the benefits of implementing biosecurity as a tool to prevent outbreaks. So what we were trying to find out is how are other risk mitigation technologies evaluated in the literature. And when you think about risk mitigation technologies, some of the first ones that come to your mind is insurance. So let's look what the crop insurance literature adopts to actually evaluate the impact of getting insurance. We know when there is a drought, if this is the case of crop insurance, then you will get a payment and you will say, oh, then having an insurance was a very good decision. But what happened if there is no drought? Well, do you pay your insurance? If you are not receiving any kind of benefit out of it, would you say that that is a bad decision? Well, some people might say yes, some people might say no, exposed is what I mean. So, but when we dig into the literature from the crop insurance, actually to show the benefits of insurance during these good years. So in the case of insurance of crops is when there is no drought, then what they find is that households usually engage in low return activities in order to reduce the risk exposure. And this is our bank paper, very nice one, definitely recommend. So basically when they get insurance, they are willing to take more risk. And that's when they start investing in fertilizer, pesticides, improved seeds. And that's where the benefits during these peaceful years are materialized. So one of the things that is important to take into account is that timing for the payment of the insurance was very critical in general. And they put a lot of attention of these. So they are around the investment's decision. So the farmers get some liquidity and they can invest on the high risk, high return technologies. So the question for you is, what are we doing in the livestock sector to couple biosecurity with potential drivers for improved profitability? And this is not new. I've seen some initiatives trying to link biosecurity to access to markets and other ones to certification. And what is important is that it's a certification that is meaningful to consumer. It could be linked to also better genetics. We know that there are some high productive breeds that are very sensitive to low biosecurity environments, but what else can we do? And this is still a question, an ongoing question. Another challenge is how to disentangle the effect of multiple biosecurity interventions if we are always promoting a package. And the challenge of not getting these individual effects is that then it's hard to prioritize. There are some options to deal with this challenge. One is through expert opinion, but this is usually cheap, but it can be biased depending on the experts you are asking. Another option is to run randomized control trials to assess individual practices, but these will be super expensive. And if you are looking at development projects, probably it's not going to be an option. And finally, before handing it over to Claire, another challenge in measuring the benefits of biosecurity is that there is some positive externalities to neighboring farms, derived from improving biosecurity in a specific farm. And let's think about this similar to immune immunity on curb protection with vaccination. Imagine that you have all these farms with very good biosecurity around your farm, then you will have, you will benefit from this because it will be challenging for diseases to get into your farm because you are kind of protected but those that are nearby. Now, the challenge in measuring these positive externalities is that it can be very expensive to get baselines for all the farms and trying to identify if there is this kind of effect. And it will be also hard to disentangle the effects of your program if the neighbors start mimicking practices. So there is a specific term for this impact evaluation, but all these become challenges that are very hard to deal with. And we just presented a few, we are just talking about measuring the impact of biosecurity interventions. I think another very good question that I saw in the questions that some of you already submitted while registering to the webinar, that is how, once we have measured the benefits of biosecurity, how we promote or how we use the results. And you can think of different audiences and for each audience, you will have to present the results in a different way to make it attractive. But that would be conversation for probably a follow-up webinar. I will stop now and maybe hand it over to Ashima. Perfect. Thanks so much, Damien. Unfortunately, Damien does need to leave very shortly. So we thought we'd do, we will have a discussion portion of this session towards the end, but we thought we'd open up the floor in case there are any burning questions for Damien. Please feel free to ask them now. Otherwise, we'll have to say goodbye and we'll move on to Claire's part of the session, which will be a bit more interactive as well. Cecilia, unfortunately, I can't see any everyone if you could help me if there's any hands raised. No, hands raised for now. I don't see anybody. Maybe there are some to the chat. Yeah, I think, I mean, all these was just to set the scene for what is coming now and what is the dynamic that Claire will run with you guys. If you have any other challenge that you have faced in your programs, please share them with us. The idea is to put all these challenges together, try to find solutions. We are trying to do something with the CADD interventions in Asia that I think was already presented in this community of practice. But what we're trying to do is to explore this community of practice to get these kind of collective solutions to these challenges. I will thank you all. Feel free to contact me, but now you will have the phone card with Claire. Back to you, Ashma. Thanks so much, Damien. And also to mention, we will, if there are any questions after the session, we'll open a discussion forum on the community of practice forum, sorry, platform. So we'll also have an opportunity to ask any questions there. And I'll hand over to Claire. Thanks, Claire. Thank you so much, Damien, for that overview. So though there were no questions directly for Damien, we are going to encourage everyone to start engaging with us. So this is the point where some people get shy and some people get really excited. So we're sharing now a QR code to a virtual whiteboard called Mural. So we're going to give you all a few minutes to join us on the Mural board so that we can start hearing from all of you about the experiences that you have had in trying to measure the impact of farm biosecurity or other farm interventions if you haven't worked on a biosecurity project. I will also pop in the chat the link as well. And again, give everyone a few minutes to join. And then we will hand over to Daniel who will share his screen as they facilitate an interactive discussion. So please take a second. You can use the QR code if you want to access on your phone. And then I will be adding the link in the chat for anyone who wants to join on your computer. Great, and while we wait for a few people to join us there, you'll see when you join on the Mural site that I've taken the liberty of summarizing a few of the challenges that Damian outlined in his presentation that we have experienced and identified through our work to date. As I said, when we were designing our approach for measurement for the transform project, we really wanted to understand what the challenges were that other teams had faced and what solutions they had implemented to overcome that. And in my conversations with Damian, we first thought that we would do a literature review of challenges in measuring the impact of biosecurity practices, but also the challenge in measuring reduced risk, which we know a lot of our biosecurity projects want to reduce that risk to human and animal health. But what we found is that there is actually a dearth of literature, so we did not find any summaries or documents that were really focused on the challenge of measuring the impact of biosecurity projects or focused on risk reduction in the areas we're working. And so that's really why we wanted to bring the conversation to a group of practitioners. So very excited to hear from all of you. So I think I'll stop sharing my screen and hand it over to Daniel so we can start the discussion to hear from all of you. Thank you very much. Sounds good. Thank you very much. So in a minute, you will see my screen where I believe there are already many, many participants who joined us, all these moving arrows are participants of the webinar. And the question we are looking into, you heard a number of challenges from Damian, right? So for example, he mentioned good years, bad years, how does that impact the evaluation? Of course, depends on the timing of the program. He also mentioned, for example, the positive externalities, what about all those neighboring farms? How do you measure the impact of the biosecurity measures the neighbors applied, for example? So the task here is to feel free to create your own post-its and then move it to the right side of the screen and the scale or also use the existing post-its. Claire, is there something you wanna add in terms of what we are looking at? What are the post-its you created? You just unmute yourself and then go ahead. Sorry, yes. So I see a lot of people are already starting to chime in and share your thoughts. So some of the post-its that are already there are a high-level summary of the challenges that Damian outlined in his presentation, but we're looking for now is for you to add any comments. So you can use the sticky notes for any comments that you may have, but also to share any additional challenges that we may have forgotten. So for example, one common challenge I could think of with any development or probably animal health project would be data quality, willingness to share data, but we focused on the specific ones for measuring the impact of biosecurity. So please feel free to take a few minutes. We'll give you a few minutes to reflect and to add in your challenges that you've experienced from your projects. And if you're having any challenges accessing mural or commenting on the sticky notes, you can also feel free to raise your hand here and share with us that way or you can add the challenges in the chat and we can copy them over for you. So whatever is the most effective way for you to share that, please feel free. And so we're just gonna give a couple of minutes here really to give an opportunity for everyone to fill these in. And then what we'll do is take a look, summarize and then we really also wanted to do a voting exercise where we can say which we think are the most important or significant challenges. So with that, we'll just give a few minutes for everyone to input their responses because I see a lot of activity on the board. So do I. And in the meantime, I try creating sticky notes myself. So just for those of you who need a bit of help on how to do that. So when you open my screen, you can see on the on the left side is black bar here and the second one is a sticky note. So you can click on it, choose a color of your choice and then just start creating a challenge and then you can just grab them and drag them around the screen as you prefer. And if you change your mind, you can just right click on it and delete or you can use also one of the existing ones down here. There are empty ones, the blue ones. Feel free to use them as well. Also to mention, you can please feel free to add more than one. You're not limited in terms of how many challenges you can list. Absolutely. Laird, would you like to introduce us to the right side of the screen? What are the fours? Yeah, I'm sure I see some people have are working ahead and moving. So on the right side of the screen, we were going to use as a next step to prioritize the challenges based on how important we think they are and how feasible we think it would be for us to actually address these challenges. So trying to come up with a framework or other solutions. So you can feel free to move those around but otherwise we'll do that as a next step. Perfect, that's very clear. So for now, we are focusing on creating challenges. Of course, from your own experience, the more practical, concrete, they are the better. And as a next step, we're gonna place them according to their impact and feasibility. Clare, over to you. So just as pleads do continue, just for a couple more minutes, maybe two more minutes, we'll let folks continue adding in challenges that you've experienced. But I'll start just sharing some of the inputs that we've heard that we can see from the group. So one really good point is that unfortunately, even professionals neglect basic biosecurity practices. And so one thing I can see here is the challenge of actually getting the practice implemented properly to then be able to know when we're measuring it. If it was or was not implemented correctly, that would obviously yield different results. And so when we're not working in a controlled environment where we are able to really effectively monitor the day-to-day implementation, then it's challenging to know if we're effectively capturing those outcomes if it's implemented incorrectly. Another point is challenges when we're only looking at one disease pathogen. So we don't know the holistic impact. So an example might be, we have one or more biosecurity interventions that the project might be looking specifically just at E. coli or salmonella, but there are likely broader impacts that those interventions are having on the farm. So actually either missing out on positive benefits that there may be or not seeing the full effect there. Yep, another one is that farmers often implement different biosecurity practices. So that's something we've seen on our own transform project where we are disease agnostic. So we are not introducing biosecurity practices for just one disease, but rather a whole suite of practices that will make improvements on the farm. And we have noticed from our follow-up data collection that each farmer will choose the practice that was missing on their farm or is perhaps most feasible for them in terms of cost and other factors. And so that does make it difficult when you're trying to look at the outcomes that they experience having to track back and look at disaggregate based on those different practices. Great, so we can continue with having everyone add in some of the challenges that you've had, but maybe while we let people, because I see that people are still adding in sticky notes, I'll pause here and ask from the group, if anyone who has added a sticky note would like to share their specific experience, the challenge that they've added. Please, we welcome you to unmute yourselves and share a bit of your perspective. Great idea, Claire. I think you all have a lot to say and we've definitely talked enough and we don't want these sessions to be too presentation heavy. So the idea here is you just raise your hand and we will give you the floor to share something you have, you want to add to the challenge. You, of course, the sticky note is so short that you cannot expand too much on those. So please, hands up if you have something to share. Actually, Daniel, we might even just get them, please unmute yourself, because since we can't see anyone's hands up with the screen being shared, so please feel free to just jump in and share any experiences that you might have. Yeah, sounds good. I'm trying to scroll down on the list of participants to make sure I'm not missing anyone. It's a quiet group, but we see everyone's active on the mirror also. Exactly. Richard, is there something you want to share? Yeah, well, I didn't initially go for it because I thought Claire described my post it very well. The problem I had with my intervention studies linked to biosecurity have always been that we've only concentrated one pathogen. And so, although we get a nice output on that, but if you're trying to sell this to a farmer or to a vet, you want to know all the benefits. You want to be able to say, this is going to cost you a lot of money, but these are the benefits. And so, for the scientific community, it's interesting, but for a farmer, it's still, yeah, non-math evidence for them. Yeah, thanks, Richard. That's a really great point. And one thing that Damian previewed is as the next step is what do we do with that data and how does it actually influence adoption? And so, we do have to think about that up front when we're thinking about the measurement approach that will not only give us the holistic picture of impact, but also then give us the data that will help further adoption and sustainability. So, that great point. Thank you so much, Richard. Yeah, I see another challenge that I think is common that we face across projects. Someone added is knowing what the best outcome metric or metrics are and really deciding what those would be. Something, since we noticed there was a lack of literature on this topic from the community was also, there weren't consistent frameworks that we could reference and certainly not a set of outcome metrics that we could reference. So, really picking those metrics that will be help you understand the impact for your context, but also to the point that Richard mentioned will give you data that is useful for your different audiences, whether it's policymakers or farmers or others. Anyone else wanna jump in and share their challenge? Otherwise, why don't we move on to the matrix? No, before that. The voting. Okay, yeah, well, people. Sorry, Kuastros has a question. Thank you, Daniel. Thank you, Claire. Actually, we have also experienced the same issue. Last time we, I think around three or four months ago, we had conducted such kind of intervention assessment on Politary Farm of Biosecurity. And one of the issue is getting reliable data. Actually, it was also mentioned by Claire earlier. So, getting data, which is really representative of what's happening on the ground is an issue. So, this can be mentioned, especially in LMIC settings. Thank you. Great. Thank you so much for sharing that. It's a great challenge. Can I just make a comment? Jane Gibbons, a veterinary epidemiologist. I think one of the biggest issues is knowing what they do when you're not there. So, an intervention study, for example, where you have a Politary Farm and you want them to use foot dips or change their clothing or whatever, they do it when you visit, but all the rest of the time you don't. And then when your intervention apparently has no effect, you don't know whether it was the intervention that was wrong or the application of it. And I think that's one of the biggest ones to try and get around. Yes, thanks, Jane. Great point. And another, so you're saying it can also be a challenge. When you go to visit the farm, they might do it correctly. Another challenge would be if you don't actually go and visit the farms to document or take photos and see for yourself. In one of our examples, a farmer said that they had added a foot bath after the training. And when our team went to visit the field, the foot bath was much too small for anyone's foot to actually go in. So, render it ineffective. So, yeah, really, really great point that we need to have a way to understand if practices are being adopted correctly and then implemented correctly over time. Thanks. Great, Claire. I think, yeah, for now I don't see any other hands. So I think, oh, just when I have that, there is Peter. Oh, but do we have time for that time? Is that okay? Just another comment? Yeah, yeah, go ahead. Peter, go ahead. Yes, thank you very much, everyone, for this presentation. This is something that we have not yet experienced here in Uganda, but based on our fieldwork that we've been doing here, we have, this is part of the interventions that we want to assess the impact of bi-security interventions on productivity indicators in the big value chain. Now, one of the difficulties I anticipate is that you may find that, first of all, most of the smallholder farmers are reluctant to adopt this bi-security practices because basically, maybe to them, it does not make much sense. For example, to put up a foot bath, if the farmer only has a very small number of buds or pigs, and then the other element that we also have to encounter in the field is that most of the smallholder farmers are so diverse in terms of the size of the farms, but also in terms of practices, family bi-security practices. So you find that even though we try to encourage them to adopt this practice, there is a very high level of diversity that when it comes to evaluation of the impact to this specific practices, you find that the number at different categories is so small to be able to be used for an analysis. Of course, the other issue would be to increase the sample size, of course that could also be limited by the amount of resources that are available. Thank you very much. Great, thank you so much, Peter, for sharing multiple challenges that you have faced when trying to collect data and then have relevant or statistically significant findings. Gerald, oh, sorry, someone else was speaking up. Go ahead. Hello. This is Patrick. I just want to appreciate the presentation and I just want to say, if you can just look at the way how we are doing. It is good, but I would just want also to put up this particular need. Oh, hello, I hear him. Yes, we can hear you. Go ahead, Patrick. Okay, thank you so much. So I wanted to see if you can just look at the way how we have come up with this birth security. It is centered on the way how we can improve on the food, oh, on the farms at Wisin. But there is this also by security of conserving nature. I don't know if you can just sense of, like maybe we are finishing up with our green coverage, which we as the human being really need. I don't know how can we bring it into consideration. I don't know. I submit my question. I don't know if you have got it, what I'm trying to communicate. Yes, definitely. That's a very good point. I believe this is Patrick. Thanks for raising that because more and more frequently it seems that the discussions are around the importance of taking a one health approach, which does involve the environment. But I think this gets back to the point Richard was raising where a lot of studies focus on maybe one pathogen or one disease we're trying to address or one outcome area. And even though we're being encouraged to take a one health approach, we are not necessarily always looking at the impact on animals, humans and the environment. So I don't have the answer, but it's a great point to flag that we could be taking even a more holistic, not just holistic on the farm, but thinking about the surrounding environment. As Damien said, there are a lot of positive externalities that can happen from interventions. We can have a spillover on the other animals in surrounding farms, but also the surrounding environment. So it's really, I don't have the answer, but it's a great point to flag for the group. Maybe we just take comment from one more person. I think Gerald had his hand up if you wanted to share. Yeah, thank you Claire. So Gerald's coordinating activities of the virtual learning center for Eastern Africa region. So we recently ran a course on farm biosecurity in the region and something that consistently so coming up in the discussions with, we had colleagues from around nine countries. The practices in the region, such as communal grazing and sharing of bulls in terms of breeding and herd improvement. These are some of the things that happen a lot and attributing risks to this, because of course there are risks in terms of disease introduction. So attributing risks to such practices and many other cultural things that happen is one of the things that possibly is a major challenge that I saw being highlighted a lot. Thank you, Ova. Great, thanks so much Gerald. And yes, that's attribution is one of those perpetual measurement challenges. So thank you for sharing that for us. Indeed. Thank you, Gerald. And thanks for all the other participants for the questions and comments. It's great to have you sharing these experiences. What I suggest we do in the next couple of minutes is focus on the matrix on the right side of the screen if that's okay with you Claire. And I know we promised 10 minutes just for your comments and sharing experiences but luckily we have the community of practice on animal biosecurity and you can find the link in the chat box very shortly to that community. And I suggest we move this conversation over there and keep discussing on this community so we are not limited by time. But the next four to five minutes, if it's okay with you Claire, let's focus on the matrix. Yes, and to help us move to the matrix we are going to ask you to vote. So we're going to ask you first to vote for the two challenges. You get two votes that you think are most important for us to address. So I'm going to start the voting now. You click once on the sticky note that you think is the most important challenge and it will capture your votes and then share for us the findings. And what you see on my screen is of course my voting. Yes, so Daniel don't influence everyone but. That's fair enough. Yeah, go ahead, great. And once everyone is done with voting, would you like me to still share my screen Claire or would you like to share the results? Yeah, I just keep sharing my screen. Okay. Okay, okay. I see 28 people are voting. 27. The voting is in mural. So that's where you can click, just double click on the sticky note that you think captures the challenge that is most important for us to address as practitioners. If you do not have mural open or could not access it, you can also feel free to add what you think is the most important challenge into the chat so we can still capture. Okay, for the sake of time, even though we want to get more and more inputs, I will end the voting session now and see where we stand. It says people are still voting, but we'll just go ahead. Great. So Daniel, do you want to go ahead and summarize for the group? Yeah, sure. So we got the most votes on the challenge hard to know what behavior happens when not observed. Example, a user food tip that got seven votes, then there are three votes. I realized people are still voting, so I'm not sure if this will be updated or we are seeing a snapshot of a few minutes ago, but what got three votes is lack of training on biosecurity. There's a training need. And there are two votes on quantifying averted losses which are highly variable. Also two votes on most effective biosecurity practices might be different across countries. So the difference between countries, of course, geographical regions as well, sectors and production types. Just valid point. The term biosecurity is poorly understood. So even the word itself is a challenge. I can go ahead, Claire, if you want to comment. No, no, no, no, sorry. Yeah, yeah, are you just affirming? Great. Issues that my intervention studies have assessed only one pathogen, no study of holistic effects. That only also got two votes. Also the fact that biosecurity cannot rely on incentives but requires public regulation since there is no glory in prevention. I think I would like that the person also put that in bold. There is no glory in prevention. I think it's a very, very, very valid point. Attribution is highly complex, of course. That's also got two votes. And there are a lot of lot of others who got one vote. We were probably all voting for our own on that. No, I'm just kidding. Great, well, thank you so much for taking the time to vote. I know others are voting, so we'll be able to still collect those. What Damian and I will do after the fact is prioritize these on the matrix that we had to the right where we can look at what challenges were considered most important, which ones may be most feasible to address. And then that will inform some of our thinking on next steps about how we might develop a framework that could actually be tested during transforms midterm evaluation. So I think with that, I will just share my screen to give a quick overview of our next steps, and then we will close out because I know we are just about at time here. Let me just share my screen. Great, so again, we just really quickly, I know we're at time, so we'll wrap up in terms of our next steps. So today we really wanted to help start understanding the challenges and move towards identifying potential solutions. So really understanding from all of you as practitioners what the challenges are that you have been facing in the work that you do every day. So we also have a follow-up survey that we want to distribute that Ashma will be sending around. And we can share in the chat as well as on the community of practice website to solicit any additional thoughts and feedback from you or identify other practitioners that we should speak with. And also you'll have the opportunity to volunteer if you want to continue being involved in the discussion. So we'll be facilitating some key informant interviews and focus group discussions to further explore these challenges. And then as Ashma mentioned at the beginning of the call we'll share back with the group what some of the key takeaways were and then move towards developing a proposed framework that we will pilot and share back results and recommendations with the group as well. So with that I just want to thank you all so much for taking the time to share your input with us as it will be really instrumental in helping us as we move forward on our respective projects. And with that over back to Ashma and Daniel. Thanks so much Claire. Big, big, big thank you to you and of course to Damien for joining us today and putting on a great session. I think we've had really good engagement from all of our participants. And as Claire mentioned, I will email everyone that had registered and attended with the recording of today's session with the PowerPoint. As I know a few people have also requested that we'll keep the mural board open in case there is anything else that people would like to add. I'll share that link as well. And some of those accompanying resources that Damien had also mentioned in his presentation. For anyone that is still here, also just to plug that we have another webinar next week. We're keeping busy in this community of practice. I will throw the link in the chat to register. And thank you all so much for your engagement and for attending today. And hopefully we'll see you at our follow-up sessions that we'll plan for next year and our event for next week.