1. Change in the management of the FMD Diseases Control to an Private-Public-Partnership Approach
Verena Schütz
European Commission for the Control of Foot-and-Mouth Disease (EuFMD)
Casicais Portugal,

2. Agenda
Alternative methods for highly contagious livestock diseases like FMD
Communication with the society
Economic aspects for the added value chain of the use of marker vaccines
Legal restriction of the use of vaccines – marker vaccines in the EU
Why we need Private-Partnership-Approaches?

3. Communication Problem
FMD emergency management
culling

4. Public and ethical grounds
Acceptance of culling of animals in the public: Culling: Production of meat or to ensure causing avoidable pain, distress and any other form of suffering
Culling of animals as highly contagious livestock diseases management – public discussion alternative measurements?
Communication with the public?

5. Public and ethical grounds
Quelle: focus
Quelle: Kölner Stadtanzeiger

6. Communication and economical problem
FMD emergency management
culling
vaccination
slaughtering and processing
culling

7. Economical Problem Fundamental decision1
Fundamental decision
Ethical and morally acceptable to cull animals for the control of FMD
Faster entry to third countries
Market acceptance of meat from vaccinated animals
Slaughtering of animals
Meat processing
Market restrictions
Final duration

8. Slaughtering of vaccinated animals
Council Directive:
Article 54, 2003/85/EC, fresh meat produced from vaccinated animals ….. bear the mark provided for in
Directive 2002/99 EC, Annex II – diagonal cross or
has to be stored and transported separately ... in sealed containers and has to be treated e.g. heated (Annex III Directive 2002/99/EC)
No differentiation between vaccine and DIVA (marker vaccine)
Further problems are the time of the vaccine measurements to ensure there is no vaccintated animal in the pobulation

9. Open Issues Election of the slaughtering place
Impact of the slaughtering place (separation of product lines, access to third countries,….)
Processing products (treatment heat)
Only national / local (?) market access
No study to asses the economical impact for processing units available

10. Economical problem – losses for farmers (e. g
Economical problem – losses for farmers (e.g. pig meat production, CSF)
Baseline
Farm location zone
Depop
Vacc_ns
Revenues or compensation
153.62
113.83
121.15
Costs
Piglet
55.00
Feed
53.05
26.53
71.57
Animal losses
2.76
2.11
3.22
Production costs
4.35
2.18
5.87
Interest pig & feed
2.24
0.86
3.51
Interest assets
0.10
0.13
Housing
15.01
20.25
Manure
1.92
1.20
2.42
Labour
4.64
6.25
Total costs
139.08
114.52
168.23
Net farm income
14.54
-0.69
-47.08
Income farmer
19.18
5.57
-40.83
During outbreak
12,936.23
2,783.69
-20,414.99
After outbreak
16,720.88
16,761.05
Annual net farm income
29,657.11
19,544.74
-3,653.94
Difference with baseline
-10,112.37
-33,311.05
Assumption: 1 €/ kg slaughtering weight!
100 %
65 %
- 12 %
,68
Quelle: Hope et al. 2014

11. Crisis management of highly contagious livestock diseases
Administration are the responsible decision maker in the case of FMD outbreak
Adaptation/consideration of the added value chain in the crisis management – common cross border approach for the crisis management
Data Management
Structures (communication and data)
Trust
Function of private crisis managements are not know of administration – gap
Focus areas of meat and milk production
use of vaccines could be necessary for an efficient crisis management
Cross border approaches are helpful – added value chains are focused on the supply chain not on administrative structures
Cross border approach in crisis management are necessary and helpful
Adaption of different structures (administrative)
Personal contacts
Function of the private parties, their crisis approaches
Enlargement of the exercises between public and private side
What´s is the crisis management in the added value chain?

12. Crisis management of highly contagious livestock diseases
Private crisis management of FMD
Focused on the instructions of administration
Crisis plan and training of workers in the focus of biosecurity
Reflection to reduce the finical risks of marker vaccines

13. Pecuniary Reparation Alternatives Aid Fund Insurance Commercial
Statutory basis
New insurance
Founded by the economy
Risk assessment and development of an insurance police
Reinsurance
Cots of the police
New
Existing
Purpose of hedging
Determination of the damage event
Cooperation with insurance recommendable
e.g. BAFIN
Creation of a legal right
Creation of administration and clearing center
Epizootic Fund
Validation of legal matters
Adaptation of the legal matters 13

14. Conclusion
In the decision making process for the use of marker vaccines as a crisis management instrument should be included epidemiological and economic models
Crisis exercises, cross border and between public and private instructions are necessary
Revise structures to enable continuous collaboration cross border and public-private approach
Public-Private Approaches are necessary

15. Dr. Verena Schütz
467
522