Item 8. Horizontal elements of the Phase IV work plan

both the interests of the vaccine bank managers and those involved in policy or operational issues involving FMD emergency vaccination. Webinars held for these networks had met a lot of interest and the prototype FMD impact calculator (to assist Contingency Planners) had been well received, but was far from a perfect tool at this point. Issues relating to the “Central Resources” – such as arrangements of sharing personnel between countries, as well as vaccines and diagnostic kits, were placed under this Component for attention. He noted that the limited funding mainly allowed for developing guidance and making proposals, rather than funding solutions.

Discussion

Martin Blake briefed the Session on the agreement for sharing personnel between the QUADS countries, UK and Ireland, which had operated in 2001 and had been updated since. This may be a helpful model as it covers the competences needed, the principles of financial compensations, and so on. It was agreed this should be studied further. Ulrich Herzog updated the Session on the interests of central European countries to develop an information system to support modeling of disease spread and management options, and a planned series of meetings for which EuFMD technical expertise or support would be appreciated and which may help address some data format issues constraining wider, pan-European modelling.

Conclusion

1. The proposed work plan for Component 1.2 was endorsed, with the addition of an activity, subject to budget being made available, of technical assistance to a pilot project on data sharing for decision support involving central European countries.

Item 8. Horizontal elements of the Phase IV work plan

Training and Technical Networks The report and proposed work plans for the Training Component for Member States (Pillar I) was provided by Dr Jenny Maud, and for Pillars II and III by Chris Bartels (Appendix 12)

Of note in the last six months have been the online FEPc (Emergency Preparedness) courses given to assist national training focal points (UK, Spain) in English and Spanish, in French (for Algeria) and Serbo-Croat for the Balkans. This highlights now that these online courses have been used across three components, in Pillars I and II and have potential to assist Member States and others to deliver training effectively at national level. The costs being moderate and restricted to 1-2 EuFMD technical experts, competent in the language, and organization mainly by national training focal points. Italy, Germany and Sweden had also requested assistance to develop training for their national situations. Dr Maud brought to attention a feature of the online courses that development costs are relatively higher than delivery costs. It can be very efficient to roll out courses through national trainers, even if some adaptation to national issues is needed. Dr Maud indicated the rationale behind the Pillar II and III training components and the efficiency of adapting courses from Pillars I and II to the needs of FAO and OIE for update in regional programmes (Pillar III). Development of a Knowledge Bank in Pillar I had been a feature of Phase III, to ensure

trainees have access to courses, content and webinars to enable them to “cascade training” and in their work. The “Training Credits” system had been well received in Phase III and was proposed again for Phase IV, but carried with it an issue relating to the “cost structure” – the level of credits per course. The cost of Real-Time Training Courses (RTT) is relatively high, but these remained very popular and sought after. The funds allocated in the provisional budget breakdown for Component 1.1 were lower than in 2013, and four options for managing this were provided.

Discussion

The importance and impact of the training for member states was well recognized in statements. The President added that these courses had also been impressive and important for Pillar II countries, and course development under Pillar II and III had relevance for member states, particularly those not free of disease or on topics such as emergency vaccination. He added that he had contacted Luxemburg, Switzerland and Belgium concerning courses in French and that they agreed to the importance of these courses. There was a consensus not to reduce the number of credits offered. The amount of budget for the Training Component should be revisited at future Executive Sessions to identify if more support is needed, and other options including the benefits accruing from the member state funded courses. KS clarified that the budgets for Components 2.4 and 3.4 were taken from within the Pillar allocation under Phase III; not from Pillar I and the pressure on the Training Component related to finding support for Components 1.2 and 1.8.

Conclusion

The proposed work plans for Components 1.1 were 2.4 were endorsed (and for Component 3.4 after the discussions on the PCP).

Progressive Control Pathway (PCP) for FMD – application, further development, training Chris Bartels reviewed the PCP and its use in countries not free of the disease, which includes Member States (Turkey, Georgia, Israel) and in the neighborhood (Pillar II) and as a key tool in the Global Strategy (Pillar III). Very significant development has occurred under Phase III through work with the GF-TADS Working Group, to define the contents of the National Risk Based Strategic Plans (RBSP) for entry into PCP Stage 2 and National Control Plans (NCP) for entry into Stage 3. Assisting countries to work through the processes of developing RBSPs has been a major part of Pillar II activities, and much learnt from this. For many countries this represents the first risk based national strategy for an animal disease, a significant development step that has already encouraged parallel application for other diseases. For Pillar III, he illustrated the relationship between Components and the request from the WG for support; Components 3.1 and 3.2 provide support at Global (WG) level, and Components 3,3 and 3.4 assist implementation through the partnerships (Contract with TPI in support of the OIE/FAO Ref Lab network) and through assistance to a more decentralized office level to adapt and use PCP and other FMD training resources. Dr Bartels illustrated how the request from the WG had been adapted into the work plans and positive discussions with the WG had helped to refine these plans over the past weeks. Finally, he encouraged the Committee to see the “wider vision”, of the uptake of training resources by the many working in FMD control at national level (practitioner community). Working through FAO and

OIE, using innovative delivery mechanisms, there is a great opportunity to increase their access and promote their participation in training. In developing the work plans, it is assumed that FAO and OIE as partners will have the means to contact and connect at regional/sub-regional level, and EuFMD role would be mainly to assist these partners to get started.

Discussion

The discussion focused on how the PCP process and training deals with import rules. As the PCP process is risk based, the risks associated with imports are part of the assessment processes, in Stages 1 to 3. As countries move into Stage 3, the plans to prevent circulation normally must address import rules, if the country is not to spend its resources fighting repeated incursions. In Stage 1, the process must identify the levels of risk associated with imports in relation to internal circulation and sources of infection (e.g. wildlife). Keith Sumption mentioned risk perceptions in Stage 1 are an issue as some national experts focus on sources of risk for which little or no evidence is available, and so the PCP process aims at providing evidence to back major decisions relating to risk factors and their control.

Conclusion

Recognizing that some Member States are not free of FMD and that the Constitution requires such MS to develop plans for the progressive control of FMD, the Committee approved the continued support to the application and further development of the tool and guidance documents, and allied training, and support under Pillar II and Pillar III work plans for its adaptation to the needs of the neighbourhood countries and to the OIE and FAO through the GF-TADS Global Strategy.

Risk Analysis and Risk Communication Keith Sumption summarized the work plan for the new Component 1.8. This addressed the need for improved quality, utility and availability of information gathered relevant to FMD risk of entry into MS and to facilitate the use of this by risk managers. The information gathered under Pillar II and Pillar III (global surveillance) is currently reported on a monthly basis in a global report but the connection of this information to risk management needs improving. The plan presented aims to bring together the information into a system that will better inform the antigen prioritization process, update the surveillance managers (THRACE, and other regional clusters), and improve the system for periodic (two-yearly) review of the risk to Europe. Feasibility study on including new sources of proxy data (meat price differentials as a driver of illegal imports) is included. The work plan makes clear the need to build in better coordinated reporting system with Pirbright, and make use of the expert opinion as well as data from the regional epidemio-surveillance networks. He also brought to attention at this point the “Communication and Visibility Plan” developed for the Phase IV, and asked for any feedback on areas where EuFMD could improve the way it communicates – including assisting the ExCom and DG-SANTE with ways to communicate on EuFMD to their audiences.

Conclusion

The proposed work plan for Component 1.8 was endorsed.