 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FMD legal issues - some comments and suggestions
28 Aug 2003 Dear all, An important report has recently been published, and another is in press, discussing some of the legal aspects of the handling of the UK 2001 FMD epidemic and the implications for current measures of control. I copy below some extracts from the "The Power to Panic: The Animal Health Act 2002" and from a BBC report on "Carnage by Computer: The Blackboard Economics of the 2001 Foot and Mouth Epidemic". Lest you dismiss these legal issues as an irrelevant sideline, I would ask you to welcome and value this contribution as a much-needed public form of "checks and balances" on executive power. The authors make some important points, but I disagree with their conclusion that there is "need for a complete re-examination of livestock rearing practices". I suggest that the Government does not yet have in place a realistic and effective disease control policy, and that implementation of such a policy is their responsibility. Livestock rearing practices are highly dependent on factors beyond our control, relating to the animals themselves and to the climate. The regulations which govern livestock rearing practices should be subject to a consultation and decision making process which is within our control and which is open and transparent to all who are involved. I suggest that, contrary to the author's conclusions, there is a need for a complete re-examination of the Government's interactions with and support for those engaged in livestock rearing practices, including the following seven key points: 1. Open and accessible information to all relevant documents and consultations, by regular "newsletter" emails to stakeholders and with links to these documents and consultations from one easy-to-find Defra "newsletter" website. Some consultation processes are crucial to national and international disease control and to decisions on what measures are acceptable. Background information should be easily available, such as that which would provide stakeholders with a thorough understanding of the EC’s role in setting out the regionalisation conditions. Access by stakeholders to this information needs to be improved; two very different examples of current shortcomings are provided below: 1.1 The first example is of inconsistent information provided to different groups of stakeholders by different groups within Defra. A well-structured website, organised by topics and cross-referenced, would help to identify and weed out these inconsistencies at an early stage. The current consultation on "the definition of "farm animal genetic resources" to meet requirements under the new EU FMD Directive" involves inconsistent lists from Defra on what categories of animals would be included: in some documents it is only the major species recognised by the RBST; in other documents it is based on the SoWAnGR Country Report which includes other species; and in yet another document on a Defra website which was brought to our attention by warmwell, "other flocks and herds of high genetic value, and hefted sheep" are included. It would be helpful to have a consistent and accessible starting point on which to base the consultation. 1.2 The second example is of absence of information. At the highest level, the ultimate source for rules and regulations pertaining to agricultural practices rests with the OIE, as the international standard-setting organisation. Only the official delegate, the CVO (or the national equivalent, as in the US it is the Deputy Administrator of Veterinary Services, APHIS) can report to the OIE, and even when the OIE investigates "unofficial reports", it is the CVO who responds. Consequently, input into the decision making process of OIE depends on each country having a CVO who informs and consults with stakeholders. This is particularly significant when objections to change can easily outweigh the lack of response from those approving change, when such a lack of response may have been the result of failure to consult with stakeholders. With regard to OIE's recent draft proposals, including standards governing the safe trade of animals and animal products and standards for methods of diagnosing diseases of animals and for testing biological products, such as vaccines, used for disease control purposes, I invite you to contrast the absence of information from Defra with the detailed and timely information provided to US stakeholders, and note that the APHIS website even provides stakeholders with helpful comments to facilitate effective submissions: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ncie/oie/ . 2. Access by all to non-confidential comments sent by the public to Defra in response to their consultations. Currently these are open for inspection only at Defra HQ in London. The internet publication of the Hutton Inquiry evidence is a model of truly open access. 3. A revised and updated FMD Contingency Plan which takes into account individual electronic animal ID and the use of rapid portable virus diagnostic tests which can and should be linked to an updated GIS database, thus increasing the chances of prompt identification of an index case and allowing for real-time management and enabling useful post-epidemic epidemiological data analysis. 4. Simulation exercises to test/evaluate the practicality of the contingency plans which involve stakeholders and lawyers so that the practical and legal aspects can be considered. Is there a published timetable for such exercises? 5. Demonstrable support for the concerns and problems, especially economic, faced by livestock keepers. Such support is necessary to ensure their willingness to regularly inspect their livestock for unusual symptoms and notify the SVS if there is a suspicion of FMD or other notifiable disease. Livestock keepers are in the front line, and their cooperation is essential. 6. If there is to be a fundamental change in livestock rearing practices, consideration should be given to a reform of the system of disease insurance and veterinary involvement, with a suggestion to consider the model of the Hachaklait system which has been successfully operating in Israel for over 80 years. This could provide a model for a system, ideally partially state subsided. Note that the benefits could include transfer of cumbersome record keeping from the individual livestock keeper and holding to the organisation and its vets. 7. Above all, the creation (which is a requirement in the EU FMD Directive) of "a permanently operational Expert Group ... to maintain expertise and assist the relevant authority in qualitative disease preparedness", with assurance that the appointments to this Expert Group will be undertaken in an open and transparent manner and that the composition will include international expertise in FMD diagnosis, vaccination and in relevant new technologies. A written parliamentary question to Lord Whitty which addresses the creation and composition of the Expert Group will be tabled by Lord Plumb on September 1st. This includes a list, which is based on detailed suggestions from David Paton (IAH-Pirbright), of the expertise required to fulfill the responsibilities specified in Article 78.1-3 of the Directive, namely expertise in: - FMD diagnosis - vaccination as a control measure - international developments of relevant new technologies, in diagnostics, surveillance, electronic ID, vaccines and anti-virals, and robotics (for lab tests) - the workings of the state veterinary service - animal husbandry practices in the UK, including commercial and non-commercial, breeds at risk, minor breeds, companion animals and wildlife - epidemiology of veterinary infectious diseases - epidemiological modelling and cost-benefit prediction - risk assessment and risk management - legal matters relating to disease control - environmental controls relating to carcass disposal - general rural affairs, including tourism Mary Marshall Animal Health Policy Coordinator European Livestock Alliance 28 August 2003 |
|
|
|
|
