Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

AVT presentation emsland model 2013


Published on

Landkreis Emsland is a district in Lower Saxony, Germany was one of the first to implement a Emergency Response, Management & Control strategy based upon EU 1099/2009. This presentation provides an overview of the consequences of recent large-scale outbreaks and how a successful strategy could contribute to prevent them socio-economic consequenses.

Published in: Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

AVT presentation emsland model 2013

  1. 1. 海外悪性伝染病対策 欧州先進事例紹介合同セミナー The Emsland modelCould this Emergency response approach work in Asia?Presented by Harm KiezebrinkPrincipal consultant AVT AB © 1
  2. 2. OVERVIEW Disease control models: the  Key elements to successful traditional approach response General objectives  The Emsland model International standards  From virus to biomass The end of the traditional  Processes in 10 steps approach within the EU  Would the model work in Fundamental questions Asia? EU Directive 1099/2009  Fundamental questions AVT AB © 2
  3. 3. Disease control models:Traditional approach Government/veterinary authorities are overall responsible for management, control, and field response  National level: declaration of the disease (on suspicion/after confirmation)  Regional level: Organizing and coordinating response activities; inspection/reporting; surveillance/epidemiology; sampling/laboratory, (pre) financing & compensation; logistics, etc.  Local level: Carrying out all response activities; organizing rapid response/culling/disposal/cleaning & disinfection etc. Industry is responsible for biosecurity and prevention AVT AB © 3
  4. 4. General objectives ofInternational standards To safeguard the production and distribution of food/feed that is safe for consumers/animals To maintain the trust of the general public, the distributors and retailers in food safety:  Demonstrable  Transparent  Without unnecessary risks for public health, animal welfare and the environment AVT AB © 4
  5. 5. The end of the traditionalapproach within the EU The EU legislation changed after a series of outbreaks in the UK and Holland with devastating consequences The traditional approach was not based on modern large scale production in concentrated farming areas Both the Government as well as the industry failed to reduce the impact of the large scale outbreaks The public was extremely upset and blamed the large scale production for causing the slaughter of millions of innocent animals AVT AB © 5
  6. 6. Financial consequences1997: Total financial impact Dutch Classic Swine fever outbreak  £ 2,4 billion 0.5兆円2001: Total financial impact UK FMD outbreak:  £13 billion 2.5兆円2003: Total financial impact Dutch AI outbreak:  € 1,275 billion 0.2兆円Quite usual damage, also today:2011: Estimated financial impact Korean MFD outbreak:  W 3 trillion 0.3兆円2010: Estimated financial impact on Japanese MFD/AI outbreak:  JPY 140 billion 0.2兆円(post crisis report of Whiting T, 2003) AVT AB © 6
  7. 7. Organizational conclusions 2001: UK FMD outbreak:  Untrained veterinary staff  Lack of adequate policy, monitoring and oversight  Using the military instead of trained agricultural staff  Logistics competition due to chaotic contracting of suppliers  Lack of planning  No equipment  Lack of Disposal/burial (post crisis report of Whiting T, 2003) AVT AB © 7
  8. 8. Organizational conclusions 2003: Dutch AI outbreak:  Wrong planning based on FMD response plan  Insufficient equipment at the start  Inadequately trained response personnel in quality and quantity  Insufficient rendering capacity  Insufficient monitoring  Outdated policy based on using Cyanide (post crisis report of RIVM 2003) AVT AB © 8
  9. 9. Health related conclusions 2003: Dutch AI outbreak:  4,500 people were in contact with diseased birds  2,250 persons (50%) carried antibodies  453 people showed symptoms  89 people were diseased with H7N7 (3 were not in direct contact with diseased birds)  1 veterinarian died; Approx. 4,050 family members, relatives and friends carried antibodies  Increased stress under veterinary staff, farmers, field workers and their family (post crisis report of RIVM 2003) AVT AB © 9
  10. 10. Destruction of agriculturalinfrastructure 2001: UK FMD outbreak, spreading throughout the EU:  10 million sheep and cattle in the UK where killed  270,000 cattle in Holland where killed  843 infected locations in the UK  Huge impact on tourism (post crisis report of RIVM 2003) AVT AB © 10
  11. 11. Conclusions by the public:Rejection of the industry AVT AB © 11
  12. 12. Dutch public campaign2006 against the industry Translation: Stop the virus, don’t eat chicken! AVT AB © 12
  13. 13. Fundamental questions Question 1: Who invests in Emergency control? Question 2: Who suffers the losses? Question 3: Who is responsible when things go wrong? Question 4: Why can’t the industry insure the risks? AVT AB © 13
  14. 14. Fundamental changesThrough EU Directive 1099/2009 Joint responsibility between Government & Industry Prevention & biosecurity is mandatory for the entire industry Response strategy is a joint effort of the Government, Veterinary authorities and the industry Animal disease insurance policy co-financed by the Government and the industry Freedom to introduce vaccination strategy on country level AVT AB © 14
  15. 15. Key elements of a successfulresponse approach Continuous monitoring  Competent response  Early recognition  Veterinary authorities  Quick and reliable diagnose  Branch organizations  Timely warning to the Veterinary  Farmers authorities  Farming related Industry Minimizing the risks  Response by a well-trained professional organization  Spreading of the disease  Maximum response within 24  Financial losses and costs hours  Minimizing contacts between animals and humans  Paid through the animal disease insurance fund AVT AB © 15
  16. 16. The Emsland model Pigs in Lower Saxony Landkreis Emsland  7.000.000; 25% of all pigs in Germany  Close cooperation between authorities and Industry  One of the highest pig concentrations in Europe: Landkreis Emsland  Veterinary tasks: Inspection and control  Veterinary tasks during field response are Poultry in Emsland carried out by regional private veterinary service, specialized in pigs and poultry  Emsland: County of the German State of Lower Saxony  Farmers are responsible for response  One of Europe’s most dense poultry  Specialized private emergency response area’s contractor is carrying out all response tasks, on behalf of the farmers  Total population: 310,000 people  All farmers pay a contribution per animal to the animal disease insurance fund  Poultry stock: 28,5 million birds  All investments in equipment and training  2,900 km2 = 10,000 birds per Km2 are covered by the fund  1,500 poultry farms = 19.000 per farm  Burial of carcasses is strictly forbidden! AVT AB © 16
  17. 17. How does the Emsland model work in practice? The risks are insured on the basis of a farm biosecurity plan authorized by the Veterinary authorities, including an extended compensation scheme A specialized emergency response contractor is responsible for all non- veterinary tasks and responsibilities, capable of processing 1,000 MT per 24 hours Only specialized equipment is used, stored within the area to guarantee a response time of 8 hours The insurance fund is used to pre-finance the investments in equipment, stocks and training of qualified response staff Most response activities take place within the stables, minimizing the risks of escape of the virus Minimum of one joint simulation drill per animal type/per year AVT AB © 17
  18. 18. Example for Pigs under Asian conditions – From virus to biomass - AVT AB © 18
  19. 19. Processes in 10 steps① Site preparation is a joint effort of ⑥ All animals are weighted on site the farmer, the veterinarian and ⑦ An electronic file is created per contractor animal (pigs)/batch of animals② Animals are handled by the farmers (poultry), including video and other own staff to avoid unnecessary relevant electronic data stress & pain ⑧ A mobile cleaning and disinfection unit is on site③ The animals are killed by the most appropriate method within the ⑨ In case carcasses are stable maceratored and transformed into biomass, the bulk is safely④ The veterinary staff only monitors transported to a biomass the response activities installation⑤ The entire process is registered on ⑩ All non-animal materials used are video collected and destructed AVT AB © 19
  20. 20. Under witch conditionscould the model work in Asia? Cooperation between Government, Veterinary services and the Industry, in line with the EU model Introduction of farmers responsibility for organizing the response on their farm Creation of an Animal Disease Insurance Fund to pre- finance the investments in equipment and training Creation of a professional private response organization to carry out all response activities Allowing alternative disposal methods, like biomass, to avoid the risks of reintroduction of the virus AVT AB © 20
  21. 21. Fundamental questions:Question 1: Is the industry willing to cooperate with the authorities?Question 2: Can you afford more future losses?Question 3: Are you willing to bare the joint responsibility?Question 4: Are the authorities willing to accept the industry as partner?Question 5: Are you willing to pay a fee per animal to the insurance fund? AVT AB © 21
  22. 22. Don’t buy weapons during wartime Thank you for your attention Chaoyang Park West road Building 3/ 11A, Beijing PR China. 100125 22