PROGRAM FOR PILLAR 1

Conclusions

The Chairman invited comments and discussion. He concluded that the work with France had been a

wonderful example of how EuFMD can support MS who have taken the lead through their bilateral programmes, for instance in Iran and Northern and Western Africa. The co-operation with Australia

had been a very good benefit to the EuFMD and that the training services and system offered to

Member States had been assisted through this and that it had been a good decision of the Executive

to develop these forms of mutual programme.

Item 3 Work programme for the Phase III of the EuFMD/EC agreement

The Chairman introduced this Item and emphasized how the programme had been developed,

starting one year before with the planning meeting in October 2012 by the Executive Committee at

Pirbright, which was followed by the development of proposed programme for the February 2013

(Executive) and April 2013 (General Session) meetings. Following the latter, the Secretariat had the major task of developing a full set of detailed Work Programmes, with associated budgets. These

budgets had been agreed with the EC in the Agreement for Phase III but with the provision that the

first Executive Committee after signature would then review the proposed programme and work

plans and validate these for implementation. In line with the EC agreement, the Executive would

establish a program Steering Committee to ensure any adjustments or change, if recommended by

the Executive, would be rapidly resolved with the EC to ensure implementation would not be

delayed. An Overview of the Proposed Work Program was given by Keith Sumption (Appendix 7, Overview

Paper, and Appendix 8, PPT).

He drew attention to the following:

- The balance between Pillars 1, 2 and 3 in effort and financial support, with more allocated to

Pillar 1 than Pillars 2 and 3 combined;

- That the Core human resources are provided by the Member States, through their contributions to MTF/INT/011/MUL, whereas the EC fund supports the programme of

activities but no full time professional staff;

- That the program is Outcome oriented, with each Component designed to achieve Outputs

that are measurable and significant to the principal beneficiaries directly involved (improved

systems and capacity in place at the end of the programme). Each Component and each

Output has been costed, and so the Executive can see “how much” an Output will cost as

inputs, and decide if the outputs are value for money;

- For each of the 12 components, consultation has taken place with the most relevant

stakeholders before finalization, and a consultation or co-ordination framework included in

the work programmed as part of the activities. For example the use of Training Focal Points

in the MS and webinars to provide reports and gain feedback as the Training Programme

develops; the role of Executive members in the Balkans and Thrace components; the use of GF-TADS meetings (West Eurasia) and OIE/FAO/REMESA meetings (–North Africa) in Pillar 2

and the GF-TADS Working Group on FMD for Pillar 3.

- The emphasis on assistance to countries on their policy development for FMD control, with

Risk Based Strategic Plans (as required for PCP progress) providing concrete Outputs for the countries in Pillar 2. This emphasis on People Developing Policy also requires high

experience and high levels of consultation with countries, so the consultancy inputs to Pillar

2 are necessarily high.

- The retention of a emergency fund of 500,000 € in Pillar 1, and special conditions in the

agreement enabling more flexible action and use of budget if needs arise;

- The establishment for the first time of a Research Fund as Component 1.5, a development

from the previous ad hoc arrangements with processes designed to ensure quality, efficiency and priorities of the Member States are met;

- The effort given to keeping within the overall Pillar limits set in the agreement when planning

each Component in detail, but changing the balance of consultants, travel, training in accordance to the demands of the work/outputs requested by Member States during the

consultation process. For example, the increase in consultant budget line was largely the

result of the consultation with countries involved in THRACE surveillance programme, and following the problems with recent disease incursions in the 3 countries.

Program for Pillar 1

Detailed work plans were provided for five of the seven Pillar 1 components; for Components 1.6 and 1.7 (Emergency Fund and Proficiency Test Services to non-EU European countries), an overview sheet

was provided.

Components 1.1 and 1.2: Training Programme for Member States

The proposed programme was presented by Dr Eoin Ryan (Appendix 9). He indicated how the system

for training credits had been developed following the survey of MS interests. Given the feedback

from MS, it was decided to pool the resources earmarked for Components 1.1 and 1.2 to enable

selection based on national priorities. The cost of each training credits was based on the relative cost

per trainee of the courses. With ten training credits per country, each MS could use this, for example,

to place three trainees on Real Time Courses (3 TC per course) or up to 10 places where courses

“cost” one TC each. Consultation with the Special Committee members (Pillar 1 working Group) had

identified ways to combine less selected but strategically important themes (e.g. socio–economics in decision making) with other themes (e.g. decision making on emergency vaccination), so that a way

was found to ensure all first and second priority choices of MS could be offered. To increase the

reach (numbers per country) of training opportunities, webinars would be offered after every

training course to enable a training network across the MS to participate and increase the feedback

and guidance to the Training Team on what materials and training are needed by MS in their own

programmes. He explained that the Component Manager for Training would be the Training Support Officer

(currently supported by Australian Funds) and so maintaining this form of support in 2014 should

greatly assist in establishing and delivering the programme.

Discussion

Preben Willeberg made the case for a modeling network involving European MS experts, and

importance of discussing the need for a European FMD model (and less reliance on North American NAADSM).

Jean-Luc Angot mentioned the difficulty in training private practitioners, they need a subsidy for time

spent on training, but accepted this is a national not European issue.

The Chairman stated that Pierre Naasens and Jonas Milius had agreed to act as Focal Points for

Training for the Executive. Given that EU MS with Russian speaking countries as neighbors had

recommended training is offered to these neighboring countries, and Ukraine and Russian Federation

had expressed interested in EuFMD training, the programme should ensure Russian language

materials and training modules are a priority.

Conclusions:

1. The Work Program for Component 1.1/1.2 was endorsed;

2. The feasibility and value of an FMD modeling network or expert group under the STC should be discussed at the Special Committee Session (Frascati 12-14th November);

3. Attention must be given to providing training places and training modules in Russian

language, under Pillar 2 but utilizing the experience from Pillar 1, and a paper on how this

could be provided should be developed before the next Executive.

Component 1.3: Program for early warning surveillance in the Thrace region of Greece, Bulgaria and Turkey

Dr Ryan presented the proposed program (Appendix 10) which had been developed by a working

group of the Tripartite countries in February (Chania, Greece), implemented with EC support from

April, and a meeting held in Sofia in late September to finalize the actions and support relating to

Greece and Bulgaria. All three countries could have met at Lyons but for several reasons would not be present, so the Tripartite Meeting (21-22nd November 2013) should enable discussion with all

major parties on implementation.

He presented the three expected outputs of the program: a coordination framework for activities

needed to assure continuing freedom; a system for real-time data entry for national surveillance

actions, and two years of risk based surveillance results to contribute to confidence or ensure early

reaction to events.

Discussion

The importance of the programme was agreed. Bulgaria is expected to report on the program to the

EU Standing Committee in early 2014. The system provides a model that is needed and might be

used in other EU high risk borders that could assist with surveillance planning for other diseases.

Alf Füssel asked if the system has already been applied to SGP and PPR; disease reporting between

the three countries is essential, and in the case of SGP was reported too late by Turkey, so efforts are

needed to address this.

Dr Domenech asked if there was a demand from the countries for the programme to include other

infections. Dr Ryan responded that it came from the countries, not EuFMD; each had asked for

assistance relating to SGP in the past months, and the letter authorizing the funding provided

flexibility to respond to these requests.

Dr Füssel mentioned that if a disease like SGP if present in Thrace, it is important to the EU and

requires explanation as an incursion from Anatolia indicates conditions for FMD incursions or other infections exists. In the view of the EC, the Tripartite (TPT) historically looked at other diseases as

well, and there needs to be a functioning surveillance system not only for FMD but for the major

TADS that the group agrees upon. There is the need to ensure message goes across at TPT.

The Chairman indicated he will attend the TPT meeting and that the TPT, which involves MS, does

not mean that EuFMD will work outside the region on other diseases.