ARTICLES OF INTEREST

MINUTES OF DEFRA MEETINGS WITH STAKEHOLDERS

Avian influenza (Bird flu): Avian Influenza Stakeholder meeting, 11 July 2006

1. David Dawson outlined the three purposes of the meeting, which were to;

Update on latest developments and recent announcements
Take a forward look to the Autumn period
Thank the group for the work of the past year

2. Autumn Qualitative Risk Assessment – The risk to the UK from avian influenza in the coming months – John Wilesmith
2.1 John Wilesmith introduced the Autumn Qualitative Risk Assessment as a summary of how the understanding of the disease has grown over the past nine months. The report highlights the continued need for good surveillance and high standards of biosecurity as a means to minimise the risk that H5N1 will be introduced into the UK.

2.2 The implications of the discovery of a Grebe infected with H5N1 in Northern Spain was considered by expert ornithologists. They believed that the species was unlikely to have mixed with other migratory birds and was not a visitor to the UK, meaning that it did not significantly alter the risk to the UK. However it was mentioned that the more widespread the disease spreads the higher the risk to the UK will be.

3. Update on conclusions following the Norfolk outbreak of H7N3 – An opportunity to discuss the disease pathways for avian influenza – John Wilesmith
3.1 The small scale of the outbreak showed that there was good biosecurity on the premises involved and that it occurred in an area of low poultry density. It is believed that the first free range flock was infected by wild birds. The second free range flock was owned by the same person making it likely that movements passed the infection between them. Foxes are then thought to have transported the infection to the broiler breeder premises.

3.2 Stakeholders asked how the fox transported the disease inside the broiler house. It was thought that maintenance staff working on the back of the building had transported the virus round to the entrance on their shoes. This had then entered the house on the shoes of poultry workers.

3.3 Excellent record keeping on the part of the industry aided tracing of movements from the infected premises. It was acknowledged that Low Pathogenic Avian Influenza is difficult to identify and that Defra were looking to revise guidance for identifying the disease.

3.4 A compartmentalised approach was using in containing the disease rather than implementing 3km and 10km zones. Links between the Infected Premises and other premises were traced and investigated.

3.5 Stakeholders asked whether in future cases businesses might be treated as compartments too, allowing for part of the operation to remain unaffected whilst the other was under restrictions. David Dawson agreed that this would be considered.

3.6 It was agreed that during an outbreak contact with people on the ground was vital. There was constant contact during the outbreak between the LDEC and the NDEC.

4. Plans for future use of the poultry register. Further work and possible changes. – Bill Parish
4.1 Stakeholders were informed that had been no change in the poultry register legislation. It is still only compulsory for those people who own 50 or more birds to register, and anyone with 50 or less birds may still do so voluntarily. The register is being revised to make it a permanent entity and it was suggested that rather than re-registering every year, poultry owners would be asked to update their details if the size or nature of their flock changed significantly.

4.2 They were also informed that on registration, 80% of people consented to their information being used in the event of disease outbreak other than AI, such as Newcastle Disease. Bill Parish proposed to the group that the data protection statement could be rewritten to allow for the data to be used for other poultry related diseases, such as salmonella. Stakeholders stated that this was a sensible measure but that those who have registered must be properly informed of the change and that those who do not wish to take part will have their wishes respected.

4.3 Bill Parish proposed that the ‘commercial criteria’ section should be deleted as this missed out many non-commercial keepers with over 50 birds. The group supported this.

4.4 Stakeholders commented that the Register could be used outside of disease outbreaks to inform those who have registered. This would highlight the added value of registering.

4.5 The group was assured that any further use of the data on the Register would be consulted on.

5. EU proposed changes to State Aid guidelines – Sarah Church
5.1 Information on the proposed changes was circulated to the group following the last meeting on 2 June. Sarah Church highlighted three key changes to the guidelines for disease control. These would be to;

1. Limit aid to only Small and Medium sized Enterprises (SMEs) – defined as companies with less that 250 employees and an annual turnover of under £50 million
2. Limit compensation payments to outbreaks of disease which result in a 30% production loss on the holding concerned
3. Limit compensation payments to 75% of the market value (80% in Less Favoured Areas).

5.2 Under the current timetable these changes would come into force on 1 January 2007. Whilst Defra supports the changes as part of the ongoing cost sharing agenda it also is calling for a delay in implementation to allow those affected time to prepare.

5.3 The CLA asked whether game birds would be included in these measures. Action: This would be looked into to. Sarah Church

5.4 Stakeholders also requested that the proposed changes and their implications be condensed into a document that could be circulated to the group. Action: Document to be produced and circulated.

6. AOB
Vaccination
6.1 Andrew Jones outlined the morning’s Ministerial statement that Defra has invited tenders for 10 million doses of avian influenza vaccine for potential use in poultry and other captive birds. This will be through a contract to supply within a short timescale rather than a purchase of vaccine because of the greater flexibility that gives for vaccine with a limited shelf-life.

The move is part of sensible contingency planning to ensure the availability of supply so that all disease control options are available in the future. However it does not change our policy that we would not vaccinate ahead of an outbreak or as an immediate disease response. Good biosecurity, surveillance and early detection are the most effective methods of disease prevention and control.

6.2 Stakeholders raised whether a preventative vaccination plan would be prepared as another contingency measure. Fred Landeg explained that a number of scenarios have been discussed and recognised that some species of bird cannot be housed. However, our assessment remained that the risk of avian influenza to the UK was not currently high enough to justify vaccination in terms of the limitations of current vaccines, although we continue to keep the disease situation and scientific developments under close review. David Dawson summarised that this was an issue that needed further discussion especially if the risk assessment changed in any way.

6.3 BPC commented that it supported the announcement but would also like further work to be done internationally to make sure that the issue of vaccination is not a barrier to trade.

Product marking
6.4 BRC asked whether SCoFCAH had made a decision on the marking of product leaving a protection zone. Defra had written to the committee asking for the issue to be covered on the meeting of the 18 July.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/diseases/notifiable/disease/ai/stakeholdermtgs/stakeholdermtg110706.htm

2. Open exchange of views on vaccination (prompted by submission from the Poultry Club GB and the British Waterfowl Association)
Dr Christine Ashton from the British Waterfowl Association gave a short presentation on the group’s submission which called for policy to be prepared in the event that the vaccination of non-zoo birds was required (joint submission by hobby groups, organic farmers, and small flock owners). They argued for a policy to be drawn up and sent to the EC for approval should the disease situation require it and stressed that this was not a demand for immediate vaccination. They explained that they own birds which would be difficult to house during an outbreak and they highlighted the extended housing requirement currently in place in Germany as hitting their sector particularly hard.

The proposal was generally supported by other members of the stakeholder group, however a number of practical difficulties were raised. How would vaccinated birds be monitored? Would such vaccination be voluntary? Who would pay? What would the costs be to the export market? What would the exit strategy be if a vaccination programme was implemented? The British Waterfowl Association said that much could be learnt from the experience of the Dutch and how they are currently implementing a similar policy.

There were particular concerns about the time taken to gain EC approval for a vaccination plan. However, it was stressed that this could be done within a matter of days, as with the zoo vaccination plan, and would need to reflect the circumstances at the time. It was agreed that stakeholders would be kept in close touch with developments.

3. Avian Influenza Order 2006: Why it was laid and further possible amendments
Stakeholders were informed that the Avian Influenza Order was implemented before the end of the consultation process so that the most up to date version of legislation was used to deal with the Norfolk incidents. Stakeholders accepted the need to implement the Order before the end of the consultation process. Lessons learned from the Norfolk incidents and the submission received during the consultation process would be included in the revisions made to the Order over the summer.

Julian West asked stakeholders to contact him by Friday 8 June with further comments specifically on the LPAI controls in the Order so that these could be taken into account whilst revising of the Order.

4. Preparing for the Autumn Migration: suggestions and ideas for communications
Stakeholders asked if they agreed that the biosecurity message/information on avian influenza should be re-enforced over the summer in time for the Autumn Migration. There was general praise for the communications work done so far and a desire for it to continue. However caution was urged when reinforcing the message so as to educate rather than frighten the public.Mentioned that the Great Britain Poultry Register could have been better used during the Norfolk incidents to provide more information to those within the restricted zones.

5. Discussion on the risk from game bird imports: action being taken and what more the industry could do.
Game industry stakeholders were asked whether more could be done to reinforce the message of prudence when importing game birds from the continent. Stakeholders responded that it is now too late to get the message across to shoots as they will have made their plans already.Game industry stakeholders were willing to reinforce the biosecurity message with their members and there was an offer from the British Pig Executive (BPEX) to use their contacts with the industry to do the same.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/diseases/notifiable/disease/ai/stakeholdermtgs/stakeholdermtg020606.htm