TRANSBOUNDARY ANIMAL DISEASES: OUR CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR CAPACITY BUILDING OF VETERINARY SERVICES IN THAILAND Thanawat Tiensin Department of Livestock Development, Phya Thai Road, Ratchthewee, Bangkok 10400, THAILAND E-mail: ttiensin@gmail.com; thanawat.t@dld.go.th ABSTRACT Transboudary animal diseases (TADs) have the potential to adversely affect human populations by reducing the quantity and quality of food, other livestock products and animal power that can be obtained from a given quantity of resources and by reducing people's assets. TADs have also threatened food security through serious loss of animal protein and/or loss of draught animal power for cropping; increase poverty levels particularly in poor communities that have a high incidence of dependence on livestock farming for sustenance; cause major production losses for livestock products such as meat; milk and other dairy products; wool and other fibers and skins and hides, thereby reducing farm incomes. Their occurrence may thereby cause major losses in national export income in significant livestock-producing countries; cause public health consequences in the case of those TADs which can be transmitted to humans (i.e. zoonoses); cause environmental consequences through die-offs in wildlife populations in some cases, and cause pain and suffering for affected animals. Food production, processing, and marketing systems are complex. In many developing countries including Thailand. They are also highly fragmented and dependent upon a large number of small producers. While this may have socioeconomic benefits, as large quantities of food pass through a multitude of food handlers and middlemen, the risk of exposing food to unhygienic environments, contamination and adulteration increases. Problems occur as a result of poor post-harvest handling, processing and storage of food and also due to inadequate facilities and infrastructure such as the absence or shortage of safe water supply, electricity, storage facilities including cold stores, and transport facilities and networks, etc. Strengthening government regulation and enforcement of corporate food producers, and breaking up their stranglehold on the food system, are key steps to improving food safety. The development and growth of many countries, as well as the prevention and control of major biological disasters, depend on the performance of their policies and economies on agriculture, animal health and food and this, in turn, directly relates to the quality of their Veterinary Services (VS). The Department of Livestock Development (DLD) of the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (MOAC) of Thailand has as one of its priorities, amongst other tasks, to facilitate the ongoing and improved access to international markets for animals and animal products. Therefore, TADs are our challenges and opportunities for capacity building of veterinary services in Thailand and other developing countries in the region. This report aims at describing experiences of Thailand in strengthening their capacities of veterinary services to deal with transboundary animal diseases. INTRODUCTION All animal diseases have the potential to adversely affect human populations by reducing the quantity and quality of food, as well as other livestock products (hides, skins, fibers) and animal power (traction, transport) that can be obtained from a given quantity of resources and by reducing people's assets. Transboundary animal diseases (TADs) can be defined as those epidemic diseases which are highly contagious or transmissible and have the potential for very rapid spread, irrespective of national borders, causing serious socio-economic and possibly public health consequences. These diseases 1
which cause a high morbidity and mortality in susceptible animal populations, constitute a constant threat to the livelihood of livestock farmers. Furthermore, their potential consequences are of such a magnitude that their occurrence may also have a significant detrimental effect on national economies (Schlundt et al., 2004). Their occurrence may thereby cause major losses in national export income in significant livestock-producing countries; cause public health consequences in the case of those TADs which can be transmitted to humans (i.e. zoonoses); cause environmental consequences through dieoffs in wildlife populations in some cases, and; cause pain and suffering for affected animals (Basuno, 2010). The development and growth of many countries, as well as the prevention and control of major biological disasters, depend on the performance of their policies and economies on agriculture, animal health and food and this, in turn, directly relates to the quality of their Veterinary Services (VS). Important roles for VS include veterinary public health including food-borne diseases and regional and international market access for animals and animal products. To meet current and future opportunities and challenges, VS should be independent and objective in their activities and decisions should be based on sound science and immune from political pressure. Use of the OIE Tool for the Evaluation of Performance of Veterinary Services (OIE PVS Tool) is a key element in the OIE PVS Pathway. Following this pathway allows countries to support VS in establishing their current level of performance, identifying gaps and weaknesses in their ability to comply with OIE international standards, and forming a shared vision with stakeholders 1 (including the private sector), with the goal of establishing priorities and securing the investments needed to carry out strategic initiatives. The Department of Livestock Development (DLD) of the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (MoAC) of Thailand has as one of its priorities, amongst other tasks, to facilitate the ongoing and improved access to international markets for animals and animal products. Therefore, TADs are challenges and opportunities for capacity building of veterinary services in Thailand and other developing countries in the region. LESSONS LEARNED OF HPAI H5N1 OUTBREAKS The outbreaks of HPAI H5N1 virus in Thailand during 2004-2008 had serious consequences for poultry production, human health, social community, and farmers livelihoods (Tiensin et al., 2005; Tiensin et al., 2009). Retrospective analyses of the 2004-2005 HPAI H5N1 outbreaks lead to some considerations. First, the Central Region and the lower part of the Northern Region of Thailand can be considered a high risk area of avian influenza infection (Tiensin et al., 2005; Gilbert et al., 2006; Tiensin et al., 2007a). This could be linked to both the high density of poultry population in these regions and in particular the large numbers of free-grazing ducks raised in the rice fields (Gilbert et al., 2007; Tiensin et al., 2009). Secondly, domestic ducks, excreting HPAI H5N1 virus without signs of illness, hampered detection and control of the disease in 2004-2005 (Sturm-Ramirez et al., 2005; Songserm et al., 2006). Therefore, it is imperative that intensive surveillance programs implemented in these areas were focused to detect avian influenza viruses in duck flocks. Lastly, the comparison between the 2004 and the 2005 episodes suggested that HPAI H5N1 incidence in Thailand was reduced dramatically since stringent control measures had been implemented (Tiensin et al., 2007a). During 2006-2008, H5N1 outbreaks occurred locally and sporadically, and the outbreaks could be contained quickly. Since 2003, the HPAI H5N1 strain was reported in 68 countries. However, HPAI H5N1 viruses have still been detected in other Asian countries Today, most countries have managed to stamp it out, but the virus remains endemic in poultry population in the 6 countries including Bangladesh, China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, and Viet Nam (OIE, 2011; WHO, 2011). Most H5N1 infections were observed in backyard poultry in 2004-2005 (Tiensin et al., 2007a). Backyard poultry greatly contributes to local consumption and subsistence agriculture in rural areas. The traditional methods of raising backyard chickens and ducks in Thailand and other Asian affected countries will have to be modified by appropriate, simple and cheap methods for backyard farmers in 2
order to prevent and control the spread of avian influenza virus. No H5N1 infection was detected in chickens and ducks kept in sector 1 (Tiensin et al., 2005; Songserm et al., 2006), suggesting that H5N1 outbreaks can be controlled by improving biosecurity and biocontainment on poultry farms. However, outbreaks in poultry production sector 2 and 3 were reported, indicating the need to identify risk factors in these poultry units. We found that the high density of poultry, the local geography (e.g., wetlands, water reservoirs, and rice paddies), and farming practices in these regions were risk factors for outbreaks. In addition, a strong association between free-grazing duck populations and the practice of free-grazing farming with spread of the virus (Tiensin et al., 2005; Gilbert et al., 2006; Songserm et al., 2006; Tiensin et al., 2009). Previous studies of HPAI outbreaks in poultry have suggested that several risk factors are involved in the spread and maintenance of this virus. For example, it was shown that areas with ducks and sharing of scavenging areas with ducks had higher infection rates. These were strongly related to agricultural land use and rice crop intensity. Poultry slaughter houses, fighting cocks, quail flocks, vaccination status, and climate (specifically annual precipitation) have also been found to be associated with outbreaks in poultry. These factors could be potential risk factors for the spread and maintenance of HPAI virus in Asian countries including Thailand (Kung et al., 2007; Biswas et al., 2008; Fang et al., 2008; Biswas et al., 2009; Minh et al., 2009; Ahmed et al., 2010; Yupiana et al., 2010). Free grazing practice may be modified by moving ducks locally with short distance within the village or district. Monitoring and surveillance program in free-gazing ducks and scavenging chickens must be strengthened. Farmers and communities must take crucial responsibility to report any suspected dead or sick animals to local veterinary authorities for further prompt response. ANIMAL-HUMAN-ECOSYSTEM INTERFACE AND HPAI H5N1 Understanding the animal-human-ecosystem interface is a critical element in preventing, evaluating and predicting risks of emerging zoonotic diseases, as well as in designing evidence-based programs for prevention and early detection of emerging infectious diseases, such as avian influenza. Poultry production has changed from small-scale methods to industrial-scale operations. There is substantial evidence of pathogen movement between and among these industrial facilities, release to the external environment, and exposure to farm workers, which challenges the assumption that modern poultry production is more biosecure and biocontained as compared with backyard or small holder operations in preventing introduction and release of pathogens (Schlundt et al., 2004; Karesh et al., 2005). The changes in organization, intensity, housing, and waste management may influence the emergence and transfers of avian influenza virus among wild and domestic species, and from avians to human populations. Most importantly, the modern methods of poultry production have changed particularly broiler and layer chickens. These operations result in high numbers of poultry housed under confined conditions at great density and geographic concentration. These methods of food animal production generate many routes of pathogen transfer among wild and domesticated species and from animals to humans through occupational, peri-occupational, and environmental pathways. In addition, monitoring poultry population may improve detection of early events in the emergence of avian influenza. A careful evaluation of operations at all poultry facilities large and small should be undertaken to reduce opportunities for the transmission of disease among avian and other species. Moreover, if appropriate protections such as vaccination are identified, the agricultural workforce constitutes a high-risk population for whom protection from zoonotic disease is important not only for their health but also for the health of their communities and the population at large. Finally, improved oversight and management of animal wastes including transport and sale as well as use in aquaculture or in crop activities should be included in strategies to reduce risks of pandemic HPAI. KEY FINDINGS OF THE PVS EVALUATION 3
Based on the results of OIE PVS evaluation, Thailand has a very strong veterinary services (VS), led by the high standards required of its export industries (e.g. poultry to EU), which has tended to also improve other areas and promote awareness of high quality systems both within DLD and amongst stakeholders, particularly in relation to food safety and traceability systems. Initial and continuing education is very strong across the board (Hutter, et al., 2012). Professional and technical staffing of the veterinary services: The Thai VS are well staffed with veterinarians, except at the field level. Qualified veterinarians occupy the majority of positions at DLD central, regional and provincial levels, and in veterinary laboratories. A small minority of district livestock offices are currently led by a veterinarian. Generally, field staff in district, sub-district and village levels and in the majority of border checkpoints and small slaughterhouses are not veterinarians. A large proportion of veterinarians in Thailand are engaged in predominantly small animal practice (> 3000) and do not engage in official activities except for small animal surveillance reporting. The Good Agricultural Practice (GAP) and Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) accreditation systems managed by DLD require services by qualified, approved and trained veterinarians at participating farms, slaughterhouses, milk processors etc. Though these systems ensure high quality veterinary practices, they only cover a small proportion of farms or plants in Thailand, and almost no smaller farms or operations (e.g. smallholders). Veterinary laboratory diagnosis and quality assurance: Thailand s laboratory diagnostic services are of high quality, have high capacity and are well managed. All official diagnostic tests are performed at DLD laboratories and the lab network is well coordinated with standardized testing practices across the country, facilitated through consistent lab standard operating protocols and nationally coordinated proficiency testing. Thailand has the designated OIE Regional Reference laboratory for FMD (South-East Asia), and the ASEAN Food Reference Laboratory for Veterinary Drug Residues, and international collaboration with global networks are strong. NIAH has a special Mobile Rapid Response Team and accompanying vehicle with emergency diagnostic equipment. Quarantine and border security: Quarantine and border security seems well managed in Thailand. SOPs are available for all quarantine procedures, and movement documents (import, export and internal movement permits and health certifications) seem comprehensive, well managed and are on-line (e-movement system). Epidemiological surveillance: Animal health surveillance in Thailand is strong for GAP certified farms and for targeted poultry diseases. There is a strong disease reporting system from district to central levels although only the poultry version is currently web-based. There is good capacity for disease investigation and sampling at district and provincial levels. Gaps exist in the field in relation to smaller, non-poultry farms relating to the skills and coverage of Thailand s field animal health surveillance network. Food safety: High food safety standards exist with veterinary ante and post mortem inspection and laboratory testing facilities at all export premises and for GMP certified domestic slaughterhouses and processing operators. Lesser standards apply for the remainder of operators servicing the domestic market, with lower standards applying based on the decreasing size of the operation. Efforts are being applied to 4
improve standards through expanding GMP certification and otherwise raising standards and requirements for smaller operators such as through training of non-veterinary meat inspectors. At the retail level DLD is piloting a hygienic meat project which is showing good promise to improve safety standards at the retail level with financial benefits to owners who undertake such an investment. Veterinary medicines and biologicals: The regulation of veterinary medicines and biologicals is a significant gap for the Thai VS, who do not have adequate direct involvement, nor collaboration and/or technical influence with the relevant authority in Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Ministry of Public Health. DLD only has direct authority over regulation of the category of hazardous substances (disinfectants, pesticides etc). Residue testing: DLD has a comprehensive residue monitoring programme managed by its Residue Monitoring Committee. As with many Thai VS activities, the impetus has been led through high export standards required for demanding markets such as poultry exports to the EU. DLD only has control of veterinary drug use at farm level through the GAP scheme. CONCLUSIONS Transboundary Animal Diseases and Food Safety Issues are our challenges and opportunities for capacity building of veterinary services and we seek for further insight information to deal with these problems. The Veterinary Services of developing countries are in urgent need of support to provide them with the necessary infrastructure, resources and capacities that will enable their countries to benefit more fully from the WTO Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement (SPS Agreement) while at the same time providing greater protection for animal health and public health and reducing the threat for other countries which are free of diseases. It is considered the Veterinary Services as a Global Public Good and their bringing into line with international standards (structure, organization, resources, capacities, role of paraprofessionals) as a public investment priority. REFERENCES Ahmed, S.S., Ersboll, A.K., Biswas, P.K., Christensen, J.P., 2010. The space-time clustering of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) H5N1 outbreaks in Bangladesh. Epidemiol Infect 138, 843-852. Basuno, E., Yusdja, Y., Ilham, N., 2010. Socio-economic impacts of avian influenza outbreaks on small-scale producers in Indonesia. Transbound Emerg Dis 57, 7-10. Biswas, P.K., Christensen, J.P., Ahmed, S.S., Barua, H., Das, A., Rahman, M.H., Giasuddin, M., Hannan, A.S., Habib, A.M., Debnath, N.C., 2009. Risk factors for infection with highly pathogenic influenza A virus (H5N1) in commercial chickens in Bangladesh. Vet Rec 164, 743-746. Biswas, P.K., Christensen, J.P., Ahmed, S.S., Barua, H., Das, A., Rahman, M.H., Giasuddin, M., Hannan, A.S., Habib, M.A., Ahad, A., Rahman, A.S., Faruque, R., Debnath, N.C., 2008. Avian influenza outbreaks in chickens, Bangladesh. Emerg Infect Dis 14, 1909-1912. Fang, L.Q., de Vlas, S.J., Liang, S., Looman, C.W., Gong, P., Xu, B., Yan, L., Yang, H., Richardus, J.H., Cao, W.C., 2008. Environmental factors contributing to the spread of H5N1 avian influenza in mainland China. PLoS One 3, e2268. Gilbert, M., Chaitaweesub, P., Parakamawongsa, T., Premashthira, T., Tiensin, T., Kalpravidh, W., Wagner, H., Slingenbergh, J., 2006. Free-grazing ducks and higly pathogenic avian influenza, Thailand. Emerging Infectious Diseases 12, 227-234. Gilbert, M., Xiao, X., Chaitaweesub, P., Kalpravidh, W., Premashthira, S., Boles, S., Slingenbergh, J., 2007. Avian influenza, domestic ducks and rice agriculture in Thailand. Agric Ecosyst Environ 119, 409-415. Hutter, S., Bouzghaia, H., Stratton, J. 2012. PVS Evaluation Report of Thailand. OIE, 149 p. 5
Karesh, W.B., Cook, R.A., Bennett, E.L., Newcomb, J., 2005. Wildlife trade and global disease emergence. Emerg Infect Dis 11, 1000-1002. Knight-Jones, T.J., Hauser, R., Matthes, D., Stark, K.D., 2010. Evaluation of effectiveness and efficiency of wild bird surveillance for avian influenza. Veterinary research 41, 50. Kung, N.Y., Morris, R.S., Perkins, N.R., Sims, L.D., Ellis, T.M., Bissett, L., Chow, M., Shortridge, K.F., Guan, Y., Peiris, M.J., 2007. Risk for infection with highly pathogenic influenza A virus (H5N1) in chickens, Hong Kong, 2002. Emerg Infect Dis 13, 412-418. Minh, P.Q., Morris, R.S., Schauer, B., Stevenson, M., Benschop, J., Nam, H.V., Jackson, R., 2009. Spatio-temporal epidemiology of highly pathogenic avian influenza outbreaks in the two deltas of Vietnam during 2003-2007. Prev Vet Med 89, 16-24. OIE, 2011. Update on Avian Influenza in Animals (Type H5 and H7). OIE, 2010. OIE Tool for the Evaluation of Performance of Veterinary Services(OIE PVS Tool) 5 th edition, 56 p. Schlundt, J., Toyofuku, H., Jansen, J., Herbst, S.A., 2004. Emerging food-borne zoonoses. Rev Sci Tech 23, 513-533. Songserm, T., Jam-On, R., Sae-Heng, N., Meemak, N., Hulse-Post, D.J., Sturm-Ramirez, K.M., Webster, R.G., 2006. Domestic ducks and H5N1 influenza epidemic, Thailand. Emerg Infect Dis 12, 575-581. Sturm-Ramirez, K.M., Hulse-Post, D.J., Govorkova, E.A., Humberd, J., Seiler, P., Puthavathana, P., Buranathai, C., Nguyen, T.D., Chaisingh, A., Long, H.T., Naipospos, T.S., Chen, H., Ellis, T.M., Guan, Y., Peiris, J.S., Webster, R.G., 2005. Are ducks contributing to the endemicity of highly pathogenic H5N1 influenza virus in Asia? J Virol 79, 11269-11279. Tiensin, T., Ahmed, S.S., Rojanasthien, S., Songserm, T., Ratanakorn, P., Chaichoun, K., Kalpravidh, W., Wongkasemjit, S., Patchimasiri, T., Chanachai, K., Thanapongtham, W., Chotinan, S., Stegeman, A., Nielen, M., 2009. Ecologic risk factor investigation of clusters of avian influenza A (H5N1) virus infection in Thailand. J Infect Dis 199, 1735-1743. Tiensin, T., Chaitaweesub, P., Songserm, T., Chaisingh, A., Hoonsuwan, W., Buranathai, C., Parakamawongsa, T., Premashthira, S., Amonsin, A., Gilbert, M., Nielen, M., Stegeman, A., 2005. Highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1, Thailand, 2004. Emerg Infect Dis 11, 1664-1672. Tiensin, T., Nielen, M., Songserm, T., Kalpravidh, W., Chaitaweesub, P., Amonsin, A., Chotiprasatintara, S., Chaisingh, A., Damrongwatanapokin, S., Wongkasemjit, S., Antarasena, C., Songkitti, V., Chanachai, K., Thanapongtham, W., Stegeman, J.A., 2007a. Geographic and temporal distribution of highly pathogenic avian influenza A virus (H5N1) in Thailand, 2004-2005: an overview. Avian Dis 51, 182-188. WHO, 2011. Cumulative Number of Confirmed Human Cases of Avian Influenza A/(H5N1) Reported to WHO. Yupiana, Y., de Vlas, S.J., Adnan, N.M., Richardus, J.H., 2010. Risk factors of poultry outbreaks and human cases of H5N1 avian influenza virus infection in West Java Province, Indonesia. Int J Infect Dis 14, e800-805. 6