5. West Eurasia – situation, status/progress of FMD control programs

neighbours – Syria being a major exporter of sheep and goats to the Gulf States by land and probably by sea (a risk in the region).

Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco: the civil situation in Libya and Tunisia is of importance for FMD management in this region. These 3 countries had, before the “Arab spring”, been close to submitting dossiers for FMD freedom with vaccination (Tunisia, Algeria) and without (Morocco). The Libyan situation had resulted in huge movements of animals into Tunisia in the spring/summer. EuFMD had been requested to supply vaccines and other support, and in response had provided diagnostic support to better identify if animals from Libya had been exposed to FMD. Results indicated seropositives suggesting exposure but without clarity on whether the sero-conversions were recent. Tunisia had requested a greater support (some 82,000 USD) to identify through serology (and by PCR) if virus circulation had occurred in wider risk areas of southern Tunisia.

Discussion

It was well accepted that the major political changes in the region are of significance for the wider animal health situation, since they affect the ability of veterinary services to maintain prevention measures, and breakdown between the stakeholders will affect reporting, investigation and response. Change in VS leadership, and uncertain support, would affect planning in each country, so the epidemic situation could worsen in autumn/winter period.

The importance of maintaining an involvement in Egypt was accepted, since the country has important links to southern Europe (import of livestock, export of agricultural products); the maintenance of an African type A is a threat to the wider region. Dr Füssel emphasized the need to assess the suitability of local vaccines; Keith Sumption replied that that the production plant had been extensively redeveloped but issues remained, particularly the lack of independently (WRL) typing of isolates (intensive efforts had failed with the “new regime” on export of isolates).

Relating to the request from Tunisia (Appendix 8, presented by Dr Metwally): There was some concern over management of these “ad hoc requests” for support; North African countries having not been recently supported or discussed with the Committee. Keith Sumption explained, with support from Dr Füssel, that the three most advanced of these countries had been working towards application for OIE recognized FMD freedom, and were therefore more at risk from neighbours south or the Sahara, or east (Libya, Egypt and mid-east). The six countries, with Spain, Portugal and Italy had developed a network (REMESA) for disease surveillance, supported mainly by Spain through FAO; EuFMD has no direct involvement and therefore may be requested on occasion to assist. This position, of being asked to assist but not in the meetings, was difficult for the Secretariat and of concern to the Chairman. Dr Carbajo agreed this point would be taken up during the next REMESA meeting (20th October) in Rome. Regarding the request for surveillance support (Tunisia) members of the Committee felt some parts of the request were not supportable (vehicles), but approximately half the budget – for the work of collection/testing and laboratory diagnostic kits could be supported providing that timely information resulted and that positive samples for confirmation would e sent to a an European ref lab. Dr Carbajo stressed that REMESA was making the request with urgency; the Chairman and Vice-Chairs agreed that the EuFMD/Europe needs to be aware of the situation in North Africa and providing this is