The BVA submission on Responsibility and Cost Sharing for Animal Health and Welfare

Mike Weavers Defra RCS Programme Nobel House 17 Smith Square London SW1P 3JR 11 April 2008 Dear Mr Weavers The BVA submission on Responsibility and Cost Sharing for Animal Health and Welfare I am delighted to provide you with the British Veterinary Association s submission to Defra s consultation on Responsibility and Cost Sharing for Animal Health and Welfare. The BVA through its divisional structure relevant specialist and territorial divisions is in a unique position to contribute to this discussion, with our knowledge of the various diseases and their impact on our clients farming activities, an understanding of public health and the public interest. This issue has created a great deal of interest within the profession. Our members have clearly indicated their preference for us to focus on the key issues, rather than try and answer the questions posed throughout the consultation document. As a result the BVA has produced our view on the future of animal health and welfare; The Changing Face of Animal Health and Welfare. We recognise the Government and European Union are changing their approach to animal health and welfare and believe this provides an opportunity to consider our collective vision for the future. We look forward to working with Government and industry stakeholders to develop and implement improvements to our animal health and welfare system. Yours sincerely, Nick Blayney President Enc. The Changing Face of Animal Health and Welfare

14 April 2008 THE CHANGING FACE OF ANIMAL HEALTH AND WELFARE Animal diseases can cause serious production losses to livestock industries, jeopardise exports of livestock products, have serious human health implications, reduce food security, affect animal welfare and have significant environmental impacts. It is therefore essential to promote animal health by preventing or reducing the incidence of animal diseases. Further, it is necessary to have effective contingency plans and trained personnel available to control and eradicate any disease outbreaks. The BVA recognises the Government and European Union are changing their approach to animal health and welfare and believes this provides an opportunity to consider our collective vision for the future. This is the BVA s view on the future of animal health and welfare. The BVA believes the Government should maintain its financial commitment and seek to improve the overall approach to animal health and welfare. The BVA supports coordinated actions that prevent, control and eradicate outbreaks of animal disease. A genuine partnership The BVA believes there should be a genuine partnership between Government and all industry stakeholders, with shared decision making. This recognises that if industry pays, it must have greater say. There should be greater independence of decision making from day-to-day politics, with an approach that focuses on the best available scientific evidence. To achieve this, the BVA believes the body that oversees animal health and welfare should be a non-departmental public body, such as the Environment Agency. Integration of policy and delivery The BVA believes there needs to be stronger links between policy and delivery. This would improve communication and cooperation, making preventative actions more effective and ensuring a more timely and coordinated response to any disease outbreaks. Greater integration would also ensure lessons learned are lessons shared. Enhanced border biosecurity The BVA believes the Government and the European Union need to enhance border biosecurity to reduce the risk of avoidable disease incursion and spread.

BVA POLICY STATEMENT 14 APRIL 2008 This includes improving third country border controls and enhancing European Community communication and coordination. This approach follows from the European Union Animal Health Strategy, a central tenet of which is that prevention is better than cure. It also recognises a clear role for Government and the European Union, which would complement improved industry disease risk management. Great Britain is a single epidemiological unit Great Britain is a single epidemiological unit and should be considered as such. However, decision making should encourage regional flexibility, not just with regard to devolution but also scientific evidence of regional variation. Cost sharing as an incentive for action The BVA recognises that effective biosecurity at the enterprise and industry level is extremely important in mitigating the risk of animal disease introduction and spread. The BVA believes any cost sharing arrangements must provide industry with an incentive for action they should not simply be a flat levy on farmers, but should rather encourage all interested parties to improve their practice. Cost sharing should reward those that achieve good animal health and welfare outcomes. Licence animal keepers The BVA believes it is time to licence keepers whose animals are a potential reservoir of disease infection. This will provide a register of kept animals for use during disease outbreaks. As part of a licence scheme, those animal keepers that have good practice should be rewarded through lower fees. This should include actions that reduce risk, such as: good on-farm biosecurity; enhancing surveillance; husbandry that minimises unnecessary animal movements; and improving farm-level integration. Animal health levy The BVA believes any animal health and welfare levy must encourage all enterprise and industry level participants to improve their practice. The BVA is concerned that proposals for flat production levies will not encourage improvement. If a levy is pursued, as well as having incentives, it should be as broad-based as possible and be applied further along the supply chain, possibly at the retail end. This would ensure the entire supply chain contributes; farmers, processors, transporters, retailers and consumers.

BVA POLICY STATEMENT 14 APRIL 2008 The BVA is concerned with the impact of any such levy on the competitiveness of local agricultural industries. Any decision to establish a levy must ensure that it does not disadvantage local industries in the European or global markets. Develop Farm Health Planning as the tool to reduce risk and identify and reward good practice The BVA recognises that Farm Health Planning does help to reduce on-farm risk and can encourage industry stragglers to improve their practice. However, uptake has been limited and there is a need to develop the system beyond merely farm assurance paperwork, to one where all enterprise and industry level participants, in consultation with their professional advisers, plan and audit their success. The BVA believes Farm Health Planning should be developed as the tool to reduce enterprise and industry risk and identify and reward good animal health and welfare outcomes. Evidence-based disease categorisation The BVA believes disease categorisation could be useful in considering disease specific responsibility and cost sharing issues. However, the difficulties of such an approach must be acknowledged and considerations should be based on the best available evidence. To further this discussion, the BVA has developed a draft veterinary perspective on notifiable diseases (see attached The BVA Summary of Notifiable Diseases). This approach is based on that applied to emergency animal diseases in the Australian Veterinary Emergency Plan. Continued support for research and development The BVA believes Government should continue its commitment to animal health and welfare research and development. This recognises the broader public benefit of this research. In particular, further investment in disease surveillance should be considered. This includes activities such as disease incidence scanning to collect evidence of, and plan for exotic diseases that pose a high risk of incursion into the UK. Future consultation The BVA looks forward to working with the Government and industry stakeholders to develop and implement improvements to our animal health and welfare system.

Key Category: Agent: Transmission: The BVA Summary of Notifiable Diseases 1. These are notifiable diseases that predominantly seriously affect human health and / or the environment (depletion of native fauna) but may only have minimal direct consequences to industry. Suggested cost sharing Government = 100%, industry = 0%. 2. These are notifiable diseases that have the potential to cause major national socio-economic consequences through very serious international trade losses, national market disruptions and very severe production losses in the industries that are involved. This category includes diseases that may have slightly lower national socio-economic consequence, but also have significant public health and / or environmental consequences. Suggested cost sharing Government = 80%, industry = 20%. 3. These are notifiable diseases that have the potential to cause significant (but generally moderate) national socio-economic consequences through international trade losses, market disruptions and severe production losses to affected industries, but have minimal or no affect on human health or the environment. Suggested cost sharing Government = 50%, industry = 50%. 4. These are notifiable diseases that could be classified as being mainly production loss diseases. While there may be international trade losses and local market disruptions, these would not be of a magnitude that would be expected to significantly affect the national economy. The main beneficiaries of a successful emergency response to an outbreak of such a disease would be the affected industry(s). Suggested cost sharing Government = 20%, industry = 80%. B - bacteria, F - fungus, R - rickettsia, V - virus, P parasite Spread ++ major form of spread + minor form of spread (+) possible or very minor form of spread Human health risk Domesticated species affected Aerosol ++ long distance (km) + adjacent herds / flocks (+) within herd / flock Transmission Semen / Embryos known to be transmitted likely/possible to be transmitted unlikely/most probably not transmitted? unknown Notifiable disease Category Agent Live animal Products & Comments Fomites Vector Aerosol Semen Embryos contact by-products African Horse Sickness 2 V Nil All equidae, dogs (+) ++ Stable ph 4-13; carriers; T<69 O C African Swine Fever 3 V Nil Pigs, warthogs ++ + + + +? Stable ph 4-13; T<69 O C; carriers, env 1 month Anthrax 4 B Yes All mammals ++ + (+) (+) Spores very stable; T<60 O C Aujeszky s Disease Pigs, cattle, sheep, Unstable ph 5-9; T<37 O C, effluent 3 days; fomites 2-7 4 V Nil ++ + (+) ++ goats, dogs days Avian Influenza (Bird flu) Strain Carrier; T<70 O C 30 mins ; ph 5.5-8 ; survives at low 2 V dependant Chickens, Turkeys ++ + ++ - (+) - tem, products at low temp 23 days Bluetongue Sheep, goats, cattle, Culicoides spp vector; unstable at high temp; stable in 3 V Nil buffaloes, camels, antelopes, deer?(+) ++ blood <20 O C; ph>6.5 Bovine Spongiform Cattle, cats, Stable; environment highly resistant 2 Prion Yes ++ Encephalopathy (BSE) antelope Brucellosis (Brucella Aborted material; carriers; environmental survival 3-6 2 B Yes Cattle, horses ++ + abortus) months; T<72 O C Brucellosis (Brucella Carriers; environment 3-6 months; aborted material at 2 B Yes Goats, sheep ++ ++ + (+) melitensis) high risk Classic Swine Fever 3 V Nil Pigs ++ ++ + + mechanical? 3 forms; stable, T<60 O C for 10 min, ph 5-10 ; vaccine Contagious agalactia 3 B Sheep, goats ++ + + Contagious Bovine Pleuro- Cattle, water Carrier; poor environmental survival; T<60 O C 3 B Nil ++ + + Pneumonia buffalo, zebu Contagious Epididymitis Venereal infection 3 B Nil Sheep ++ (Brucella ovis) Contagious Equine Metritis 4 B Nil Horses ++ ++ Venereal infection ; carrier ; T<50 O C Dourine Venereal infection, also spread through mild to foals; 4 P Nil Equidae ++ carrier, unstable

Notifiable disease Category Agent Human Transmission Domesticated health Live animal Products & species affected Fomites Vector Aerosol Semen Embryos risk contact by-products Comments Eastern Equine 1 V All equidae ++ Carriers ; several mosquito spp ; Unstable Encephalitis Enzootic Bovine Leukosis 4 V Nil Cattle + + + Spread by blood contact (vector, injection) Epizootic Haemorrhagic Culicoides spp vector; 3 V Nil Deer ++ Virus Disease Epizootic Lymphangitis 4 F Nil Equidae ++ ++ Transmission poorly understood; stable in soil Equine encephalosis 4 V Nil Equidae ++ Carrier; Culicoides spp; T<60OC Equine Viral Arteritis Horses Equine Infectious Anaemia 4 V Nil Horses ++ + Biting flys; blood products Foot and Mouth Disease ly contagious / infectious; aerosol in pigs 2 V Rare All cloven hoofed ++ ++ ++ ++ especially; environmental survival weeks; carcase 48h, milk / semen 56 days, chilled product months; T<56 O C 30 min Glanders and Farcy 4 B Equidae ++ + Carrier; environment 30 days Goat pox and sheep pox 2 V Nil Sheep, goats ++ (+) Stable; environment 6 months, wool scabs 3 (+) mechanical months; ph6.6-8.6; T<65 O C Henipavirus 1 V Horses and man ++ Not particularly resistant to heat or chemicals Japanese Encephalitis 1 V All equidae ++ Unstable ; Mosquitos (Culex spp); Bats; Pigs important Lumpy Skin Disease Stable; survival skin 4 months; blood 5 days; saliva 11 4 V Nil Cattle, water buffalo + + ++ days; semen 22 days; ph 6.6-8.6; Stomoxys calcitrans Newcastle Disease Unstable; sunlight <30 mins; manure & protected for Chickens, Turkeys, 3 V Rare ++ + ++ - ++ weeks; T<100 O C 1 min; more susceptible to alkali Game birds than acid Paramyxovirus of pigeons 4 V Rare Pigeons ++ + ++ ++ Peste des Petits Sheep, goats, Unstable; ph>5.5; environment <4 days; products 2 V Nil ++ (+) (+) + Ruminants (cattle, pigs) months; T<56 O C Rabies 1 V Yes All mammals ++ (+) Unstable in environment; stable ph 5-10 @ 4 O C Rift Valley Fever Cattle, sheep, Mosquito vector; Stable; ph 7-9 ; environment 2 V Yes + + ++ (+) goats, dogs unstable UV; T<56 O C Rinderpest (Cattle plague) 2 V Nil Cattle, sheep, pigs ++ + (+) (+) Unstable except milk, 45 days; T<70 O C; ph 7.2-7.9 Scrapie 3 Prion Nil Sheep, goats ++ (+) Stable; environment highly resistant Swine Vesicular Disease 3 V Nil Pigs ++ ++ ++? Stable; T<69 O C; ph 2-12 Teschen Disease Environment 3-4 weeks; stable; ph 2.8-9.5; T<60 O C; 4 V Nil Pigs ++ ++ + 300 days aerated slurry @ 5 O C Tuberculosis (Bovine TB) Cattle, deer, Carrier; very persistent; environment 3 months, 3 B Yes ++ + + + camelids, pigs excreted in milk Venezuelan Equine 1 V All equidae ++ Carriers ; several mosquito spp ; Unstable Encephalitis Vesicular Stomatitis Biting flies vector; unstable; environment <4 days ; Equidae and all 3 V Nil ++ ++ T<60OC; sensitive to detergents and commonly used cloven hoofed disinfectants Warble fly 4 P Nil Cattle, deer, horses ++ Western Equine 1 V All equidae ++ Carriers ; several mosquito spp ; Unstable Encephalitis West Nile Virus 1 V All equidae ++ Please note: The entry for Equine Viral Encephalomyelitis has been separated into entries for Eastern Equine Encephalitis, Equine Encephalosis, Henipavirus, Japanese Encephalitis, Venezuelan Equine Encephalitis, Western Equine Encephalitis and West Nile Virus to reflect the quite different threat levels and necessary control measures.