Avian influenza (Bird flu): Avian Influenza Stakeholder meeting, 16 December 2005
| Debby Reynolds (Defra) - (Chair) David Dawson (Defra) Fred Landeg (Defra) Andrew Empson (Defra) Bruce Pattern (Defra) Graham Lewis (Defra) Ruth Lysons (Defra) Simon Hewitt (Defra) John O’Rourke (Defra) Nathan Powell (Defra) Brian Sullivan (Animal Health) Dr Miranda Stevenson (BIAZA) Mark Cokayne (BASC) Jamie Stewart (BASC) Louise Platt (BEIC) Ted Wright (BPC) Peter Bradnock (BPC) |
Andrew Opie (BRC) Rachel Newton (BVA) Donald Taylor (IPC Media) Richella Logan (CLA) Christopher Price (CLA) Chris Davis (GCT) Peter Barton (NFU) Chris Kaufman (TGWU) Scot Walker (TGWU) John Widdowson (BFREPA) Mike Hatcher (DWCGB) Peter Bryant (RPRA) Steve Clarkson (NGA) Alice Clark (RSPCA) Daniel Parker (BVPA) Juliet Jenkins (Wales Office) Robin Ramus (PCGB) |
1 Introductions
1.1 Debby Reynolds opened the meeting by thanking everyone for attending. David Dawson updated attendees on stakeholder engagement since the last main meeting in November. Stakeholders had helped to develop the guidance on housing of birds and been very effective in circulating the guidance as well. There had also been stakeholder meetings on free range and organic issues, plus some follow up meetings with retailers, and several meetings on gatherings, shows and races.
2. Housing of birds, contingency plans, organic and free range status.
2.1 Simon Hewitt thanked the stakeholders for their contributions and help with distribution of guidance over the past months. The guidance leaflet on the housing of birds had been issued on 9 December and nearly 20,000 leaflets had been distributed.
2.2 The guidance on local risk assessments contained a lot of useful leads on contingency planning. It may not need much more development to serve as planning guidance on contingency planning.
2.3 We needed to ensure there was a clear understanding of what would happen if there were an outbreak with wild birds. There is not much that can or should be done to curb the movement of wild birds, so possibilities are restricted. Wild bird stakeholders such as the wildfowl trusts had a particular interest in this. There would be enhanced surveillance, and farmed birds would need to be kept separate from wild birds, at least while the risk of further spread was assessed. That would include analysing the likely movements of the species involved.
2.4 If free range egg producers, or free range meat producers, were required to house birds due to a case of highly pathogenic AI, the current EU proposal was that there would be a 12 week period when they could be housed without losing their status. Defra would clarify whether if birds had been let out during the 12 weeks, the period would restart if they were isolated again. There had not been a decision yet on organic status, but this was due in January. Action: Bruce Pattern
2.5 Migration routes from Africa and Eastern Europe were discussed. The main spring migration to the UK was of song birds, which don’t appear to play a natural part in the spread of AI. They were a risk which will not go away, but a low risk. In terms of Eastern Europe, Defra was in close contact with ornithologists to keep up to date on the situation. Overall, the view was that the risk would be higher next autumn with ducks and geese migrating from Eastern Europe than with birds migrating from Africa in spring.
2.6 The current survey on wild birds as part of the AI surveillance was due to end in December. That surveillance formed part of a wider European survey based on information such as flight paths. Debby Reynolds suggested that at the next stakeholder meeting, there should be a presentation from the scientific ornithologists to help provide some clarity on this.
3. Bird gatherings
3.1 Simon Hewitt thanked the stakeholders for their involvement in this work. There was currently a ban on collections of birds at fairs, markets, shows, exhibitions and other gatherings. Gatherings defined as ‘lower risk’ could go ahead under a specific licence issued by Animal Health. Gatherings of birds assessed as ‘higher’ risk and sales of birds were generally not permitted. The racing of pigeons was currently not permitted.
3.2 Stakeholders had worked closely with Defra on this and revised proposals were now before ministers. Stakeholders would be informed of decisions as soon as possible. There was concern from the stakeholders about the lack of continuity with European neighbours, and there was a plea for consistency.
4. The Dimmock Review
4.1 Andrew Empson summarised the Independent Review on Avian Quarantine (Dimmock Review). The review looked at the use of quarantine to ensure that captive birds brought into the UK are healthy. The review made 32 recommendations on quarantine, many of which needed to be made at an EU level, otherwise risk would come in through other channels. The risk to humans from imported captive birds was very low, and if the recommendations were implemented, then the risks would become negligible. The review was generic and did not deal with the incident that occurred at the Essex Quarantine facility in October. There were concerns from stakeholders about the consequences for exports to the Far East and specifically the impact this incident had on UK exporters’ reputations. Defra would be holding a meeting on the implementation of the Dimmock Review’s recommendations and stakeholders were invited to register their interest via Nathan Powell.
5. Progress on movements, licensing and other UK control issues
5.1 Simon Hewitt set the context of the AI directive. There was a complex matrix of different movements between different zones and Defra was currently analysing the controls required in the event of an outbreak, while facilitating low risk moves. Julian West was leading on this work, and Defra was grateful for the input from stakeholders on this. The proposals would be ready in January. The stakeholders supported the need to complete this work quickly, and a system of licensing needed to be in place well before an outbreak happened so that controls could be switched on straight away if required.
5.2 There were specific concerns about how restrictions would apply in the game rearing season. There would only be restrictions if there were an outbreak. Stakeholders will be able to see the wording of the general licences in advance so that everyone would be well prepared.
5.3 There was also a question about trade between mainland Britain and Northern Ireland. Defra had been in regular contact with Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish counterparts, who are all working for UK wide solutions to problems.
6. Vaccination
6.1 Current vaccines made control of an outbreak of avian influenza via vaccination alone difficult because of a number of practical limitations. The only vaccines available required birds to be injected individually. When the new AI directive is adopted, there would be new powers of vaccination. Defra was considering the pros and cons of vaccination. There had been discussions with various associations with regards to zoo birds and rare collections, and there was a workshop with stakeholders scheduled in January. A question was asked about whether vaccination would be an available option to individual bird keepers. This was one of the options currently being considered. There was a request for a formal definition of a zoo .
7. Poultry Register
7.1 The register went live on 9 December. There had been a reasonable amount of media coverage. 36,000 poultry register leaflets had been produced and there would be more of a push after Christmas including radio adverts, reminder leaflets and distribution around vets. The registration was active online and by phone. The call centre had logged 353 calls by midnight on 15 December. The current legislation runs out at the end of May and was currently constrained to AI. It was important to look at using registration information more widely in relation to Newcastle Disease and zoonoses. There were concerns voiced by some stakeholders about this, and Defra representatives explained that the information would be used for disease control purposes and would be a good opportunity for animal welfare and food safety. The poultry register information is protected as per the data protection statement on the form, and could not be released to a wider audience unless there was overwhelming public interest. Debby Reynolds emphasised that this was only a proposal at the moment.
8. AOB
8.1 Stakeholders had concerns about whether there is any offer of insurance in the event of an outbreak. There was currently no insurance available against compulsory slaughter, so stakeholders could not rely on insurance to receive protection. Some companies were offering insurance against consequential loss.
8.2 Health issues: a cross government committee had met on 16 December to discuss pandemic influenza. This was not specifically about AI, although it was possible for AI to give rise to a pandemic flu. The Department of Health had produced a pandemic flu plan. Efforts were being coordinated by the Cabinet Office. Highly pathogenic AI was potentially communicable to man, although a large number of humans had been exposed to H5N1 and the number that had been ill was small.
8.3 The Chair thanked stakeholders for all their work and partnership. It had been extremely helpful, and the group would continue to meet regularly in the New Year.
1 definition of ‘zoo’ in Decision 2005/744/EC. Art 2(a) ‘Zoo’ means:
(i) all permanent establishments where animals of wild
species are kept for exhibition to the public for seven or more days a
year, with the exception of circuses, pet shops and establishments which
Member States exempt
from the requirements of this Decision on the grounds that they do not
exhibit a significant number of animals
or species to the public and that the exemption will not jeopardise the
objectives of this Decision;
Page last modified:
November 14, 2007 13:37