Kampala manifesto: Building community-based One Health approaches to disease surveillance and response-The Ebola Legacy-Lessons from a peer-led capacity-building initiative.

OVERVIEW: International activities to respond to the Ebola crisis in West Africa were mainly developed and focussed around the biomedical paradigm of Western health systems. This approach was often insensitive to societal perception, attitude, and behavioural determinants and clashed with community-based health traditions, narratives, and roles, e.g., of community health workers. In this peer-led capacity-building initiative, these deficiencies were identified and analysed. Innovative, more locally focussed, community-based solutions were articulated. The new approaches described put local people at the centre of all preparedness, response, and recovery strategies. This paradigm shift reframed the role of communities from victims to active managers of their response and reacknowledged the strength of community-based One Health. We conclude that strategies should aim at empowering, not just engaging, communities. Communities can improve short-term crisis management and build longer-term resilience and capacities that are much needed in the current global health climate. BACKGROUND: The Ebola outbreak in West Africa, 2014-2016, was unprecedented in scale, extent, and duration. The international community was slow to step up its assistance in this global public health emergency and then faltered when its infection control management approaches clashed with West African realities [1]. Outbreak response evaluations have identified the need to better integrate social science intelligence [2], better collaborate with communities [3,4], more effectively draw on the strength of community health workers [5], and critically question the paradigm of Western health systems, which focus on imposing 'evidence-based' solutions that lack external validity in affected communities; i.e., they too often recommend actions that are inconsistent with, ignore, or violate traditional behaviours [6]. While there appears to be a consensus now on what needs to be done, how to achieve these goals remains a challenge.

Biosafety and Biosecurity: A Relative Risk-Based Framework for Safer, More Secure, and Sustainable Laboratory Capacity Building.

BACKGROUND: Laboratory capacity building is characterized by a paradox between endemicity and resources: countries with high endemicity of pathogenic agents often have low and intermittent resources (water, electricity) and capacities (laboratories, trained staff, adequate regulations). Meanwhile, countries with low endemicity of pathogenic agents often have high-containment facilities with costly infrastructure and maintenance governed by regulations. The common practice of exporting high biocontainment facilities and standards is not sustainable and concerns about biosafety and biosecurity require careful consideration. METHODS: A group at Chatham House developed a draft conceptual framework for safer, more secure, and sustainable laboratory capacity building. RESULTS: The draft generic framework is guided by the phrase "LOCAL - PEOPLE - MAKE SENSE" that represents three major principles: capacity building according to local needs (local) with an emphasis on relationship and trust building (people) and continuous outcome and impact measurement (make sense). CONCLUSION: This draft generic framework can serve as a blueprint for international policy decision-making on improving biosafety and biosecurity in laboratory capacity building, but requires more testing and detailing development.