This document provides an overview of progress and remaining challenges in implementing the Animal Health and Welfare Strategy (AHWS) in England over the past 5 years. It summarizes that while progress has been made in areas like exotic disease preparedness, endemic disease control, and improved biosecurity, key issues remain like endemic disease prevalence, environmental constraints on animal health, and the need for clearer responsibility and cost sharing between government and industry for animal health issues. The report serves as the final assessment of the England Implementation Group (EIG) before it is dissolved, and recommends continued focus on partnership approaches and empowering industry to drive further improvements in animal health and welfare.

1. Third report on progress delivering the
Animal Health and Welfare Strategy for
Great Britain in England
December 2009 www.defra.gov.uk
England Implementation Group (EIG)
Building a better future for England’s kept animals
England
Implementation
Group
Third and final report on progress and
challenges in delivering the Animal
Health and Welfare Strategy in England
January 2010 www.defra.gov.uk
England Implementation Group (EIG)
Building a better future for England’s kept animals
England
Implementation
Group

2. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Nobel House
17 Smith Square
London SW1P 3JR
Telephone: 020 7238 6000
Website: www.defra.gov.uk
© Crown copyright 2010
PB 13348
Published by Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Printed on recycled paper containing 80% post-consumer waste
and 20% totally chlorine free virgin pulp. Please recycle if possible.

3. 3
Contents
Foreword: A Farewell from the EIG.......................................................................................... 4
Purpose of this report...................................................................................................................... 5
Overview of progress and challenges...................................................................................... 6
Exotic disease....................................................................................................................................... 8
Endemic disease.................................................................................................................................. 9
Animal welfare..................................................................................................................................11
Biosecurity and Farm Health Planning...................................................................................13
Sectoral approaches to AHWS delivery.................................................................................14
Vet services..........................................................................................................................................15
The animal health and welfare delivery landscape.........................................................16
Environmental constraints and tensions...............................................................................17
Surveillance.........................................................................................................................................18
Responsibility and cost sharing – EIG’s vision for the future ....................................19
Annex 1 – List of members.......................................................................................................22

4. 4
Foreword: A Farewell from the EIG
This report began as our annual progress report, albeit one which sought to review the five years
since the publication of the Animal Health and Welfare Strategy for Great Britain (AHWS) and to
highlight key challenges that lie ahead. With Defra’s decision to dissolve the EIG, it must now serve
as our final word on these issues.
Throughout our four year life, we have emphasised process – partnership working, joining up,
the establishment of clear goals and milestones – as much as outcomes. We have not sought to
tell people what they should do, but to encourage them to do better, together. We have facilitated
collaboration, cast a spotlight on good (and sometimes poor) practice; we have concentrated on
the development of structures that should ensure that coherent decisions, plans and initiatives
can flourish.
However, given that this is our last chance to do so, we have included clear recommendations to
ensure that the current momentum is maintained. Many of these recommendations, though by no
means all, are directed at Defra, whilst it still has overall responsibility for animal health and welfare
policy. We have committed much time and thought to responsibility and cost sharing (RCS), which
should allow a significant shift in the ownership of animal health policy and delivery. This report
includes a summary of our conclusions, which has been presented to Rosemary Radcliffe’s RCS
Advisory Group. We are pleased that this Group has been established and wish it well advising on
this vitally important opportunity.
The EIG has operated very differently from its Welsh and Scottish counterparts with whom we have
liaised throughout. In England, there is still much to be done to establish trust between government
and industry, and therefore our work has attempted to mediate and encourage better partnership
working within industry sectors and with government. Some initiatives, such as the establishment
of the Core Groups which advise during exotic disease outbreaks, have been important steps in this
regard. At times, however, we have envied our devolved partners, who have established disease
specific activity. We have recognised that real progress on tackling disease will only really be possible
once industry is empowered to drive change through RCS.
Having said that, there are examples of industry-wide collaboration, for example on Bovine Viral
Diarrhoea (BVD), and the pig sector has continued to show the way in coming together to tackle
disease and thereby improve welfare and productivity. It is also important to recognise the major
steps that the companion animal, equine and aquaculture sectors have taken in coming together
into coherent structures, taking ownership of strategy and establishing action plans for health and
welfare. It is vital that, in our absence, Defra provides the support and encouragement to these
far-sighted initiatives that they deserve. It is too easy for the non-farm and minority sectors to be
neglected, and the excellent endeavours by EIG members (Peter Scott’s work with companion
animals is deserving of particular recognition) and others, must be continued.

5. 5
It is nerve-wracking to have stepped down when so many issues remain unresolved, and there is at
least another two years to wait until a new body for animal health is established. We must trust in
Defra’s assurances on the ongoing support and attention to many of our initiatives. One thing Defra
cannot do is provide its own challenge on progress; our role as critical friend to government and
animal keepers may not always have been welcome but I hope has been useful.
In closing, I cannot thank enough the members of EIG who have brought their individual wisdom
and experience to the table and deployed them without fear or favour in the collective interest.
Each member has taken responsibility for some aspect of our work, as detailed below, and all have
given way beyond the call of duty. Sincere thanks are due also to numerous Defra and stakeholder
colleagues, who have worked with us so constructively. Lastly, our secretariat team, led by John
Heffernan and Brenda Rawson, have been exemplary; I would like to thank them for their patience,
intelligence and good humour in the face of 13 independently minded, committed people
(see Annex 1). The EIG team may now be disbanded, but I know that every member has both
given and learned a great deal over the last four years, and will continue to contribute much to the
field of animal health and welfare and the ongoing pursuit of the implementation of the strategy
principles, albeit as individuals.
Helen Browning
Chair of the EIG
January 2010
Foreword: A Farewell from the EIG
Purpose of this report
In this, our final report, we review progress over the last five years with the Animal Health and
Welfare Strategy for Great Britain (AHWS), and indicate where key challenges remain. There are
few good indicators of what is happening to disease and welfare so much of this report reflects
developments in process and partnership working, and attitudes and initiatives. It is an opinion
piece, albeit by a group of committed and informed people who have endeavoured, over the
last four years, to foster behavioural and attitudinal changes, believing that this is crucial to
lasting improvement to the health and welfare of England’s kept animals.

6. 6
The AHWS was published in 2004 in response to the Policy Commission’s recommendation for
“Defra, in consultation with the industry to devise and implement a comprehensive animal health
strategy.” It is a strategy for all kept animals – companion animals and equines, as well as livestock.
It emerged in the aftermath of the devastating 2001 outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease but this was
not the only reason why the Policy Commission called the UK’s health record “abysmal”. BSE (Bovine
Spongiform Encephalopathy) had crippled our beef industry and, critically, posed a serious threat to
public health. Salmonella, Campylobacter and E. coli had jeopardised consumer confidence in livestock
product safety, and Bovine Tuberculosis (bTB) levels were, and still are, on the rise. There were concerns
that Scrapie in sheep could be the next BSE, and Classical Swine Fever was disrupting trade.
Of less concern to public health, but significant to production and welfare, the wasting diseases Post-
Weaning Multisystemic Wasting Syndrome and Porcine Dermatitis and Nephropathy Syndrome were
sweeping through the national pig herd, following “Blue ear” a few years before. Increased testing
in voluntary schemes related to herd health planning has shown the importance of Bovine Viral
Diarrhoea (BVD), IBR (Infectious Bovine Rhinotracheitis), Leptospirosis and Johne’s Disease to the cattle
industry. Lameness in all species became recognised as an overwhelming welfare and production
issue, with levels of 20% or more often reported in broilers, dairy cows and sheep.
As an industry, then, we had much to be concerned about. The introduction of the AHWS gave us
all a chance to plan and work for something better, together. The strategy document, in itself, was
pioneering in that it was produced in partnership with key stakeholders following broad consultation.
Importantly too, it was British, rather than English, with full input from Scotland and Wales. While by
no means perfect, the AHWS set out clear ambitions which are still valid, and established an intention
to work differently in future. It emphasised the importance of partnership working, as well as the
acceptance of roles and responsibilities and the appropriate sharing of costs.
The EIG’s role has been to help others take ownership of the AHWS to implement it according to their
needs and circumstances. In doing so, this has bolstered confidence among policy makers that farmers
and other animal keepers can and will respond when trust and responsibility are invested in them.
Irrespective of disease statistics, the real test of success for the AHWS is the evolution of genuine
partnership at all levels, among animal keepers and with government. The proof of the pudding will,
to a considerable extent, be in the proposed Responsibility and Cost Sharing body for animal health.
If we get this right, there are likely to be real benefits for animal health. Industry in partnership with
government should take responsibility. EIG’s vision for responsibility and cost sharing forms the final
section of this report.
As set out in this report, there has been significant progress since the dark days which gave rise
to the AHWS. Many lessons have been learned about disease control and contingency planning,
with plenty of opportunities to put them into practice with Avian Influenza and Bluetongue. The
Core Groups established to give practical advice to Defra during outbreaks have been a good move
towards better partnership. Livestock and companion animal organisations have begun to work
together through sectoral health and welfare councils, plans and strategies (such as the England
Cattle Health and Welfare Group or Equine Health and Welfare Strategy). Defra’s 2006-08 investment
in the promotion of Farm Health Planning has been productive, with many vets and farmers working
together more coherently to address health priorities.
Overview of progress and challenges

7. 7
Overview of progress and challenges
There has also been something of a sea change, over the last five years, in the awareness and profile
of health and welfare issues, both in the farming and general press. On the whole, this has been very
helpful; excellent, informative coverage in farming journals has raised awareness and knowledge.
The public is also increasingly well served by engaging TV news items and programmes, such as the
ground breaking “Lie of the Land”, the efforts of Hugh, Jamie and Jim, “Victorian Farm”, “Mud,
Sweat and Tractors” and “Kill it, Cook it, Eat it.” It is easy to be sceptical about the content and
motivations of some of these programmes, but there is no doubt about their impact, both in raising
background knowledge, and in influencing shopping behaviour. The current recession may have
dampened some of the ethical eating activity, but for the most part, this has been a flattening of a
very strong growth curve, rather than a trend reversal.
In many of the areas we review here, we find encouraging progress with the implementation of the
AHWS. However, the challenges ahead should not be underestimated, and the need to maintain
focus and momentum in many areas is a key theme of this report. We have concerns about the
seeming hiatus in the development of the promised Action Plan to implement the Animal Welfare
Delivery Strategy; delays over the introduction of a livestock database; missed opportunities to bring
the sector health and welfare councils into policy development; the co-ordination and utilisation
of data sources for disease surveillance; the need to understand, and factor into policy making,
the impact that climate change and changes to production patterns will have on animal health
and welfare. These are all largely challenges to Defra, at least until the RCS animal health body is
established, and it is crucial that impetus is maintained on these issues.
An immediate challenge for Defra is, of course, bTB control. Steps towards a new, confident
and productive relationship between the farming industry, government and wildlife groups are
jeopardised by the failure to develop effective control strategies. Science has shown that there are
no easy answers to this complex question, but it may benefit all camps to remember that it’s not just
government that must factor in public attitudes when decision making. As the Policy Commission-
inspired ‘reconnection’ between farmers and consumers gains real traction, livestock producers will
wish to keep their customers’ confidence in the safety and humaneness of their practices. The battle
over bTB control is an unnecessary one; ultimately we are all on the same side.

8. 8
Exotic disease
The string of exotic disease incursions over the last few years has absorbed much time, energy and
money. The only upside to this is that there has been considerable progress in contingency planning
and outbreak management (see Anderson’s review of FMD 2007) with a much greater focus on
partnership working through the Defra-stakeholder Core Groups. Awareness of the threat of exotic
diseases has never been higher (e.g. African Horse Sickness and the equine sector), and there is
widespread acceptance of some of the measures needed to prevent and combat disease outbreaks.
There have also been welcome advances in RD diagnosis and vaccine technology.
But...
We always face new and emerging threats, e.g. West Nile Virus, and need contingencies for the
unexpected.
We still do not know where many animals are in the event of an outbreak, and this problem is
likely to increase with the upsurge in interest in small scale animal husbandry. Though some data is
captured, systems to trace livestock during an outbreak are not good enough and need improving.
Border controls need tightening. Contrary to stakeholder perception, the biggest risk is not from bush
meat/food imports but live animals, e.g. heifers from Dutch Bluetongue areas. The farming industry
needs to change its approach to the risks of buying-in from abroad.
Exotic diseases can be tackled successfully “at source” as happened with the UK addressing
Rinderpest in Africa with vaccines.
Recommendations
It is vital that Defra introduces a comprehensive livestock and equine data system so it is
possible to locate and trace animals during an outbreak.
The farming industry should acknowledge that the biggest avoidable cross border risk comes
not from food imports but from live animals. Defra cannot legally prevent this live trade,
so farmers must take responsibility collectively and individually for ensuring that trade in live
animals is avoided if at all possible, and if not, that all appropriate protocols on testing and
quarantine are followed.
Defra should work in the EU to encourage the tackling of exotic disease outbreaks in other
countries, to avoid the possibility of spread to the UK.
Defra has made significant improvements to contingency planning for known risk exotic
diseases, but should maintain capacity and plans for the unknown and unexpected.

9. 9
Endemic disease
Since AHWS launch, there has been a big increase in awareness of the costs of endemic diseases and
the benefits of control. In response, farmers have increasingly recognised the importance of disease
risk management on farm and their responsibility to the wider community. This has been helped by
the rising value of livestock which has meant animal keepers more readily consulting vets regarding
disease control and prevention programmes.
Stakeholders are increasingly recognising the key problems and coming together to tackle them
regionally and nationally. We have embryonic programmes for:
• BVD, Johne’s Disease and lameness in cattle;
• endemic disease reduction in the pig industry through a national vaccination campaign to reduce
PMWS in growing pigs and RDA-sponsored work in the regions based on producer clusters;
• Sheep Scab eradication programme in the North of England and the National SCOPS Scheme.
We have also seen the successful launch of the planned deployment project in 2010 of an injectable
bTB vaccine for badgers and, good progress as a result of international cooperation on an oral
preparation for badgers and additionally with bTB vaccines for cattle.
But...
More progress is needed with specific diseases. This is especially true of the oft-overlooked
production and metabolic diseases, such as lameness, ketosis, displaced abomasums, and keel bone
fracture. Such diseases are often responsible for many of the welfare problems associated with animal
health. These rarely receive the required research and advisory support, and yet can have major
impacts on productivity and longevity as well as welfare.
Modern farming and commercial practices do require greater effort to achieve good biosecurity.
Farmers must balance their commercial needs against the disease risk of buying livestock, for
example, bTB in cattle or Bluetongue in cattle and sheep.
The movement of stock through markets remains a key risk to endemic disease spread. However,
if properly controlled and managed, markets could reduce that risk. Market managers are in a good
position to manage and encourage positive behaviour change for the long term benefit of their
customers. Markets and farmers must take more responsibility for tackling those who knowingly pass
diseased stock through the markets by involving Trading Standards and the veterinary profession.
The CPH (County Parish Holding) system is open to abuse through the use of multiple CPH numbers.
The system was developed to reduce disease spread. The loophole needs to be closed.
Surveillance continues to be a much needed tool in the battle against endemic disease. The work the
EIG Surveillance Subgroup undertook and its recommendations have not been fully recognised and
implemented by Defra.

10. 10
Endemic disease
bTB remains a major problem. It is draining resources, is hindering partnership working between
industry and government and is making it harder to promote prevention. We must hope that the
report from the TB Advisory Group that is now being further refined and implemented by the TB
Eradication Group for England, can and will reverse the unacceptable spread of this disease. The
development of an injectable bTB vaccine for badgers to the licence application stage has led to
the start up of a deployment project in England which requires support as a first step towards the
ultimate aim of control and then eradication.
Recommendations
• It must be recognised that many endemic diseases are exacerbated by commercial pressures
and contracts; increasing herd/flock size, and breeding and housing practices provide
challenges for many conditions, which should be understood and mitigated by farmers, vets,
advisers and policy makers.
• Marketing agents, including processors, co-operatives and retailers, should be aware that
their contracts with farmers may encourage sub-optimal practice. They should ensure that
their buying policies are supportive of best practice, for example, on bio-security.
• Similarly, Defra should map perverse incentives in regulatory issues, including awareness
of the risks taken by producers attempting to avoid the impact of regulations.
• Livestock markets have had a bad press, and there is more they can do to minimise the
risk of disease spread through markets. However, working with vets, farmers and local
authorities, they could transform their reputation by ensuring clear declarations of health
status – thus allowing correct selection by purchasers.
• All those involved in the livestock sector should encourage a more nuanced understanding of
herd health status. Confirmation of a given disease should not automatically be a black mark,
but should dictate trading policy. Regional disease control strategies could be facilitated by
widespread herd health knowledge, and using Pillar II money.
• The sector health and welfare councils have the opportunity to work with their industries,
vets, the levy bodies and Animal Health to focus on specific endemic diseases, including
conditions such as lameness.
• Sufficient public funding for research should be maintained for these conditions which often
have serious welfare implications. Other funding sources, such as the levy bodies, should be
considered. The need for a healthy but focussed research programme has never been more
important.
• FAWC should consider establishing, or encouraging others to establish, benchmarks for
healthy, happy productivity. Their recent ‘opinion on dairy cow welfare’ is a move in that
direction.

11. 11
Animal welfare
There have been significant advances in animal welfare since the launch of the AHWS. Perhaps
the most notable has been the introduction of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which provides
a new legal framework for welfare, in particular, by focussing on the responsibilities of animal
keepers. Government and the many stakeholder groups who helped develop this legislation should
be congratulated for their efforts, but the outstanding task for government is to develop, with
stakeholders, the necessary secondary legislation and welfare codes.
Credit is also due for Defra’s development in 2007 of the Animal Welfare Delivery Strategy (AWDS),
produced in response to criticism that the overarching AHWS concentrated almost entirely on disease
and neglected many of the broader welfare issues. However, momentum on the production of the
promised Action Plan, designed to put the AWDS into practice, appears to have halted. We are
therefore left with a laudable vision of a new approach to the delivery of good animal welfare but
with no plan to implement it. It is essential that the AWDS Action Plan is properly resourced and
developed with stakeholders. We have particular concerns that partnership working in welfare is
less evident than it now is for animal health, and also that there seems to be tendency on welfare
initiatives for government to develop good concepts but neglect the follow through. Where sector
councils have identified welfare priorities, it is essential that they receive the necessary support and
encouragement to implement action plans.
FAWC (the Farm Animal Welfare Council) has continued to deliver sound advice to government, and
its new ways of working have helped make its contribution timelier. However, we are not convinced
that FAWC’s advice has always had the impact within Defra that it warrants. FAWC reports contain
a wealth of carefully considered advice and recommendations, yet they have sometimes been poorly
implemented and, as a result, have not always had the desired impact on raising welfare standards.
Government responses to reports can be tardy and it is sometimes hard to trace their impact. If the
RCS body is established, but Defra retains responsibility for welfare, there is a risk that the mechanism
for taking forward FAWC’s advice may become confused, and it is our view that the remit of FAWC
needs to be reviewed, particularly with regard to allowing it additional scope to provide advice to a
wider range of stakeholders.
The government should be congratulated for its continued funding of animal welfare science.
The direct results of this long term commitment are to be seen in policy, legislation and many
improvements in animal housing, transport and slaughter. We are particularly encouraged by recent
developments in the science of welfare outcomes, through work such as the EU Welfare Quality
Project and related research at Bristol University.
Media coverage of food and farming has played an important role by encouraging shifts in public
awareness and support for farm animal welfare. This is reflected in increased sales of higher welfare
products; a trend that appears to have held up even throughout the current economic recession.
Furthermore, it is not just consumers that are getting the welfare message; the farming press and
levy bodies have contributed significantly to the information available to farmers and some major
dissemination programmes such as the Tubney Charitable Trust funded ‘Healthy Feet Project’ have
demonstrated how best to get farmer engagement in improving welfare performance.

12. 12
Animal welfare
But...
The Animal Welfare Act secondary legislation and remaining codes need to be developed. This should
not be a top down imposition but one of partnership working with all relevant stakeholders.
It is essential that an AWDS Action Plan is now developed. This should be based on Defra’s visionary
AWDS but translated to identify specific actions together with appropriate timescales.
Recommendations
• As a matter of urgency, Defra should revisit the commitments made in their 2007 AWDS and
facilitate development of an AWDS Action Plan.
• The AWDS Action Plan should be a living document developed in collaboration with
sector councils, FAWC, CAWC and others. It should identify specific actions for different
stakeholders to tackle agreed welfare problems, with appropriate timescales.
• As part of an AWDS Action Plan, Defra should establish effective working groups for each
of the main groups of kept animals, to develop welfare codes based on welfare science and
recognised best practice.
• In recognition of greater partnership working within animal health and welfare, consideration
should be given to modifying the present remit of FAWC to allow it greater flexibility to
direct recommendations to a wider base of stakeholders.
• Consideration should also be given to revisiting past FAWC reports, and where the necessary
solutions to serious welfare problems have been lacking, FAWC should request action by
specific stakeholders.

13. 13
Biosecurity and Farm Health Planning
Since the launch of the AHWS, awareness of the importance of biosecurity and the potential value of
Farm Health Planning (FHP) has undoubtedly increased on farm, among vets and among retailers. There
is generally a greater awareness of health and welfare along the food chain, including the consumer.
The resources invested by Defra into pump-priming industry-led initiatives have helped considerably,
and now it is up to the veterinary profession in particular, to grab the opportunity to secure their
future along with that of their clients by following through. The underlying partnership ethos of
the AHWS is crucial here, bringing together farmers, vets and retailers to work within a strategic
framework developed by Defra, Animal Health and the new RCS body.
Taking the somewhat ‘static’ farm health plan into the next level of proactive FHP is a necessary
and vital step for the future. The efforts being made by assurance schemes to recognise this and
incorporate planning concepts is exciting. Assurance schemes are also now engaging with the sector
councils, which are key drivers of this whole process.
Defra and the Animal Health agency have key roles to play in further developing and embedding
biosecurity and FHP into routine behaviour, championing good practice and further developing the
regional approach which has already shown promising results.
But...
It is clear that a much more sophisticated approach to biosecurity is required, both on and between
farms, and on a regional and national basis. We need national schemes that identify diseases
which can be managed and potentially eliminated by incorporation into FHP plans. Again, vets and
the Animal Health Agency will have a key role to play, though in this area more than any other,
coordination and collaboration across all players will be vital to maximise impact.
More specifically, we need national biosecurity Codes of Practice to complement FHP. Biosecurity
needs to be organised in layers: on-farm, local, regional, national.
Known herd health status should be regarded as necessary baseline data in farm health plans,
for driving progress and a basis for regional and national planning.
The farm assurance framework needs a consistent approach to biosecurity and FHP.
Recommendations
• Defra should lead research working with vets and farmers, developing surveillance systems to
identify local or regional diseases which can be incorporated into farm health plans.
• Defra needs to continue its efforts so far, working with vets and epidemiologists to refine
sampling and monitoring techniques.
• The livestock sectors, led by the sector councils, need to take ownership of the promotion of
FHP and biosecurity. Defra should provide input and technical support.
• Sector councils and Assurance schemes should take on the work to make known herd health
status the baseline data in farm health plans, and make it part of routine thought processes.
Schemes can be reformatted to get best value.
• Sector councils and Defra need to encourage all assurance schemes to embed FHP at their core.

14. 14
Sectoral approaches to AHWS delivery
Recommendations
• CVO has said that he wants to work closely with the sector councils, post-EIG. He should
bring them in formally with the work of the RCS Advisory Group, and eventually, the RCS
animal health body. This would allow the sector councils some real influence and encourage
their ongoing development, and their ambition to engender change on the ground.
• Rapid consideration must be given to the future of the Companion Animal Sector Council
(CASC). Defra indicated a willingness to engage, and the Companion Animal Welfare Council
(CAWC) could play an important role in maintaining collaboration between the different
interest groups in the sector. CASC bodies now need to deliver action plans for their
strategies and to build and maintain links with the welfare organisations. CASC could begin
exploration with the supply sector, such as pet food manufacturers, to establish a source of
funding for collective activity.
The establishment of livestock, equine and companion health and welfare councils (the “sector
councils”) has been a cause for celebration over the last few years. We have invested time and faith
in the expectation that all sectors would benefit considerably by coordinating their planning and
activities across organisational boundaries, and that these structures could be key in ensuring that real
partnership working is ongoing, in peace time as well as during emergencies. The support of the levy
bodies, EBLEX and DairyCo, has been most welcome for the cattle and sheep councils; we hope that
this relationship will prove as durable and productive as is the case with the Pig Health and Welfare
Council and BPEX.
The picture for poultry is more complex; they have no levy mechanism and although a draft health
and welfare strategy was developed in 2008, this does not seem to have had much air time since.
However, in 2009, under the auspices of the EIG, the industry came together with a wide range of
other stakeholders, including NGOs, retailers, Defra and researchers, and established a Poultry Welfare
Forum with an ambitious work programme. This initiative is ground breaking, and much hard work,
trust building and commitment will be required to ensure its success, which would bring major rewards.
But...
There is a need and opportunity to up the pace now; most councils have established their priorities
for action and are meeting regularly, but it is vital that Defra begins to consult and engage with the
councils so that they can have some real input into policy.
This will not be easy. Some councils are still rather fragile and finding their role. Funding remains an issue.

15. 15
Vet services
The AHWS has always had as a cornerstone of its implementation the role of the veterinary
surgeon. Vets are vital to AHWS delivery and we have seen progress during the strategy’s lifetime.
Vets involved with farm animal practice have increasingly moved from fire-fighting to specialisation
and service delivery, supporting the “prevention is better than cure” theme of the AHWS. Defra’s
2008-09 pump-priming of FHP helped improve the skills of vets and their capacity to provide
preventative FHP services. More recently, Rural Development Programme for England funding is being
used for local and regional FHP initiatives.
In August 2009, Professor Lowe published “Unlocking Potential” his personal report on veterinary
expertise in food animal production. It explores the changing supply and demand in veterinary
services, and the ability of the profession to meet those demands. It suggests a way forward for
the profession and encourages some approaches that could provide better business security for
vets, alongside maximum on-the-ground benefits for animals and their keepers. It recognises the
challenges facing private vets, not least the financial difficulties of running a successful small business
in an ever more competitive sector.
While Lowe concludes there is not a shortage of veterinary manpower, there still remains questions
as to the structural nature of that employment and the geographical availability to meet the demands
of the consumers of those services. We already have great examples of what can be done to widen
service provision, or form effective vet-client partnerships securing livelihoods, or to encourage FHP
initiatives on farm and between farms locally and regionally. Farmers respect their vets, but can be
tough on those new to farm practice. Ensuring that graduates have enough practical experience and
a good introduction to large animal work is crucial if they are to stay the course.
As Lowe says, we need clarity on the public good function of private vets and a new interpretation
for the future. The unsatisfactory impasse between government, most notably Animal Health, and
the profession can now be unblocked with the publication of Lowe’s report and the action that
must follow. Lowe describes the ‘legacy of the hierarchical relationship’ between government and
vets, the recent dislocation between the old State Veterinary Service (now Animal Health) and the
private vet profession, and the need to establish a new, mature and productive partnership among
all. He advises the establishment of a Veterinary Development Council, to guide the long term
development of vet services (though it is not clear who should lead this or how it should be funded).
He emphasises the important role that the consumer of veterinary services, whether the government,
national or local, or the private livestock owner, must play in developing the veterinary services they
require in order to continue to improve the health and welfare of the nation’s livestock and thereby
ensure efficient food supply.
Recommendations
• The vet profession, led by the BVA and RCVS, should review and act upon the
recommendations in Professor Lowe’s report, ‘Unlocking Potential’. Defra and Animal Health
must be involved to ensure joined up strategies and the resolution of long standing issues
such as the role of private veterinary practice in exotic disease surveillance and control, and
the dispensing of veterinary drugs.

16. 16
The animal health and welfare delivery landscape
Recommendations
• Animal Health and Local Authorities should work individually and together on the ground to
secure real improvements in animal health and welfare in line with AWHS.
• Animal Health and Local Authorities should review whether a risk based approach to welfare
is leading to any deterioration in standards.
• Animal Health and Local Authorities, working with others such as RSPCA as necessary,
should provide further clarification on roles and responsibilities for all aspects of animal
health and welfare enforcement.
Various agencies deliver services that manage and improve animal health and welfare. During the
lifetime of the AHWS, we have seen a sea change with the introduction of the Hampton principles
and the risk based approach to inspection and enforcement. More specifically, there has been closer
working between Local Authorities and Animal Health due to a Framework agreement and Defra
funding. We have seen the introduction of a National Indicator for Local Authorities on animal health
delivery performance and Animal Health’s introduction of a Head of Regulatory Affairs.
But...
There is still a way to go. David Eves’ 2007 report on the delivery landscape identified room for
improvement.
The Animal Health agency is well-regarded on the ground but is yet to take on the wider, facilitative
role needed to coordinate regional approaches to disease control. Animal Health’s mission is much
more aligned with the AHWS in recent years and its leadership understands and embraces the job-to-
be-done to change culture in the field but it is taking time for this to happen sufficiently and reliably
among all levels of staff.
Some Local Authorities are better resourced and more competent than others. Part of the solution
may be more efficient working across Local Authority boundaries but that has not always happened.
This should improve following the May 2009 change to the law (in response to Eves) which allows
Local Authorities to carry out Animal Health functions on behalf of other Authorities. There is
sometimes confusion over roles and responsibilities within Local Authorities, particularly around stray
and potentially dangerous companion animals. We need much clearer guidance on the role of the
police, Local Authorities and the RSPCA, in relation to companion animals.

17. 17
Environmental constraints and tensions
The challenges to animal health and welfare from the impacts of climate change and mitigation
strategies will become increasingly significant over the next decades.
Tension and trade-offs will need to be clarified as scientific understanding of these factors and
their impact becomes clearer; so will the need to find policy and practical solutions that optimise
outcomes, ensuring that production is maintained, and that consequent changes in health and
disease patterns are kept under surveillance and addressed.
Food production from animals puts a strain on the environment and contributes to climate change
which subsequently impacts on animal health and welfare. Yet food production must be maintained
and even increased, but with reduced impact to the environment, particularly acknowledging carbon
reduction and climate change priorities.
The relationships between environmental and climate change impacts on animal health and welfare
need to be carefully monitored and evaluated. Mitigation mechanisms will need to be evaluated to
lever change in behaviour and practice to accommodate these potential threats and adaptations. It
is important to acknowledge this relationship, and that whilst it is unrealistic to expect a complete
answer to this problem, challenges need to be recognised and proactively addressed by all parties.
We cannot ignore the environmental constraints and tensions but policies and practices must be
developed to reduce the causes and mitigate the effects to animal health and welfare.
Recommendations
• Defra should ensure that a focus is maintained on the complex relationship between health
and welfare and environmental drivers, including the likely future impact of climate change
on disease prevalence and epidemiology. This role would involve ensuring a coherent science
base, including horizon scanning, and facilitating knowledge exchange and action planning
between and by stakeholders. Defra will need to share knowledge, develop effective
contingency plans and help stakeholders address these issues themselves.

18. 18
Surveillance
Recommendations
• Defra must work with the livestock sector to evaluate and coordinate the many surveillance
opportunities which could, together, provide a much more coherent picture of all types of
disease incursion. Data sources need collating, joining up and dissemination, which in the
longer term could be a role for the new Responsibility and Cost Sharing body, but for now
should be facilitated by Defra.
• Animal Health’s surveillance activities should extend sufficiently to provide benchmarks on key
health and welfare conditions. This is essential if any meaningful indicators of progress are to
be established.
The importance of surveillance in the delivery of AHWS has been realised by all involved in animal
health, and EIG has successfully raised the profile of disease surveillance as a key component of the
AHWS. Surveillance not only has to look for and recognise new and emerging disease threats, like
Bluetongue, but has to provide an ongoing measure of success of disease control and the health
status of the nation’s animals. We have struggled throughout our work and in writing this report to
demonstrate progress on specific health and welfare matters. Reliable data is just not widely available
for many diseases and welfare issues.
There has been good engagement with stakeholders, and some successful initiatives such as NADIS
(National Animal Disease Information Service), and latterly other industry-owned databases which
have delivered an excellent resource of disease information to complement more local and restricted
databases. It is unfortunate that Defra has not got involved and integrated with these developing
systems, which inevitably limit themselves to commercially important diseases.
The pig sector has piloted surveillance schemes for endemic diseases and syndromes, linking farmer,
vet and slaughterhouse in an information chain.
Defra responded to EIG’s enthusiasm for Defra’s Disease Prioritisation Tool and continued its
development, albeit slowly and focussed on notifiable diseases.
The potential of the National Fallen Stock Company to take on the small, but extremely, useful database
of reasons for death or culling of cattle tested for BSE was recognised and passed to the England Cattle
Health and Welfare Group to develop, though it seems to have stalled. This opportunity must not be lost.
But...
Defra continues to have difficulty getting involved in anything outside its direct interest, and their
limited resources restrict the delivery of their surveillance reviews and projects. The Cattle Sentinel
project was completed in Yorkshire, but a report has never been forthcoming and no action has
come out of the pilot project. The pig equivalent was promised but never started. This has typified
the lack of enthusiasm, resource and interest in any disease or health issue that lies outside Defra’s
direct responsibility. A place on Defra’s Surveillance Programme Board was promised to the EIG but
never came. Meanwhile, the EIG’s Surveillance Subgroup struggled to maintain its momentum, and
pursue the delivery of the recommendation in its 2006 report.
The development and enhancement of veterinary surveillance will be essential for the future of
AHWS. The RCS agenda may help develop a more joined up approach to surveillance, including the
progression of the Livestock Register, which with proper development, could become a central pivot
for surveillance information. This progression will be entirely dependent upon the recognition of all
aspects of animal health as a key part of responsibility and cost sharing, rather than restricting the
agenda to Notifiable Diseases and those that concern government.

19. 19
Responsibility and cost sharing –
EIG’s vision for the future
The overwhelming task in implementing the Animal Health and Welfare Strategy has been to
encourage a better understanding of roles and responsibilities, and a redefining of what partnership
working means in the animal health and welfare domain. In England, there is a deep-seated lack of
trust between the farming industry and government; this distrust has manifested itself in a continued
shifting of blame, an unwillingness to work together towards solutions that could benefit all parties.
Although the core groups and other partnership initiatives have been a welcome step in the right
direction, these still fall a long way short of driving the responsibility for (often difficult) decision
making which is required to substantially improve animal health.
An independent body for animal health should change all that; those who will benefit from
improved decision making will be in the driving seat in making those decisions, and policy will be
better informed by real, firsthand knowledge of its impact on the ground. Animal keepers will work
together better as well, developing national and regional strategies for disease control, encouraging
and exerting pressure on their peers to ensure compliance with these strategies, and developing
knowledge hubs that translate scientific understanding into practical, accessible advice. Vets and farm
consultants will be core to the transmission of knowledge, providing support and guidance in health
planning and risk management, demonstrating their value in reducing the costs of disease and being
rewarded appropriately. The sector health and welfare councils will consider priorities for action and
tactical approaches, and feed these into the independent body through clear, formalised structures
– perhaps an advisory group chaired by the CVO. The independent body will be able to put in place
appropriate incentives and disincentives to ensure that best practice is rewarded and that no-one can
benefit from disease spread.
The reputation of English livestock products and systems will be respected worldwide. Not only will
our disease status have moved from ‘abysmal’ (as cited by the Curry Commission), to ‘exemplary’, but
consumers at home and overseas will choose English products for their quality, safety and welfare
attributes. We will be motivated by the crises that have afflicted our industry, to review everything
we do, and to put in place systems and processes which ensure that we can market a supply
chain integrity second to none. The independent body will be the fulcrum around which all this
happens, raising the bar, preventing perverse incentives, ensuring rapid, ongoing progress towards
clear objectives; both commercial and private animal keepers, government and the public will have
confidence in its advice and decisions.
That sounds OK then, but how are we going to get there from the current situation, where
despite much progress in a number of key areas, there is still a deep-seated mistrust between
government/Defra and the farming industry?
We would suggest that some of the key issues are:
1. Ensuring that the new body has real authority and clear powers. It must operate at a senior
level, taking on the responsibility of Ministers for decision making at that level. Defra would need
to continue to represent the UK in European negotiations, but with the body establishing itself as
the competent authority on UK issues, in liaison with Scotland and Wales.
Where there are limits to its authority and responsibility, as proposed for welfare policy, it must
nevertheless expect to have a strong voice where policy which impacts on its ability to perform
are in play – for example, and most contentiously, in wildlife control.

20. 20
Responsibility and cost sharing – EIG’s vision for the future
2. The Board must be fully independent, taking charge of its agenda, commanding the respect
of its officials, government, industry and the public. Its members must have plenty of real world
experience, and be recognised as such by stakeholders, but also the competencies required to
handle a £400m plus budget, delivery agency management, policy development and governance
arrangements. This is a tough call! It must be well resourced and supported, especially in the
early years when Board members will need to devote sufficient time developing a common
understanding of issues and ways of working, for competencies to be assessed and weaknesses
addressed.
3. The scope of the Board’s remit must be unambiguous. Whilst there may be merit in focusing, for
example, on exotic disease control in the early days, then broadening the remit later, ensuring clarity
will be essential. Endemic infectious diseases and other diseases and syndromes that affect production
and welfare should be included in the remit of the new body, broadening its responsibility beyond the
limited interests of the current structures which focus on notifiable diseases and animal welfare.
4. Especially important will be the decision about what aspects of animal welfare are included. We
recommend that responsibility for welfare aspects that are associated with health/disease
control should rest with the new body. This would accommodate government’s need to stay
in charge of welfare policy, where it is pertinent to legislation or implementation of legislation
and negotiations in the EU, but would ensure that the new body took responsibility for welfare
considerations in its own decision making and implementation1
.
There is also a risk that non-farm animal issues may be neglected within the new body.
If the scope of the body is to include, for example, equines, companion animals, zoos and circuses,
then the Board must encompass relevant expertise and ensure time for debate and action where
required for these important areas.
5. The leadership and membership of the new body will be key to its success. The Chair,
especially, will need to be able to drive the agenda from the start, and to have the judgement and
authority to set the cultural tone and work agenda. Members should be selected for their skills
rather than their representation, and the skill sets must be complementary to ensure an efficient
and effective board with focussed intentions and objectives.
6. Openness and transparency will be a given for the new body, but not necessarily a critical success
factor in the way that it has been for the Food Standards Agency. The culture may be more akin to
a company board, where the main issues are the efficacy of the business strategy and delivery; the
new body will succeed on the basis of the decisions it makes as much or more than in the process
of making them. Driving a culture change in officials will be critical to its impact in developing on
the ground engagement.
1. (NB. If government wishes to remain the lead body on welfare, it is critical that it maintains impetus and momentum in this field. For example,
we are gravely concerned about the confusion and lack of impetus in following through the Animal Welfare Delivery Strategy. When considering
the future advisory and delivery landscape for welfare, it will be important to consider the role of FAWC and CAWC, and whether their remits
should or could be extended to ensure that there is a coherent mechanism to follow through on welfare initiatives, to challenge as well as advise
government, and to harness the market mechanisms where opportunities exist to do so, in a joined up manner. This will be especially important
as and when EIG ceases.)

21. 21
Responsibility and cost sharing – EIG’s vision for the future
7. It is vital that the new body has a clear and focused approach to engaging with stakeholders.
We recommend that this should be through the health and welfare sector councils, which bring
together all relevant sector and cross sector organisations to consider health and welfare issues.
Their feed into the new body should be formalised, possibly through an advisory group to the
Board which could be chaired by the CVO.
8. The new body should have the authority and competence to manage, and where necessary,
change the delivery structures; it will need to drive efficiency, culture and stakeholder
engagement through the delivery bodies, and also to properly harness the practical feedback
from Animal Health and others, in developing policy and strategy.
9. The evolution of funding mechanisms will be a key function of the new body, and all scope
should be provided for novel approaches to be reviewed. We would urge a re-evaluation of the
mutual insurance option as a potentially powerful mechanism for incentivising better practice
and encouraging a wider sense of ownership of animal disease and its costs. There should be
a reassessment of the starting point for cost sharing. Is 50% of surveillance and preparedness,
which farmers have little control or influence over, the best place to start? This is not about
disputing the amount, but trying to ensure a coherent message about the reasons for industry to
contribute to the pot, and to provide benefits for doing so. The consultation has demonstrated
that one size will not fit all in funding terms; assessing the particular issues to each livestock
species will be essential to the development of a rational approach.
10. The new body should be able to consider what other services it could, over time, provide to
its stakeholders. These could range from information provision and signposting, to cost effective
animal disposal and post mortem diagnostic services, networked into its surveillance function.
11. Finally, the name. ‘Animal Health England’ does what it says on the tin, but could necessitate a
reversal of the Animal Health agency to State Veterinary Service! Which might also reverse some
of the confusion farmers (at least, those who have noticed that it’s changed) have undergone.

22. 22
Annex 1 – List of members
Helen Browning (Chairman)
20 years’ experience of the food and farming industries as a major organic producer and former
Chairman of the Soil Association. Currently the Association’s Policy Advisor, and Chairman of the
Food Ethics Council. Helen’s contributions to organic farming have been recognised by awards
including an OBE and Fellowship of the Royal Agricultural Society of England. She was a member of
the ‘Curry Commission’.
Richard Bennett
An agricultural economist at Reading University with over 20 years’ experience of research on the
economics of animal health and welfare, undertaking numerous projects for both Government and
commercial organisations. A trustee and council member of the Universities Federation for Animal
Welfare and of the Humane Slaughter Association. He is also a member of the Farm Animal Welfare
Council (FAWC).
Tim Brigstocke
A founding director of a specialist knowledge transfer company for the land-based sector and former
Chief Executive of Holstein UK. Takes an active role in a large number of organisations including as a
director/trustee of the Rare Breeds Survival Trust and chairman of the Institute of Biology Agricultural
Sciences Committee. Policy Director for the Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers (RABDF),
Executive Director for Cattle Health Certification Standards (CHeCS) and a non-executive director for
Lantra, the sector skills council for the land based sector.
Chris Brown
Head of Ethical and Sustainable Sourcing for ASDA. Previously held positions with Government,
the Meat and Livestock Commission and Marks Spencer. Also a member of the Programme
Management Committee for the Defra Sustainable Livestock Link.
Neil Cutler
A partner in a family run dairy farming business who was an active member of the advisory group
that helped develop the Animal Health and Welfare Strategy. A former chair of the NFU Animal
Health and Welfare Committee, board member of DairyCo and AMTRA, and member of the
Veterinary Residues Committee.
Nigel Durnford
The Principal Animal Health and Welfare Inspector with Gloucestershire County Council Trading
Standards, with over 25 years’ experience in delivery and enforcement of animal health and welfare
standards within local authorities. Member of the National Animal Health and Welfare Panel and
lectures on animal health and welfare law and enforcement for the South West Regional Assembly.

23. 23
Annex 1 – List of members
Stewart Houston
A partner in a family owned sow pig unit and a director of a company producing pig systems. Chair
of the National Pig Association, the British Pig Executive, the Pig Health and Welfare Council and a
Meat and Livestock Commission Commissioner. On the Agriculture and Horticulture Development
Board, as Chair of the Pig Sector Company.
Peter Jinman
A senior partner in a veterinary practice in Herefordshire who was an active member of the advisory
group that helped develop the Animal Health and Welfare Strategy. A member of a number of
committees including the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) and previously
President of the British Veterinary Association. Chairman of the bTB Advisory Group and council
member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.
Diane McCrea
An independent consultant on food and consumer affairs and formerly head of Food and Health
Research at the Consumers’ Association (now Which?). Has represented Consumers International as
the head of the delegation at Codex Alimentarius – the international food standards setting body.
A member of a number of committees including the advisory committee on Animal Feedstuffs and
SEAC.
Martin Potter
An independent consultant on farm animal welfare and husbandry with a background in research
in animal welfare science. Formerly Head of Farm Animals Department with RSPCA and a former
member of FAWC.
Peter Scott
A veterinary surgeon providing veterinary services to a large proportion of the UK tonnage of rainbow
trout. A Defra-appointed zoo inspector and veterinary adviser to Pets At Home. An ex-President
of the British Veterinary Zoological Society. Active member of the Companion Animal Welfare
Council (CAWC) since its inception. Sat on the Dimmock Committee on avian quarantine and the
Government’s Circus Welfare Working Group.
Dick Sibley
Principal and director of a mixed veterinary practice for over 27 years. The founding member of
the Board of the National Dairy Farm Assured Scheme who has chaired British Cattle Veterinary
Association committees for Farm Assurance, Health Planning and bovine tuberculosis.
Sarah Wolfensohn
Head of Veterinary Services Department at Oxford University with a varied background in science, the
pharmaceutical industry and education. Active on European committees and on the “Joint Working
Group on Refinement: To improve animal welfare”.

24. PB 13348
Nobel House
17 Smith Square
London SW1P 3JR
www.defra.gov.uk