The Scottish Government

Scottish Animal Health and Welfare Advisory Group Meeting - 5 May 2005 Minutes and Papers

back to Advisory Group page

Agenda

Attendees

1. Minutes of Meeting of 17th March 2005
2. Matters Arising
3. Revised remit of the Scottish Animal Health and Welfare Advisory Group
4. Veterinary Working Group
5. Stakeholder priorities - review of emerging issues
6. Costs and Benefits of Disease Control
7. AOB and future agenda items
Annex A - Revised remit of the Scottish Animal Health and Welfare Advisory Group

Papers

Paper 2.1 - Remit of the Scottish Animal Health and Welfare Advisory Group
Paper 2.2 - Veterinary Working Group
Paper 2.3 - Cost and Benefit Analysis

Members:
Charles Milne - Chief Veterinary Officer (Scotland) (chair)
Ian Anderson - Head of SEERAD Animal Health and Welfare Division
Kay Driver - Chief Executive, Scottish SPCA
Julie Fitzpatrick - Chief Executive, Moredun Research Institute
Bill McKelvey - Chief Executive, SAC
Stuart Reid - Dean, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Glasgow
Mike Robson - President, Scottish Branch British Veterinary Association

Secretariat:
Neil Ritchie - SEERAD, Animal Health and Welfare Division
Alex Young - SEERAD, Animal Health and Welfare Division

Apologies:
Jan Polley - Chief Executive, Quality Meat Scotland
Andy Robertson - Chief Executive, NFU Scotland

1. Members were welcomed to the second meeting of the Scottish Animal Health and Welfare Advisory Group and invited to agree the minutes of the previous meeting. Once agreed, members were encouraged to circulate these within their organisations.

ACTION: SEERAD to place minutes and any Advisory Group Papers on the Executive's website.

back to top

2. The majority of action points were covered as agenda items. An update was given on the International Best Practice work, which will be carried over for discussion at a future meeting once the current study had been completed.

back to top

3. The chair highlighted the changes which had been made to the remit since the last meeting to emphasise:

• Scottishness - the distinctive Scottish approach of this group;
• External links - linking work together and exploiting synergies; and
• Ownership of the Strategy by all stakeholders

4. Following a brief discussion the remit was agreed, subject to some minor changes emphasising the links to other Strategies and the importance of recognising how the Animal Health and Welfare Strategy fits in with these.

back to top

5. At the previous meeting members expressed an interest in the Veterinary Working Group - particularly how it relates to this group in helping to progress the Strategy.

6. The Veterinary Working Group was set up on a GB basis, under the umbrella of the Animal Health and Welfare Strategy, to consider the challenges facing large animal practices. Its activity has so far centred on information gathering. A draft action plan was drawn up in June 2004, which is now being looked at with a view to identifying outstanding issues for a meeting at the end of July 2005.

7. The importance of vets to the Strategy was stressed, and it was noted that farming is high up on the list of major veterinary issues at present. It was also recognised that widely differing views are held across the UK and that there is a need to consider which issues should be tackled on a Scotland basis and which on a GB wide basis. It was agreed that the Group would be kept in touch with the Veterinary Working Group, and that this Group would regularly take stock of their work.

8. There followed a discussion on veterinary issues including:

• provision of vets and veterinary services;
• student interest in large animal practice;
• regional differences in veterinary coverage; and
• shortage of training material in veterinary schools

9. The group felt that more data was needed in order to reach conclusions on the issues - a random survey of Scottish vets was suggested to draw these out. Supply of, and demand for, large animal veterinarians was considered to be a key issue needing investigation. It was also suggested that this survey could be linked to the development of a specifically Scottish veterinary policy. However it was felt that this survey would be best undertaken next year to allow time for changes from CAP reform to be identified. There was a feeling that issues relating to a shortage of training material in veterinary schools could be fed into the next EU CVO informal meeting.

ACTION: SEERAD to take issues raised by Advisory Group members to the Veterinary Working Group

ACTION: SAHWAG to discuss a Scottish Veterinary Survey at a future meeting.

ACTION: Information about a potential shortage of veterinary school training material to be considered as a potential item at the EU CVO informal meeting.

back to top

Questionnaire

10. As a result of discussion at the last meeting about a Scottish Programme to take forward Strategy Implementation, an action point was identified of designing a questionnaire to send to animal keepers for their views. This stakeholder priorities questionnaire was drafted by SEERAD and circulated to Group members for comment prior to the meeting.

11. Discussion of the animal health and welfare questionnaire concentrated mainly on drafting and presentational issues, particularly the need to make it an easy document to fill in.

Distribution

12. Distribution of the questionnaire was also considered, with various methods discussed (e.g. completion at conferences). Members agreed that they could take this forward within their own organisations. SEERAD will co-ordinate responses with the aim of bringing analysis back to the Group.

Analysis

13. The group felt that the questionnaire would produce mainly descriptive data and that this may be best analysed by automated means - data analysis companies were mentioned who could potentially do this. It was also considered that existing research may be able to answer some of the questions - the Meat Hygiene Service was mentioned as a possible source of information.

ACTION: SEERAD to re-draft the questionnaire and circulate to Group members

ACTION: SEERAD to consider provision of return paid envelopes for questionnaire responses.

ACTION: SEERAD to seek additional information from the Meat Hygiene Service.

back to top

14. At the previous meeting, SEERAD confirmed that a literarature review of research currently available on the costs and benefits of disease control had been undertaken, and circulated this to SAHWAG members. This issue was picked within the meeting.

15. Inconsistent methodology made comparison of different pieces of work difficult, but there was a useful distinction made between total cost and avoidable cost of disease. This type of work is included under the SEERAD Science Strategy.

16. The Group felt that there is a need for farmers to appreciate the benefits to them, and that this work should be concentrated at farm level. Species specific case studies and participative research to demonstrate value to the farmer were felt to be important. The key is getting the message across to people on the ground - directly to practising farmers through the NFU's conference or by learning from others who have taken up Land Management Contracts. It was also suggested that an economist or supermarket representative could be invited to any future Scottish Animal Health and Welfare Conference to promote this work.

back to top

17. Members agreed to the suggestion that, in future, summaries could be provided to this Advisory Group of upcoming activities and events for each of the member organisations. To this end a brief summary of progress with the Animal Health and Welfare Bill was given, noting that consultation will begin on 16th May.

18. The following topics for the next meeting were suggested:

• Update on the questionnaire and emerging results
• Animal Health and Welfare Management Programmes
• Annual Conference

Suggestions for future agenda items were:

• Collation of survey and research data on animal health and welfare
• Welfare and consumers paper
• Biosecurity
• Links with English and Welsh Groups - attendance of chairpersons
• Benchmarking and surveillance to measure success of Advisory Group initiatives

19. The usefulness of exchanging views and best practice with Implementation Groups in England and Wales was noted for the future.

ACTION: SEERAD to canvass availability for the next SAHWAG meeting.

back to top

The remit of the group is to:

• advise on and communicate the opportunities provided by the Animal Health and Welfare Strategy in Scotland to the Scottish Executive, industry and other stakeholders, all of whom have ownership of the Strategy;
• contribute to the production and regular review of a Scottish Programme for the implementation of the Animal Health and Welfare Strategy in Scotland, reflecting stakeholder priorities;
• consider appropriate targets for specific actions and expected outcomes and review progress against these over time;
• set the direction for the annual conference and more widely to utilise the experience and broad range of perspectives - welfare, education, research, veterinary, farmers union, industry and government - within the group to help promote partnership with stakeholders in ownership and delivery of the Strategy; and
• develop formal external links with other work ongoing, such as the Forward Strategy for Scottish Agriculture, Food and Drink Strategy and the SEERAD Science Strategy, and maximise synergy between these and the Animal Health and Welfare Strategy.

back to top

Purpose

1. To agree the revised remit (see Annex A) of the Scottish Animal Health and Welfare Advisory Group in light of discussion at the previous meeting

Background

2. A draft remit was presented at the first meeting and, following discussion, was broadly agreed. However some additional points emerged:

• Scottishness - use of the term to reflect the distinctive Scottish approach to driving the Strategy forward would be helpful;
• External links - formal links to other workstreams e.g. Agriculture Strategy, to reflect the importance of linking work together and exploiting synergies; and
• Ownership of the Strategy by all stakeholders.

The reference to a programme of work reflects the initiatives that will be taken forward under the umbrella of the Strategy, rather than a specific document.

3. The experience and range of perspectives within the Advisory Group is fully reflected in the remit.

Recommendation

4. The Advisory Group is asked to agree the revised remit.

ANNEX A

REVISED SCOTTISH ANIMAL HEALTH AND WELFARE ADVISORY GROUP REMIT

The revised remit is as follows:

• advise and communicate the opportunities provide by the Animal Health and Welfare Strategy in Scotland to the Scottish Executive, industry and other stakeholders all of whom have ownership of the Strategy;
• contribute to the production and regular review of a Scottish Programme for the implementation of the Animal Health and Welfare Strategy in Scotland, reflecting stakeholder priorities;
• consider appropriate targets for specific actions and review progress against these over time;
• set the direction for the annual conference and more widely to utilise the experience and broad range of perspectives - welfare, education, research, veterinary, farmers union, industry and government - within the group to help promote partnership with stakeholders in ownership of the Strategy; and
• develop formal external links with other work ongoing, such as the Agricultural Strategy, Food and Drink Strategy and the Science Strategy; and maximise synergy between these and the Animal Health and Welfare Strategy.

back to top

1. At the 17 March Animal Health and Welfare Advisory Group meeting, interest was expressed in the Veterinary Working Group which had been set up on a GB basis to consider the challenges facing large animal practices. This paper provides an overview as to the nature of that work and seeks the Group's contribution to identify any Scottish specific issues it considers may exist and how the Advisory Group could interact with this GB wide initiative.

Background

2. During the extensive consultation on the Animal Health and Welfare Strategy, concern was expressed by a wide range of stakeholders - both within the profession and their clients - as to the downward trend in the number of veterinary surgeons in large animal practice and the potential implications this has for the livestock sector and animal health and welfare standards. Particular concern was expressed at the implications of financial pressures on the livestock industry for the demand for veterinary services, as well as the priority that a large number of veterinary practitioners were approaching retirement age and problems with retention of new entrants. In England this issue also took on further prominence following the decision of the House of Commons Defra Select Committee to investigate this topic.

3. Veterinary surgeons are a key partner in the delivery of the Animal Health and Welfare Strategy. Reflecting the concerns a Veterinary Working Group (a joint initiative between the Scottish Executive, Defra and Welsh Assembly Government) was set up in early 2004 to investigate these issues and through an understanding of the evidence base, consider how they could be mitigated and any opportunities exploited.

4. The Working Group undertook 5 meetings across GB Vet Schools, including the second meeting at the Royal Dick in Edinburgh. Representatives from the profession, clients along with practising vets were invited and each meeting focused on particular issues e.g. Animal Health and Welfare Planning, on-call arrangements. In addition to these meetings a total of 3 reports were produced providing a core evidence base:

• Working Group on Vets and Veterinary Services Report which noted the key findings of the meetings prepared by independent consultants hired as facilitators (OCP). It was also informed by written and other contributions from stakeholders;
• The Institute of Employment Studies (IES) Report into Veterinary Career Choices compared the factors that influenced the career decisions of veterinarians and those coming up to graduation to those who had been in the profession for 5 years;
• Wesley Consulting Group Report into the supply of large animal vets, which examined the supply of large animal vets now and in the future and also looked into factors which were influencing this.

These reports are published on the Scottish Executive website (and are available on request). Annex A highlights the key findings.

Progress

5. Since the ending of the Vet School based meetings a smaller group consisting of the BVA, RCVS and the 3 Agricultural Departments have taken place. In addition Defra has involved NFU England in the Working Group and we similarly invited BVA Scotland and NFU Scotland. BVA Scotland indicated that their contribution would be fed through BVA HQ and, following NFU Scotland's inability to attend the first meeting, we agreed that we would feed their issues into the Working Group.

6. Since the completion of the Veterinary School meetings substantive progress on these issues has been slow. However, a useful meeting was recently held by Defra and SEERAD (14 April) with the BVA and RCVS which has shown a clear commitment to move this work forward. Draft terms of reference for the Group are attached (Annex B).

7. The next meeting of the Working Group has been provisionally arranged for 26 July and will consist of a discussion of the individual points being raised by the 3 Reports and consideration of which issues need to be taken forward on a GB basis by the Working Group, and which were appropriate for the implementation arrangements of the 3 countries. In addition to the analysis of the Reports' conclusions (which will be undertaken by a group consisting of Government and representatives of the BVA, and RCVS and farming industry), it will also consider whether these points remain outstanding or whether they have been overtaken by events over the last year.

Conclusion

8. The Advisory Group is asked to note the context of the work being taken forward to address the issues surrounding the supply of large animal veterinary services and consider whether there are any Scottish specific issues they consider need to be addressed as part of this work.

9. The Group is also invited to consider the links it would wish to have with the Working Group.

ANNEX A

KEY FINDINGS ON THE PROVISION OF VETS AND VETERINARY SERVICES

• There is generally an adequate supply of vets. In the future, a record number of vet students will be produced. Many of these have a strong interest in farm animal work.
• Veterinary training is presently very good. New opportunities to teach business, communication and health planning skills are being explored.
• There are difficulties in succession planning and retention of new vets in the farm animal sector. This is mainly due to different lifestyle expectations between generations.
• It is felt that most areas of Great Britain will still have adequate veterinary coverage in the future. However, there is strong concern about marginal areas. These include remote areas, such as the Highlands and Islands, and also the urban fringe.
• The profession believes 24 hour cover will be sustainable but may be more limited in future, particularly in remote areas.
• The pattern of demand for veterinary services is likely to change as farmers become more market focused. There may be few, larger farms and also more part time and hobby farmers. Each of these brings challenges, but also opportunities to market new services. Whilst some vets do recognise these opportunities, this change represents a challenge for the representative bodies of the profession to encourage their members to move away from a reliance on traditional emergency response work, which will in future decline.
• There is good support for animal health planning from both the profession and farming industry. As well as recognising that prevention is better than cure, it is seen as a good way of managing a vet's time to ensure that they regularly get on farm. There is concern that this process must ensure that a proper strategic plan is produced at farm level involving a local vet, and not just a tick-box exercise.
• There is tentative support for increased use of para-professionals. The main concern is that many of them are completely unregulated so there is no way to guarantee their quality. Working with vet practices or even bringing them within the vet practice have been identified as possible solutions.

ANNEX B

VETERINARY WORKING GROUP DRAFT TERMS OF REFERENCE

• To establish a more effective working partnership between the veterinary profession, Government, and livestock keepers, taking account of the challenges that face the profession and the changing needs of its customers.
• To develop a shared and prioritised approach to help ensure that farm animal practice has a sustainable future. To monitor the veterinary profession's contribution to the Animal Health and Welfare Strategy.

back to top

Purpose

1. This paper sets out an overview of research currently being carried out into identifying the costs and benefits of disease control. The Advisory Group is asked to consider this research with a view to highlighting any gaps in the research being carried out. In addition the Advisory Group should agree the best approach to communicating the research findings with industry.

2. The Animal Health and Welfare Strategy highlights the importance of understanding the costs imposed by disease and the associated costs and benefits of their control. The strategy also highlights that such information needs to be disseminated to farmers to support decision-making and understand the contribution which improved animal health and welfare status can make to farm business viability. We intend to draw upon existing information and that emerging from an ongoing programme to help promote the benefit of animal health and welfare management programmes.

Review of Existing Research

3. A considerable amount of research has been undertaken in this area. However, comparison between pieces of work are difficult to achieve because of the different methodologies that have been applied. There is no consistency of application of the methods between diseases and species and many models that have been developed are not applicable at farm level.

4. The Executive commissioned Alistair Stott from SAC's Animal Health Economics Team, to carry out a literature review on cost-benefit research with the aim of identifying where research gaps exist and to use evidence from the review to assess the best ways to measure the real benefits of improvements in farm animal health. (This has already been circulated to Advisory Group members)

5. The literature review focused on endemic sheep and cattle (dairy and beef) diseases. The results of the review confirmed the lack of consistency between the methods used in previous studies and made a number of recommendations on how best to measure economic impact. For example, avoidable losses [1] should be measured not total costs. Linked directly to this, the use of simulation models i.e. decision making tools, would enable estimates to be made on the avoidable losses of controlling disease.

Current Research

6. The review by Alistair Stott identified gaps and areas for further research and has been used to inform the development of further research. In particular, to develop the concept of decision making tools, recognising that these should reflect the risk that the disease represents to the viability of the farm, interacting between the cost of the disease, cost of disease control and the wider farm management activities.

7. Defra have funded research by Dr Richard Bennett (Reading University) with the objective to construct simulation models capable of demonstrating to farmers and advisers the financial impact of selected livestock diseases on the farm business and the costs and benefits associated with farm-level measures for disease control. Case studies of six different livestock diseases have been undertaken - two for cattle, two for sheep, one for pigs and one for poultry. Preliminary results from this research was presented to the Defra Farm Health Planning Working Group on 17 February 2005.

8. Following a number of discussions with the Executive, George Gunn, SAC, has submitted a proposal for a multi-staged research project that will lead to a farm level decision support system that will complement the case study research undertaken by Reading University. The SAC work follows on from SEERAD sponsored work at SAC that has developed whole-farm economic models. For phase one of the project SAC, (which has been submitted to QMS for funding), will carry out a farmer survey to rank diseases of cattle and sheep in Scotland. For Phase 2 (which will receive SEERAD funding) SAC will develop a generic framework for measuring the avoidable losses of controlling disease at farm level and then utilise this framework to develop a prototype decision support tool to estimate the avoidable losses of controlling disease on farm, including cost and benefit appraisal for different control strategies.

9. The third phase of the project will be funded under SEERADs new Science Strategy. A requirement for work on economics of disease control was included in Work Package specifications on viral, bacterial and parasitic diseases. Proposals to carry out this work will be submitted by the end of May, these will be peer reviewed and revised if necessary before commencing April 2006. It is anticipated that during this third phase epidemiological models of specific, high priority diseases will be combined with whole farm economic models to generate decision support tools for farmers.

Conclusion

10. The Advisory Group should consider the above overview of research into the costs and benefits of disease control with a view to identifying:

• other research that the Advisory Group are aware of that could be fed into this programme of work.
• potential gaps in the research and other strands of cost and benefit work that should be considered.
• the best approach towards disseminating the research findings to the industry and vet profession, illustrating the costs and benefits of disease control intervention at farm level.

[1] Total costs of animal diseases may overestimate the benefit from investment in disease control as they assume that all output losses are fully avoidable. Avoidable losses is a measure that takes into account the fact that investment in disease control measures may not mean all output losses are avoided.

May 2005

Animal Health and Welfare Division

Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department

back to Advisory Group page

back to top