In 2009, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) developed an unprecedented set of initiatives under its Emerging Pandemic Threats (EPT) program to help the world preempt future pandemics at their source. The focus is to prevent the emergence of, prepare for, avoid, and better mitigate infectious diseases that move between wildlife and people, such as H1N1 pandemic influenza, avian influenza, SARS, and Ebola. The EPT program consists of 5 projects: PREDICT, RESPOND, IDENTIFY, PREVENT, and DELIVER. USAID funded two large 5-year grants under its PREDICT and RESPOND initiatives. The first group, PREDICT, received more than $60 million over five years to develop a global emerging infectious disease early warning system. Led by the University of California at Davis School of Veterinary Medicine, its coalition includes the Wildlife Conservation Society, the Wildlife Trust, the Smithsonian Institution, the World Organization for Animal Health, the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, and the Global Viral Forecasting, Inc. The second group received a 5-year grant exceeding $150 million for the RESPOND project to develop outbreak investigation and response training technologies. Its partners include the Tufts University's Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota College of Veterinary Medicine, Development Alternatives, Inc., Training and Resources Group, and Ecology and Environment Inc.
SOURCE: USAID, 2009, 2010.
came about after over-exploitation of wildlife, often for commercial purposes. Today, state wildlife agencies have authority for wildlife and wildlife management on most lands, not just in state parks and reserves. NPS has authority for wildlife in national parks, and FWS has general authority for migratory bird management. International laws dealing with wildlife stewardship responsibilities include the Migratory Bird Treaty, which was signed in 1916, and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, which was signed by 80 nations in 1973, and which now has 175 signatories (Prukop and Regan, 2005). The application and refinement of those laws are key to the successful restoration and maintenance of healthy wildlife populations.
The economic resources available to influence the health of wildlife on public and private lands depend in large measure on programs of state and federal agencies, but the health of wildlife is also influenced by the choices and related investments of private land-owners. Overall, determining where monies will come from for wildlife health endeavors is dependent on understanding governmental authorities, the related funding streams, and the attitudes, incentives, and disincentives that influence private land holders. Funding, of course, is also de-