FVO Audits on Contingency Planning and Animal Welfare

FVO Audits on
Contingency Planning
and
Animal Welfare at slaughter
Juha Junttila
Deputy Head of Unit,
Animal health and welfare
Food and Veterinary Office
Animal Health Advisory Committee meeting
Brussels, 14 March 2014
Relevant EU Legislation
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Council
Council
Council
Council
Council
Council
Council
Council
Council
Directive
Directive
Directive
Directive
Directive
Directive
Directive
Directive
Directive
92/35/EEC – African Horse Sickness
92/66/EEC – Newcastle Disease
92/119/EEC – other OIE listed diseases
2000/75/EC – Bluetongue
2002/60/EC – African Swine Fever
2001/89/EC – Classical Swine Fever
2003/85/EC – Foot-and-Mouth Disease
2005/94/EC – Avian Influenza
2006/88/EC – Aquatic Animal diseases
The current EU CP–legislation
o Differences in wording, phrasing, scope,
depth, details and structure of the
requirements for contingency planning (not
necessarily related to the specific disease
conditions)
o FMD - the most advanced requirements
o The new EU Animal Health Law will contain
general provisions for CP
Components of a contingency plan
9 Legal powers
9 Equipment and infrastructure
9 Financial provisions
9 Operational manuals
9 Chain of command
9 Emergency vaccination
9 NDCC, LDCC
9 Training
9 Expert group
9 Disease awareness
9 Human resources
Previous and planned FVO audits on
contingency planning
Overall report by FVO (2003)
¾ DG SANCO 2003-9502
series in 15 MS (FMD & CSF)
http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/specialreports/sr_rep_9502-2003_en.pdf
Main conclusions:
• Contingency plans not consistently updated
• Insufficient resource for initial response to major
outbreaks
• Simulation exercises to control disease outbreaks did not
include cross border cooperation
• Destruction and disposal of carcases could be a bottleneck
if there are large numbers of outbreaks
External appraisal of FVO role
• Evaluation of the EU rapid response network, crisis management
and communication capacity regarding certain transmissible
animal diseases (2012). Led by Agra CEAS Consulting Ltd.
http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/diseases/strategy/pillars/docs/23_final_report_eu_rapid_response.pdf
• Main conclusions:
• 5 yr minimum frequency of audits on CP necessary
• FVO audits on CPs relevant and efficient – forward
looking rather than backward looking is best
• Most MS act on FVO recommendations
• FVO audit reports provide reassurance to third
countries
2012-2014 audits
• Implementation of the CPs, with particular focus
on:
9 CPs for all epizootics / emerging diseases?
9 Simulation exercises
9 Surveillance, early detection
9 Depopulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009)
9 Preparedness for emergency vaccination
2012-2014 audits
• Are taking into account:
9 Identification of examples of best practice
9 Problems common to a number of MS
9 Anomalies in current legislation
9 Suggestions for consideration when subordinate
legislation under the new Animal Health Law is drafted
9 Welfare issues with killing animals for disease control
purposes (Regulation 1099/2009)
2012-2014 audits
•
•
•
•
FI: http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/rep_details_en.cfm?rep_inspection_ref=2012-6401
PT: http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/rep_details_en.cfm?rep_inspection_ref=2012-6402
NL: http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/rep_details_en.cfm?rep_inspection_ref=2013-6775
LV: http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/rep_details_en.cfm?rep_inspection_ref=2013-6777
•
•
DE: http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/rep_details_en.cfm?rep_inspection_ref=2013-6778
EE: http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/rep_details_en.cfm?rep_inspection_ref=2013-6781
•
The reports of missions to Slovak (2014-7046), Sweden (2013-6780) and UK
(2013-6776) have not been published yet.
•
Audits to France and Romania are scheduled for 2nd half of 2014.
2012-2014 audits - Initial conclusions
Positive 1
9 CPs drafted for main diseases
9 Sufficient legal powers and access to resources
(costs shared with industry in some countries)
9 Command and control structures defined
9 Surveillance generally in place (Active and Passive)
9 Cross border exercises taking place
9 Prompt actions taken on suspicions
9 Laboratories generally competent
9 Biosecurity schemes in place (many industry driven)
2012-2014 audits - Initial conclusions
Positive 2
9Inventory of language skills
9Dissemination of knowledge – "cascade training"
9Modular structure of the CPs
9Spreadsheet tool for predicting killing capacity
9Integration of LDCCs into Provincial crisis centres
2012-2014 audits - Initial conclusions
Opportunities for improvement 1
9 Coherence between documents
Keeping local documents up to date e.g. contact lists.
Local staff using out of date hard copies (version control)
9 Killing and disposal of carcases can quickly overwhelm
existing facilities, transport resources etc.
9 Lab methods not always accredited – occasional lack of
clarity on how poor ring test results are addressed
9 Lab capacity problems if there were major outbreaks.
Facilities need to contain dangerous pathogens
9 Simulation exercises need to cover worst case scenarios
and test staff at front line level (including partner
organisations)
2012-2013 audits - Initial conclusions
Opportunities for improvement 2
9 Different approaches to setting up and using expert groups
9 Different approaches to assessing risks of introduction of
epizootic diseases
9 Insufficient consideration of plans for vaccination
9 Insufficient consultation of environmental authorities in
advance (for disposal of carcasses)
9 Different approaches to exclusion diagnosis
9 Preparation for large scale depopulation (AW)
Overall initial impression first nine MS
MS that have experienced major outbreaks are in general well
prepared. In particular the links with agencies outside the
normal CA structure are in place and kept active in "peace
time".
However, some MS would struggle in the face of an
overwhelming outbreak particularly with the logistics of
transporting and disposal of carcases.
How do we address this problem??
Animal welfare at slaughter
Regulation (EC) 1099/2009
• New approach to AW at the time of killing
• Pilot audit in EE – June 2013
• Report template and audit plans based on
experience from this pilot
• Audits to LV, IT, ES, UK, DK, CZ, DE, HU, AT, NL
and BE scheduled for 2014
• Overview report expected in 2015
Audit objectives 1
• The main objective of the audit is to evaluate the
effectiveness of business operators’ own controls
and official controls collectively in ensuring the
objectives of Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009
(sparing animals from any avoidable pain,
distress or suffering during their killing and
related operations), in particular:
Audit objectives 2
• •
The assurances given by official controls regarding the
business
operators’
compliance
with
applicable
requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009; and
• •
Whether the Competent Authorities have implemented
Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 in the context of animal
welfare at the time of slaughter and whether the
implementation is effective and suitable in achieving the
objectives of that Regulation (high quality of official
controls; and
• •
Member State’s and Competent Authorities’ compliance
with specific requirements of Regulation (EC) No
1099/2009 and the effectiveness of implementation of
those requirements
Audit objectives 3
• In addition to the main objective, and as the
official controls in slaughterhouses contribute to
controls on animal welfare on farms and welfare
during transport, the audits also evaluate
whether:
• Indications of poor welfare conditions of chickens
kept for the production of meat are being
detected
at
slaughterhouse
level
and
subsequently reported and acted on as required
by Article 3 and Annex III of Directive
2007/43/EC; and
Audit objectives 4
• Only animals which are fit for transport are sent
to slaughterhouses, as required by Article 3 and
Chapter I of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No
1/2005, and whether this is supported by the
implementation of procedures in Regulation
853/2004 Annex III section I chapter VI, which
facilitates the killing of “emergency slaughter”
animals on farm and their carcases sent to the
slaughterhouse.
Audit objectives 5
• Furthermore the audits seek to identify good
practices
recognised
by
the
Competent
Authorities in relation to Regulation (EC) No
1099/2009.
Thank you

Download Report