The gulf between emergency plans and the resources needed: a global review.

Preparedness for an animal emergency event reduces a country's economic and production losses and decreases animal disease threats to neighbouring countries. Investing in animal disease preparedness reduces economic expenditures during an emergency as well as in recovery. An essential component of animal disease preparedness is a national contingency plan that is fit for purpose. This useful document should be frequently updated and can be modified with new information from self-assessments and after-action reports, which should identify resource needs and improvements to be made. National contingency plans are recommended in global international guidance and by animal health and veterinary organisations. Despite this, some countries lack national contingency plans that are fit for purpose, or the resources to implement them. This review concentrates on trends in national contingency planning around the world. In 2018 and 2019, the authors surveyed existing global animal disease contingency plans. Of the 181 Members of the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), 163 were reported to have some form of national contingency plan. (Over the course of the review from 2018 to 2019, the 182nd Member joined the OIE. This review examines only the 181 that were Members when the survey began.) The authors review current global animal emergency preparedness and discuss the gaps that have been identified. They discuss global trends, examining developing concepts and novel approaches that may aid improvements in global national contingency planning and enhance the global capacity to prepare for animal disease where gaps exist.

La préparation aux urgences de santé animale atténue les pertes économiques et productives des pays affectés et réduit la menace de propagation de maladies aux pays voisins. Les investissements dédiés à la préparation aux maladies animales réduisent les dépenses économiques durant l'urgence ainsi que pendant la phase de redressement. L'une des composantes essentielles de la préparation aux situations d'urgence zoosanitaire est le plan national d'intervention, qui doit être adapté aux objectifs visés. Il convient de mettre à jour régulièrement ce document de programmation et de le modifier au vu des renseignements nouveaux émanant des autoévaluations ou des rapports postérieurs à l'adoption de mesures ­ lesquels doivent préciser les ressources requises et les améliorations à apporter. Les directives internationales et les organisations vétérinaires et de santé animale recommandent de se doter de plans nationaux d'intervention d'urgence. Pourtant, certains pays ne disposent ni de plans nationaux d'intervention adaptés aux objectifs visés, ni des ressources nécessaires à leur mise en œuvre. L'analyse présentée par les auteurs est axée sur les tendances observées dans le monde en matière de planification nationale des interventions d'urgence. En 2018 et 2019, les auteurs ont fait le point sur les plans d'urgence existants dans le domaine de la santé animale. Il ressort de leur enquête que 163 des 181 Membres de l'Organisation mondiale de la santé animale (OIE) disposaient d'un plan national d'urgence, sous une forme ou une autre. (Au cours de cette enquête conduite de 2018 à 2019, un 182e Membre a adhéré à l'OIE. L'analyse présentée par les auteurs ne concerne que les 181 pays ayant la qualité de Membre au début de l'enquête.) Les auteurs passent en revue le niveau actuel de préparation aux urgences zoosanitaires dans le monde et analysent les lacunes constatées. Ils évoquent les tendances mondiales et soulignent les concepts en cours d'élaboration ainsi que les approches novatrices susceptibles de contribuer à l'amélioration des plans nationaux d'intervention d'urgence à l'échelle mondiale et au renforcement des capacités de préparation aux maladies animales dans les pays où des lacunes existent encore.

La preparación para episodios de emergencia relacionados con los animales reduce las pérdidas económicas y de producción que sufre un país y rebaja el nivel de las amenazas zoosanitarias que pesan sobre los países vecinos. El hecho de invertir en la preparación para enfermedades animales reduce los gastos no solo cuando adviene la emergencia, sino también durante la fase de recuperación. Uno de los componentes básicos de este proceso de preparación es un plan nacional de emergencia que esté adaptado a su finalidad. Se trata de un documento muy útil, que conviene actualizar con frecuencia y puede ser enriquecido a medida que los procesos de autoevaluación y los informes retrospectivos (que ayudan a determinar los recursos necesarios y las mejoras requeridas) vayan deparando nueva información. Tanto las guías internacionales de ámbito mundial como las organizaciones de sanidad animal y veterinaria recomiendan disponer de un plan nacional de emergencia. Pese a ello, hay países que carecen de un plan de este tipo adaptado a sus fines o de los recursos necesarios para ponerlo en práctica. Los autores se centran aquí en las tendencias en todo el mundo de los procesos de elaboración de planes nacionales de emergencia. En 2018 y 2019 examinaron los planes para emergencias zoosanitarias existentes en el mundo y constataron que, de los 181 Países Miembros de la Organización Mundial de Sanidad Animal (OIE), 163 disponen de algún tipo de plan nacional de emergencia. (Entre 2018 y 2019, en el curso del estudio, un nuevo País Miembro, el 182º, se incorporó a la OIE, pero los resultados aquí descritos se refieren solo a los 181 que eran Miembros cuando empezó el estudio.) Los autores describen la situación mundial actual en cuanto a preparación para emergencias relacionadas con los animales y señalan las carencias detectadas. Después exponen las tendencias de ámbito mundial, examinando conceptos nacientes y planteamientos novedosos que pueden ayudar a mejorar la elaboración en el mundo de planes nacionales de emergencia y a reforzar la capacidad general de preparación para enfermedades animales allí donde existen deficiencias.

Assessment of the risk of introduction of H5N1 HPAI virus from affected countries to the U.K.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has monitored epidemiologic developments following outbreaks of H5N1 in Asia since the beginning of 2004 and publishes risk assessments as the situation evolves. The U.K. applies safeguard measures that reflect EU rules to enable imports to continue when they present negligible risk. Defra risk assessments (RA) identify possible pathways by which the H5N1 virus may be introduced to the U.K. These assessments provide a basis for identifying appropriate surveillance activities to ensure early detection, should the virus be introduced, and disease control measures to be taken, should the virus be detected in the U.K. Nevertheless, these assessments have highlighted that many fundamental uncertainties still remain. These uncertainties center on the geographic and species distribution of infection outside Asia and the means of dissemination of the virus. However, the evolving developments demonstrated that regulatory decisions had to be made despite these uncertainties. Improvements in our current RA abilities would greatly benefit from systematic studies to provide more information on the species susceptibility, dynamics of infection, pathogenesis, and ecology of the virus along with possible pathways by which the H5N1 virus may be disseminated. Such an approach would assist in reducing uncertainties and ensuring that regulatory risk management measures are regularly reviewed by taking into account the most recent scientific evidence. The likelihood of the persistence of H5N1 outside Asia in the coming years and the effects of control programs in Asia and other affected regions to reduce the prevalence of infection are also important factors.

Managing animal health emergencies through prevention and preparedness in Oceania.

Most countries in Oceania have adequate quarantine legislation, systems and staff to prevent the introduction of new animal diseases. Surveillance and preparedness for dealing with incursions of such diseases are less developed, except in those countries with larger livestock populations. The degree of preparedness for animal health emergencies in the different countries of the region reflects the relative economic importance of exotic diseases to each particular country. For those countries with significant populations of farm animals, appreciable efforts and money are expended. However, in the smaller island countries, it can be assumed that the likelihood of an exotic disease incursion is low and the impact on the economy would be comparatively small. For these reasons, it would be unreasonable to expect these countries to commit significant resources to develop programmes equivalent to those in New Zealand and Australia, for example. Nevertheless, there is a need for increased co-operation between countries in the region. An assessment of each country to determine what resources are available and how they may be used in various aspects of an animal disease emergency, including co-ordinated information sharing, would enable smaller island countries to be fully prepared in the case of an emergency.