The Scottish Government

BLUETONGUE STAKEHOLDER MEETING

St Andrews House, 16th September 2008

Present

Apologies: Phil Flanders ( RHA), John Dalgleish ( SEPA) and Mike Flynn ( SSPCA).

Introduction

Cabinet Secretary welcomed everyone to the meeting, which had been called at relatively short notice following the recent confirmation of imported bluetongue positive animals in the north of England. He outlined the purpose of meeting as to discuss the options for bluetongue zones should disease be confirmed as circulating in the North of England at a later date and to review Scotland's vaccination strategy in light of recent developments. The aim would be to arrive at an agreed statement on Scotland's response.

Disease Update

CVO Scotland gave an update on the current situation in Europe with regard to bluetongue.

A map of the current EU bluetongue zones in Europe is attached. This year there have been over ten thousand cases of BTV8 and 255 cases of BTV1 in France. BTV1 is of concern to the UK as BTV8 vaccine does not provide immunity to BTV1. Germany Sweden, Hungary, Belgium, the Netherlands and Denmark have also seen cases of BTV8 this year.

Within the UK, as yet disease has not been found to be circulating this year. However, there have been several instances of infected imports. Last week 35 cattle were imported to County Durham - 18 of these were found to be infected with BTV8 on post-import testing. This is the most northerly instance so far and is of considerable concern to Scotland. County Durham has only fairly recently been brought into the English Protection Zone and initial indications are that uptake (based on sales to veterinary practices) is only 45%. In addition, should disease be found to be circulating as a result of these imports, a projected 100km Protection Zone would clip the Scottish Borders, and the projected 150km Surveillance Zone would cover a significant portion of Southern Scotland. A map showing the projected zones is attached.

So far there is no evidence of circulating virus, and a case has been put to the Commission supporting the Scottish Government's position that a Restricted Zone is not currently required in Scotland. CVO Scotland was hopeful that the Commission would be content. However, the seven recent cases of infected imports to England illustrate how simple it is to legally bring infection into a Protection Zone. Infection could begin circulating anywhere across England as a result of such imports, and this significantly increases the risk to Scotland.

Discussion

ANMG asked whether the number of infected stock being imported was a reflection on vaccine uptake in the source countries. CVO Scotland explained that it was more a reflection on the level of disease circulating on continental Europe. Information on vaccine uptake is hard to come by but uptake varies between countries. In France, the vaccination campaign for BTV1 has been successful with a high uptake, but they have had less success with persuading farmers to vaccinate against BTV8.

NFUS asked what action was being taken in England regarding the infected imports. CVO Scotland responded that the animals were being restricted on farm and treated with insecticide. As vaccination is voluntary in England receiving farmers are not being compelled to vaccinate their animals and insecticides are only effective for a few days at best, hence this approach is providing only partial protection.

SAC asked how soon after arrival the animals were being tested. CVO Scotland responded that the protocol was to test immediately. AH clarified that in practice testing was undertaken the day after arrival as there were sometime problems tracking the animals down quickly from the paperwork. In order to minimise such issues records are obtained from both the point of origin and destination.

SBCA and NSA noted the anger felt on the ground about the infected imports and asked whether there was any way to stop them legally. CVO Scotland reminded the group that the Scottish Government is obliged to implement the EU legislation on bluetongue, which allows free movements between Protection Zones of the same status. Official advice has always been that people should not import from within or near disease hot-spots, particularly BTV1 hot spots - the onus is on the industry to take heed of this advice. While Scotland, as a free area, is currently better protected than England through legislation, there have still been 3 imports to Scotland from the BTV8 Zone and on occasions from areas adjacent to the BTV1 Zone.

There was a call from stakeholders for the livestock industry not to be at left at the mercy of individuals and a suggestion that the names of those people importing from high risk areas should be published on the Scottish Government website to warn others, including neighbours. SG officials thought that there could be legal, data protection and trade issues with this approach. Such information is also likely to be exempt from FOI requests on the grounds of data protection.

SBCA asked whether a movement standstill could be implemented for imports. CVO Scotland thought that this would be hard to justify for legal imports.

Potential Restricted Zone in Scotland

Neil Ritchie outlined the general principles of how a Restricted Zone might be implemented in Scotland on confirmation of circulating disease in Northern England, and how disease risks and economic impacts might be mitigated. A copy of his presentation is attached.

He reminded the Group that if disease is found to be circulating, the Scottish Government is legally required to implement a Protection Zone with a boundary at least 100km from the infected premises, and a Surveillance Zone with a boundary at least 50km from the PZ. Movement out of these zones is strictly controlled. Following on from these requirements, there are essentially five options:

1. Do nothing.

2. Implement a small SZ

3. Implement an all-Scotland SZ

4. Implement a small PZ

5. Implement an all-Scotland PZ

Option 1 is not a viable option for several reasons, not least that Scotland needs to act to protect other free areas as we ourselves expect other countries to act. In addition, if no zones were put in place, Scotland would be in breach of EU law and could be subject to a fine.

Policy and economic analyses have been undertaken on the remaining four options, and the two main points to come out are that:

• Implementing a PZ increases the immediate disease risk to an area
• The bigger the zone, the lower the impact on trade.

SG's recommendation is, in principle, to make any PZ as small as possible and any SZ Scotland-wide; however, each case would need to be looked at on its own merit.

Discussion

SAMW asked whether a Surveillance Zone in Scotland would affect current arrangements for moves to slaughter in Scotland. CVO Scotland explained that movements within the Surveillance Zone would be unrestricted and that moves from the PZ would continue under licence with similar conditions to those in force at present. He added that if a Protection Zone was declared in Scotland, the recommendation would be to keep it as small as possible and allow vaccination within it early, but that the main vaccination campaign across the rest of Scotland would take place during the vector free period as previously planned.

IAAS supported the recommended all-Scotland Surveillance Zone should disease be found to be circulating, and asked who would be responsible for implementing any zones. CVO Scotland confirmed that the Scottish Government would implement the zones, as per EU legislation. NFUS also supported an all-Scotland Surveillance Zone in principle, but suggested that there should be a pause for thought before implementing as once put in place it cannot be removed for at least two years. CVO Scotland agreed that this was wise. He explained that if circulating disease was to arise from the recent Durham imports, it was unlikely to be seen until the end of September, but that the sooner a decision was made regarding the size of any Zones, the more time we would all have to put plans in place.

NSA expressed concern that Northern Ireland would not accept Scottish livestock if zones were put in place. CVO Scotland said that SG were in discussion with them, but as yet there was no firm commitment to accept animals from Scotland once zones were in place. However, EU regulations state that such moves must be allowed, and it is likely that there will still be a requirement for slaughter stock, particularly sheep. SBCA noted that it would impact on the live bull trade. CVO Scotland confirmed that live animals would need to complete a course of vaccination and either wait for 60 days, or 35 days with a test. NSA were concerned that Northern Ireland might not accept livestock from Scotland. ANMG noted that if Scotland committed to vaccinating this winter, declaring an all-Scotland SZ one month or so before the intended Protection Zone implementation would have little additional impact. The focus must be on avoiding trade barriers within Scotland.

NBA supported an all-Scotland Surveillance Zone in principle, though saw little benefit over an all-Scotland PZ with early vaccination. They suggested that there may be undetected disease already circulating in the Durham area and that there was a need to protect livestock in Scotland. Vaccination would allow trade with other Protection Zones, and they suggested that many countries would only accept vaccinated animals. CVO Scotland emphasised that there was no evidence of circulating disease in the Durham area, that current impact on exports were small, and that declaring a Protection Zone too early would significantly increase the risk of disease coming to Scotland.

IAAS asked what the absolute minimum size of a protection zone was. CVO Scotland explained that the EU legal minimum is 100km radius around an infected premises, but that Defra had been using a Protection Zone with a 20km radius last year. He confirmed that SG would keep any protection zone as small as possible and that any infected imports brought into Scotland before the vaccination campaign would be slaughtered.

Timing of vaccination campaign

SG suggested that there was a requirement for a firm decision on the vaccination timetable in light of recent developments. CVO Scotland reminded the Group that we had collectively agreed to keep the planned timing under review pending disease developments and that the numerous infected imports to the PZ represent a continual and increased risk to Scotland.

With this, and the potential practical difficulties of vaccinating over the winter, in mind, CVO Scotland had been in discussion with experts at the Institute of Animal Health ( IAH) regarding the likely vector free period and the likely transmission free period. The thinking had been that the transmission free period, which is longer than the vector free period and includes a period when vectors may still be active but the temperatures are to low for virus replication, might provide a more flexible vaccination window. However, although the transmission free period is expected to end later than the vector free period (end of May to mid June rather than mid March), the two time periods start at roughly the same time in mid December.

IAH then looked at the extrinsic incubation period (i.e. how long before a midge that has bitten an infected animals itself becomes infective), which is also dependent on temperature. The projections for these suggested that if Scotland became part of the Protection Zone from the 1st of November, there was a very low risk of an infected import to Scotland resulting in circulating virus. If we delayed until mid-December before becoming part of the Protection Zone, that risk became negligible.

On the basis of this, and recent developments, SG proposed that the Group agree that Scotland will begin the vaccination campaign in 2008, but not before 1st November 2008. Initial courses of vaccination would need to be completed by the end of April to ensure that immunity was achieved by the end of the transmission free period.

Discussion

IAAS asked whether there would be enough vaccine for everyone to vaccinate on the 1st November. CVO Scotland explained that while the whole of Scotland might become part of the PZ and be allowed to vaccinate from the 1st, SG were not expecting everyone in Scotland to want to vaccinate immediately. The final batch of vaccine would be received in December. IAAS expressed concern that a price differential between vaccinated and unvaccinated stock might develop. NFUS suggested that whenever the window was opened there was the potential for this, but that there were sound scientific reasons for choosing the proposed dates.

NFUS supported the proposed dates in principle, though they called for SG to be helpful should particular problems arise. They also pointed out that agreeing a definite vaccination date was not entirely good news. Vaccination entails a cost to the farmer and there may be some safety issues for pregnant animals. While they accepted the need for a definite campaign, they were unhappy that the need for this has arisen from the risk posed by imports rather than indigenous circulating disease. NBA noted that cost was not an issue for the beef industry and that there did not appear to be any safety issues for pregnant cattle, with one herd in England that vaccinated a month before calving acheiving a 102% calving rate. They pointed out that as there is no compensation for animals that contract bluetongue, the only insurance open to farmers is to vaccinate. NSA confirmed that the proposed dates would suit sheep farming, including those with away wintering. The general feeling from the sheep sector is that farmers are ready and waiting to vaccinate.

ANMG asked whether SG could slow down processing imports for the first two weeks of the vaccination campaign. CVO Scotland asked that all stakeholder organisations get the message out to their members not to begin imports from other Protection Zones until mid December, when the risk of bringing circulating disease to Scotland was minimised. Discussions are on going with the Commission regarding possible derogation from accepting imports immediately after the campaign begins, and the Royal Society of Edinburgh are also bringing pressure to bear. Cabinet Secretary confirmed that he would push hard to protect Scotland.

Joint Scottish Government/ Industry stakeholder statement

Cabinet Secretary reminded the Group that in April they had agreed a joint statement on plans for vaccination in Scotland and suggested that it would be useful to revise this statement in light of the meeting's discussion. SG suggested that the key points to be covered in the revised statement would be:

• The risk of disease reaching Scotland is increased in light of infected imports to the Protection Zone.
• Should disease be found to be circulating in the north of England as a consequence of such imports:

• Scotland will commence vaccinating against BTV8 this winter, but not before 1st November 2008.
• The details of the vaccination campaign will be as set out in the vaccination plan agreed with the Group, and initial courses of vaccination must be completed by the end of April 2009.

SG explained that there would be an official statement closer to the time with a definite start date, which would depend on the weather later in the year. CVO Scotland confirmed that as much notice as possible would be given.

Discussion

NFUS asked that it be made clear that all of Scotland will be brought into the Protection Zone simultaneously, rather than the gradual roll-out seen in England.

ANMG suggested that it might be useful to note that Scotland will be of the same status as England and Wales once in the Protection Zone, but it was pointed out that this was no entirely true as vaccination would be compulsory in Scotland.

NBA noted that the transmission free period was predicted to last until the end of May or mid June and asked whether this gave any flexibility over the required completion date for the first course of vaccine. CVO Scotland explained that there was a lag between vaccination and immunity being gained and that the end of April deadline was set to ensure that all livestock would be immune by the end of the transmission free period - extending the deadline was not advisable.

NSA suggested that it would be useful to add in the plea for people not to import animals from other Protection Zones until the vector free period starts in mid December. CVO Scotland said that his advice would remain not to import such animals at all.

SG agreed to type up the statement and email it round to the Group later that afternoon.

AOB

Cabinet Secretary asked whether a further meeting was required to finalise the vaccination plan. CVO Scotland said that the plan was in hand, and that the only outstanding issue was regarding the initial stages of the campaign when vaccine supply would be limited. He asked whether the Group would want to see certain area or sectors given priority, or if they were happy to leave it to veterinary practices to sort it out with their clients. There were no immediate strong feelings from the Group.

BDS asked how it was possible to prove if an animal had been vaccinated. CVO Scotland explained that veterinary practices would report the number of doses sold to each CPH and that after April Animal Health would also be conducting random blood testing to determine vaccination status. He added that although Scotland was aiming for 100% vaccination, the occasional animal that had been accidentally missed would have little impact on the success of the wider campaign in controlling the disease.

SFQC noted that farmers would require simple Q&A type information on what, why and how to vaccinate, and on the 'stick' of monitoring and enforcement. ANMG called for this information to be as short and simple as possible.

NBA asked what would happen if another bluetongue strain reached Scotland. CVO Scotland suggested that this was a discussion to have on another day, but confirmed that any imported animals with BTV1 would be slaughtered. There is already vaccine for BTV1 available, so the response to BTV1 would have a head start compared to BTV8.

Cabinet Secretary thanked the Group for another good illustration of how Government and industry can work together under challenging conditions and said that it had been useful to agree a revised joint statement. He emphasised that Scotland's response to bluetongue was very much in the hands of farmers, and that while the Scottish Government would help as much as possible, it is down to individual farmers to be responsible and vigilant in order to minimise the economic damage to the Scottish industry. He also noted that with the hill farming debate on Thurday and the Scudamore debate in a few weeks, agriculture remains very much in the thoughts of Parliament, and confirmed that he would continue to do everything within his lagal powers to protect Scotland.

ANMG thanked Cabinet Secretary and SG for providing an excellent model of how consultation can work well, and expressed the Group's appreciation of the work put into such communication and debate.

AHW Division - Branch 2

Rural directorate

19th September 2006