The AUSTVETPLAN

The AUSTVETPLAN is comprised of 52 manuals each relating to animal disease. The FMD chapter is 67 pages and is contained in full in Appendix 2. The following is a summary of the approach taken for the control and eradication of FMD. However, Australia’s policy for eradication of FMD is one of stamping out supplemented only if absolutely necessary by vaccination.

Methods to prevent and eliminate pathogens

Intensive piggeries are viewed as high-risk enterprises since pigs act as amplifiers of the FMD virus. It has been estimated that over a 24hr period pigs produce about 3000 times as much virus as cattle (Donaldson 1983 [lvii] , 1987 [lviii] ) and are primarily infected while ingesting feedstuffs. It is believed that the latest UK outbreak was due to the feeding of infected swill to pigs. In recognition of this swill-feeding is illegal in Australia.

Quarantine and movement controls

These are seen as essential elements of a control and eradication policy. The can be applied to several designated areas:

n     Infected premises (IP) – total movement control and all animals slaughtered

n     Dangerous contact premises (DCP) – total movement control and all or some of the animals slaughtered

n     Suspect premises (SP) – will be subject to quarantine and intense surveillance until status is resolved. If there is no evidence of infection the premises would revert to normal status.

n     Restricted area (RA) – in accordance with the OIE Code a restricted area of at least 10km is drawn around all IPs and DCPs and to include as many SPs as possible. A high level of movement control and surveillance applies.

n     Control area (CA) – will apply to the whole state or territory. The aim is to control movement of susceptible livestock for as long as necessary to complete trace-back and epidemiological studies.

Zoning

Australia would also apply the accepted approach of zoning which essentially allow part of the country free of the disease to retain overseas market access.

Tracing

Trace-back is applied for a minimum period of 14 days before the onset of clinical signs. Trace-forward is applied up to the time that quarantine is imposed.

Tracing should include:

n     Livestock

n     Animal products – meat, offal, milk, wool, skins, hides, semen, embryos;

n     Vehicles – milk tankers, livestock transport vehicles, feed trucks, visitors cars;

n     Materials – hay, straw, crops, grains;

n     People – veterinarians, All service personnel, sales and feed representatives, tradespeople, technicians, visitors

Surveillance

Surveillance within the RA is primarily of livestock.

Surveillance within the CA involves abattoir surveillance, serological surveys and investigation of reports of suspect disease. These will also be taken in the rest of the country in order to prove absence of disease.

Disposal

The preferred method is burial since this is less polluting and poses less risk of infective plumes spreading the disease.

Vaccination

Two possible vaccination options include:

n     Strategic vaccination (ring vaccination) around outbreaks to help contain the disease while stamping-out operations are carried out; and

n     General vaccination (blanket vaccination) over a wide area where veterinary resources could not cope or if compensation payments were too costly.

Vaccination would only occur if other options were not achieving eradication of the disease.

Animals (2 cattle and or 2-4 pigs) are placed on all former IPs and DCPs 30 days after disinfection of equipment, materials and buildings. These are referred to as sentinel animals and must have contact with all parts of the premises/objects that might have had contact with the virus. They are also ground-fed on the high-risk areas of the farm and checked by veterinarians every three days. After 60 days on the farm blood tests are carried out for FMD. Removal of quarantine restrictions and restocking of premises is then permitted on a negative result being returned.

Public Awareness Campaign

Coupled with all the above a public awareness campaign to emphasise the importance of the imposed restrictions and potential impact of the disease should be in place.

Compensation Payments

Animals should if possible be valued while still alive. If this is not possible e.g. because slaughter was not delayed then the carcase is examined. If the carcase has been destroyed then visual evidence if possible should be produced otherwise a detailed description of the animal is required.

Birth of live offspring between valuation and destruction is not taken into account for valuation since valuation is based on the relevant valuation date.

Property including animal products and fodder that is destroyed because it cannot be properly disinfected is also eligible for payments.

Valuation is applied as though a sale took place on the property. A dairy cow is valued on the basis of its milk output and probable future output.

3.         USA

The USA has recently undertaken a review of its own procedures on safeguarding animal health [lix] . The main recommendation from this report is:

Congress and the United States Department of Agriculture must provide funding and act to rebuild the state and national infrastructure for animal disease control, emergency disease preparedness, and response.

The organisation charge with the responsibility for biosecurity is the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s Veterinary Service (APHIS-VS). The report states that this service is grossly under-funded in relation to the value of U.S. animal industries. For example the livestock industries alone are worth around $100billion yet the entire Animal Health Monitoring and Surveillance (AHMS) budget was only $70million in 2001.

Four committees raised four major needs that must be addressed in order to meet the challenges of animal health issues in the USA. These are:

n     Infrastructure inadequacies – essentially the requirement for staff and enhanced facilities

n     Improved communication – particularly the establishment of an Emergency Operations Centre in order to acquire and share information on animal health

n     The need to establish a coordinated and vigorous National Surveillance System and National Response Plan to monitor and respond to animal health issues.

n     The need for improved and expanded research and diagnostic laboratories focussed on animal health issues.

The Americans recognise that there is a need to improve and develop its biosecurity measures. This recognition concurs with that of NZ i.e. given the pressures related to increased travel of citizens and more foreign visitors and increased agricultural trade due to liberalisation, the potential threat of animal disease outbreaks is greater. It is therefore necessary to address this greater threat firstly by reviewing existing biosecurity measures and then taking appropriate action to ensure enhanced measures are established and implemented.

4.         Canada

The Canadians like Australia and NZ have a stamping-out policy including pre-emptive slaughter. There is also scope to apply emergency vaccination with slaughter in order to help in the control and spread of the virus.

What is contained in the stamping-out policy? [lx]

n     Imposition of movement restrictions around the infected premises

n     Slaughter, disposal (burial or burning) on the premises followed by cleaning and disinfection

n     Tracing of all movements of animals, animal products, people and fomites [lxi] both on to and from the farm (trace back and trace forward in Australia) since the estimated introduction of the FMD virus on the farm (generally 14 days)

n     Issuing of infected place declarations for exposed premises and for premises perceived as possible sources of infection

n     Pre-emptive slaughter of high-risk animals

Emergency vaccination

n     Selective FMD vaccination in buffer zones as a temporary measure

n     Identification of all animals vaccinated is absolutely essential so that they can be slaughtered in order to regain FMD country freedom without vaccination

n     Blanket vaccination would only be considered as a last resort i.e. in the event that emergency vaccination, stamping out and pre-emptive slaughter were insufficient to control the outbreak.

Canada’s National Animal Health Program

As part of its management of animal disease emergencies Canada applies a risk-based approach with several components:

n     Prevention: the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) requires all travellers to declare all foods, plants, animals and their products when entering Canada

n     Preparedness: emergency response plans are in place to deal swiftly with an outbreak.

n     Response: the "Foot and Mouth Disease Strategy" has been developed which provides detail on the ‘stamping out’ strategy. The responses, once confirmation of the disease occurs as follows:

Decisions and actions are carried out using the following mechanisms:

Emergency Response Teams are mobilized at CFIA Headquarters and Area Networks. Trained CFIA veterinarians and technicians are assigned pre-determined responsibilities:

There are established links between the Federal government and the private sector that can be used in a response. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) and CFIA also collaborated with provincial departments of agriculture and agri-food sectors to establish the Food and Agriculture Emergency Response System (FAERS) (Appendix 3). FAERS provides a policy and emergency-planning framework for managing emergencies. It is designed to link the federal, provincial and private sectors in an emergency response.

The following organizations could be mobilized to assist in an emergency in Canada: Emergency Preparedness Canada, Transport Canada, Canadian Armed Forces, provincial and municipal police departments, veterinary associations and private practitioners, livestock industry associations, and provincial authorities.

n     Recovery: coordinated approach to ensure safe and effective repopulation of affected areas.

Additional Emergency Preparedness Activities

Simulation exercises: implementation of emergency response plan in a simulated FMD outbreak.

Traceback and Tracking: Canadian Cattle Identification Program allows individual animals to be traced from the herd to slaughter

Quadrilateral Emergency Management Working Group: The Animal Health Quadrilateral Group (Australia, New Zealand, United States and Canada) have established an Emergency Management Working Group to consider common emergency response operational issues, facilitate technical exchange and training opportunities and other related matters.

International Workshop on Animal Disposal Alternatives: this was organised to address problems associated with destruction and disposal on a large-scale i.e. improvements and alternatives to existing methods (Appendix 4).

 

REVIEW/SCRUTINY OF DARD FMD INQUIRY

DID DARD’S REVIEW ADDRESS ALL THE RELEVANT AREAS AND WAS IT CONDUCTED IN A THOROUGH AND OPEN MANNER?

Transparency and Independence

The consultants that conducted the review employed several different methods to ensure that they maximised the opportunity for all relevant players to make a contribution to their report. These included:

n     Desk-based research

n     Five public meetings;

n     Over 40 interviews with key stakeholders;

n     Focus group discussion in the outbreak areas;

n     Workshops with interest groups;

n     A telephone survey of 200 farmers; and

n     Receiving over 60 written submissions.

This approach should have ensured that there was transparency in how the data was collected and that anyone who wanted to express an opinion to the consultants had the opportunity to do so. This information would obviously form the basis of the review and it is evident that the document criticises the Department in a number of areas but also acknowledges where the Department carried out its duties effectively and efficiently. This in itself suggests that the review has been carried out independently from the Department and in an unbiased manner. It should be noted however as the consultants point out that they were carrying out a ‘review’ not an inquiry and as such their focus was on identifying areas for improvement and not to apportion blame to anyone or any organisation.

Addressing all relevant areas

The review team were asked to address 12 specific issues [lxii] in addition to the terms of reference. The report is structured in 7 sections with sections III to VII encompassing all of the 12 issues. It should be noted that recommendations are made with respect to all of these issues.

 

IMPORT/EXPORT AND MOVEMENT RESTRICTIONS

Legislation enacted during the Foot and Mouth outbreak [lxiii]

The following is a chronological record of the legislation enacted during the Foot and Mouth outbreak in 2001 in Northern Ireland:

1.         The empowering legislation is:

(a)    The Diseases of Animals (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/1115 (N.I. 22), as amended; and

(b)    Foot-and-Mouth Disease Order (Northern Ireland) 1962 (S.R. & O. (N.I.) 1962 No. 209), as amended by S.R. 2001 No. 82.

Articles 21 and 29 of the Foot and Mouth Disease Order (Northern Ireland) 1962 empowers the Department to make Orders declaring a specified area to be an ‘Infected Area’ or a ‘Controlled Area’.

2.         Leg: Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Amendment) Order (Northern Ireland) 2001 (S.R No. 82)

Date coming into operation: 27 February 2001

The Order amends the 1962 Order so as to make provision for the isolation of animals placed or kept on commons or unenclosed lands within an infected area or controlled area in the event of an outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease.

3.         Leg: Foot and Mouth Disease (Infected Area) Order (NI) 2001 (SR No. 83)

Date coming into operation: 27 February 2001

The Order provides that where the Department has grounds for suspecting that foot and mouth disease exists in Northern Ireland or in such part of the RoI it may declare an area in NI to be an infected area. Where an area is declared to be an infected area then the provisions of the 1962 Order have effect in relation to that area. The restrictions are detailed in the Fifth Schedule at paragraph (5) which states "Hunting, horse racing and jumping competitions, polo, pigeon racing and the racing or coursing or the training for racing or coursing of any dogs or hounds and the pursuit of game and rabbits are hereby prohibited both in an Infected Area and in a Controlled Area".

4.         Leg: Foot and Mouth Disease (Controlled Area) Order (NI) 2001 (SR No. 87)

Date coming into operation: 1 March 2001.

The Order imposes, with variations and exceptions, the restrictions in Part III, Articles 32 and 34, of the Foot and Mouth Disease Order (Northern Ireland) 1962. The control on the movement of animals and carcases and on the holding of markets and sales set out in Articles 32 and 34 are replaced by variations to the Fifth Schedule. Generally, no movement of animals or carcases is permitted unless in accordance with conditions of a licence issued by the Department. Vehicles used for transporting animals or carcases out of, into, or within a controlled area must be cleansed and disinfected after each occasion of use. Fairs, markets, shows etc are banned except under conditions of a licence issued by the Department.

5.         Leg: Foot and Mouth Disease (Controlled Area) (No.2) Order (NI) 2001 (SR No. 93)

Date coming into operation: 5 March 2001.

The Order adds new provisions to the first Control Order (S.R.No. 87) by banning the stalking of deer in a controlled area and banning the movement of a horse or carcase except under the conditions of a licence issued by the Department.

6.         Leg: Foot and Mouth Disease (Controlled Area) (No.3) Order (NI) 2001 (SR No. 212)

Date coming into operation: 18 May 2001.

The Order repeals and replaces the Foot and Mouth Disease (Controlled Area)(No.2) Order (NI) 2001. The Order removed the prohibition on horse racing and jumping competitions and pigeon racing.

7.         Leg: Foot and Mouth Disease (Controlled Area) (No.4) Order (NI) 2001 (SR No.303)

Date coming into operation: 20 August 2001.

The Order repeals and replaces the Foot and Mouth Disease (Controlled Area)(No.3) Order (NI) 2001. The prohibition on deer stalking is revoked.

8.         Leg: Foot and Mouth Disease (Controlled Area) (No.5) Order (NI) 2001 (SR No.336)

Date coming into operation: 01 October 2001.

The Order repeals and replaces the Foot and Mouth Disease (Controlled Area)(No.4) Order (NI) 2001. The Order removed the prohibition on polo but continued to prohibit hunting with horses and/or dogs.

9.         Leg: Foot and Mouth Disease (Controlled Area) (No.6) Order (NI) 2001 (SR No.424)

Date coming into operation: 08 December 2001.

The Order repeals and replaces the Foot and Mouth Disease (Controlled Area)(No.5) Order (NI) 2001. The Order removed the prohibition on the hunting of animals with horses and /or dogs but continued to prohibit the hunting of deer with horses or dogs.

10.       Leg: Foot and Mouth Disease (Controlled Area) Order (NI) 2002 (SR No.44)

Date coming into operation: 15 February 2002.

The Order repeals and replaces the Foot and Mouth Disease (Controlled Area)(No.6) Order (NI) 2001. The Order removed the prohibition on the hunting with horses or dogs.

The FMD (Controlled Area)(No.5) Order (NI) 2001 removed the prohibition on polo but continued to prohibit hunting with horses and/or dogs. The FMD (Controlled Area)(No.6) Order (NI) 2001 removed the prohibition on the hunting of animals with horses and/or dogs but continued to prohibit the hunting of deer with horses or dogs. The FMD (Controlled Area) Order (NI) 2002 removes all prohibition on hunting with horses or dogs.

Therefore there are no current restrictions.

Chronology of movement controls [lxiv]

23 February 2001 – Movement of cattle, sheep, goats and pigs within Northern Ireland to be by DARD authorisation only.

Restriction included farm-to-farm and farm-to-slaughterhouse movements.

28 February – DARD introduces a complete ban on animal movements (except to slaughter) and the holding of livestock markets.

6 March – Movement licensing system is introduced for animals going to slaughter.

7 March – Licensed movement of animals from farm-to-farm are allowed in exceptional circumstances under strict protocols.

15 March – Animal movement licensing is extended to cover movement between premises for animal welfare reasons.

30 March – Further adjustments are made to animal movement licensing, including the introduction of general licenses for routine movements between premises within a farm business unit and extended welfare movements.

15 April – Movement licensing is suspended and licenses rescinded.

23 April – Minister Rogers announces relaxation in movement controls which, although still under license, include:

n     Movement of animals direct to slaughter;

n     Movement of animals form winter housing to pasture; and

n     Movement on welfare grounds.

25 April – Licensed animal movements are further relaxed, movement of animals (with the exception of sheep) within farm business units are permitted on the basis of a license issued by a private veterinary practitioner and preformed under strict protocols.

9 May – Further relaxation on the movement of animals are introduced – including the movement of sheep within holdings (excluding movement of common grazing).

23 May - Further relaxation on the movement of animals is announced: general licensing arrangements are available for cattle, pigs and horses; specific licenses are retained for sheep, however movement is now permitted for commercial purposes.

5 June – Controls over common grazing are relaxed.

3 September – Resumption of commercial sheep sales under strict veterinary supervision and farm-to-farm livestock movement.

30 January 2002 – Further relaxation of animal movement controls: 30-day standstill in respect of cattle and pigs no longer applies to farm holdings but rather to specific animals moved onto the farm. The 20-day standstill for sheep holdings where animals have been purchased is set to continue.

21 August – Reinstatement of on-farm sheep sales announced. These are in accordance with the appropriate movement license.

Additional information on food products

In relation to animal products DARD released a Press Release on June 7th 2002 [lxv] PERSONAL IMPORTS OF ANIMAL PRODUCTS FROM GREAT BRITAIN, THE CHANNEL ISLANDS, OTHER MEMBER STATES AND THIRD COUNTRIES, INCLUDING ADVICE TO FOOTBALL FANS TRAVELLING TO THE WORLD CUP.  Press Release 173/02.  June 7^th 2002.

. It has been reproduced, in part, below:

"As the threat from Foot & Mouth Disease has now diminished, it has been decided to re-instate the various licences with immediate effect which brings us back into line with controls in Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland. The licences are:

n     DARD GEN 02/05 for milk and milk products for personal consumption covering all EC Member States, Great Britain, Isle of Man and the Channel Islands;

n     DARD GEN 02/06 for fresh meat and meat products (including poultrymeat and poultrymeat products) for personal consumption in consignments of less than 10kgs covering all EC Member States, Great Britain, Isle of Man and the Channel Islands; and

n     DARD GEN 02/07 for fully cooked meat and meat products (poultrymeat and poultrymeat products) in cans or other hermetically sealed containers in travellers luggage or in a postal packet from countries outside the EU i.e. Third countries.

It is illegal to bring food or plants into the UK from a non-EU country other than in accordance with the following controls. Limited exceptions are permitted for small amounts intended for personal use only (i.e. by the individual or their family or friends – goods brought into Northern Ireland under these exceptions should not be sold or used commercially in any way).

Fresh meat may not be brought into Northern Ireland from a non-EU country for personal use under any circumstances.

Permitted personal imports are:

n     1.0kg of meat cooked in a hermetically sealed container

n     1.0kg of fish

n     1.0kg of milk powder (from listed countries only)

n     2.0 kg of raw fruit or vegetables (not potatoes)

n     1 bouquet of cut flowers

n     5 retail packets of seeds (not potatoes)

and from the Euro-Mediterranean area only

n     2.0 kg of bulbs, corms, tubers and rhizomes

n     5 other plants

Regular checks are made by DARD Portal staff at ports and airports to ensure that travellers are complying with these limits. Consignments identified during Customs checks will be checked to ensure that they comply with the limits. Travellers exceeding these limits should declare and surrender material in the Red Channel at Customs. Failure to do so may result in confiscation of the material and prosecution".

<< Prev       Next >>