January 2017 NKVet symposium Oslo, Norway

Transcription

1 Ongoing animal health and welfare projects Nordic and arctic veterinary authority collaboration Þóra Jóhanna Jónasdóttir Veterinary officer for pet diseases and animal welfare Office of animal health and welfare Icelandic Food and Veterinary Authority (MAST) January 2017 NKVet symposium Oslo, Norway

2 Initiative of collaboration The Nordic Council of Ministers The Nordic Council of Ministers>Council of Ministers> Official inter-governmental body for co-operation in the Nordic Region Different subgroups (11) covering different policy areas Nordic Council of Ministers for Fisheries and Aquaculture, Agriculture, Food and Forestry (MR FJLS) MR-FJLS consists of a single council of ministers covering four policy areas: Fisheries and Aquaculture, Agriculture, Food and Forestry. The core tasks of MR-FJLS involve promoting sustainable use of nature and genetic resources.

3 The Nordic Council of Ministers Many working groups (28) Nordic Working Group for Microbiology & Animal Health and Welfare (NMDD) Established in 2007 Objective: Ensure collaboration of Nordic Authority within these fields Forum to exchange information about the situation in each country Forum to support initiative of collaboration on various projects

4 Nordic similarities and differences Similarities Comparable values regarding animal welfare Nordic climate Differences Different legal framework Sweden, Denmark and Finland in EU Greenland and Faroe Islands Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein in EEA Different challenges regarding border control Different situation of diseases

5 NMDD projects 2016 (8) 1. Nordic-baltic veterinarian contingency group(nbvcg) Objective: improve cooperation, communication and exchange of information and experience, in the context of contingency planning and during animal disease crises 2. Source attribution of campylobacter in the Nordic countries Objective: evaluate existing models and establish a methodology for source attribution of Campylobacter in the Nordic countries 3. Nordic contingency diagnostics Objective: To strengthen diagnostic capacity of highly pathogen microorganism in Nordic countries through workshop 4. One health expert meeting Objective: To evaluate antibiotic-resistance in human and veterinary medicine

6 NMDD projects 2016 (8) 5. Nordic inspection-animal welfare Objective: 2016 welfare of fish. Inspectors can build network and exchange information and knowledge 6. Nordic animal welfare center Objective: to have active network within animal welfare in the Nordic Baltic countries and arrange animal welfare workshops annually 7. Animal based welfare indicators in official inspections Objective: Develop and evaluate ABWI for use in official inspections 8. Arctic Co-operation Objective: Stimulate collaboration in issues with special challenges and of common interest in the arctic countries

7 Presenting two of the NMDD projects A. Animal based welfare indicators Evaluation of practical animal based welfare indicators in routine governmental inspections at farms B. The arctic veterinary collaboration Common challenges and issues of interest in the arctic nordic countries Greenland, Iceland, Faroe Islands and Norway (North-Norway) Danmark is functioning as coordinating base

8 A. Use of animal-based welfare indicators in official inspections at farms Norway Iceland Finland Sweden Denmark Harald Øverby Norway Tor Arne Moe Norway Thora J Jonasdottir Iceland Helena Hepola Finland Lotta Nordensten Sweden Else Enemarak Denmark Objective: To evaluate animal based welfare indicators and develop common and practical scoring system that can be used when carrying out official inspections at farms in the Nordic countries Why Animal based? Why collaboration?

9 Legal framework behind controls EU and national legal framework may be different Finland, Sweden and Denmark have as a minimum EU law and regulations. Usually more stricter national framework Norway and Iceland not in EU but have implemented some of the regulations EU and national legal framework typically resource based Therefor the inspections tend to be focused on resources rather than animals How is the welfare of the animal?

10 The five freedoms and WQ is the base

11 Why develop a new scheme? Welfare Quality is a very precise method of measuring and comparing AW However, WQ is very time consuming and difficult to use in routine inspections with the available resourses assigned to the competent authority We need a screening tool to roughly estimate what is within the legislation and what is not

12 Good indicators for inspections should Identify important indicators of AW Be simple and quick but consistent in the field (although ABWI can be more difficult to measure than ressources) Be a screening tool to define whether the herd is within the legislations, but also consider each animal of importance Be useful for screening a number of herds in short time possibly to make a more risk based control If the herd is not within the legislations the control can be more extensive and go further into causes and consequenses Could also be used at slaughterhouses to point out herds at risk

13 Selection of ABWI - relevant data From farm before visiting Mortality (data owned by the farmer) Slaughterhouses Cleanliness Body condition Score Injuries Claw health On farm Cleanliness Body condition Score Injuries Lameness Emotional status

14

15

16 Cleaniness

17 Lameness

18 Injuries

19 Total scoring

20 Results For use at regular inspections at farms (and possibly ante mortem at slaughterhouses) when evaluating producer s compliance with the animal welfare act. 1. Number of animals to evaluate. Go in every room where animals are kept and identify if there are animals there in the red or yellow category. If you find animals in the yellow zone, then evaluate the approximate percentage of the flock. a. If % get in to >15% (red): Farmer need to do improvement b. If % is 5-15% (yellow): The farm is put in a higher risk category that need to get new inspection repeated earlier then otherwise c. If % is <5% (green) it is acceptable If single animal is in red category but the problem is addressed by farmer and the farmer is already working to solve the problem. Then the farm categorized green The conclusion of the inspection on animal based indicators. Mark/circle around

21 B. The arctic veterinary collaboration The group Auđur Arnϸórsdóttir (IS), Thora Jonasdottir (IS), Oddjó Stovugarđ (FO), Sanne Eline Wennerberg (GL), Stella Ege Kristensen (GL), Birger Willumsen (NO), Knut Madslien, (NO) Birger Willumsen (NO), Anne Louise Carstensen (DK), og Anna Huda (DK) The objective: Stimulate collaboration in issues with special challenges and of common interest in the arctic countries Exchange ideas, experience and knowledge Contingency planning Welfare of sea mammals

22 Emerging diseases Presentation from each country of status How do we avoid introduction of a new disease? Overview of diagnostic capasity What are our weaknesses? How avoid spreading if we get a new disease? How is our contingency planning? What are your responses to new disease?

23 Welfare of sea mammals Commercial hunting Introduction of legal framework in each country How is the activity controlled and inspected by the authority Practice of handling Killing methods Incidental happening Legal framework and responsibility Emergency plan for stranded animal What about animals still swimming? What are strengths and weaknesses? Can we establish a common team of expertise of how to handle large seamammals?

24 Guidelines from England (BDMLR)

25 Entangled whale in Iceland

26 Rescue of a humpback whale 2015 With help from UK og USA Initative: whale watching industry

27