FAO member countries and organizations that participated in the `'Ministerial Meeting on the Experiences of FMD'', held during the thirty-first session of the FAO Conference, have all lent their unalloyed support to the call for a global partnership to fight the devastating effects of FMD in the world. During the Ministerial meeting, it was observed that FMD goes beyond a veterinary issue and that its negative consequences are not limited to the agriculture sector alone, but also encompass the livelihoods of rural people, as demonstrated recently by the FMD outbreak in Europe.
In Europe, around four million animals were slaughtered in 2001 in order to eradicate the FMD epidemic. The impact of epidemic animal diseases on agriculture, trade and food security assumes an even greater dimension in the developing countries of Africa, Latin and South America, the Near East and South and Southeast Asia, where FMD outbreaks have been reported. Hence the need for a global approach. But a global approach also requires global partners.
The FAO Director-General, Dr Jacques Diouf, says it is possible to reduce the risk of FMD and calls for a global information and early warning system for transboundary animal diseases
In his opening address, the FAO Director-General, Dr Jacques Diouf, stated inter alia, `'It is possible to drastically reduce the risk of such terrible animal diseases as FMD. For animal diseases, however, we need a system similar to the one already developed by FAO for food crops: a global information and early warning system for transboundary animal diseases that takes account of the official reporting of the Office international des épizooties (OIE) and other sources of epidemiological information on the dynamics of disease."
He continued, `'With increasing globalization, the potential is there that different FMD types could spread widely from their natural habitats in developing countries, unless effective control measures are put into place at source, where they are endemic.'' The Director-General further called upon the industrialized nations to give support to the developing countries in their fight against animal diseases as such support could help reduce and forestall the risk of FMD outbreaks in developed countries.
Dr Louise O. Fresco, FAO Assistant Director-General, Agriculture Department, was at hand to welcome participants, who comprised agriculture ministers and government delegates from 80 member countries.
The meeting was chaired by the Minister of Agriculture of the Netherlands, Mr L.J. Brinkhorst, assisted by the Minister of Agriculture of India, Mr Shri Ajit Singh. The keynote speakers were Mr Johan De Leeuw (Director-General of the Ministry of Agriculture of the Netherlands) and Dr Taneja (Indian Animal Husbandry Commissioner).
FAO Director-General Dr Jacques Diouf speaking during the Conference
AVENTINO PHOTOLAB ROME
The global action called upon against FMD will benefit from the positive experience of a similar FAO initiative, under the name GREP, launched in the 1980s with the declared objective of eliminating rinderpest from the world by the year 2010
The Director-General of the Ministry of Agriculture of the Netherlands gave a succinct analysis of the FMD situation in the Netherlands, revealing that although the 2001 epidemic was restricted to a relatively small part of the country, the Netherlands had paid a high cost, the equivalent of US$250 million, to control the outbreak. The enforcement of control measures took another US$50 million, plus over US$100 million in lost incomes to affected farmers and in other related industries. Another huge price had been paid, this time an ethical one, associated with the mass slaughter of healthy animals that otherwise would have been ready for the trade market. In total, 26 farms were infected and 265 000 animals were killed. The strategy adopted in the Netherlands case was the stamping-out measure associated with vaccination.
The Minister of Agriculture of India spoke from the perspective of the developing countries, highlighting the threats posed by animal diseases such as FMD to the very important agriculture sector in the developing economies. These threats lower production, which inevitably leads to barrier restrictions and, as a consequence, mines the root of development. He pledged the support of his Government to the global partnership against FMD. The Indian Animal Husbandry Commissioner highlighted the difficulties encountered by the developing countries in their fight against FMD, including the economic situation (low level of investment in the livestock sector generally), lack of awareness and poor research.
In his contribution, the Director of the FAO Animal Production and Health Division, Mr S. Jutzi, spoke on `'FMD control/eradication in support of international agricultural development'', throwing more light on the mechanisms of FMD, i.e. cause and effects. He further observed that the `'ease of disease spread against a background of globalization of trade, with increased mobility of people, goods and services, put the entire world at risk. It was therefore necessary to attack FMD at its source - in developing countries where the disease is endemic - and this would require a global campaign against the disease. FAO was ready and willing to provide technical assistance to an international alliance against FMD to make the world a safer place for livestock production and trade."
The global action called upon against FMD will benefit from the positive experience of a similar FAO initiative, under the name GREP. This Programme was launched in the 1980s with the declared objective of eliminating rinderpest from the world by the year 2010.
As part of the Ministerial meeting programme, there was a multimedia presentation of the activities of the Emergency Prevention System (EMPRES) for Transboundary Animal and Plant Pests and Diseases. Through EMPRES, FAO works to control and eliminate progressively epidemic livestock diseases. The call for a global information and early warning system made by the FAO Director-General is in line with the EMPRES strategy. EMPRES, to carry out its programme effectively, employs a four-pronged approach: early warning, early reaction, enabling research and coordination. To date, over 20 countries are now testing TADinfo software developed by EMPRES.
FAO Plenary Hall during the Conference
AVENTINO PHOTOLAB ROME
During the debate session, there were more than 20 contributions from ministers and delegates of participating member countries and organizations, including the Director-General of OIE. This showed the profound interest generated by the meeting, as was duly noted by the chairman, Mr Brinkhorst.
The Syrian Minister of Agriculture proposed that FAO serve as an information `'clearing-house'', in collaboration with other international agencies (OIE, WHO) having stakes in the issue, in order to manage the huge scientific information demands that the total fight against animal diseases such as FMD would generate. Many other speakers shared this view.
The South African Minister of Agriculture, while welcoming this FAO meeting as timely, reported what she referred to as its `'limited outlay of African experience'' and called for a special FAO initiative to document the FMD experience in Africa.
The Belgium representative, Mr Raf Bombeek, who spoke on behalf of the European Union (EU) Presidency, referred to the EU conference on FMD to be held on 12 and 13 December 2001 in Brussels. He announced that the goal of the conference, organized jointly by the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, the EU Commission and Belgium, is to make a global assessment of the situation on FMD, and that more than 20 international speakers are expected to honour the conference. The FAO Director-General is scheduled to deliver the keynote address.
Other speakers at the Ministerial meeting reported on the FMD situation in their respective countries, calling for attention at the regional as well as the national levels, to be coordinated by FAO.
The Spanish representative (Chief Veterinary Officer), who is also chairman of the European Commission for the Control of Foot-and-Mouth Disease (EUFMD), established in 1954 with 33 member countries, thanked the organizers of the Ministerial meeting. He expressed the wish that the experiences of FAO technical units and the individual countries be taken into consideration in the fight to eradicate FMD.
Burkina Faso, Senegal, the Sudan and Swaziland all voiced their concern for the high cost and psychological (emotional) and social consequences connected with the mass slaughter of animals, calling for help from developed countries and a new assessment to determine the risks associated with vaccination and non-vaccination control options.
The Director-General of OIE, Dr Bernard Vallat, in his remarks, recalled how FAO is an OIE privileged partner, supplying expertise to member countries on animal disease control and eradication. He also stated that OIE is determined to implement the recommendations of the OIE/FAO April 2001 Paris Conference, which included:
Concluding, Dr Vallat called on OIE member countries for their strong support to ensure the rapid realization of these recommendations and thanked the organizers of the Ministerial meeting for the invitation extended to him.
The history of FMD in the United Kingdom (UK) dates back to 1839, when it was first detected, with stamping out as a control measure being adopted for the first time in the country in 1892 (Report of the Department Committee on FMD, London, 1952-54).
There was also a substantial outbreak of the disease in 1922, which developed into an epidemic. Over 4 000 outbreaks were recorded in the three years until 1924, and approximately 250 000 animals were slaughtered. During the period 1929-53, FMD was endemic throughout Europe and occurrences were frequent, although most were rapidly contained. FAO estimated that the direct economic losses in Europe as a result of the great epidemic of 1951/2 stood at £ stg 143 million.
In 1967-8, there was a major FMD epidemic in the UK, with a total of 2 364 recorded outbreak cases and over 400 000 animals slaughtered. After the adoption of the Northumberland Report in 1969 (and also the Report of the Committee on Foot-and-Mouth Disease), no outbreak was recorded until 1981. The latter occurred in the Isle of Wight and was immediately eradicated without spread. The quick eradication was possible because a cattle owner promptly reported to the authorities, already alerted by meteorology-based predictions, a case of suspected FMD in his herd.
No new outbreak reported since 30 September 2001. A £74 million Business Recovery Fund has been provided. Estimated compensation costs to farmers for animals slaughtered are £1 116 million, of which £961 million have been paid
The outbreak recorded on 20 February 2001 was the first since 1981, and developed into epidemic proportions that had wide repercussions across Europe, with cases confirmed in the UK, France and the Netherlands. The disease was detected in an abattoir housing pigs near Brentwood in Essex and laboratory analysis confirmed it as belonging to the Pan-Asia topotype of FMDV, type O (EMPRES Bulletin 16/1- 2001).
According to reports from the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), the number of confirmed outbreaks in 2001 as at 30 September stood at 2 030, and since then there have been no new outbreaks. The UK authorities decided to adopt a stamping-out policy to control the spread of the disease. As at 31 October, official records showed that 3 933 000 animals had been slaughtered (including cattle, sheep, pigs, goats and deer).
To counter the effects of the consequences of the outbreak and give support to farmers who were hit hard and are still suffering, the UK Government launched a number of initiatives, among which is a Business Recovery Fund (BRF). On 18 October 2001, the Government announced an extension of £24 million, bringing the total BRF fund at disposal to £74 million. Estimated compensation costs to farmers for animals slaughtered during the epidemic are £1 116 million, of which £961 million had been paid to farmers as at 23 August 2001.
Following the outbreak, the UK Government constituted three Commissions of Inquiry:
The 2001 epidemic was characterized by the "silent" spread of subclinically infected sheep that had been moved through markets to several parts of the country
The difference between the two epidemics of 1967 and 2001 lies in a number of variables. The 1967 disease occurrence was a regional epidemic, centred on the Cheshire Plain, which had one of the highest concentrations of livestock in the world at the time. To this fact was attributed the rapid, mainly airborne, spread of the disease. The Cheshire Plain encompasses the Northwest Midlands and North Wales, where 94 percent of the total cases (2 364) were recorded; another 11 neighbouring counties were affected, but with a small number of cases.
In comparison, the current outbreak (2001) has become a national epidemic. While the number of cases reported on any one day has never risen above 50, and is therefore significantly below the peaks in 1967, the geographical dispersal of the disease across the country before the first case was diagnosed has been much more widespread.
The explanation for this lies in the different ways in which the disease spread during the two epidemics. According to the Ministry of Agriculture (MAFF), the 1967 epidemic was mainly a cattle epidemic, with fewer movements, over short distances. Moreover, almost all the secondary outbreaks resulted from local spread caused by wind, birds, rodents and other fauna.
By contrast, the 2001 epidemic was characterized by the "silent" spread of subclinically infected sheep that had been moved through markets to several parts of the country. Such movements caused at least 92 of the cases in the current outbreak (and, in particular, the vast majority of the initial cases). Of the 1 471 infected prem-ises identified by 25 April 2001, 1 215 had sheep, of which 236 were sheep-only premises.
Airborne infection by species
Source: FAO/Good Emergency Management Practices (GEMP)
The source of infection remains to be confirmed and is still being investigated - but the picture of disease spread is clear to the authorities. A farm at Heddon on the Wall, Northumberland with a licence to feed swill to pigs, is suspected. While efforts continue in order to resolve the question, it is likely that "infection spread by airborne plume from the source farm to seven other farms in Tyne and Wear" and further spread across the country through sheep sent to markets at Longtown (Cumbria), Carlisle, etc.
After the news of the UK outbreak, both the European Community and individual member countries took measures to prevent the disease from spreading. Control measures imposed include a ban on the UK livestock export trade (i.e. of all animals susceptible to FMD disease and of associated animal products). A limited resumption of the UK's pigmeat exportation has been agreed, effective 22 October 2001; however, the go-ahead directive is restricted to certain counties of the UK that did not witness any FMD case in the current outbreak, or do not adjoin high risk areas.
Other control measures adopted by various EU countries, within the framework of European legislation, range from strict border controls to the closure of abattoirs and the banning of movement of all farm animals in Ireland. In Spain, it involved the slaughter of more than 500 pigs imported from the UK and the testing of 66 000 animals imported from France.
In France, since 13 April, no new cases have been reported after the initial two confirmed cases in March and, as a consequence, the EU has lifted export bans on French livestock. The French authorities destroyed 20 000 sheep imported from the UK and another 30 000 that had been in contact with UK animals, and are maintaining import bans from the UK, Ireland and Belgium.
In the Netherlands, 26 outbreaks were confirmed as at 13 September and 265 000 animals were killed. The authorities in the country implemented a stamping-out policy associated with vaccination. No new cases have been reported since 23 April.
Sources: www.defra.gov.uk (DEFRA, UK DCS database).
The Journal of the Ministry of Agriculture. London, June 1922.