Acknowledgments
The organizers of the meeting would like to express their gratitude to the authorities of the United Republicof Tanzania for their support in the preparation and conduction of the event,and more particularly to: participants from One Health coordination Unit (PMO), Ministry Of HealthCommunity Development Gender Elderly and Children, Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries, Ministry of
Natural resources and Tourism, and country partners: FAO, USAID and CDC.

Organizers and participants would like to acknowledge the United States’ Defense Threat Reduction Agency(DTRA) for funding this workshop.

TABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ 1
ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS ................................................................................................ 2
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 3
Background ................................................................................................... 3
Objectives of the workshop and expected outcomes ....................................... 4

REPORT ON THE SESSIONS........................................................................................................ 6
Opening Session ............................................................................................ 6
Session 1: The One Health Concept and National Perspectives ......................... 6
Session 2: Navigating the Road to One Health – Collaboration Gaps................. 7
Session 3: Bridges along the Road to One Health ............................................ 8
Session 4: Crossroads – PVS Pathway and IHR MEF reports .............................10
Session 5: Road Planning ..............................................................................11
Session 6: Fine-tuning the road-map .............................................................12
Session 7: Way forward ................................................................................14
Closing Session ............................................................................................14

WORKSHOP OUTPUTS ............................................................................................................ 15
Output 1: Assessment of levels o f collaboration for 16 key technical areas .....15
Output 2: Objectives and actions identified per technical areas .....................16
Output 3: Prioritization results .....................................................................20

WORKSHOP EVALUATION ...................................................................................................... 21
APPENDIX .............................................................................................................................. 22
Annex 1: Workshop agenda ...........................................................................22

1

ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS
AFRO
AI
DG
DTRA
FAO
FELTP
FP
HQ
IHR
IT
JEE
MEF
MoHCDGEC
MoLF
MoU
NAPHS
OIE
PH
PMO
PVS
SOP
TOR
USAID
WHO

World Health Organization Regional Office for Africa
Avian Influenza
Directorate General
United States of America’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Field Epidemiology and Laboratory Training Program
Focal Point
Headquarters
International Health Regulations (2005)
Information technology
Joint External Evaluation
Monitoring and Evaluation Framework
Ministry of Health, Community Development, Gender, Elder and Children
Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries
Memorandum of Understanding
National Action Plan for Health Security
World Organisation for Animal HealthPublic HealthPrime Minister’s Office
Performance of Veterinary Services
Standard Operating Procedures
Terms of Reference
United States Agency for International Development
World Health Organization2

INTRODUCTIONBACKGROUND
The World Health Organization (WHO) and the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) are the twomain international organizations responsible for proposing references and guidance for the public healthand animal health sectors respectively. WHO and OIE have been active promoters and implementers of anintersectoral collaborative approach between institutions and systems to prevent, detect, and control
diseases among animals and humans. They have developed various frameworks, tools and guidancematerials to strengthen capacities at the national, regional and global levels.
▪ WHO Member States adopted a legally binding instrument, the International Health Regulations (IHR,2005), for the prevention and control of events that may constitute a public health emergency ofinternational concern. Through these regulations, countries are required to develop, strengthen andmaintain minimum national core public health capacities to detect, assess, notify and respond to publichealth threats and as such, should implement plans of action to develop and ensure that the core capacities
required by the IHR are present and functioning throughout their territories. Various assessment andmonitoring tools have been developed by WHO such as the IHR Monitoring and Evaluation Framework(MEF), which includes inter alia the Annual Reporting Questionnaire for Monitoring Progress and the Joint
External Evaluation (JEE) Tool.
▪ The OIE is the intergovernmental organization responsible for developing standards, guidelines andrecommendations for animal health and zoonoses; these are laid down in the OIE Terrestrial and Aquatic
Animal Codes and Manuals. In order to achieve the sustainable improvement of national Veterinary
Services’ compliance with these standards, in particular on the quality of Veterinary Services, the OIE hasdeveloped the Performance of Veterinary Services (PVS) Pathway, which is composed of a range of tools to
assist countries to objectively assess and address the main weaknesses of their Veterinary Services.

3

These support tools shift away from externally driven, short-term, emergency response type ‘vertical’approaches addressing only specific diseases, and contribute to a more sustainable, long term ‘horizontal’
strengthening of public and animal health systems. The WHO IHR MEF and the OIE PVS Pathway
approaches enable countries to determine strengths and weaknesses in their respective functions andactivities, and promote prioritization and pathways for improvement. Furthermore, they engage countries
in a routine monitoring and follow up mechanism on their overall level of performance and help todetermine their needs for compliance with internationally adopted references and standards.
The use of the WHO IHR monitoring tools and OIE PVS Pathway results in a detailed assessment of existing
weaknesses and gaps, with the better alignment of a capacity building approach and strategies at country
level between the human and animal health sectors. The two organizations have developed a workshop
format (the IHR-PVS National Bridging Workshops) that enables countries to further explore possible
overlapping areas addressed in their PVS and IHR capacity frameworks and develop, where relevant,appropriate bridges to facilitate coordination. A structured approach using user-friendly materials enables
the identification of synergies, reviews gaps and defines the operational strategies to be used by policy
makers for concerted corrective measures and strategic investments in national action plans for improved
health security.
In Tanzania,- a PVS Follow-up was conducted in 2016;- Joint External Evaluation (JEE) missions were conducted in 2016 (mainland) and 2017 (Zanzibar);- The NAPHS was launched in 2017.

OBJECTIVES OF THE WORKSHOP AND EXPECTED OUTCOMES
The main objective of the IHR-PVS Pathway National Bridging Workshop (IHR-PVS NBW) is to provide an
opportunity to the human and animal health services of hosting countries to build on the reviews ofperformance, gaps and discussions for improvement conducted in their respective sectors, and to explore
options for improved coordination between the sectors, to jointly strengthen their preparedness for, andcontrol of, the spread of zoonotic diseases.
The IHR-PVS NBWs focus on the following strategic objectives:• Brainstorming: discuss the outcomes of IHR and PVS Pathway country assessments and identify
ways to use the outputs;• Advancing One Health: improve dialogue, coordination and collaboration between animal andhuman health sectors to strategically plan areas for joint actions and a synergistic approach;• Building Sustainable Networks: contribute to strengthening the inter-sectoral collaboration
through improved understanding of respective roles and mandates;• Strategic planning: inform planning and investments (incl. the National Action Plan for Health
Security) based on the structured and agreed identification of needs and options for improvement

4Expected outcomes of the workshop include:
1. Increased awareness and understanding on the IHR (2005) and the role of WHO, the mandate of
the OIE, the IHRMEF and the OIE PVS Pathway, their differences and connections.
2. Understanding of the contribution of the veterinary services in the implementation of the IHR(2005) and how the results of the PVS Pathway and IHRMEF can be used to explore strategicplanning and capacity building needs.
3. A diagnosis of current strengths and weaknesses of the collaboration between the animal healthand public health services.
4. Identification of practical next steps and activities for the development and implementation of joint
national roadmap to strengthen collaboration and coordination.
The agenda of the Workshop is available at Annex 1. It was attended by 77 participants from MOHCDGEC,
MOLF and PMO with representatives from the Central, Provincial and District level attending the three-day
discussions. Representatives of the environmental sector, legal sector, media and health development
partners (DTRA, CDC, USAID, University of Minnesota) were also present.

5

REPORT ON THE SESSIONS
The workshop used an interactive methodology and a structured approach with user-friendly material, casestudies, videos and facilitation tools. All participants received a Participant Handbook which comprised of
all necessary information such as the objectives of the workshop, instructions for working groups, expected
outcomes of each session etc. Sessions were structured in a step-by-step process as follows:

OPENING SESSION
The opening ceremony was attended by high level national representatives from both Ministries, with Dr
Emmanuel Swai (National Epidemiologist, MOLF) and Dr Janneth Mghamba (Assistant Director,
MoHCDGEC) delivering the first opening words. They were followed by representatives of internationalorganizations, namely Dr Ritha Njau (Officer in charge, WHO Tanzania) and Dr Moetapele Letshwenyo (OIE
Sub-regional Office for Southern Africa) and donors, namely Jean Richards (DTRA). The workshop was thenofficially opened by Brigadier General Mbazi Msuya (Director of Disaster Management Department, PMO).

SESSION 1: THE ONE HEALTH CONCEPT AND NATIONAL PERSPECTIVES
A documentary video introduced the One Health Concept, its history, rationale and purpose and how it
became an international paradigm. The video also introduced the workshop in the global and national
context by providing high level background information on the collaboration between WHO, OIE and FAO.
A presentation was given by Dr Swai (National Epidemiologist, MOLF) on the veterinary services of Tanzania,
the coordination with WHO, OIE and FAO as well as the PVS missions that have been conducted in the
country since 2007 The most important outbreaks in recent years were also presented. Dr George Cosmas
presented on behalf of the MoHCDGEC, the structure of the public health services and their linkages with
the IHR. Dr Jubilate Bernard (One Health Coordination Desk) presented the rationale behind the One Health
Concept and explained that anthrax, rabies, avian influenza, brucellosis, rift valley fever and humantrypanosomiasis were identified as prioritized zoonotic diseases in the United Republic of Tanzania.
The workshop approach and methodology were explained and the participant handbook was presented.
A second documentary video provided participants with concrete worldwide examples of intersectoralcollaboration in addressing health issues at the human-animal interface.

Outcomes of Session 1:
At the end of the session, the audience agreed that:•••

Intersectoral collaboration between animal and human health sectors happens, but mainly during
outbreaks; with a better preparedness, much more could be done at the human-animal interface.
The two sectors have common concerns and challenges and conduct similar activities.
Competencies exist and can be pooled. This needs to be organized though a collaborative
approach;
WHO, OIE and FAO are active promoters of One Health and can provide technical assistance tocountries to help enhance inter-sectoral collaboration at the central, local and technical levels.

6

SESSION 2: NAVIGATING THE ROAD TO ONE HEALTH – COLLABORATION GAPS
Participants were divided into five working groups of mixed participants from both sectors (MoHCDGEC)
and MoLF) and from different levels (Central, Provincial, District). Groups were provided with one of fivecase study scenarios (Table 1) based on diseases relevant to the Tanzanian context (avian influenza H5N1,
rabies, anthrax, brucellosis, rift valley fever and brucellosis) developed in collaboration with MoHCDGEC
and MoLF representatives.
Table 1: Scenarios used for the different case studies
Rabies – A stray dog which was known to have bitten two cows, was behaving aggressively towards people. It wasreported to have bitten some children in the same neighbourhood. It was shot dead by Police in the outskirts of
Mtakuja Village two days ago. The carcass of the dog was destroyed before the Veterinary authorities were able totake the head for confirmation of diagnosis.
H5N1 – Two persons were admitted at the Kigoma hospital, with pneumonia. Laboratory testing by RT-PCR resulted
positive for H5N1 subtype of avian influenza. One of the patients is a small-scale broiler farmer who sells his birds
three times a week at the Ujiji local live bird market. The other patient reported having visited the same market 7days prior to disease onset and having bought four ducks.
Massive death of wild birds was reported in the same area.
Anthrax – At least 60 people from Selela who ate uninspected meat from a cow that died, have suddenly fallen sickand have been screened for anthrax. The victims, among them school children, were rushed to level-3 health carecenter after they developed symptoms associated with anthrax and cutaneous lesions. The owner of the animal
disappeared after learning that his neighbours had fallen sick.
Brucellosis – Three goats all belonging to a small-holder dairy farmer in Muembe village aborted. At the time of thefirst two abortions the farmer did not bother to report the problem to his local veterinary officer as his farm was too
far away from the District Veterinary Office. In parallel, seven persons from the same village developed clinical signs
such as headaches, fever and muscle cramps. Two of them were hospitalized and laboratory testing confirmed thatthey were infected by Brucella melitensis.
Rift Valley Fever – Two persons were admitted at the hospital of Dodoma, with hemorrhagic symptoms. These
persons originated from a rural area in which a widely wave of abortion and mortality of young animals has beenreported in small ruminants and cattle during the last 3 weeks. The population is used to experience malaria during
the rains, but these new symptoms generate panic.

Using experience from previous outbreaks of zoonotic diseases, the groups discussed how they would haverealistically managed these events, and evaluated the level of collaboration between the veterinary and the
public health services for 16 key technical areas: coordination, investigation, surveillance, communication,etc. These activities/areas of collaboration were represented by color-coded technical area cards: green for“good collaboration”, yellow for “some collaboration”, and red for “collaboration needing improvement”(Figure 1).

7

Figure 1: Participants working on a case study scenario and evaluating the level of collaboration between the sectors
for 16 key technical areas.

During an ensuing plenary session, each group presented and justified the results of their work. Output 1
summarizes the results from the five disease groups.

Outcomes of Session 2:•••

Areas of collaboration are identified and joint activities discussed.
Level of collaboration between the two sectors for 16 key technical areas is assessed (Output 1).
The main gaps in the collaboration are identified.

SESSION 3: BRIDGES ALONG THE ROAD TO ONE HEALTH
Documentary videos introduced the international legal frameworks followed by human health (IHR 2005)
and animal health (OIE standards) as well as the tools available to assess the country’s capacities: theannual reporting and JEE tools for public health services and OIE PVS Pathway for veterinary services. The
differences and connections between these tools were explained. A large matrix (IHR-PVS matrix), crossconnecting the indicators of the IHR MEF (in rows) and the indicators of the PVS Evaluation (in columns)
was set-up and introduced to the participants (Figure 2).
Through an interactive approach, working groups were invited to plot their technical area cards onto thematrix by matching them to their corresponding indicators. A plenary analysis of the outcome showed clear
gap clusters and illustrated that most gaps were not disease-specific but systemic.

8

Figure 2: Mapping of the gaps by positioning the selected technical area cards on the IHR-PVS matrix.

The main gaps (clusters) identified were discussed and it was agreed that the rest of the workshop would
focus on the following capacities:•

Coordination at the local level•

Communication with media
Joint surveillance and laboratory diagnosis
Joint investigation and field laboratory work (sample collection, packaging, shipment)
Response•••

Note: ‘Finance’ came-up as one of the technical areas needing most improvement (5/5 red cards).
However, participants agreed that the audience of this workshop would not be able to provide substantial
improvements in that domain. It remains nonetheless one of the major gaps to impair the efficiency of theintersectoral collaboration in the United Republic of Tanzania.

Outcomes of Session 3:
•
•
•
•
•

Understanding that tools are available to explore operational capacities in each of the sectors.
Understanding of the contribution of the veterinary sector to the IHR.
Understanding of the bridges between the IHR MEF and the PVS Pathway. Reviewing together the
results of capacities assessment may help in identifying synergies and optimize collaboration.
Understanding that most gaps identified are not disease-specific but systemic.
Identification of the technical areas to focus on during the next sessions.

9

SESSION 4: CROSSROADS – PVS PATHWAY AND IHR MEF REPORTS
New working groups with representation from all previous groups were organized for each of the fivepriority technical areas (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Generic graph describing the organization of working groups for Session 2-3 (left) and Session 4-5 (right).

The matrix was used to link the identified gaps to their relevant indicators in the IHR MEF and in the PVS
Pathway. Each working group then opened the assessment reports (JEE, PVS Follow-up) and extracted themain findings and recommendations relevant to their technical area (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Participants from the group working on ‘Surveillance and laboratory’ extracting results from the PVS Followup and the JEE reports.

Outcomes of Session 4:•••

Good understanding of the assessment reports for both sectors, their purpose and their structure.
Main gaps relevant to each technical area have been extracted.
Main recommendations from existing reports have been extracted.

•

A common understanding of the effort needed starts to emerge.

10SESSION 5: ROAD PLANNING
Using the same working groups as for the previous session, participants were asked to identify, for eachtechnical area, three joint objectives to improve their collaboration. For each objective, they filled Action
Cards, detailing the activities, their dates of expected implementation, the focal points responsible, therequired support as well as measurable indicators (Figure 5).

Figure 5: The group working on “Communication with media” identified three objectives and nine activities to improvethe collaboration between the two sectors in this domain.

The difficulty of implementation and the expected impact of each activity were evaluated using red andblue stickers respectively and a semi-quantitative scale (1 to 3).

Outcomes of Session 5:•••

Clear and achievable objectives and activities are identified to improve inter-sectoral collaboration
between the two sectors for all technical areas selected.
For each activity, a desired completion date, focal points, required support and measurable
indicators have been identified.
The impact and the difficulty of implementation of all proposed activities have been estimated.

11

SESSION 6: FINE-TUNING THE ROAD-MAP
Working groups from the previous session were given more time to finalize their objectives and activities. A
World Café exercise was then organized to enable participants to contribute to the action points of alltechnical areas (Figure 6). Each group nominated a rapporteur whose duty was to summarize the results of
their work to the other groups. Each group rotated between the different boards to contribute and provide
feedback on all technical areas. Rotating groups had the possibility of leaving post-it notes on the objectives
and activities of other groups when they felt that an amendment or a clarification was necessary.
At the end of the cycle, each group returned to their original board and the rapporteur summarized thefeedback received. Groups were given 20 minutes to address changes or additions suggested by the otherparticipants. Objectives and activities were fine-tuned accordingly, and a final plenary session was
conducted to discuss the outstanding points.

Figure 6: World café exercise: the group on “Communication with media” is providing feedback to the rapporteur ofthe group on “Response”.

Overall, the five groups identified a total of 15 key objectives and 49 activities. The detailed results arepresented in Output 2.

Prioritization of Objectives
To prioritize the 15 objectives identified by the technical working groups, an online application was used.
Participants were asked to connect from their own device (Figure 7) or to use computers set-up by
facilitators to identify which five objectives (and their constituting activities) they considered as of highest
priority.
55 participants participated in the vote. Objective 10 (Response – 69%), Objective 1 (Coordination at local
level - 60%), Objective 12 (Response - 55%) and Objective 14 (Communication - 51%) stood out as toppriorities. The objective with the least score, Objective 3, is considered a top priority by 13% of participants,
showing that all objectives identified in the workshop are important and none should be neglected. Full
results of the vote can be found in Output 3.

12

Figure 7: participants using their computers and mobile devices to vote for their priority objectives.

Outcomes of Session 6:•••

Harmonized, concrete and achievable road-map to improve the collaboration between the animal
health and human health sectors in the prevention, detection and response to zoonotic disease
outbreaks.
Buy-in and ownership of all participants who contributed to all areas of the road-map.
Prioritization of the activities.

13

SESSION 7: WAY FORWARD
Results of the prioritization vote were presented and discussed.
At this point, the focal points from Tanzania, namely Dr Janeth Mghamba and Dr Jubilate Bernard took theleadership of the workshop. They presented the existing One Health Strategy and the National Action Planfor Health Security (NAPHS) and explained how the outputs of the IHR-PVS National Bridging Workshop will
help enrich these plans.

Outcomes of Session 7:•••

Understanding of how the outputs of the workshop can feed into other existing plans.
Way forward is presented and discussed.
Ownership of the workshop results by the country.

CLOSING SESSION
The workshop ended with statements from MoLF and MoHCDGEC indicating that both sectors took
ownership of the outcomes of the workshop. They also ensured joint engagement in addressing the gaps
identified for collaboration at the human-animal interface. WHO, OIE, FAO, CDC, USAID and DTRA
reiterated their full commitment to support the country in improving this collaboration.
All the material used during the workshop, including movies, presentations, documents of references,results from the working groups and pictures were copied on a memory stick distributed to all participants.
A three-minute movie of the workshop was shown and is available at the following link:www.bit.ly/NBWTanzania.

14

WORKSHOP OUTPUTSOUTPUT 1: ASSESSMENT OF LEVELS OF COLLABORATION FOR 16 KEY TECHNICAL AREAS

Technical area (cards)
Coordination at local Level
FinanceCommunication w/ media
Emergency funding
Joint surveillance
Field investigation
Laboratory
Response
Logistics
Communication w/
stakeholders
Risk assessment
Human resources
Coordination at technical Level
Coordination at high Level
Legislation / Regulation
Education and training

RabiesAnthrax

H5N1

Brucellosis

RVF

Score
10
10
9
9
8
7
6
6
6
5
5
5
4
3
3
3

For each disease, the performance of the collaboration between the human health and the animal health sectors is color-coded: green for “good collaboration”, yellow for “some collaboration”, andred for “collaboration needing improvement”. The score uses a semi-quantitative scale (2 points for a red card, 1 for a yellow card and 0 for a green card). Technical areas marked in bold were selected
and addressed in-depth throughout the rest of the workshop.

15

OUTPUT 2: OBJECTIVES AND ACTIONS IDENTIFIED PER TECHNICAL AREAS
ActionTimeline

Difficulty(1-3 scale)

ImpactResponsibility(1-3 scale)

Indicators

COORDINATION AT LOCAL LEVEL
Objective 1: Advocate for One Health approach to all relevant stakeholders at local level
Map One Health stakeholders

3 months

Conduct sensitization sessions at community level to createawareness and educate different stakeholders about One Health

3 months

Conduct regular scheduled meetings with identified stakeholders

On-going

++

+++

++

++

++

+++

PMO, DMD and PORALG*No of stakeholders identified

PO-RDLG*No of sensitizations conducted*No / type of targeted groups reached

PMO, DMD & PORALG(Leaders at local levels)*No of meetings conducted andtargeted audience

Objective 2: Capacity building for One Health local implementation (Formal structure and committees)
Develop SOPs & guidelines for intersectoral coordination at the locallevel

One year

Orient & train local actors on the SOPs & guidelines

On-going+++++

PO-RALG-DVO/Health
Environment*SOPs and guidelines produced+++

PMO, DMD, PO-RALGDVO/Health/Environment*No of training sessions*No of committees trained+++

PO-RALG*No of staff mentored

DVO/Health/Environment*No of supervision visits+++

PO-RALG, PMO-DMD*No of after-action review meetings

Objective 3: Monitoring & evaluation of One Health activities
Mentoring, coaching and supervision of OH key players
Conduct after-action review meetings after each zoonotic disease
outbreakOn-going
After events

JOINT SURVEILLANCE AND ASSOCIATED LABORATORY ACTIVITIESObjective 1: Improve human resource capacity to conduct joint surveillance:
Map existing key personnel and their role in surveillance activities

December 2017

Conduct a training needs assessment for personnel involved insurveillance activities in all relevant sectors

January 2018

Develop training material for personnel involved in surveillance
activities in all relevant sectors

March 2018

Conduct training to personnel involved in surveillance activities in all

March 2018++++

MOHCDGEC, MoLF, MoE,
Wildlife (PMO supervision)*List of key personnel for all relevant
sectors+++

MOHCDGEC, MoLF, MoE,
Wildlife*Report on training need assessment++++

MOHCDGEC, MoLF, MoE,
Wildlife*Training material developed

++

+++

MOHCDGEC, MoLF, MoE,

*No of personnel trained16relevant sectors on identified gaps
Procure lab equipment, reagents, consumables and other supplies topersonnel involved in joint surveillance activities

June 2018

+++

+++

Wildlife*Reports

MOHCDGEC, MoLF, MoE,
Wildlife (PMO supervision)*Laboratory equipment & reagents in
place

Objective 2: Harmonize/standardize Laboratory SOPs for sample collection, transportation, storage, testing and sharing
Map existing human & animal health laboratory capacities

December 2017

Harmonize the existing SOPs / guidelines for sample testing,shipment to referral labs, and sharing

March 2018

Orient and disseminate the harmonized SOPs and guideline (on-thejob training)

June 2018++++

MOHCDGEC, MoLF, MoE,
Wildlife*Report indicating laboratory
capacities in both sectors+++

MOHCDGEC, MoLF, MoE,
Wildlife*SOPs / guidelines in place andharmonized

++

+++

MOHCDGEC, MoLF, MoE,
Wildlife*No of personnel trained

++

+++

MOHCDGEC, MoLF, MoE,
Wildlife*Tools in place

++

+++

MOHCDGEC, MoLF, MoE,
Wildlife*Hardware and software datacollection in place

++

+++

MOHCDGEC, MoLF, MoE,

*No of data-collectors trained++++

MOHCDGEC, MoLF, MoE,
Wildlife*Reports*No of supervision visits

Objective 3: Strengthen data collection, analysis, interpretation, reporting & sharing
Develop and validate harmonized tools (forms, database andprocedures) for data collection, analysis, interpretation and sharing

June 2018

Procure hardware and software for data collection, analysis,
reporting and sharing

July 2018

Train data-collectors on validated tools

September 2018

Conduct regular supportive supervision and mentorship

March 2018

JOINT INVESTIGATION AND ASSOCIATED LABORATORY ACTIVITIESObjective 1: Enhance intersectoral collaboration in conducting joint field investigations:
Develop a MoU on information sharing between public health andanimal healthJune 2018

Develop guidelines and SOPs for joint field investigations

July 2018

Distribute guidelines and SOPs for joint field investigations at alllevels.

August 2018

Conduct a 3-day training of trainers and 3-day cascade trainings at
all levels on guidelines and SOPs for joint field investigations

October 2018

MOHCDGEC, TVLA, MOLF,*MoU developed and signed

+

+++

+

+++

MOHCDGEC, MOLF, PMO,MONRT, PORALG, LGA*Guidelines and SOPs developed forjoint field investigations++++

MOHCDGEC, MOLF,
Partners*Printed guidelines and SOPs,
guidelines available at all levels

+++

++

MOHCDGEC, MOLF,
PORALG, PMO, LGA*No of trained personnel

SUA

Objective 2: Improve sample collection, storage and transportation capacity for joint field investigation
Establish a mechanism for sample transportation to the laboratories(creation of hubs, equipment, transport)

October 2018

+++

+++

MOHCDGEC, MOLF,
partners

17*No of regions with established hubsConduct a mapping of laboratories with the capacity to test various
pathogens

October 2018

Develop harmonized SOPs for sample collection, storage, andtransportation during joint field investigation

October 2018

Train field staff at regional and district levels on SOPs for sample
collection, storage and transportation during joint field investigation

October 2018+++

MOHCDGEC, MOLF,
MONRT, PMO, PORALG*Laboratory mapping available+++

MOHCDGEC, MOLF,
MONRT, PMO, PORALG*SOPs developed

++

+++

MOHCDGEC, MOLF,
PORALG, PMO-DMT*No of trained personnel++

MOLF, MOHCDGEC,
MONRT, PORALG*No of identified individuals and theirlocalities

+++

+++

MOHCDGEC, MOLF,
MONRT, PORALG, PMO,
Partners*No of trained personnel, *No of
districts covered

++

+++

MOHCDGEC, MOLF,
PORALG, PMO, MOF*No of sensitization meetings
conducted*% of acceptance of samples

Objective 3: Set-up and train joint field investigation teams at all levels
Conduct a mapping of human resources available for joint field
investigations at all levels

April 2018

Train district and regional staff on joint field investigations throughfrontline course (review training materials, develop curriculum,
develop training plan)

June 2020

Conduct sensitization meetings with LGAs for the allocation of funds
for joint field investigations

June 2018RESPONSE AND EMERGENCY FUNDING
Objective 1: Strengthen multisectoral and multidisciplinary capacity for joint emergency response at all levels
Conduct a capacity needs assessment (human, material) for
emergency response at all levels in all relevant sectors

June 2018

Develop a mechanism for stockpiling of emergency supplies at zonal
and regional levels in high risk areas

December 2018

Identify staff to work in public health emergency operations centre(PHEOC) (communications, logistics & technical operations)

December 2018

Conduct a training to multidisciplinary rapid response teams in all
regions and districts

2018 (regions)2019 (districts)

+

++

+++

+++

+

++

+

++

MOHCDGEC, MOLF

*Report of needs assessment

MOF, MOHCDGEC, MOLF

*No of high risk regions with stockpileof emergency supplies

MOHCDGEC, MOLF, MNRT*No of disciplines appointed to workin PHEOC

MOHCDGEC, MOLF

*No of regions with trained
multidisciplinary RRTs

MOHCDGEC, MOLF

*No of RRTs formed

Objective 2: Ensure adherence to chain of command in emergency response at all levels
Conduct orientation workshop on chain of command in emergency
response to rapid response teams in all regions and districts

2018 (regions)

Conduct advocacy sessions to high level leaders/executives on
emergency response chain of command at all levels

June 2018

Conduct orientation on chain of command in emergency response toveterinary, medical and wildlife officers at all levels

June 2018

Conduct multisectoral simulation exercises at least once a year

December 20182019 (districts)

+++

+++

+

+++

++

+++

++

+++

*No of RRTs oriented
PMO-DMD*No of advocacy sessions

PMO, MNR, MOHCDGEC*No of orientation sessions conducted

MOHCDGEC, MOLF, PMO*No of multisectoral simulation18

exercises conducted per year

Objective 3: Ensure timely availability of emergency funds at all levels
Conduct advocacy/sensitization meeting with ministry of finance onneeds to avail emergency funds

June 2018

Conduct supportive supervision visits to regions on emergency fundavailability and their incorporation into council plans

June 2019+++++

PMO, MOF, MOHCDGEC,
MOLF, MNRT*No of ministries/LGAs withemergency fund available++++

MOHCDGEC, MOLF, MNRT,PORALG*No of council plans with emergency
funds incorporated

PMO*Mapping of available expertise / gap
on risk communication

PMO, One Health
Coordination desk (OHC)*Training material developed

MOHCDGEC*No of people recruited*No risk communication messages

COMMUNICATION WITH MEDIA
Objective 1: Strengthen human resources capacities in multisectoral risk communication
Conduct a training needs assessment on risk communication

April 2108++

Develop multi-sectoral risk communication training materials

June 2108++++

Recruit additional risk communication experts for PHEOC

February 2018++++

Conduct Trainings of Trainers on risk communication and cascade at
sub-national levels for communication experts in relevant sectors

October 2018

++

+++

PMO / OHC unit +respective line ministries*No of trainings and trainees at alllevels+++++PMO/OHC unit +respective line ministries*Plan developed and validated+++

PMO /OHC unit +respective line ministries*No of disease specific toolkit*No of templates available

+++

+++

Respective line ministries*No and type of messages*No of people reached++++Line ministries,
communities, districts*No of focal points identified*No of rumors tracked, followed up
and managed++++

PMO OHC Unit & line
ministries*No of media briefs & updates*No of media groups engaged on OH
topicsObjective 2: Foster multi-sectoral risk communication at national and sub-national levels
Develop a comprehensive joint risk communication strategy and plan

December 2018

Develop and disseminate standard disease specific risk
communication toolkits (talking points, guidelines, templates)
Develop and disseminate joint risk communication messages(before, during and after outbreaks)

October 2018
Ongoing

Objective 3: Improve media monitoring and management
Develop a rumor/news monitoring and management system (focal
points in relevant sectors with a joint One Health portal)

December 2018

Hold regular joint media briefs & updates

January 2018

Difficulty of implementation: Low +, Moderate ++, Very difficult +++Impact: Low impact +, Moderate impact ++, High impact +++19

OUTPUT 3: PRIORITIZATION RESULTS
All participants were asked to vote individually via a mobile application and to select which five of the 15 objectives they considered as of highest priority.
55 participants participated in the vote. Objective 10 (Response – 69%), Objective 1 (Coordination at local level - 60%), Objective 12 (Response - 55%) andObjective 14 (Communication - 51%) stood out as top priorities. The objective with the least score, Objective 3, is considered a top priority by 13% of participants,
showing that all objectives identified in the workshop are important and none should be neglected.

20

WORKSHOP EVALUATION
An evaluation questionnaire was completed by 37 participants (Figure 8) in order to collect feedback on therelevance and utility of the workshop. Participants rated the workshop highly, being for the most part“highly satisfied” (68%), or otherwise “satisfied” (32%). 100% of respondents answered that they were“satisfied” or “highly satisfied” with the content, the structure, the facilitation and the organization of theworkshop (Tables 2-5).

Figure 8: Answers to the question “which sector are you from?” (37 respondents)
Tables 2-5: Results of the evaluation of the event by participants (37 respondents)

Workshop evaluation'Satisfied' or 'Fully satisfied'

Average score (/4)

Overall assessment

100%

3.7

Content100%

3.6Structure / Format

100%

3.8

Facilitators

100%

3.9

Organization (venue, logistics, …)

100%

3.7

Participants had to choose between 1=Highly unsatisfied – 2=Unsatisfied – 3=Satisfied – 4=Highly satisfied

Impact of the workshop on…

‘Significant’ or ‘Major’

Average score (/4)

Your technical skills / knowledge

100%

3.5

The work of your unit/department

100%

3.6

The intersectoral collaboration in Tanzania

97%

3.4

Participants had to choose between 1=No impact at all – 2=Minor impact – 3=Significant impact – 4=Major impact

Average score for each session (/4)
Session 1

Session 2

Session 3

Session 4

Session 5

Session 6

Session 7

3.5

3.5

3.6

3.6

3.5

3.7

3.5

Would you recommend this workshop to other countries?
Absolutely

95%

Probably5%

Likely not

0%

No

0%

21

APPENDIXANNEX 1: WORKSHOP AGENDA

DAY 1
08:30 –
09.00
09:00 –
09:10
09:10 –
09:30

Registration of participants
Administrative announcement
Mr. Yusuf Mwemtsi – Budget and Finance Officer – WHO Tanzania
Introductions and perspectives of participants – Ice breaker - All
Opening Ceremony• Remarks: Representative from the Ministries of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries

09:30 –
10.00

• Remarks: Representative from the Ministry of Health Community Development,
Gender, Elders and Children• Remarks: Representative from the Ministry of Environment• Remarks: Officer In-Charge WHO
Opening Remarks: Prime Minister Officer (GOH)

10.00 –
10:10
10.10 –
10.30

Group Photo – All
Tea break – All
Session 1: Workshop Objectives and National Perspectives• MOVIE 1: Tripartite One Health collaboration and vision (15’)

10.30 –
12.10

• Veterinary Services and One Health – PPT (15’)• Public Health Services and One Health – PPT (15’)• One Health Coordination Desk PMO – PPT (15’)• Workshop approach and methodology – PPT (15’)• MOVIE 2: Driving successful interactions - Movie (25’)

Lunch (12:10-13:30)
Session 2: Navigating the road to One Health13.30 –
17.00

• Presentation and organization of the working group exercise – PPT (15’)• Case study - Working groups by disease (120’)• Restitution (75’)

22DAY 2
09:00 – 9:15 Feedback from day 1
Session 3: Bridges along the road to One Health• MOVIE 3: IHR Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (25’)
09.15 –
12.00

• MOVIE 4: PVS Pathway (25’)• MOVIE 5: IHR-PVS Bridging (10’)
Coffee break (15’)• Mapping gaps on the IHR/PVS matrix (45’)• Discussion – Plenary (30’)

Lunch (12:00-13:00)
Session 4: Crossroads - IHR MEF, JEE and PVS Pathway reports
13:00 15:00

15:00–
17:15• Presentation and organization of the working group exercise (15’)• Extract main gaps and recommendations from the PVS and IHR reports (including
the JEE), in relation to gaps identified on the matrix (90’)
Coffee break (15’)
Session 5: Road planning• Presentation and organization of the working group exercise (15’)• Objectives and Activities (Working groups by technical topic) (120’)

DAY 3
09:00 – 9:15 Feedback from day 2
Session 6: Fine-tuning the roadmap• Fine-tuning of activities (60’)
9:15 - 12:15• World Café (90’)
Coffee break (15’)• Plenary discussion on the Roadmap (60’)• Presentation of the prioritization vote tool (10’)• Prioritization vote (60’ – during lunchtime)

Lunch (12:15-13:30)
13:30 15:30

15:30 16:30

Session 7: Way forward – Lead by One Health Coordination Desk (PMO)• Results of the prioritization vote (15’)• Next steps and way forward for Tanzania (60’)
Closing Session• Movie of the workshop (10’)• Evaluation of the workshop (20’)• Closing ceremony (40’)

23