Stakeholder Meetings
Avian Influenza - Ornithological Experts Group meeting - 24th February 2006
Attendees
Ian Bainbridge, SEERAD Chief Ecological Adviser
Neil Ritchie, SEERAD Animal Health and Welfare Division
Alex Young, SEERAD Animal Health and Welfare Division
Mike Lamont, SVS
Sheila Voas, SVS
Andrew Douse, Scottish Natural Heritage
Colin Galbraith, Scottish Natural Heritage
Colin Shedden, BASC Scotland
Paul Walton, RSPB
Chris Wernham, BTO Scotland
Apologies
John Doherty, WWT
Grace MacKenzie, VLA
Introduction
1. A brief summary was given of recent events, including the European Commission decision on actions to be taking on the findings of H5N1 in wild birds. The new Decision built upon the expectation in the February 2006 Scottish Avian Influenza Contingency Plan of heightened biosecurity and surveillance around any finding of H5N1 in wild birds. It formalised these actions and placed movement and other restrictions on domestic poultry.
Implications of latest findings
2. A description was given of High Pathogenic Avian Influenza findings in other countries, including in domestic poultry in Nigeria, Mute Swans in Italy, Croatia and Germany and a Pochard in France. It was felt that the first two posed no significant long term risk for Scotland. However the finding in the pochard in France was considered to be the first wild bird infection in an area where some migration of that and related species would normally occur back to the UK in the spring. As very little is known about duck movements in Scotland, it was felt that surveillance for duck die-offs should be considered an increased priority.
Current Scottish surveillance
3. Figures were given for the number of birds recently surveyed across GB and the group were pleased to note that Avian Influenza was found at a very low level, with only three of the 4000 birds sampled exhibiting Low Pathogenic forms of AI, none of which was confirmed as H5 or H7.
4. It was agreed that the current method for reporting dead bird findings could be improved and that those answering helpline calls could ask additional questions to enable a greater understanding of the situation e.g. was the dead bird found near power lines? It was agreed that the SAC template for those answering helpline calls would be circulated around this group for their comments, in particular on specific questions to ask.
5. There followed a discussion about how best to conduct surveillance in Scotland over the forthcoming spring migration period and beyond. The Group were broadly content with the current arrangements, subject to improving the template mentioned previously to target surveillance on the most relevant findings, particularly in terms of screening out some of the more likely forms of death, eg swans killed through contact with power lines.
Resource issues were also raised as a concern, both with staffing helplines and more significantly the collection of dead birds.
6. In conclusion, it was agreed that a proportionate response is called for and more specifically:
- All wild bird die-offs should be investigated;
- Better criteria should be developed for reporting these;
- The collection of dead birds should continue to be the responsibility of the SAC/ SVS but other options would be investigated;
- Staff on Wildfowl Reserves would be encouraged to remain vigilant;
- Group members would reflect on the contribution their organisations can make in future; and
- These procedures will be regularly reviewed
ACTION:SEERAD to circulate the SAC template for dead bird reports to the Group for comment.
Future Scottish surveillance
7. The importance of continued surveillance was agreed and the Group highlighted that it would be ideal to get long term surveillance cover set up for all major Scottish migratory wildfowl sites, and that the first priority should be to identify any existing gaps in this cover. The first check on this would be to check whether surveillance monitoring is being carried out at all mainland (especially eastern side of Scotland) SPAs for wildfowl.
8. The Group agreed that any such surveillance system must be manageable over the longer term and must therefore including a system of monitoring which could be maintained over a longer period. This would include analysis of the resource implications for all organisations involved.
ACTION:SNH to arrange a meeting to highlight surveillance gaps at major Scottish surveillance sites, and to suggest a simple and cost effective level of monitoring for the future.
Other Business
9. The Group considered its role in supporting Scottish Ministers, and helping to target their response to a finding of HPAI in the UK or in areas that posed a potential risk. It was agreed that if HPAI was found in the UK, all members of this Group should be contacted immediately.
ACTION: Group members to give contact details to SEERAD.
Top of page