ASSESSMENT OF FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE (FMD) CONTROL … · 2020-04-11 · Implementation in the Proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand Naree Ketusing ACADEMIC ABSTRACT A proposed Foot

ASSESSMENT OF FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE (FMD)

CONTROL POLICIES AND THEIR IMPLEMENTATION IN THE

PROPOSED FMD-FREE ZONE IN THAILAND

Naree Ketusing

Dissertation submitted to the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute

and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree

of

Doctor of Philosophy

In

Biomedical and Veterinary Sciences

Valeria E. Ragan (Co-Chair)

Jennifer L. Hodgson (Co-Chair)

Karen M. Hult

Sith Premashthira

February 25, 2020

Blacksburg, VA, USA

Keywords: Foot and Mouth Disease; FMD-free zone; assessment; policy

design; implementation; Thailand

Copyright 2020 Naree Ketusing

Assessment of Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) Control Policies and Their

Implementation in the Proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand

Naree Ketusing

ACADEMIC ABSTRACT

A proposed Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) free zone, in the eastern region of

Thailand, was evaluated by FMD experts with the World Organisation for Animal Health

(OIE) during 2012-2013. The zone, however, did not qualify for an FMD-free zone with

vaccination because it did not comply with the requirements in the OIE Terrestrial Code.

Then, the Department of Livestock Development (DLD) within the government of

Thailand revised laws and regulations related to the FMD control program in order to be

in compliance with the OIE’s requirements. The revised FMD control program has been

implemented since 2015. These revisions and implementations, however, have not been

evaluated.

The main objectives of this study were to determine whether the revised

regulations (since 2015) currently being implemented are fully in compliance with the

OIE’s requirements, and to verify whether the implementation of the current FMD

control program is sufficient to control FMD effectively.

First, this study developed an evaluation framework and assessment tools for use

in the evaluation of the FMD control policies and their implementation in the eastern

region of Thailand. The assessment tools include assessment matrices, three sets of

questionnaires, and interview questions. When applied, the assessment matrices identify

shortcomings of policy design, policy implementation, veterinary capacity, and

stakeholder engagement. Questionnaires and interview questions collect information that

examines the consistency of elements of the FMD control program against criteria in the

assessment matrix.

Then, the design of current FMD control policies was assessed by interviews of

DLD officers at national level who formulate policies related to FMD control program

and by reviews of DLD existing written policies and documents. This study found that

the design of current FMD control system is appropriate and meets the OIE’s

requirements.

Next, the implementation of the current FMD control program in the eastern

region of Thailand was assessed. The assessment was conducted by (i) questionnaire

surveys with DLD officers at local level, private veterinarians, and farmers, (ii)

interviews with DLD officers at national and regional level and private veterinarians, and

(iii) field observations. The assessment found that the current implementation of the

FMD control program in the eastern region of Thailand needs further improvement in

order to meet the OIE’s requirements.

This study also proposes recommendations to the DLD in improving the FMD

control system in the eastern region of Thailand including surveillance system, reporting

system, vaccine strategy, animal movement control system, and response plans. For

example, there should be an increase of stakeholders’ awareness of disease reporting

requirements. Evidence of adequate vaccination coverage and population immunity

should be available and accessible. Allocation of staff at local level should be

reconsidered for more appropriate service deliveries. Communications between DLD and

stakeholders regarding the FMD control program need to be strengthened for more

effective message delivery. Lastly, this study strongly recommends that there should be

strong commitments and supported by the higher level of the Thai’s government.

Assessment of Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) Control Policies and Their

Implementation in the Proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand

Naree Ketusing

GENERAL AUDIENCE ABSTRACT

Foot and Mouth Disease is a highly contagious and the most economically

important infectious viral disease of livestock. The disease exists in Thailand and

interrupts livestock trade through the loss of access to international markets. The

Department of Livestock Development (DLD) within the government of Thailand has

proposed to make the eastern region of Thailand an officially recognized FMD-free zone

with vaccination in order to advance market access and trade facilitation. In order to be

an official FMD-free zone, the proposed FMD-free zone (eastern region of Thailand)

needs to be evaluated by experts within the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE)

and must meet all requirements of the OIE standard for this certification.

Since 2015, there has not been an evaluation to determine the effectiveness and

appropriateness of the current FMD control program in the eastern region of Thailand.

This study aims to evaluate the design and implementation of the current FMD control

program in the eastern region of Thailand.

This study, first, developed an evaluation framework and assessment tools for use

in the evaluation of the FMD control policies and their implementation in the eastern

region of Thailand. Then, the design of the current FMD control policies and their

implementation were evaluated. The assessment found that the design of the current

FMD control system is appropriate and meets the OIE’s requirements. However, the

current implementation of the FMD control program needs further improvement.

This study also proposes recommendations to the DLD in order to enhance and

improve the FMD control system in the eastern region of Thailand to be recognized as an

FMD-free zone by the OIE.

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to Dr. Valerie Ragan,

my dearest advisor, for her support, guidance, and encouragement throughout my PhD

life. Without her patience and understanding, I would not have been able to complete my

degree and this dissertation.

Thanks to my committee, Drs. Jennifer Hodgson, Karen Hult, and Sith

Premashthira for their valuable contributions and comments. Thanks to graduate students

at the Virginia Tech Writing Center, especially Prabin Lama and Atinut Inthajak, for

assisting and proofreading my writing. Thanks to my BMVS friends and officemates for

all fun and remarkable memories. All of you make me understand “everyone has their

own pace and time!!!” Also, thanks to all ladies of P.E.O. Chapters in Blacksburg and the

surrounding area for financial support, emotional support, and being like my second

family here.

This project was financially supported by the Royal Thai Government. With their

support, I have gained more knowledge and unforgettable experiences. I promise to bring

these experiences and skills back to Thailand for a better improvement of my country.

Last but not least, thanks to my beloved family in Thailand and my husband in

Arizona, Patrick Finnegan, for their unconditional love and endless support. My final

thanks is to my lovely and precious son, Sean Finnegan, for making my life more

meaningful and being a good sleeper while mommy wrote this dissertation and made all

conference calls—Love you always!!!

vi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ANSES The French Agency for Food, Environmental, and Occupational Health

Safety

ATSDR The Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry, United States

Department of Health and Human Services

BDCVS Bureau of Disease Control and Veterinary Services

BVB Bureau of Veterinary Biologics

CDC The Center for Disease Control and Prevention

CIFA Community Initiatives Facilitation and Assistance

DHHU Dairy Herd Health Unit

DLD The Department of Livestock Development

DVIQ Division of Veterinary Inspection and Quarantine

ELISA Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay

FAO The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization

FDA-Thai The Food and Drug Administration, Thailand

FMD Foot and Mouth Disease

NSP Non-structural protein

OIE The World Organisation for Animal Health (Office International des

Epizooties)

PCP-FMD Progressive control pathway for FMD

PVS Performance Veterinary Services

RRL The Regional Reference Laboratory for FMD in South East Asia

RT-PCR Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction

SEACFMD the South-East Asia and China FMD Campaign

SPS Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures

USAID The United States Agency for International Development

vii

VBARC The Veterinary Biologic Assay and Research Center

WAHIS World Animal Health Information System

WHO The World Health Organization

WTO World Trade Organization

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACADEMIC ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................ ii

GENERAL AUDIENCE ABSTRACT ........................................................................................ iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... v

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................................... vi

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... xi

LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................................. xiv

Chapter 1 : Introduction to the Assessment of Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) Control

Policies and Their Implementation in the Proposed FMD-Free Zone in

Thailand ................................................................................................................ 1

General context .......................................................................................................................... 1

Objectives of this study ............................................................................................................. 2

Rationale for this study ............................................................................................................. 2

Impact of this study ................................................................................................................... 2

Literature review ....................................................................................................................... 3

Foot and Mouth Disease .......................................................................................................... 3

Foot and Mouth Disease Status in Thailand ............................................................................ 6

Program Assessment ............................................................................................................... 7

References ................................................................................................................................ 12

Figures ...................................................................................................................................... 23

Chapter 2 Development of an Evaluation Framework and Assessment Tools to Assess the

Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) Control Policies and Their Implementation

in the Proposed FMD-Free Zone in Thailand .................................................. 27

Abstract .................................................................................................................................... 27

Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 28

Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 29

Results....................................................................................................................................... 29

Essential elements of a successful FMD control program .................................................... 29

Stakeholder Identification ..................................................................................................... 31

Identification of relevant DLD regulations and other documents ......................................... 32

Conditions for development of an assessment system ........................................................... 34

Evaluation Framework .......................................................................................................... 34

ix

Assessment tools .................................................................................................................... 36

Discussion and Conclusion...................................................................................................... 37

Acknowledgement ................................................................................................................... 39

References ................................................................................................................................ 40

Tables ........................................................................................................................................ 44

Figures ...................................................................................................................................... 48

Chapter 3 An Assessment of the Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) Control Program in the

Proposed FMD-Free Zone in Thailand Part I: Policy Design ........................ 53

Abstract .................................................................................................................................... 53

Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 55

Interviews of DLD national officers ...................................................................................... 55

Reviews of DLD existing written policy and documents ....................................................... 55

Data analysis ......................................................................................................................... 56

Results....................................................................................................................................... 56

Surveillance system ............................................................................................................... 56

Vaccination program ............................................................................................................. 58

Animal movement control system .......................................................................................... 60

Response plans ...................................................................................................................... 62


Acknowledgement ................................................................................................................... 67

References ................................................................................................................................ 67

Tables ........................................................................................................................................ 70

Figures ...................................................................................................................................... 72

Chapter 4 An Assessment of Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) Control Program in the

Proposed FMD-Free Zone in Thailand Part II: Implementation and

Engagement of Stakeholders ............................................................................. 73

Abstract .................................................................................................................................... 73

Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 74

Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 74

Questionnaire Surveys ........................................................................................................... 75

Interviews .............................................................................................................................. 75

Field Data Collection ............................................................................................................ 76

Scope of the assessment ......................................................................................................... 77

Data analysis ......................................................................................................................... 77

Results....................................................................................................................................... 77

x

Surveillance system ............................................................................................................... 78

Reporting system ................................................................................................................... 80

Vaccination program ............................................................................................................. 82

Animal movement control system .......................................................................................... 87

Response plans ...................................................................................................................... 89

Engagement of stakeholders .................................................................................................. 92


References .............................................................................................................................. 101

Tables ...................................................................................................................................... 104

Figures .................................................................................................................................... 119

Chapter 5 Conclusions and Recommendations to Thailand to Improve the Current FMD

Control Program in the Proposed FMD-Free Zone ...................................... 122

Tables ...................................................................................................................................... 126

APPENDICES ....................................................................................................................... 129

xi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1 Summary of the OIE’s requirements for a region to be qualified as an FMD-

free zone with vaccination and the assessment matrix criteria to identify shortcomings of

policy design ..................................................................................................................... 44



implementation of FMD control program* ....................................................................... 45

Table 2-3 The OIE’s recommendations regarding the quality of Veterinary Services and

the criteria to identify inappropriate of veterinary capacity and engagement of

stakeholders....................................................................................................................... 47

Table 3-1 Details and number of interviewees of this study ............................................ 70



policy design ..................................................................................................................... 71



implementation of current FMD control program* and engagement of stakeholders ..... 104

Table 4-2 The number of questionnaire distributors, questionnaires returned, responses

used for analysis, and target population in the proposed FMD-free zone ...................... 106

Table 4-3 The survey participants’ responses regarding the current implementation of

surveillance system in the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand .................................. 107


reporting system in the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand since the last protocol

update in 2015 ................................................................................................................. 108


vaccination program in the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand ................................. 109


animal movement control system in the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand since the

last protocol update in 2015 ............................................................................................ 111

Table 4-7 The survey participants’ responses regarding the communication of the

response plan and the training of preparedness and response plans ............................... 113

Table 4-8 The survey participants’ responses regarding their activities when suspected

case is reported ................................................................................................................ 114

xii

Table 4-9 The survey participants’ responses regarding their activities when a positive

case is found .................................................................................................................... 116

Table 4-10 Survey participants’ responses regarding the slaughtering of FMD infected

and exposed animals ....................................................................................................... 118

Table 5-1 Recommendations for the DLD to improve the current FMD control

implementation ............................................................................................................... 126

xiii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 Foot and Mouth Disease Distribution Map, Jan-Jul 2017 ............................... 23

Figure 1.2 FMD incidences in Thailand from 2005-2017 ................................................ 24

Figure 1.3 FMD seroprevalence in beef cattle in Thailand from 2008-2014* ................. 25

Figure 1.4 FMD seroprevalence in beef cattle in Thailand in 2014 by livestock regions 26

Figure 2.1 Stages in the Progressive Control Pathway for FMD ...................................... 48

Figure 2.2 Essential elements for success of FMD control program ................................ 49

Figure 2.3 Stakeholder identification map representing Thai stakeholders with interest in

or influence on FMD control program in Thailand. ......................................................... 50

Figure 2.4 Evaluation framework for the assessment of FMD control policy and its

implementation in the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand. .......................................... 51

Figure 2.5 Data collection plan for assessment process ................................................... 52

Figure 3.1 The DLD disease reporting network and laboratory coordination .................. 72

Figure 4.1 Questionnaire distribution process ................................................................ 119

Figure 4.2 Steps of getting an animal movement permit ................................................ 120

Figure 4.3 Inappropriate vehicles for animal transportation found during field

observation. ..................................................................................................................... 121

Mar_4_2020_revised_Dissertation_NK%20VER.doc#_Toc34387416
















xiv

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1. Geography of Thailand and the proposed FMD-free zone .....................130

APPENDIX 2. Process of the official recognition of disease status by the World

Organization for Animal Health (OIE) ...................................................133

APPENDIX 3. Assessment matrix to identify shortcoming of policy design .................140

APPENDIX 4. Assessment matrix to identify shortcoming of implementation .............144

APPENDIX 5. Questionnaires for farmers ......................................................................163

APPENDIX 6. Questionnaires for private veterinarians ................................................169

APPENDIX 7. Questionnaires for local officers .............................................................176

APPENDIX 8. Interview questions for private veterinarians ..........................................185

APPENDIX 9. Interview questions and document lists for DLD officers at national

level ..........................................................................................................186

APPENDIX 10. Interview questions and document lists for DLD officers at regional

level ..........................................................................................................190

APPENDIX 11. Details of research participants using in data analysis ..........................192

APPENDIX 12. Animal Epidemics Act B.E. 2558 (2015) (Thai language) ...................193

APPENDIX 13. Animal Movement Control Regulation B.E. 2558 (2015) (Thai

language) ..................................................................................................219

APPENDIX 14. Sample size calculation to demonstrate freedom of disease ................227

APPENDIX 15. Distribution map of DLD veterinary officers at local level in the

proposed FMD-free zone .........................................................................230

APPENDIX 16. Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval letter .................................231

APPENDIX 17. Assessment report prepared for the Department of Livestock

Development ............................................................................................234

1

Chapter 1 : Introduction to the Assessment of Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) Control

Policies and Their Implementation in the Proposed FMD-Free Zone in Thailand

General context

The agriculture sector is fundamental to the development of Thailand, and it is mainly

composed of smallholders (small independent producers) [1] . Thailand covers approximately

514,000 square kilometers and has a population of 67 million [2,3]. Forty-one percent of its total

area is used for agricultural activities [3]. In 2016, the agriculture sector contributes nine percent

to Thailand’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) [4]. Within the agriculture sector, crop production

accounts for 60% of total agricultural production, followed by fishery (14%), and livestock

production (9%) [4]. Even though the agriculture sector contributes only nine percent to

Thailand’s GDP, it is still essential for Thai people livelihood because a majority of the

population earn their living from agriculture, and there are multiple industries related to the

byproducts of livestock production such as the food and garment industries [3].

The Royal Thai government has been attempting to enhance agricultural productivity to

raise the income of the Thai people and improve their living standards. To date, the Department

of Livestock Development (DLD), the national veterinary authority of Thailand, has been

promoting livestock farming as a sustainable occupation and encouraging farmers to improve the

quantity and quality of livestock. In spite of the DLD’s attempts, livestock production in

Thailand still confronts multiple challenges, such as Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD).

Foot and Mouth Disease is one of the most important infectious livestock diseases

because it causes significant economic losses [5–8]. While the disease remains endemic mainly

in developing countries, it has been successfully controlled and eradicated in wealthy countries

such as Canada, United States of America, and United Kingdom [9–11]. Global distribution of

FMD can be monitored via the World Animal Health Information Database (WAHIS Interface)

[12]. Figure 1.1 demonstrates the global distribution of FMD as of July 2017.

The impact of FMD can caused by production losses and also the costs of controlling the

disease i.e. slaughtering of infected and exposed animals [13–15]. In addition, the endemicity of

FMD can interrupt livestock trade through the loss of access to international markets [15,16]. To

advance market access and trade facilitation, the DLD has proposed to make the eastern region

of Thailand an officially recognized FMD-free zone with vaccination1. In order to be an official

1 See APPENDIX 1. Geography of Thailand and the proposed FMD-free zone

2

FMD-free zone, the proposed FMD-free zone needs to be evaluated by experts within the World

Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) and must meet all requirements of the OIE standard for

this certification2.

Objectives of this study

This study aims to determine whether the design and implementation of the current FMD

control program in the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand follows international requirements

for establishing an FMD-free zone with vaccination. In addition, the study proposes

recommendations to the DLD to improve the FMD control system in the proposed FMD-free

zone.

Rationale for this study

In 2012, Thailand requested the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) experts to

evaluate the FMD status of the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand [17]. The report from this

study revealed that the proposed FMD-free zone could not be recognized as such as the zone was

not in full compliance with OIE requirements [17]. In addition, there was insufficient evidence to

prove FMD-free status within the proposed FMD-free zone [17]. As a result of this evaluation,

the DLD revised the FMD control regulations to be in compliance with the recommendations of

the OIE experts and implemented a revised FMD control program in the proposed zone. The

DLD plans to reapply official OIE recognition as FMD-free for this zone.

It is important to ensure that the revised regulations currently being implemented are

fully in compliance with the OIE requirements. In addition, it is also crucial to make sure that the

implementation of the current FMD control program is sufficient to control FMD effectively. An

assessment of the zone with the current FMD control system has not been conducted. Thus, the

purpose of this study is to assess the current FMD control system in the proposed FMD-free zone

to ensure that the current FMD control policy and its implementation meet the OIE requirements.

Impact of this study

One outcome of this study is recommendations that will help Thailand officially be

recognized as an FMD-free country. This certification will have a significant economic impact

on the country by contributing to the expansion of livestock trading opportunities, eradicating

food insecurity, and making agriculture (livestock sector) more productive and sustainable.

2 See APPENDIX 2. the official recognition of disease status process

3

Literature review

Foot and Mouth Disease

Foot and mouth disease (FMD) is the most economically devastating viral disease of

livestock [18–20]. It is difficult to control and eradicate because the FMD virus replicates rapidly

and is highly contagious among susceptible animals [20–22]. The disease can affect multiple

species especially cloven hoofed animals such as pig, cattle, sheep, and goat [23]. Several

species of deer and buffalo are considered as FMD susceptible species and may be a source of

outbreaks in domestic livestock [23–25].

The FMD caused by a virus within the the Picornaviridae family and the Aphtovirus

genus [26]. The virus is a non-enveloped, single strand RNA with an icosahedral capsid, and

unstable below pH 6.8 [26,27]. The FMD virus is identified into seven serotypes (A, C, O, Asia

1, South African Territories (SAT) 1, SAT 2, and SAT 3) [26–28]. It has very high mutation

rates and resulting antigenic diversity; therefore different subtypes are identified within the same

serotype [29,30]. As a consequence of genetic variation, lack of cross-protection from natural

infection and vaccination is usually seen [30,31].

Foot and mouth disease is characterized by the formation of vesicles on the coronary

band of hooves and around the mouth, tongue, and palate of affected livestock [21,32,33]. These

symptoms are usually preceded by fever [33,34]. While lesions on foot are the most noticeable

and common clinical signs in pigs, mouth lesions and drooling are typical noticeable in cattle

[35,36]. In sheep and goats, the signs are less obvious and sometimes confused with other

conditions [37,38].

a. Transmission and Spread of Disease

Foot and mouth disease virus is excreted in secretions (e.g. saliva, milk, semen, urine and

feces) and mostly spread via direct contact [39–41]. The virus usually transfers from infected

animals to susceptible animals via abrasions or directly through the mucosa [33,42]. In some

cases, the virus is spread to susceptible animals from infected animals via aerosol transmission

[42–44]. Ruminants are commonly infected via the respiratory route, whereas pigs are infected

through direct contact or eating virus contaminated food [45–47]. In addition, cattle are more

susceptible to aerosol infection than sheep, while pigs are more resistant to aerosol infection

[42,48]. However, pigs excrete more aerosol virus than cattle and sheep [33,42,44,48–50]. Long

distance airborne transmission of the virus is uncommon, but it is possible with the following

4

factors: a susceptible species, a high dose of virus, and appropriate geographical and atmospheric

conditions [32,51].

Several studies show a different range of the incubation period depending on the strains

and dose of virus, route of infection, and species of animals [47,52]. It normally ranges from 2-

14 days [47,52]. For example, the incubation period of airborne spread or indirect contact

between farms ranges from 4-14 days, and direct contact between farms ranges from 2-14 days

[47,52]. The incubation period from pig-to-pig ranges from 1-3 days, 2-6 days, or 4-9 days while

cattle-to-cattle ranges 3-4 days or 3-6 days [50,53]. In sheep, the incubation period ranges from

3-8 days or 6-13 days [42]. The diverse incubation periods are thought to be due to variations in

experimental design [47,50,54].

Foot and Mouth Disease infection in human is rare and unrelated to the Hand, Foot, and

Mouth disease caused by a Coxsackie virus [55,56].The infection of FMD in humans may occur

with insignificant consequences and is mainly related with drinking of unpasteurized milk from

infected animals or close contact with infected animals [55–58]. Human-to-human transmission

has not been reported [59].

b. Diagnosis of Foot and Mouth Disease

Rapid and accurate diagnosis of FMD is an essential element for FMD control and

eradication [21]. Definitive diagnosis must be performed in a laboratory because clinical signs of

FMD are undifferentiated from other diseases which have similar lesions, such as vesicular

stomatitis and vesicular exanthema [28]. In addition, FMD clinical signs may not be noticeable

in sheep and goats because the animals are more tolerant to the virus and develop very few

lesions [38,60]. Mild FMD lesions in sheep and goats can cause serious outbreaks such as the

outbreak in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2001 [61,62]. At the end of this outbreak, the cost was

estimated to include approximately 14 billion dollars and the loss of 10 million animals [14,62].

Diagnostics of FMD have improved over time so as to increase sensitivity and specificity

of diagnosis methods. More recent developments have been aimed at not only increasing

sensitivity, but also distinguishing vaccinated animals from infected animals.

Virus isolation and Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) are used for FMD

diagnosis by detection of virus antigen [63]. Virus isolation requires a laboratory facility with the

highest containment level [63], which is expensive to maintain. Furthermore, virus isolation is

more time consuming than other diagnostic assays, where virus isolation can take up to 4-6 days

for test completion, while ELISAs can be completed within 3-4 hours [64]. However, in some

5

cases with a high index of suspicion, when the ELISA gives a negative result tested samples

must be confirmed by cell culture inoculation, which can take an additional 4 days [21].

In order to shorten the time to diagnosis, a Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain

Reaction (RT-PCR) method has been developed. This method, RT-PCR, is used for rapid

detection, typing FMD serotype, and detection of asymptomatic infected animals [65,66].

Although the RT-PCR method is not greater in sensitivity than virus isolation and ELISA, it is

better for rapid detection [67]. The results of an RT-PCR assay can be obtained within 2 hours

[21].

For purposes of national and international trade, diagnostic tests must be able to identify

vaccinated animals out of infected animals. To this end, ELISA currently is used for detection of

antibodies against non-structural proteins (NSP) of the virus as these antibodies are found in

infected animals but not in vaccinated animals [68].

c. Control of Foot and Mouth Disease

Control of FMD is very difficult because the virus replicates rapidly and can affect a

wide range of hosts [23,31,33]. To control FMD, strict biosecurity measures are required [69,70].

Vaccination and/or slaughter may be applied to control FMD outbreaks depending on the

approach of the country involved [71–75]. Animal movement restriction is also an essential

measure when vaccination and/or slaughter are applied for control of FMD outbreaks where L.J.

Gleeson argued that “the use of vaccines in outbreak control is not effective when movements of

livestock from the infected area cannot be effectively controlled” [10].

Biosecurity measures alleviate the risk of FMD infections by reducing the likelihood of

introduction and spreading of the disease [76,77]. Furthermore, implementation of strict

biosecurity measures, without using other control measures, can reduce the number of FMD

outbreaks [22,76]. Examples of biosecurity measures include limiting non-essential traffic on

farms and limiting access of visitors, cleaning and disinfecting footwear before entering animal

areas, requiring haulers of livestock and feed to clean and disinfect their vehicles, identifying

sources of livestock and feed, using separate equipment for healthy and sick animals, and

keeping all records (i.e. cleaning, disinfection, visitors, and sources of animals) [76,78,79].

Vaccination is commonly used as prophylactic protection against an FMD outbreak in

endemic countries [10,69,80–82]. However, vaccinated animals may not be accepted for trade by

disease-free countries. Therefore, FMD-free countries (e.g., USA, Netherland, UK, and Canada),

do not use prophylactic vaccination, rather they would consider the use vaccination during an

6

epidemic, with or without depopulation, to combat an outbreak and contain the virus within the

infected area [71,83,84]. It should be noted that vaccination alone cannot reduce the number of

FMD outbreaks. Farm biosecurity, slaughter of infected and contacted susceptible animals,

disinfection of infected farms, and movement restrictions of animals and potential infected

animal products are also needed to prevent the spread of disease and thereby reduce the number

of FMD outbreaks [22,76].

Thailand initiated a vaccination program for controlling FMD in 1958 [85]. All vaccines

had been imported before the country established an FMD vaccine production facility in 1960

[85]. In 1965, the DLD launched the first FMD vaccine production. There were two type of

vaccines produced by DLD: monovalent (serotypes O, A, or Asia 1) and trivalent vaccine

(combination of O, A, and Asia 1) [86]. However, the number of vaccines produced were not

sufficient for all susceptible animals in Thailand. In 1991, therefore, only animals in two

livestock regions of Thailand3 were vaccinated by the DLD [85]. By 2018, the FMD vaccine

production facility increased the number of vaccines produced to where it is claimed that current

vaccine production supplies up to 80% of the vaccine demand of swine producers, which is 38

million doses, and 100% of the vaccine demand of ruminant producers, which is 10-12 million

doses (personal communication, 2018). However, this proportion of vaccines could be an

overestimate since the animal population in Thailand is extremely dynamic and the size of the

livestock population is possibly under reported. As a result, there may be a vaccine shortage

despite the increased production and Thailand still needs to import FMD vaccines, especially the

FMD vaccine for pigs.

Foot and Mouth Disease Status in Thailand

FMD is endemic in Thailand [85,87–89].The first reported case of FMD infection in

Thailand was in 1953, and involved serotype A [85]. Subsequently, serotypes Asia-1 and O were

confirmed in 1954 and 1975, respectively [85]. Currently, only two FMD serotypes (A and O)

are still circulating, while serotype Asia-1 last occurred in Thailand in 1997 [90].

FMD is a notifiable disease in Thailand [91]. The current Animal Epidemics Act of

Thailand states that a farmer must notify a local DLD veterinary officer of any FMD suspected

case to within 12 hours [91]. Failure to comply with this rule may result in penalties (e.g. fine

3 Thailand is divided into nine livestock regions. See APPENDIX 1. Geography of Thailand and

the proposed FMD-free zone

7

and/or imprison). The DLD reports FMD outbreaks to the World Animal Health Information

System (WAHIS) every six months. From 2005 to 2017 there were 1,163 FMD outbreaks

reported in Thailand [92]. In 2017, 126 FMD outbreaks were reported, including 8.66% of FMD

serotype A, 48.03% of FMD serotype O, 23.62% of samples were not typed, and samples were

not collected in 19.69% of outbreaks [93]. The incidence of FMD outbreaks in Thailand from

2005-2017 can be seen in Figure 1.2.

In addition to responding to FMD outbreaks, the DLD monitors FMD status through a

national serological surveillance4 to estimate FMD prevalence in Thailand. The national

surveillance program is conducted biannually in beef cattle using the ELISA to detect non-

structural protein (NSP). Antibody detection of the NSP of the FMD virus, especially antibodies

to the polyproteins 3ABC, is the most reliable infection indicator as it can identify the infection

of any serotype regardless of vaccination status. Furthermore, it is an optimal method for

determining animal health status for international trade [63,94].

During 2008 to 2014, the overall FMD seroprevalence in beef cattle in Thailand ranged

from 8-20% (figure 1.3) [95]. In 2014, FMD seroprevalence in beef cattle ranged from 5% to

40% and varied by livestock regions (Figure 1.4) [95]. The seroprevalence indicated that FMD is

still endemic in Thailand. Establishment of an FMD-free zone could be difficult because the

disease is widespread. Major challenges of establishing an FMD-free zone in the endemic

country are to design and effectively implement as appropriate FMD control program.

Program Assessment

Assessment is a systematic process of collection information or evidence to improve a

program. It is an ongoing process of measuring a performance, work product, and learning skill.

The assessment aims to diagnose, reform, and revise programs, as well as provide feedback on

how performance can be improved effectively [96–98].

In the context of health systems, assessment and evaluation are often used

interchangeably. For example, the World Health Organization (WHO) defines assessment as “a

formal process of evaluation of a process or system, preferably quantitative, but sometimes

necessarily qualitative" and evaluation as “the systematic and objective assessment of the

relevance, adequacy, progress, efficiency, effectiveness and impact of a course of actions, in

4 This serological surveillance does not include animals in the proposed FMD-free zone. A specific serological

surveillance program has been designed for the zone. The surveillance program includes swine, beef cattle, dairy

cattle, buffaloes, sheep, and goat.

8

relation to objectives and taking into account the resources and facilities that have been

deployed” [99]. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) defines evaluation as

“Evaluation is a systematic method for collecting, analyzing, and using data to examine the

effectiveness and efficiency of programs and, as importantly, to contribute to continuous

program improvement” [100]. The Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (ATSDR),

United States Department of Health and Human Services, defines definition of a public health

assessment as “The evaluation of data and information on the release of hazardous substances

into the environment in order to assess any [past], current, or future impact on public health,

develop health advisories or other recommendations, and identify studies or actions needed to

evaluate and mitigate or prevent human health effects” [101].

Even though, there is no definition of assessment and evaluation in the animal health

literature, there are some existing assessment and evaluation studies related to animal health

topics such as evaluation of surveillance programs and evaluation of Veterinary Services.

For example, the study of Isoda et al. (2012) developed a fault tree framework to evaluate

FMD control strategies and applied the framework to the outbreaks in the UK 2001 and 2007.

The study was done in order to assess the control measures in the UK outbreak of 2001 and

assess the refinement of control measures in the UK outbreak of 2007 [102]. Fault tree analysis

is a deductive failure analysis and widely used in system reliability, maintainability, and safety

analysis [103,104]. It is also used for understanding how a system can fail, identifying potential

causes of system failures, and identifying the best way to reduce risk [103]. Isoda et al. (2012)

identified failures both in the administrative and field levels, for instance, lack of administrative

knowledge of control activity led to delay in implementation of vaccination, insufficient training

personnel at the field level, and insufficient disposal sites. In addition, the study found enhanced

FMD control measures during the UK outbreak in 2007 helped to control the outbreak, including

immediate movement restriction, immediate and adequate vaccines distribution and

implementation, and increasing disease awareness [102].

Another example is a study that developed an assessment tool for surveillance systems on

zoonosis and animal disease called “OASIS” [105]. The OASIS was developed in 2011 by a

French research team from the French Agency for Food, Environmental, and Occupational

Health Safety (ANSES). The team aimed to develop an assessment tool for surveillance systems

in animal health and food safety in order to propose recommendations for improvement. The

OASIS tool combined a list of assessment criteria, a questionnaire, and used a scoring guide.

9

Information was collected by questionnaires and used for scoring the assessment criteria. The

OASIS was tested by applying it to five surveillance systems in France, including “FMD, rabies

in bats, poultry disease network, antimicrobial resistance in pathogenic bacteria from animal

origin, and a laboratory network for Salmonella detection in the food chain” [105]. Although

OASIS still needs to be refined and further developed, the French research team reported that the

ANSES plans for using it to evaluate the surveillance systems for animal health and food safety

in France [105].

Assessment of animal health outcomes are not conducted only in higher-income countries

like France and the UK, but also in low-income countries like Ethiopia. In 2009, CARE-Ethiopia

and Community Initiatives Facilitation and Assistance (CIFA)-Ethiopia, non-governmental

organizations, in partnership and collaboration with United States Agency for International

Development (USAID), border district offices in Southern Ethiopia and Northern Kenya

performed an assessment of “Veterinary Service delivery, livestock disease reporting, and

surveillance and control measures across border areas [106].” The assessment aimed to identify

strengths and limitations of cross-border Veterinary Services, disease surveillance, and reporting

systems for further improvement of animal disease prevention and control between the Ethiopia

and Kenya border [106]. It was conducted by desk reviews, secondary data collection, focus

group discussion, interviews, and a validation workshop. Similarly, this study conducted

interviews with farmers, animal health workers in community, animal health assistants,

veterinary officers, and NGOs participating in Veterinary Services; however, the interviews were

limited only to Kenya. The assessment found weaknesses of Veterinary Services, including a

shortage of trained staff, poor veterinary infrastructure, poor veterinary capacity management,

logistical problems, and inadequate budgets. Government veterinary diagnosis laboratories

needed to be better equipped, and appropriate budgets needed to be available to improve

diagnoses at the field level. Furthermore, a disease surveillance and reporting system was needed

to be scaled up to the national level and an information network needed to be created between

the two countries [106].

Later in, 2015, researchers from the veterinary school of Addis Ababa University,

Ethiopia conducted a similar assessment of Veterinary Services in central Ethiopia [107]. The

assessment was performed by questionnaire survey, focus group discussion, key person

interviews, and documents review. People involved in Veterinary Services delivery, Veterinary

Services users, and government officers were interviewed. This assessment revealed that

10

“activities of the public Veterinary Services were very limited because of budget constraints,

logistical problems, lack of basic veterinary equipment, shortage of trained personnel, and low

capacity of Veterinary Services [107].” However, the private veterinary sector was helpful by

facilitating livestock producers in accessing required services. Shortages of veterinary drugs

were also a constraint of public Veterinary Services delivery. This study found livestock

producers had to use expired drugs and were under dosing because of the expense of veterinary

services. This study recommended that the government set strict regulations to improve

definitive diagnoses and public and private Veterinary Services delivery as well as allocate

appropriate operational budgets and logistic facilities [107].

In general, assessments of animal health-related issues in lower-income countries are

more focused on the infrastructure of Veterinary Services rather than on specific disease control

programs, such as an FMD control program. On the other hand, in higher-income countries, there

are a number of studies related to an evaluation of FMD control programs. However, these

studies mostly used simulation models as a predictive tool to find the best control strategy or an

alternative strategy for future outbreaks, such as “evaluation of the control strategy for the FMD

outbreak in Japan using disease simulation [108]”, “evaluation of strategies to control a potential

outbreak of FMD in Sweden [72]” and “an evaluation of alternate control strategies for FMD in

Australia [109]”

In Thailand, the assessment and/or evaluation related to Veterinary Services were

conducted by an external organization, the OIE. The OIE evaluated Thailand’s Performance

Veterinary Services (PVS) in 2012 and assessed the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand in

2013. After the assessment of the proposed FMD-free zone, Thailand has improved its FMD

control system by revising FMD regulations and implementing the revised regulations in order to

be recognized as an official FMD-free zone with vaccination by the OIE. These ongoing FMD

control regulations and implementation have not been assessed. Thus, it is necessary to

determine how well the current FMD control program meets the OIE’s requirements.

In conclusion, FMD continues to be a problem for livestock industries worldwide,

including Thailand, resulting in significant economic losses. An assessment of the FMD control

policy and its implementation currently in place in Thailand aims to identify whether the policy

design and its implementation in the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand complies with the

provisions for the recognition of an FMD-free zone with vaccination. Additionally, this

11

assessment will include recommendations to enhance the FMD control system in the proposed

FMD-free zone in Thailand.

12

References

1. Chomchalow N. (1993). – Agricultural Development in Thailand. . In Systems approaches

for agricultural development (M.K. de Vries F.P., Teng P., ed), Springer, Dordrecht. pp

427–443doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-2842-1_26.

2. National Statistical Office (Thailand) (2017). – Demography Population and Housing

Branch. Available at: http://statbbi.nso.go.th/staticreport/page/sector/en/01.aspx (accessed

on 19 April 2018).

3. Singhapreecha C. (2014). – Economy and Agriculture in Thailand. FFTC Agric. Policy

Artic., , 1–5.

4. Office of Agricutural Economics (Thailand) (2016). – Agricultural Statistic. Available at:

http://www.oae.go.th/oae_report/stat_agri/form_search.php (accessed on 28 October

2017).

5. James A.D. & Rushton J. (2002). – The economics of foot and mouth disease. Rev. Sci.

Tech., 21 (3), 637–644. doi:10.20506/rst.21.3.1356.

6. Thompson D., Muriel P., Russell D., Osborne P., Bromley A., Rowland M., Creigh-Tyte

S. & Brown C. (2002). – Economic costs of the foot and mouth disease outbreak in the

United Kingdom in 2001. Rev Sci Tech, 21 (3), 675–687.

7. Kitching R.. (1999). – Foot-and-mouth disease: current world situation. Vaccine, 17 (13–

14), 1772–1774. doi:10.1016/S0264-410X(98)00442-3.

8. USDA-APHIS_VS (2013). – Foot-and-Mouth Disease: Factsheet. Available at:

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/animal_health/2013/fs_fmd_general.pdf.

9. Rweyemamu M.M. & Astudillo V.M. (2002). – Global perspective for foot and mouth

disease control. Rev. Sci. Tech., 21 (3), 765–773.

10. Gleeson L.J. (2002). – A review of the status of Foot-and-mouth disease in South-East

Asia and approaches to control and eradication of Foot-and-mouth disease in South-East

Asia. Rev. Sci. Tech., 21 (3), 465–475.

11. United States Department of Agriculture (2017). – Planning and Preparing for Foot-and-

Mouth Disease. (September). Available at:

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/emergency_management/downloads/fmd-

briefing.pdf (accessed on 13 August 2018).

12. World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) – World Animal Health Information

Database (WAHIS Interface). Available at:

13

https://www.oie.int/wahis_2/public/wahid.php/Diseaseinformation/Diseasedistributionma

p (accessed on 24 April 2018).

13. Knight-Jones T.J.D. & Rushton J. (2013). – The economic impacts of foot and mouth

disease - What are they, how big are they and where do they occur? Prev. Vet. Med., 112

(3–4), 162–173. doi:10.1016/j.prevetmed.2013.07.013.

14. Haydon D.T., Kao R.R. & Kitching R.P. (2004). – The UK foot-and-mouth disease

outbreak - the aftermath. Nat. Rev. Microbiol., 2 (8), 675–681. doi:10.1038/nrmicro960.

15. Perry B.D., Kalpravidh W., Coleman P.G., Horst H.S., McDermott J.J., Randolph T.F. &

Gleeson L.J. (1999). – The economic impact of foot and mouth disease and its control in

South-East Asia: a preliminary assessment with special reference to Thailand. Rev. Sci.

Tech., 18 (2), 478–497.

16. Feng S., Patton M. & Davis J. (2017). – Market Impact of Foot-and-Mouth Disease

Control Strategies: A UK Case Study. Front. Vet. Sci., 4. doi:10.3389/fvets.2017.00129.

17. Clercq K. De, Kim Y.J. & Batho H. (2013). – Foot and Mouth Disease Expert Mission to

Thailand. Thailand.

18. Richard M. & Richard K. – Foot-and-Mouth Disease: A Brief Review of the Etiologic

AGent and the Disease Which It Causes. , 30–33. Available at:

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/153567600100600108 (accessed on 13

August 2018).

19. Jamal S.M. & Belsham G.J. (2013). – Foot-and-mouth disease: Past, present and future.

Vet. Res., 44 (1). doi:10.1186/1297-9716-44-116.

20. Neeta L. & Tilling T. (2011). – Antigenic variation of foot and mouth disease virus - an

overview. Vet. World, 4 (10), 475–479. doi:10.5455/vetworld.2011.475-479.

21. Grubman M.J. & Baxt B. (2004). – Foot-and-mouth disease. Clin. Microbiol. Rev., 17 (2),

465–93. doi:10.1128/CMR.17.2.465.

22. Kitching R.P. (2005). – Global epidemiology and prospects for control of foot-and-mouth

disease. Curr. Top. Microbiol. Immunol., 288, 133–148. doi:10.1007/3-540-27109-0_6.

23. Thomson G. (1994). – Infectious Diseases of Livestock with Special Reference to

Southern Africa. . In Foot-and-mouth disease. pp 825–952doi:10.1016/0167-

5877(96)85062-8.

24. Hedger R.S. (1972). – Foot-and-mouth disease and the African buffalo (Syncerus caffer).

J. Comp. Pathol., 82, 19–28.

14

25. Gibbs E.P., Herniman K.A., Lawman M.J. & Sellers R.F. (1975). – Foot-and-mouth

disease in British deer: transmission of virus to cattle, sheep and deer. Vet. Rec., 96, 558–

563. doi:10.1136/vr.96.26.558.

26. Racaniello V.R. (2013). – Picornaviridae: The Viruses and Their Replication. . In Fields

Virology. pp 453–490doi:9781451105636.

27. Belsham G.J. (1993). – Distinctive features of foot-and-mouth disease virus, a member of

the picornavirus family; aspects of virus protein synthesis, protein processing and

structure. Prog. Biophys. Mol. Biol., 60 (3), 241–260. doi:10.1016/0079-6107(93)90016-

D.

28. Bachrach H.L. (1968). – Foot-And-Mouth Disease. Annu. Rev. Microbiol., 22 (1), 201–

244. doi:10.1146/annurev.mi.22.100168.001221.

29. Kitching R.P., Knowles N.J., Samuel a. R. & Donaldson a. I. (1989). – Development of

foot-and-mouth disease virus strain characterisation-A review. Trop. Anim. Health Prod.,

21 (3), 153–166. doi:10.1007/BF02250825.

30. Hernandez J., Martinez M.A., Rocha E., Domingo E. & Mateu M.G. (1992). – Generation

of a subtype-specific neutralization epitope in foot-and-mouth disease virus of a different

subtype. J. Gen. Virol., 73 (1), 213–216. doi:10.1099/0022-1317-73-1-213.

31. Alexandersen S., Zhang Z. & Donaldson A.I. (2002). – Aspects of the persistence of foot-

and-mouth disease virus in animals—the carrier problem. Microbes Infect., 4 (10), 1099–

1110. doi:10.1016/S1286-4579(02)01634-9.

32. Alexandersen S., Zhang Z., Donaldson A.. & Garland A.J.. (2003). – The Pathogenesis

and Diagnosis of Foot-and-Mouth Disease. J. Comp. Pathol., 129 (1), 1–36.

doi:10.1016/S0021-9975(03)00041-0.

33. Alexandersen S. & Mowat N. (2005). – Foot-and-mouth disease virus: host range and

pathogenesis. Curr. Top. Microbiol. Immunol., 288, 9–42. doi:10.1007/b138628.

34. The Center for Food Security and Public Health (2015). – Foot and Mouth Disease,

Pocket Guide: Cattle. (August 2015). doi:10.1177/146642401303400206.

35. Kitching R.P. & Alexandersen S. (2002). – Clinical variation in foot and mouth disease:

pigs. Rev. Sci. Tech., 21 (3), 513–518.

36. Kitching R.P. (2002). – Clinical variation in foot and mouth disease: cattle. Rev. Sci.

Tech., 21 (3), 499–504.

37. Ayers E., Cameron E., Kemp R., Leitch H., Mollison A., Muir I., Reid H., Smith D. &

15

Sproat J. (2001). – Oral lesions in sheep and cattle in Dumfries and Galloway. Vet. Rec.,

148 (23), 720.

38. Kitching R.P. & Hughes G.J. (2002). – Clinical variation in foot and mouth disease: sheep

and goats. Rev. Sci. Tech., 21 (3), 505–512.

39. Leeuw P.W. de, Bekkum J.G. van & Tiessink J.W. (1978). – Excretion of foot-and-mouth

disease virus in oesophageal-pharyngeal fluid and milk of cattle after intranasal infection.

J. Hyg. (Lond)., 81 (3), 415–425. doi:10.1017/S0022172400025304.

40. Guérin B. (1995). – VIRAL EXCRETION IN BOAR SEMEN and POTENTIAL FOR

CONTAMINATION. Reprod. Domest. Anim., 31 (1), 217–223. doi:10.1111/j.1439-

0531.1995.tb00028.x.

41. Burrows R. (1968). – Excretion of foot-and-mouth disease virus prior to development of

lesions. Vet. Rec., 82 (13), 387–388.

42. Alexandersen S. & Donaldson a I. (2002). – Further studies to quantify the dose of

natural aerosols of foot-and-mouth disease virus for pigs. Epidemiol. Infect., 128 (2), 313–

323. doi:10.1016/S0034-5288(02)90037-8.

43. Donaldson A.I. (1987). – Foot-and-mouth disease: the principal features. Irish Vet J, 41,

325–327.

44. Donaldson A.I., Herniman K.A., Parker J. & Sellers R.F. (1970). – Further investigations

on the airborne excretion of foot-and-mouth disease virus. J. Hyg. (Lond)., 68 (4), 557–64.

doi:10.1017/S0022172400042480.

45. Knowles N., Samue l A., Davies P., Kitching R. & Donaldson A. (2001). – Outbreak of

foot-and-mouth disease virus serotype O in the UK caused by a pandemic strain. Vet. Rec.,

148 (9), 258–9.

46. Alexandersen S., Kitching R.P., Mansley L.M. & Donaldson a I. (2003). – Clinical and

laboratory investigations of five outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease during the 2001

epidemic in the United Kingdom. Vet. Rec., 152 (16), 489–496.

doi:10.1136/vr.152.16.489.

47. Sellers R.F. & Forman A.J. (1973). – The Hampshire epidemic of foot-and-mouth disease,

1967. J. Hyg. (Lond)., 71 (1), 15–34. Available at:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2130444&tool=pmcentrez&re

ndertype=abstract.

48. Alexandersen S., Brotherhood I. & Donaldson A.I. (2002). – Natural aerosol transmission

16

of foot-and-mouth disease virus to pigs: minimal infectious dose for strain O-1 Lausanne.

Epidemiol. Infect., 128 (2), 301–312. doi:10.1017/s095026880100646x.

49. Sellers R. & Gloster J. (2008). – Foot-and-mouth disease: a review of intranasal infection

of cattle, sheep and pigs. Vet. J., 177 (2), 159–68. doi:10.1016/j.tvjl.2007.03.009.

50. Alexandersen S., Quan M., Murphy C., Knight J. & Zhang Z. (2003). – Studies of

quantitative parameters of virus excretion and transmission in pigs and cattle

experimentally infected with foot-and-mouth disease virus. J. Comp. Pathol., 129 (4),

268–282. doi:10.1016/S0021-9975(03)00045-8.

51. DONALDSON A.I. & ALEXANDERSEN S. (2002). – Predicting the spread of foot and

mouth disease by airborne virus. Rev. Sci. Tech. l’OIE, 21 (3), 569–575.

doi:10.20506/rst.21.3.1362.

52. Garland A.J.. & Donaldson A.I. (1990). – Foot-and-mouth disease. Surveillance, 17, 6–8.

53. Alexandersen S., Zhang Z., Reid S.M., Hutchings G.H. & Donaldson A.I. (2002). –

Quantities of infectious virus and viral RNA recovered from sheep and cattle

experimentally infected with foot-and-mouth disease virus O UK 2001. J. Gen. Virol., 83

(8), 1915–1923. doi:10.1099/0022-1317-83-8-1915.

54. Hugh-Jones M.E. & Tinline R.R. (1976). – Studies on the 1967–68 foot and mouth

disease epidemic: incubation period and herd serial interval. J. Hyg. (Lond)., 77 (2), 141.

doi:10.1017/S0022172400024566.

55. Prempeh H., Smith R. & Muller B. (2001). – Foot and mouth disease: the human

consequences. Br. Med. J., 322 (March), 565–566. doi:10.1136/bmj.322.7286.565.

56. Bauer K. (1997). – Foot- and-mouth disease as zoonosis. Arch. Virol. Suppl., 13, 95–7.

Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9413529.

57. Bauer K. (1997). – Foot-and-mouth disease as zoonosis. Arch. Virol., 13 (supp), 95–97.

58. Armstrong R., Davis J. & Hedger R. (1967). – Foot-And-Mouth Disease in Man. Br. Med.

J., 4 (5578), 529–530. doi:10.1136/bmj.2.1450.823-b.

59. European Center for Disease Prevention and Control (2012). – RAPID RISK

ASSESSMENT, Transmission of Foot and Mouth disease to humans visiting affected

areas. Stockholm. Available at: http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications/Publications/TER-

RRA-Transmission-of-foot-and-mouth-to-humans-visiting-affected-areas.pdf.

60. Geering W.A. (1967). – FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE IN SHEEP. Aust. Vet. J., 43

(11), 485–489. doi:10.1111/j.1751-0813.1967.tb04774.x.

17

61. Gibbens J.C., Sharpe C.E., Wilesmith J.W., Mansley L.M., Michalopoulou E., Ryan J.B.

& Hudson M. (2001). – Descriptive epidemiology of the 2001 foot-and-mouth disease

epidemic in Great Britain: the first five months. Vet. Rec., 149, 729–743.

doi:10.1136/vr.149.24.729.

62. Davies G. (2002). – The foot and mouth disease (FMD) epidemic in the United Kingdom

2001. Comp. Immunol. Microbiol. Infect. Dis., 25 (5–6), 331–343. doi:10.1016/S0147-

9571(02)00030-9.

63. World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) (2012). – Foot and Mouth Disease. . In

Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals7th ed.. pp 145–

173Available at:

http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/fr/Health_standards/tahm/2.01.05_FMD.pdf.

64. Longjam N., Deb R., Sarmah A.K., Tayo T., Awachat V.B. & Saxena V.K. (2011). – A

Brief Review on Diagnosis of Foot-and-Mouth Disease of Livestock: Conventional to

Molecular Tools. Vet. Med. Int., 2011, 1–17. doi:10.4061/2011/905768.

65. Callens M. & Clercq K. De (1997). – Differentiation of the seven serotypes of foot-and-

mouth disease virus by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. J. Virol. Methods,

67 (1), 35–44. doi:10.1016/S0166-0934(97)00074-8.

66. Marquardt O., Straub O.C., Ahl R. & Haas B. (1995). – Detection of foot-and-mouth

disease virus in nasal swabs of asymptomatic cattle by RT-PCR within 24 hours. J. Virol.

Methods, 53 (2–3), 255–261. doi:10.1016/0166-0934(95)00015-M.

67. Reid S.M., Grierson S.S., Ferris N.P., Hutchings G.H. & Alexandersen S. (2003). –

Evaluation of automated RT-PCR to accelerate the laboratory diagnosis of foot-and-mouth

disease virus. J. Virol. Methods, 107 (2), 129–139. doi:10.1016/S0166-0934(02)00210-0.

68. Domingo E., Baranowski E., Escarmís C. & Sobrino F. (2002). – Foot-and-mouth disease

virus. Comp. Immunol. Microbiol. Infect. Dis., 25 (5–6), 297–308. doi:10.1016/S0147-

9571(02)00027-9.

69. Paton D.J., Sumption K.J. & Charleston B. (2009). – Options for control of foot-and-

mouth disease: knowledge, capability and policy. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol.

Sci., 364 (1530), 2657–67. doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0100.

70. Scudamore J.M. & Harris D.M. (2002). – Control of foot and mouth disease: lessons from

the experience of the outbreak in Great Britain in 2001. Rev. Sci. Tech., 21 (February

2001), 699–710.

18

71. Bouma A., Elbers A.R.W., Dekker A., Koeijer A. De, Bartels C., Vellema P., Wal P. Van

Der, Rooij E.M.A. Van, Pluimers F.H. & Jong M.C.M. De (2003). – The foot-and-mouth

disease epidemic in The Netherlands in 2001. Prev. Vet. Med., 57 (3), 155–166.

doi:10.1016/S0167-5877(02)00217-9.

72. Dórea F.C., Nöremark M., Widgren S., Frössling J., Boklund A., Halasa T. & Ståhl K.

(2017). – Evaluation of strategies to control a potential outbreak of foot-and-mouth

disease in Sweden. Front. Vet. Sci., 4 (JUL). doi:10.3389/fvets.2017.00118.

73. Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) (2011). – Foot and Mouth

Disease Control Strategy for Great Britain. (November). Available at:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_d

ata/file/69456/fmd-control-strategy111128.pdf (accessed on 3 September 2016).

74. United States Department of Agriculture (2017). – Planning and Preparing for Foot-and-

Mouth Disease. (September).

75. United States Department of Agriculture (2014). – Foot-and-Mouth Disease Response

Plan: The Red Book. (September). Available at:

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/acah/downloads/documents/FMD_Response_Pl

an_November_2010_FINAL.pdf.

76. Pritchard G., Dennis I. & Waddilove J. (2005). – Biosecurity: Reducing disease risks to

pig breeding herds. In Pract., 27 (5), 230–237. doi:10.1136/inpract.27.5.230.

77. Lewerin S.S., Österberg J., Alenius S., Elvander M., Fellström C., Tråvén M., Wallgren

P., Waller K.P. & Jacobson M. (2015). – Risk assessment as a tool for improving external

biosecurity at farm level. BMC Vet. Res., 11 (1). doi:10.1186/s12917-015-0477-7.

78. Animal Health Australia (2013). – Farm Biosecurity for Livestock Producers. , 12.

Available at: http://www.farmbiosecurity.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Farm-

Biosecurity-for-Livestock-Producers.pdf (accessed on 22 May 2018).

79. Washington State Department of Agriculture (2017). – Biosecurity Measures for Farms.

Jun 1. Available at: https://agr.wa.gov/foodanimal/animalhealth/biosecuritymeasures.aspx

(accessed on 22 May 2018).

80. Abila R.C. (2011). – Foot and mouth disease and control strategies in Southeast Asia and

the Pacific - the current situation.

81. Edwards J.R. (2005). – Strategy for the control of foot-and-mouth disease in Southeast

Asia (SEAFMD). Dev. Biol. (Basel)., 119, 423–431. Available at:

19

http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-

20344372443&partnerID=40&md5=5f5e7113d49e029ad52e79dfb9005cff.

82. Shang Y., Lu Z., He J., Jin Y., Guo J., Ma W., Ma J., Liu Z. & Liu X. (2011). – Foot and

mouth disease and control strategies in the People’s Republic of China - the current

situation.

83. United States Department of Agriculture (2015). – Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD)

Response. Ready Reference Guide — Overview of FMD Vaccine Issues. (November), 1–

2. Available at:

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/emergency_management/downloads/fmd_plan

_rrg_vaccine.pdf (accessed on 22 May 2018).

84. Kahn S., Geale D.W., Kitching P.R., Bouffard A., Allard D.G. & Duncan J.R. (2002). –

Vaccination against foot-and-mouth disease: The implications for Canada. Can. Vet. J., 43

(5), 349–354.

85. Chaisrisongkram W. (1994). – An overview of Foot-And-Mouth Disease control in

Thailand. . In Proceeding of An International Workshop, September 6-9, 1993 (J.W.

Copland, L.J. Gleeson & C. Chamnanpood, eds), Lampang. pp 23–25

86. Smitinant P. & Jarutamara U. (1965). – The Production of Foot and Mouth Disease

Vaccine. . In The 4th Conference of Agriculture and Biology, Bangkok. p 518Available at:

http://agkb.lib.ku.ac.th/dld/search/search_val/a0045f4211d205fff5d5c77a7b35abcd.

87. Cleland P.C., Baldock F.C., Chamnanpood P. & Gleeson L.J. (1996). – Village level risk

factors for foot-and-mouth disease in Northern Thailand. Prev. Vet. Med., 26 (3–4), 253–

261. doi:10.1016/0167-5877(95)00552-8.

88. Chaosuancharoen T. – Experience on FMD Control in Thailand The Continual Attempts

and Foresight.

89. Gleeson L.J. (2002). – A review of the status of foot and mouth disease in South-East Asia

and approaches to control and eradication. Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 21 (3), 465–475.

doi:10.2460/ajvr.69.2.240.

90. Abila R. & Kalpravidh W. (2011). – FMD Current Status and Control Strategies in South

East and China. (March), 5–6.

91. The Royal Thai Government Gazette (2015). – Animal Epidemics Act B.E. 2558. 132, 22.

Available at: http://www.ratchakitcha.soc.go.th/DATA/PDF/2558/A/014/22.PDF.

92. World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) – World Animal Health Information

20

Database (WAHIS Interface)-disease incidence. Available at:

https://www.oie.int/wahis_2/public/wahid.php/Diseaseinformation/statusdetail (accessed

on 28 May 2018).

93. Department of Livestock Development (2018). – Current FMD status in Thailand: Jan-

April 2018. Bangkok.

94. Mackay D. (1998). – Differentiating infection from vaccination in foot-and-mouth disease

using a panel of recombinant, non-structural proteins in ELISA. Vaccine, 16 (5), 446–459.

doi:10.1016/S0264-410X(97)00227-2.

95. Bureau of Disease Control and Veterinary Services (2015). – Report of FMD

Seroprevalence and Vaccine Titer in Beef Cattle , Fiscal year of 2014. Bangkok,

Thailand.

96. Parker P.E., Fleming P.D., Beyerlein S., Apple D. & Krumsieg K. (2001). –

Differentiating assessment from evaluation as continuous improvement tools. . In

Proceedings - Frontiers in Education Conference. p T3A/1-T3A/6Available at:

https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-

0035204836&partnerID=40&md5=102afd321868047898bcebf1e63de030.

97. Central Michigan University – “A Guide” For Developing a Program Assessment Plan.

Available at:

https://www.cmich.edu/office_provost/AcademicAffairs/CAA/Assessment/Documents/As

sessment Resources Documents/Guide For Developing Assessment Plan.pdf (accessed on

4 June 2018).

98. Barrette C. – Program Assessment : Purposes , Benefits , and Process Program

Assessment is like Google Maps. Available at:

https://wayne.edu/assessment/files/1_introduction_to_program_assessment.pdf (accessed

on 4 June 2018).

99. World Health Organisation (2012). – Health Systems Strengthening: Glossary. Who, , 1–

22. Available at: http://www.who.int/healthsystems/hss_glossary/en/index.html (accessed

on 5 June 2018).

100. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2012). – Improving the Use of

Program Evaluation for Maximum Health Impact: Guidelines and Recommendations.

(November), 2–5. Available at:

https://www.cdc.gov/eval/materials/finalcdcevaluationrecommendations_formatted_1204

21

12.pdf (accessed on 6 June 2018).

101. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) (2005). – Chapter 2: Public

Health Assessment Overview. Public Heal. Assess. Guid. Man. Available at:

https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/hac/phamanual/ch2.html#2.1 (accessed on 5 June 2018).

102. Isoda N., Kadohira M., Sekiguchi S. & Schuppers M. (2012). – Review: Evaluation of

Foot‐and‐Mouth Disease Control Using Fault Tree Analysis. Transbound. Emerg. Dis., 62

(3), 233–244. doi:10.1111/tbed.12116.

103. Simha Pilot (2002). – What is fault tree analysis? Qual. Prog., 35, 120. Available at:

http://0-

proquest.umi.com.library.simmons.edu/pqdweb?index=8&did=110696586&SrchMode=1

&sid=20&Fmt=4&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=125521

4260&clientId=19053.

104. Lee W.S., Grosh D.L., Tillman F.A. & Lie C.H. (1985). – Fault Tree Analysis, Methods,

and Applications - A Review. IEEE Trans. Reliab., R-34 (3), 194–203.

doi:10.1109/TR.1985.5222114.

105. Hendrikx P., Gay E., Chazel M., Moutou F., Danan C., Richomme C., Boue F., Souillard

R., Gauchard F. & Dufour B. (2011). – OASIS: An assessment tool of epidemiological

surveillance systems in animal health and food safety. Epidemiol. Infect., 139 (10), 1486–

1496. doi:10.1017/S0950268811000161.

106. Bayissa B. & Bereda A. (2009). – ASSESSMENT OF VETERINARY SERVICE

DELIVERY, LIVESTOCK DISEASE REPORTING, SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS AND

PREVENTION AND CONTROL MEASURES ACROSS ETHIOPIA/KENYA BORDER.

Available at:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:ASSESSMENT+OF+V

ETERINARY+SERVICE+DELIVERY+,+LIVESTOCK+DISEASE+REPORTING+,+S

URVEILLANCE+SYSTEMS+AND+PREVENTION+AND+CONTROL+MEASURES+

ACROSS+ETHIOPIA+/+KENYA+BORDER+ENHANCED+LIVELIHOODS+IN+SOU

THER.

107. Jibat T., Mengistu A. & Girmay K. (2015). – Assessment of veterinary services in central

Ethiopia: A case study in Ada’ a District of Oromia Region, Ethiopia. Ethiop. Vet. J., 19

(2), 1–9. doi:10.4314/evj.v19i2.9.

108. Wada M., Stevenson M., Cogger N. & Carpenter T. (2017). – Evaluation of the Control

22

Strategy for the 2010 Foot-and-Mouth Disease Outbreak in Japan Using Disease

Simulation. Transbound. Emerg. Dis., 64 (3), 978–989. doi:10.1111/tbed.12467.

109. Garner M.G. & Lack M.B. (1995). – An evaluation of alternate control strategies for foot-

and-mouth disease in Australia: a regional approach. Prev. Vet. Med., 23 (1–2), 9–32.

doi:10.1016/0167-5877(94)00433-J.

23

Figures

Figure 1.1 Foot and Mouth Disease Distribution Map, Jan-Jul 2017

Source: World Animal Health Information Database (WAHIS Interface)

24

Figure 1.2 FMD incidences in Thailand from 2005-2017

Source: The Department of Livestock Development and WAHIS

25

Figure 1.3 FMD seroprevalence in beef cattle in Thailand from 2008-2014*

Source: Bureau of Disease Control and Veterinary Services, DLD

*Data of 2011 was missing

26

Figure 1.4 FMD seroprevalence in beef cattle in Thailand in 2014 by livestock regions

Source: Bureau of Disease Control and Veterinary Services, DLD

27

Chapter 2 Development of an Evaluation Framework and Assessment Tools to Assess the

Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) Control Policies and Their Implementation in the

Proposed FMD-Free Zone in Thailand

Submitted for publication as:

N. Ketusing, S. Premashthira, J. Hodgson, K. Hult & V. Ragan. Development of an evaluation

framework and assessment tools to assess the Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) control policies

and their implementation in the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand. Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int.

Epiz.

Submission date: August 13, 2019

Abstract

This paper proposes an evaluation framework and assessment tools for use in the

evaluation of the current Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) control policies in Thailand and their

implementation in the proposed FMD-free zone. Currently, no framework or tools are available

to perform such an assessment to help determine whether the FMD control program in the

proposed zone is consistent with World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) requirements for

establishing an FMD-free zone with vaccination.

To develop the framework and assessment tools this study identified; (i) the essential

elements of successful FMD control programs; (ii) stakeholders who are affected by the FMD

control program; and (iii) relevant Department of Livestock Development (DLD) regulations and

documents. These regulations and documents were used as the foundation for development of the

framework and assessment tools.

The proposed framework includes the essential characteristics of policy design and

implementation that should be part of the FMD control program in Thailand. The assessment

tools include assessment matrices, three sets of questionnaires, and interview questions. When

applied, the assessment matrices identify shortcomings of policy design, policy implementation,

veterinary capacity, and stakeholder engagement. Questionnaires and interview questions collect

information that examines the consistency of elements of the FMD control program against

criteria in the assessment matrix. This framework and tools are currently being applied to assess

the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand.

Keywords: Foot and Mouth Disease; disease control; FMD-free zone; assessment; Thailand

28

Introduction

Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) is a highly contagious transboundary animal disease [1–

4] . Organizations such as the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), the French Agency

for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety (ANSES), and the Food and

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) recognize FMD as the greatest hindrance

to international trade in animals and animal products [2–5]. The disease is endemic in South

America, Sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, and more prevalent in developing countries, including

Thailand [6–8]. FMD serotype A was first detected in Thailand in 1953 [9]. Serotypes Asia-1

and O were confirmed in 1954 and 1975 respectively [9]. While serotypes A and O are still in

circulation, serotype Asia-1 has not been detected in Thailand since 1997 [10].

Efforts to control and eradicate FMD in Thailand started in 1991 under the Foot-and-

Mouth Disease Prevention and Eradication Project [9]. In 1997, Thailand collaborated with

neighboring countries to prevent, control, and eradicate FMD at the regional level under the

South-East Asia FMD Campaign (SEAFMD), which is now called the South-East Asia and

China FMD Campaign (SEACFMD) [11,12]. Currently, Thailand is in stage three of the

progressive control pathway for FMD (PCP-FMD), a joint FAO/OIE tool for classifying country

progress in FMD risk management (Figure 2-1). Moving from stage three to stage four requires

strong evidence that the FMD virus is not circulating in domestic animals in a country or zone

[13].

To proceed to stage four of PCP-FMD, the Department of Livestock Development (DLD)

has proposed to make the eastern region of Thailand a FMD-free zone with vaccination [14,15].

In order to achieve this goal, the DLD has been improving the FMD control system in Thailand

by revising FMD control policies and implementing an amended FMD control program to allow

OIE to officially recognize the proposed FMD-free zone.

To help ensure that current FMD control policies and their implementation in the

proposed FMD-free zone meet OIE requirements, assessment of the current FMD control system

plays a crucial role. Currently, no framework or tools are available to assess the FMD control

system in Thailand. For such assessment to be effective, it is important to develop an appropriate

and applicable evaluation framework and tools that can provide accurate and transparent results.

This paper reports on the development of a framework and assessment tools to evaluate

the FMD control policies in Thailand and their implementation in the proposed FMD-free zone.

29

The expected outputs from this assessment could support the detection of disparities between the

current FMD control policies and their implementation, as well as assist the DLD in improving

the FMD control system.

Methodology

Frieden (2014) addressed six key areas for effective public health program

implementation including innovation, technical package, management, partnership,

communication, and political commitment. However, the factors that influence the effectiveness

of animal control program have not been addressed. In order to develop an evaluation framework

and assessment tools, this study first identified the essential elements of successful FMD control

programs through a literature review. The initial literature search was conducted on Google

Scholar, Wiley Online Library, and PubMed Central. Key words included: factors, effective,

successful, program implementation, policy implementation, disease control program, and health

program in different combinations. Information related to animal disease control program and

effective services delivery drawn from fact sheets and bulletins published by organizations

focusing on animal disease management such as OIE were also included.

The second step in this study involved identification of stakeholders who had an interest

in, and/or an influence on, FMD control programs in Thailand. Potential stakeholders were

identified based on professional networks and experience. A list of potential stakeholders was

reviewed and discussed with DLD officers and private veterinarians. In order to illustrate who

key stakeholders of FMD control system in Thailand were, the study also developed a

stakeholder identification map in order to define key stakeholders of the FMD control program in

Thailand.

Lastly, the relevant DLD regulations and other documents related to the FMD control

program were identified through a literature search and discussion with DLD officers. These

regulations and documents were used as the foundation for the development of the framework

and assessment tools.

Results

Essential elements of a successful FMD control program

A successful FMD control program is one that is carried out as intended to achieve

desired outcomes. Reviews of existing literature and field experiences led to the conclusion that

30

FMD control programs can be successful and sustained if organization and coalitions effectively

address the following elements;

i. Policy design. Smart (2016) claimed that policy design is an essential component of the

policy process and noting that “unclear mandates often results in a mismatch between legislative

intent and bureaucratic behavior” [17] (p.156). Public problems, whether straightforward or

complicated, should be defined and analyzed before policies addressing them are made [18].

Policy content should clearly frame the underlying public problems, goals, objectives, and

identify appropriate solutions [18,19]. Desirable policy should contain unambiguous directives,

clearly structured the implementation processes, and assign an existing agency for

implementation [20].

ii. Veterinary Services. Adequate, knowledgeable, and well-trained staff are needed for

effective services delivery. Veterinary Services play an important role for prevention and control

of animal diseases [21]. According to OIE (2015), “the effectiveness of animal disease

prevention and control policies depends on the good governance and quality of Veterinary

Services” [22] (p.1).

iii. Engagement of stakeholders. Successful policy processes require participation from

stakeholders [19]. Veronesi and Keasey (2009) argue that the quality of national health services

are improved with stakeholder participation [23].

iv. Availability of resources. Sufficient financial resources, staffing, and equipment are

needed for effective policy implementation [20]. Financial resources should be sufficient to hire

staff, develop alternative technologies, and conduct technical analyses involved in the

development of regulations and alternatives, services delivery, and monitoring of target group

compliance [20].

v. Policy or program implementation. Implementation is a “set of activities directed

toward putting a program into effect”[18] (p.99). Successful implementation depends on program

details to ensure that policy goals and objectives are met [18]. Policy should be implemented

completely and as planned.

vi. Policy or program evaluation. Evaluation refers to the process of detecting how the

policy or program was implemented and whether the policy or program is working appropriately

[18,24,25]. Policy implementation can be enhanced by ongoing evaluation by internal and

external authorities [26]. Evaluation should be accurate, transparent, applicable, and consistent in

order to enable policy to be improved [24,25]. Using evaluation feedback and information on

31

how implementation is progressing allow policymakers and implementers to better revise and

correct actions [19].

vii. Political commitment. Overcoming program constraints and accomplishing program

objectives can be difficult without active political support [20]. Political commitment helps to

catalyze and sustain successful program implementation [27]. Alternatively, lack of

governmental commitment results in less successful policy implementation [28]. Political

commitment should come from various levels, especially higher government officials such as the

Minister of Agriculture and the Prime Minister, in order to raise awareness and support effective

implementation.

The essential elements of a successful FMD control program are illustrated in Figure 2-2.

Stakeholder Identification

Stakeholders are the people, groups, or organizations that can be affected by policy

outputs, decisions, and operations [29,30]. This study listed potential stakeholders, then reviewed

and discussed with DLD officers and private veterinarians. A comprehensive stakeholder

identification map was developed and are illustrated in Figure 2-3. Further exploration of

stakeholder involvement in FMD policy compliance in Thailand in this study focused on three

major stakeholders: i) the DLD officers, ii) private veterinarians, and iii) livestock producers

(farmers).

i. DLD officers

DLD officers in Thailand can serve at both national and local levels.

National level: includes officers who design and work on FMD control programs such

as those in the disease control unit (Bureau of Disease Control and Veterinary Services), the

vaccine unit (Bureau of Veterinary Biologics, Veterinary Biologic Assay and Research Center,

and the Regional Reference Laboratory for FMD in South East Asia), and the animal movement

control unit (Division of Veterinary Inspection and Quarantine).

Local level: includes officers at provincial and district levels who are in charge of the

animal health control programs. This group includes officers of provincial livestock offices,

district livestock offices, animal quarantine stations, and dairy herd health units.

ii. Private veterinarians

This study focused on private veterinarians who work in the proposed FMD-free zone

and whose work is related to the zone. These private veterinarians in Thailand are classified into

32

three groups: (a) veterinarians who are contracted to, or work for company owned farms, (b)

veterinarians who work as consultants for farms and pharmaceutical companies, and (c)

veterinarians who work in technical sales and sales support.

This study included most types of private veterinarians in Thailand. It is uncommon in

Thailand for private veterinarians to run their own veterinary clinics or hospitals for livestock.

Most livestock farmers contact the DLD veterinary officers if their livestock have any health

issues. In addition, these official veterinarians provide free or low cost farm visits and treatment.

It is more expensive for farmers to call private veterinarians to visit their farms and treat their

livestock.

iii. Livestock producers (farmers)

Livestock producers are divided into backyard and agribusiness farms. In this study, the

definitions of these farms in the proposed FMD-free zone were:

a. A backyard farm was a farm with fewer than 50 head of livestock, including beef

cattle, dairy cattle, buffalo, swine, sheep, or goat.

b. An agribusiness farm was a farm with more than 50 head of livestock. Most of the

agribusiness farms in the proposed FMD-free zone are swine producers.

Identification of relevant DLD regulations and other documents

Three sources served as the basis for developing the framework and assessment tools: a)

the OIE terrestrial animal health code; b) the DLD regulations related to FMD; and c) other

official documents related to the Thailand FMD control program.

a) OIE terrestrial animal health code

The OIE terrestrial code is an international standard designed to improve animal health

and welfare and to provide guidance for international trade [31]. World Trade Organization

(WTO) members commonly use the OIE terrestrial code as the principal international trade

reference, and the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures

(the SPS Agreement) recognizes the OIE as the relevant standard-setting body for sanitary

measures relating to animal health and zoonoses [31–33].

The primary chapters of the terrestrial code used for setting the assessment criteria for

this study were:

Chapter 1.4 Animal health surveillance [34];

Chapter 1.6 Procedures for self-declaration and for official recognition by the OIE [35];

33

Chapter 3.2 Evaluation of Veterinary Service [36];

Chapter 4.3 Zoning and compartmentalization [37]; and

Chapter 8.8 Infection with foot and mouth disease virus [38] .

b) DLD regulations

The DLD revised its regulations in 2013 to improve Thailand’s FMD control system and

to comply with the OIE’s requirements. This study relied on legislation and regulation enacted,

written, and revised after 2013. Requirements for OIE recognition as an FMD free zone with

vaccination are specified in the OIE terrestrial animal health code, chapter 8.8 article 8.8.3

(http://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_fmd.htm).

The core laws related to the FMD control program are:

Animal Epidemics Act B.E. 2558 (2015) [39]

Control of Animal Slaughter for the Distribution of Meat Act B.E. 2559 (2016) [40]

DLD Regulation on Animal Movement Control B.E. 2558 (2015) [41]

The Animal Epidemics Act and the DLD Regulation on Animal Movement Control

authorize veterinary officers to isolate and quarantine animals for examination, testing,

vaccination, and depopulation when outbreaks occur. Livestock holders are compensated for

destroyed animals at 75% of market value. Veterinary officers also have authority to control,

regulate, permit, and prohibit animal movement. In order to transport animals to slaughter

houses, veterinary officers need to inspect animals in accordance with the Control of Animal

Slaughter for the Distribution of Meat Act, which mandates that animals must be in good

condition, fit to travel, and show no clinical signs of disease.

c) Documents related to the Thailand FMD control program

This study also included review of documents published by DLD and OIE that contained

information regarding the FMD control program and Veterinary Services in Thailand. The

following documents were reviewed and used for development of the framework and assessment

tools;

National FMD Strategic Plan of Thailand [14]

Dossier for OIE Official Recognition of Foot and Mouth Disease Free Zone with

Vaccination in the Eastern Region of Thailand [15]

Report of OIE FMD Expert Mission to Thailand [42]

Thailand National FMD plan for OIE Endorsement [43]

OIE Performance Veterinarian Services (PVS) Evaluation Report (Thailand) [44]

http://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_fmd.htm

34

PVS Gap Analysis Mission Report (Thailand) [45]

Conditions for development of an assessment system

Based on a review of the documents described above and that were related to the FMD

control program in Thailand it was found;

(i) the existing testing and diagnosis system were adequate and rapid, met

international standards, and confirmed by the OIE PVS evaluation; and

(ii) the existing reporting system was appropriately designed and included networks

of farmers, livestock assistants, villagers, and officers at the field level.

Therefore, the development of a framework and assessment tools was conducted

assuming these two conditions were satisfied.

Evaluation Framework

Figure 2-4 presents the evaluation framework developed to assess FMD control policies

and their implementation in the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand. The framework identifies

several essential characteristics of policy design and implementation that should be included in

the FMD control program in Thailand. The framework is divided into two parts: Veterinary

Services and Stakeholders. For Veterinary Services, six components related to FMD control

activities in Thailand need to be assessed, including the surveillance system, reporting system,

vaccine strategy, animal movement controls, response plans, and veterinary capacity. For

stakeholders, the assessment focuses on one component; their engagement.

The first component under Veterinary Services is the surveillance system. An appropriate

surveillance system should include passive and active collection of relevant data with appropriate

sampling designs. The reference population of the sampling design should include all FMD-

susceptible farm animals in the proposed FMD-free zone. Sample size should be sufficient to

demonstrate the absence of FMD infection. Appropriate implementation of surveillance should

include regular farm visits and animal observation by veterinary services officers. Officer

networks at the field level should exist and be appropriate to collect and submit samples to

laboratories. Sample quality and reliability also should be determined. Veterinary Services

should regularly communicate the findings of surveillance programs to stakeholders and evaluate

the surveillance programs.

35

The second component is the reporting system. As mentioned earlier, the design of the

reporting system was assumed to be appropriate. Therefore, this second component evaluates

only the implementation of the reporting system. Appropriate implementation should include

unambiguous communication of the reporting protocol to stakeholders. It is important for

officers to act in accordance with the reporting protocol. Veterinary Services needs both to have

an appropriate reporting analysis mechanism and to routinely analyze disease reports. Officers’

and stakeholders’ compliance with the reporting protocol should be monitored routinely.

The third component under Veterinary Services is the vaccine strategy. An appropriate

policy design for this strategy should clearly specify the criteria for making vaccine-strain

decisions and who is responsible for, and has authority over, such decisions. In addition, routine

vaccination program decisions should be based on scientific studies. Appropriate implementation

of a vaccine strategy should include unambiguous communication of the strategy to stakeholders

and regular updating of the vaccine strategy based on evaluation of circulation strains of FMD.

Vaccination programs and vaccine production need to be evaluated regularly to monitor vaccine

coverage including host species, efficiency, efficacy, immunity protective levels, stability, purity,

and duration of immunity.

The fourth Veterinary Services component is animal movement control. Appropriate

movement regulations need to cover all susceptible animals and products. There also should be

appropriate and suitable requirements to detect and to prevent the spread of FMD prior to animal

movement. For example, regulations should specify that animals must be tested and have FMD

negative results, and that animals must be vaccinated against FMD before transportation.

Appropriate implementation of animal movement control should include unambiguous

communication of the movement protocol to stakeholders. The animal identification system

should be appropriate to identify the animal’s farm of origin. Compliance with animal movement

control needs to be monitored routinely.

The fifth component is the response plan. An appropriate plan should specify procedures

(responses and follow up plans) to be conducted after an outbreak is detected and specify who

should take responsibility. The plan should also include a compensation scheme and specify

appropriate compensation criteria. Appropriate implementation should include unambiguous

communication of the response plan to stakeholders. Officers need to act in accordance with the

response plan, and compliance with the plan should be routinely monitored.

36

In addition to these requirements, accomplishment of the goals of an FMD control

program will depend upon appropriate veterinary capacity. Appropriate veterinary capacity

includes: (i) sufficient number of qualified personnel to deliver services at the field level; (ii) the

ability of DLD officers to detect, prevent, control, and report disease; (iii) existing continuing

education programs to support the growth and development of all veterinary professionals; (iv)

appropriate tools and equipment for DLD officers to deliver services; and (v) routine assessment

of the performance of Veterinary Services.

Stakeholder engagement is crucial to success of the FMD control program. In this

context, “stakeholders” refer to private veterinarians and livestock producers or farmers. Private

veterinarians should have sufficient knowledge to detect, prevent, and control disease. Farmers at

minimum, should recognize the disease, report suspected cases to officers, and be able to set up

farm biosecurity protocols such as restricting visitors, having a visitor log book, and having a

boot disinfection station. Private veterinarians and farmers should receive continuous trainings

about the FMD control program, disease detection, and prevention. They should be able to

understand the objectives of the FMD control program and their roles and responsibilities. They

should recognize and implement FMD control activities, following FMD control guidelines and

DLD policies on FMD control program.

Assessment tools

In order to evaluate current FMD regulations and their implementation a number of

assessment tools were developed in this study and included assessment matrices, questionnaires,

and interview questions. Three sets of questionnaires and interviews questions were developed

and will be used to collect data and verify information for input into assessment matrices. The

assessment matrices (APPENDICES 3 and 4) will be used to detect potential shortcomings of

current policy design, implementation, veterinary capacity, and stakeholder engagement in

Thailand’s FMD control program. Tables 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3 show the assessment matrix criteria

and the OIE’s requirements. Each table is divided into sections according to FMD control

activities (e.g. the surveillance system, the reporting system, and vaccine strategy).

The design of the questionnaires (APPENDICES 5,6, and 7) included specific questions

for three different target groups: local DLD officers (such as provincial and district officers),

private veterinarians, and livestock producers. The questionnaires for all groups have both open-

ended and close-ended questions, including multiple choice, rating scales (Likert-like scales),

37

and short answer questions. The questionnaires are self-reporting and focus on the practices of

individuals in the target groups to control FMD over the past three years. For example,

participants will report how often they disinfected vehicles for animal transportation. The

questionnaires also focus on getting feedback from stakeholders about the services DLD officers

provided.

Interviews were designed to obtain more in-depth information to better understand the

FMD control system in Thailand and to further investigate specific details that questionnaires

cannot provide. Interview questions (APPENDICES 6, 7, and 8) address the surveillance system,

reporting system, vaccination strategies, response plan, control of animal movement, and overall

Veterinary Services. The questions are designed for each stakeholder group, with specific

questions for subgroups such as DLD provincial officers, DLD district officers, officers of

animal movement control units, and officers of Dairy Herd Health Units (DHHU, these officers

are specifically assigned to work and collaborate with dairy farmers and cooperatives).

Questionnaires and interview questions are designed for collecting data at different

levels. Questionnaire surveys will be administered with DLD local officers such as provincial

and district officers, DHHU staff, animal quarantine station staff, private veterinarians, and

farmers. Interviews will be conducted with DLD national officers, DLD regional officers, and

private veterinarians to get more in depth information.

Discussion and Conclusion

The framework and assessment instruments this paper proposed are the first of their kind

in Thailand. Other evaluation frameworks such as SuRveillnace EVALuation (SERVAL) and

OASIS (acronym for the French translation of “analysis tool for surveillance system” ) have been

developed, tested, and used in other countries [46,47]. Great Britain developed SERVAL to

evaluate animal health surveillance with the inclusion of socio-economic criteria [46]. Not only

was SERVAL primarily used in the UK, but it was also applicable to European Union (EU)

countries and worldwide [46]. The French Agency for Food, Environmental, and Occupational

Health Safety (ANSES) developed OASIS to evaluate surveillance systems for zoonoses and

animal disease in France [47]. Although SERVAL includes economic criteria, OASIS does not

yet include a cost-benefit analysis [47]. Applications of SERVAL and OASIS sought to evaluate

difference disease surveillance systems. OASIS was tested in “FMD, rabies in bats, poultry

disease network, antimicrobial resistance in pathogenic bacteria from animal origin, and

laboratory network for salmonella detection in the food chain” [47] (p.1488), and SERVAL was

38

developed and tested for Brucella melitensis in sheep and goats, tuberculosis in cattle, and

classical swine fever in pigs [46]. In addition, SERVAL was designed to overcome several

drawbacks of OASIS, including the difficulty in interpreting its outputs and the inflexibility of

several restriction assumptions. Both, however, they required similar information to evaluate

surveillance systems, including scope and objective of surveillance, operational organization,

surveillance procedures, sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic techniques, data management,

interpretation and communication of surveillance data, and evaluation and correction of

surveillance system [46,47]. Compared to the framework this study proposed, these existing

frameworks latter were developed for evaluating surveillance systems, but do not include other

activities related to disease control, which is an essential component for evaluation of FMD

programs.

Nonetheless, the proposed framework and assessment tools have several limitations. For

example, Thai government agencies other than the DLD may play roles in the FMD control

system, such as the Expressway Authority (Ministry of Transport) and the Department of

National Parks, Wildlife, and Plant Conservation (Ministry of Natural Resources and

Environment). If assessment instruments focus on a single organization, they may miss the larger

picture and extensive findings and produce misleading results. Moreover, the proposed

framework was not designed to assess either the diagnosis system or the design of the reporting

system. Again, it may overlook some important features when assessing the FMD control

system.

In order to validate the proposed framework and assessment tools, both are currently

being applied to the FMD control system in the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand. The

diagram of the data collection plan is illustrated in Figure 2-5. The diagram shows where surveys

and interviews are conducted during the assessment process. It is expected that the results of the

assessment will indicate not only whether the FMD control system in Thailand meets OIE

requirements for official recognition of FMD-free status, but also whether implementation of the

FMD control program is sufficient to control FMD. Results of the assessment will be used to

make recommendations for Thailand to improve its FMD control system. An expectation from

this study is that the DLD and other Thai Animal Health policymakers will use the outputs of

these assessments to take action to improve the FMD control programs and will circulate the

assessment report to affected stakeholders.

39

As stated, this study developed the first evaluation framework and tools to determine

whether the current FMD control system in the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand is

functioning well and meets the OIE’s requirements for an official recognition of FMD-free zone.

This paper can be used as a model for Southeast Asia (SEA) countries that are affected by FMD

to develop an internal evaluation in order for SEA countries to accomplish the current

SEACFMD roadmap. As one of the goals of this roadmap is to support SEA member countries

to achieve and maintain FMD-free status with vaccination by 2020 and strengthen Veterinary

Services in this region [48]. This paper can be beneficial and motivate SEA member countries to

follow the SEACFMD roadmap.

Acknowledgement

This study was part of a PhD degree being undertaken by the first author at Virginia-

Maryland College of Veterinary Medicine, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, USA. This project was

also supported financially by the Royal Thai Government Scholarship. The authors are most

grateful to Prof. Dr. Mo D. Salman, Animal Population Health Institute, Department of Clinical

Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University,

Fort Collins, CO, for his valuable comments and feedback regarding the framework and

assessment matrixes.

40

References

1. The Center for Food Security and Public Health (2015). – Foot and Mouth Disease.

(March), 1–9. Available at:

http://www.cfsph.iastate.edu/Factsheets/pdfs/foot_and_mouth_disease.pdf.

2. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations – The European Commission for

the control of Foot-and-Mouth disease (EuFMD). Available at:

http://www.fao.org/eufmd/global-situation/about-the-disease/en/ (accessed on 2 February

2018).

3. World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) (2018). – Foot & Mouth disease (FMD).

Available at: http://www.oie.int/animal-health-in-the-world/animal-diseases/foot-and-

mouth-disease/ (accessed on 2 February 2019).

4. French Agency for Food E. and O.H.& S. (2019). – Foot and mouth disease: A long-

known disease that remains a serious threat to animal health. Available at:

https://www.anses.fr/en/content/foot-and-mouth-disease (accessed on 2 February 2019).

5. Pal M. (2018). – Foot and Mouth Disease : A Highly Infectious Viral Zoonosis of Global

Importance. J. Appl. Microbiol. Biochem., 2 (3), 1–2. doi:10.21767/2576-1412.100028.

6. Pattnaik B., Subramaniam S., Sanyal A., Mohapatra J.K., Dash B.B., Ranjan R. & Rout

M. (2012). – Foot-and-mouth Disease: Global Status and Future Road Map for Control

and Prevention in India. Agric. Res., 1 (2), 132–147. doi:10.1007/s40003-012-0012-z.

7. Rweyemamu M., Roeder P., MacKay D., Sumption K., Brownlie J., Leforban Y.,

Valarcher J.F., Knowles N.J. & Saraiva V. (2008). – Epidemiological patterns of foot-and-

mouth disease worldwide. Transbound. Emerg. Dis., 55 (February 2006), 57–72.

doi:10.1111/j.1865-1682.2007.01013.x.



Asia. Rev. Sci. Tech., 21 (3), 465–475.




10. Windsor P.A., Windsor P.A., Freeman P.G., Abila R. & Benigno C. (2011). –

Foot‐and‐Mouth Disease Control and Eradication in the Bicol Surveillance Buffer Zone of

the Philippines. Transbound. Emerg. Dis., 58 (5), 421–433. doi:10.1111/j.1865-

1682.2011.01225.x.



12. World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) (2011). – SEACFMD 2020, A Roadmap to

Prevent, Control and Eradicate Foot and Mouth Disease (by 2020) in South-East Asia and

41

China. (September). Available at: http://www.rr-

asia.oie.int/fileadmin/SRR_Activities/SEACFMD_2020_for_print_5_June_2012.pdf

(accessed on 9 July 2015).

13. FAO/OIE (2011). – The Progressive Control Pathway for FMD control (PCP-FMD)

Principles, Stage Descriptions and Standards. Available at:

http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/commissions/docs/pcp/pcp-26012011.pdf.

14. Department of Livestock Development (2012). – National FMD strategic plan of

Thailand. 2nd ed., Bangkok, Thailand. doi:10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2.

15. Department of Livestock Development (2012). – Dossier for OIE Official Recognition of

Foot and Mouth Disease Free Zone with Vaccination in the Eastern Region of Thailand.

Bangkok, Thailand.

16. Frieden T.R. (2014). – Six Components Necessary for Effective Public Health Program

Implementation. Am. J. Public Health, 10 (1), 17–22. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2013.301608.

17. Smart P. (2016). – Policy Design. . In Health Policy And Politics: A Nurse’s Guide5th ed.

(J.A. Mistead, ed), Jones & Bartlett Learning. pp 151–169

18. Kraft M.E. & Scott R. Furlong (2013). – Public policy: Politics, analysis, and

alternatives. 4th ed., CQ press.

19. Mthethwa R.M. (2012). – Critical dimensions for policy implementation. African J. Public

Aff., 5 (2), 36–47.

20. Sabatier P. & Mazmanian D. (1979). – The Conditions of Effective Implementation: A

Guide to Accomplishing Policy Objectives. Policy Anal. doi:10.2307/42783358.

21. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2013). – Global strategies for animal

disease control. Available at:

http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Publications_%26_Documentation/docs/pdf/bulle

tin/Bull_2013-3-ENG.pdf.

22. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2015). – Animal diseases prevention and

control. Available at:

http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Media_Center/docs/pdf/Fact_sheets/P-C_EN.pdf

(accessed on 4 February 2019).

23. Veronesi G. & Keasey K. (2009). – Policy implementation and stakeholder involvement

within the National Health Service. Prim. Care, August, 2–26.

24. HM Treasury (2011). – The Magenta Book: Guidance for evaluation.

25. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2012). – Brief 1 : Overview of Policy

Evaluation. (2011), 4–7. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/injury/pdfs/policy/Brief 4-

a.pdf (accessed on 15 May 2017).

26. Khan A.R. (2016). – Policy Implementation: Some Aspects and Issues. J. Community

42

Posit. Pract., XVI (3), 3–12. doi:10.2307/975319.

27. Bhuyan A. (2005). – Commitment for Action: Assessing leadership for confronting the

HIV/AIDS Epidemic-lessons learned from pilot studies in Bangladesh,India,Nepal and

vietnam. USAID Publ., (June). Available at:

http://www.policyproject.com/pubs/PoliticalCommitment/PC_Synthesis.pdf (accessed on

30 September 2018).

28. Quah J.S.T. (1987). – Public bureaucracy and policy implementation in Asia: An

introduction. Asian J. Soc. Sci., 15 (1), 7–16. doi:10.1163/080382487X00118.

29. Bryson J.M. (2004). – What to do when Stakeholders matter - Stakeholder Identification

and Analysis Techniques. Public Manag. Rev., 6 (1), 21–53.

doi:10.1080/14719030410001675722.

30. Freeman R.E. (1984). – Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach.

doi:10.2139/ssrn.263511.

31. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2016). – Terrestrial Animal Health Code.

Available at: http://www.oie.int/en/international-standard-setting/terrestrial-code/access-

online/.

32. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (1998). – AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE

WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION ( WTO ) AND THE OFFICE INTERNATIONAL

DES EPIZOOTIES ( OIE ). World Organ. Anim. Heal. Available at:

http://www.oie.int/en/about-us/key-texts/cooperation-agreements/agreement-with-the-

world-trade-organization-wto/ (accessed on 19 April 2018).

33. World Trade Organisation (WTO) – The WTO and the World Organization for Animal

Health (OIE). Available at: https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/coher_e/wto_oie_e.htm

(accessed on 19 April 2018).

34. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2018). – Animal Health Surveillance. , 1–

10. Available at:

http://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_surveillance_general.htm


35. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2018). – Procedures for self declaration and

for official recognition by the OIE. Available at:

http://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_selfdeclaration.htm


36. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2018). – Evaluation of Veterinary Services.

Available at:

http://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_eval_vet_serv.htm


37. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2018). – Zoning and compartmentalization.

Available at:

43

http://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_zoning_compartment.htm


38. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2018). – Infection with Foot and Mouth

Disease. Terr. Anim. Heal. Code. Available at:

http://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_fmd.htm (accessed on 9

April 2019).



40. The Royal Thai Government Gazette (2016). – Control of Animal Slaughter for the

Distribution of Meat Act B.E. 2559. , 133, 22. Available at:

http://www.ratchakitcha.soc.go.th/DATA/PDF/2559/A/085/9.PDF.

41. Department of Livestock Development (2015). – Animal Movement Control Regulation.

R. Thai Gov. Gaz., 132, 186ง. Available at:

http://dcontrol.dld.go.th/dcontrol/images/RUMINANT/DLD/9.PDF.


Thailand. Thailand.

43. Department of Livestock Development (2015). – Thailand National FMD Plan for OIE

Endorsement 2015: Application for OIE Validation of the Official Foot and Mouth

Disease Control Programme. Bangkok, Thailand.

44. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2012). – PVS Evaluation Report

(Thailand).

45. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2014). – PVS GAP Analysis Mission Report

(Thailand).

46. Drewe J.A., Hoinville L.J., Cook A.J.C., Floyd T., Gunn G. & Stärk K.D.C. (2015). –

SERVAL: A New Framework for the Evaluation of Animal Health Surveillance.

Transbound. Emerg. Dis., 62 (1), 33–45. doi:10.1111/tbed.12063.

47. Hendrikx P., Gay E., Chazel M., Moutou F., Danan C., Richomme C., Boue F., Souillard

R., Gauchard F. & Dufour B. (2011). – OASIS: An assessment tool of epidemiological

surveillance systems in animal health and food safety. Epidemiol. Infect., 139 (10), 1486–

1496. doi:10.1017/S0950268811000161.

48. World Organisation for Animal Health (2016). – SEACFMD Roadmap: A strategic

framework to control, prevent and eradicate foot and mouth disease in South-East Asia

and China. 3rd ed.Available at: http://www.rr-

asia.oie.int/fileadmin/SRR_Activities/documents/SEACFMD_Roadmap_merged_resized.

pdf (accessed on 18 April 2019).

44

Tables

Table 2-1 Summary of the OIE’s requirements for a region to be qualified as an FMD-free zone with vaccination and the

assessment matrix criteria to identify shortcomings of policy design

Sections OIE’s Requirements * Assessment Matrix Criteria to Identify Shortcomings of Policy Design

1. Surveillance

system

- Veterinary Authority should be responsible for the

surveillance system.

- A surveillance system should provide an early warning

system to report FMD suspected cases.

- Surveillance for FMD and FMDV transmission is in

operation and in the form of a continuing program.

- Surveillance program to demonstrate no evidence of FMDV

infection and transmission should be carefully designed and

implemented to avoid producing results that are insufficient

to be accepted by the OIE or trading partners.

- Sampling design should incorporate an epidemiologically

appropriate design prevalence.

- Sample size should be adequate to detect the presence of

FMD infection and transmission.

1.1 Surveillance plan does not include passive surveillance.

1.2 Surveillance plan does not include active surveillance.

1.3 Surveillance program is not conducted annually.

1.4 The surveillance plan does not cover all susceptible species and/or all

levels of animal units such as the industrial level, small scale farmers,

and government facilities.

1.5 Sample size and sampling strategy are not appropriate. ** **Inappropriate underlying assumptions for sample size calculation:

1.5.1 Sample size is not calculated to demonstrate the absence of

FMD infection.

1.5.2 Sample size is not calculated with at least 90% confidence

(acceptable level) with sensitivity and specificity of the test at

least 90%.

2. Vaccine strategy - Routine vaccination has been carried out for the purposes of

the prevention of FMD and carried out following appropriate

vaccine strain selection.

- Vaccination has been carried out to achieve adequate

vaccination coverage and population immunity.

2.1 Policy does not specify who has authority to make decisions on

vaccine strains needed.

2.2 Policy does not specify how vaccine strains are determined.

2.3 Not all susceptible species are included in the overall vaccine plan.

3. Animal

movement

control system

- The control of the movement of susceptible animals and

their products into the proposed FMD-free zone has been

properly implemented and supervised.

3.1 Animals (susceptible species) and/or animal products are not covered

under movement regulations.

3.2 Requirements (before movement is allowed) are not adequate to detect

infection and prevent disease spread.

3.3 There are no regulations or requirements regarding the registration and

sanitization of vehicles for livestock transportation.

4. Response plan - All herds or flocks with at least one laboratory confirmed

reactor should be investigated.

- The investigation should include reactor animals, susceptible

animals of the same unit, and susceptible animals that have

been in contact with reactor animals.

- Seropositive animals should be retested using repeat and

confirmatory test with high diagnostic specificity.

- The animals sampled should remain in the establishment

pending test results and should be clearly identified and

accessible.

4.1 There are no appropriate follow up plans when a serological test (NSP)

is positive. The follow up plan does not include: trace-back to origin,

investigation, further serological tests (confirmation), quarantine (herds

or animals), quarantine release plan (what is criteria to release

quarantine), and/or requirement to remove animals (slaughter or

stamping out).

4.2 Compensation is not included in the response plans.

*Adapted from the Terrestrial Code chapter 8.8 “Infection with Foot and Mouth Disease Virus.”

Complete requirements can be accessed at http://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_fmd.htm#article_fmd.40

http://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_fmd.htm#article_fmd.40

45

Table 2-2 Summary of the OIE’s requirements for a region to be qualified as an FMD-free zone with vaccination and the assessment matrix

criteria to identify shortcomings of implementation of FMD control program*

Sections OIE’s Requirements ** Assessment Matrix Criteria to Identify Shortcomings of Implementation

1. Surveillance

system

- An early detection of FMD has been implemented.




infection and transmission should be implemented.

- Surveillance system should provide an early warning system

to report suspected cases.

1.1 Officers do not regularly visit farms and observe animals.

1.2 Farmers do not regularly observe abnormalities of their animals.

1.3 Officers do not routinely conduct active serological surveillance.

1.4 There is a lack of communication of findings of the surveillance program and

laboratory results.

1.5 The surveillance program is not evaluated.

2. Reporting

system

- A member country should have a record of regular and

prompt animal disease reporting.

- Farmers, workers who have day-to-day contact with

livestock, veterinary paraprofessionals, veterinarians, and

diagnosticians should report promptly any suspicion of

FMD.

2.1 There is a lack of communication of reporting protocols.

2.2 Reporting protocol is not uniformly implemented at all levels.

2.3 There is no disease report analysis at the local or national level.

2.4 No one is using the disease report analysis for prevention and control of FMD.

2.5 Compliance with reporting protocol is not monitored.

3. Vaccine

strategy

- Routine vaccination has been carried out for the purposes of

the prevention of FMD and carried out following

appropriate vaccine strain selection.



- Serological surveillance to estimate population immunity

and/or efficiency of the vaccination program should be

conducted at 1-2 months after vaccination.

- The vaccine used complies with the standards described in

the Terrestrial Manual such as quality control, purity, and

safety of vaccines.

3.1 There is a lack of communication on vaccine strategy (e.g., type of vaccine &

adjuvant, included species, vaccine strain, and vaccine interval)

3.2 All animal species covered by the policy are not vaccinated.

3.3 There is a lack of vaccination record keeping and other information related to

vaccination campaign.

3.4 There is a lack of appropriate sero-monitoring program for post vaccination

evaluation.

3.5 There is a lack of vaccine matching monitoring and communication of vaccine

matching tests.

3.6 There is a lack of quality control and/or records on efficacy of vaccine production

4. Animal

movement

control




4.1 There is a lack of communication of movement control protocols.

4.2 Animal identification cannot differentiate between animals originating from inside

or outside of the proposed FMD-free zone.

4.3 DLD officers issue movement permits without animal inspection.

4.4 Animals and/or animal products are not transported in appropriate vehicles.

4.5 Animal checkpoints are not sufficient and are not located in appropriate areas to

screen animal transportation.

4.6 Veterinary officers and support staffs do not appropriately conduct animal

inspection at checkpoints.

4.7 Compliance with movement control regulations is not monitored.

5. Response

plan

- All herds or flocks with at least one laboratory confirmed


- The investigation should include reactor animals,

susceptible animals of the same unit, and susceptible

animals that have been in contact with reactor animals.

5.1 There is a lack of communication of response plans.

5.2 Officers do not respond or provide inadequate response when FMD suspected

cases are reported e.g. no tracing back, no re-investigation, and no confirmation of

serological test.

5.3 Record of positive herds and/or animals is not appropriate to trace back to the

46






accessible.

origin.

5.4 There is no quarantine when positive animals are found.

5.5 Infected carcasses, byproducts, and material (fodder, waste manure, and bedding)

are not adequately disposed.

5.6 Emergency vaccine is not sufficient for affected animals.

5.7 Compensation is not sufficient when infected animals are slaughtered during

outbreak.

5.8 Local officers and farmers inappropriately restock new animals. * These criteria will be used to evaluate DLD’s FMD control program. The study assumed that the testing-diagnosis system is adequate, provides rapid diagnoses, meets international

standards, and confirmed by the performance veterinarian services (PVS) evaluation by OIE. Thus, testing and diagnosis system is not included in the assessment system.

**Adapted from the Terrestrial Code chapter 8.8 “Infection with Foot and Mouth Disease Virus.”



47

Table 2-3 The OIE’s recommendations regarding the quality of Veterinary Services and the criteria to identify inappropriate of veterinary

capacity and engagement of stakeholders

Sections The OIE’s recommendations * Assessment Matrix Criteria to Identify Inappropriate of Veterinary Capacity

and Engagement of Stakeholders

1. Veterinary

capacity

- The personnel of Veterinary Services should have

relevant qualifications, scientific expertise, and

experience to give them the competence to make sound

professional judgements.

- The Veterinary Services should be able to demonstrate

sufficient financial resources, and effective organization

that they are able to anticipate the requirements for the

establishment and application of animal health and

animal welfare measures.

- Adequate coverage of animal populations should be

demonstrated.

- Job descriptions of each position within the Veterinary

Services should be described.

- Job descriptions should include the requirements for

education, training, technical knowledge, and

experience.

- The Veterinary Services should undertake periodical

self-evaluation especially by documenting

achievements against goals and demonstrating the

efficiency of their organizational components and

resource adequacy.

- Responsible authorities should ensure that adequate

resources are made available to implement effectively

the above activities.

1.1 Veterinarians or qualified personnel do not exist or function at the field level.

1.2 Local officers are not available when farmers or private vets need a service.

1.3 Job descriptions of veterinarians and support staff are not defined.

1.4 Job descriptions are not appropriate for veterinarians and support staff to deliver

services. (Veterinarians and support staff are overwhelmed by their workloads.)

1.5 Small scale farmers have limited access to reliable and qualified Veterinary

Services.

1.6 Training programs:

1.6.1 Training programs are not provided for veterinary and support staff to

improve their performance and update knowledge.

1.6.2 The training programs are not conducted routinely.

1.6.3 The training programs are not standardized and certified by the veterinary

council.

1.7 Veterinary Services at each level do not have sufficient knowledge to detect

diseases.

1.8 Veterinary Services (at the local level) do not have sufficient tools/equipment to

deliver services for FMD control.

1.9 There is no routine assessment of Veterinary Services performance on the

following topics:

1.9.1 Knowledge about FMD and its control

1.9.2 Service delivery

1.9.3 Reliability and validity of diagnosis

1.9.4 Transparency

2. Engagement of

stakeholders

There are no OIE’s recommendations regarding

engagement of stakeholders

2.1 Farmers do not have sufficient knowledge to detect or recognize disease.

2.2 Farmers and private veterinarians do not have similar understandings of the

objectives of the FMD control program or of the importance of FMD

surveillance, early reporting, and movement control

2.3 Farmers and private veterinarians do not practice in accordance with DLD FMD

control program. *Adapted from the Terrestrial Code chapter 3.1“Veterinary Services”. Available accessed at http://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_vet_serv.htm

48

Figures

Figure 2.1 Stages in the Progressive Control Pathway for FMD

Source: FAO/OIE PCP-FMD

49

Figure 2.2 Essential elements for success of FMD control program

50

Figure 2.3 Stakeholder identification map representing Thai stakeholders with interest in or influence on FMD control program in Thailand.

51

Figure 2.4 Evaluation framework for the assessment of FMD control policy and its implementation in the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand.

*Conditions:

(1) Reporting system

is appropriate design.

(2) Testing and

diagnosis system is

adequate and rapid to

diagnose FMD.

Policy design

Implementation

Implementation

Policy design

Implementation

Policy design

Implementation

Policy design

Implementation

52

10-Animal quarantine

stations

62-District

livestock offices

*Abbreviations

BVB = Bureau of Veterinary Biologics

RRL = Regional Reference Laboratory for FMD in South East Asia

VBARC = Veterinary Biologics Assay and Research Center

BDCVS = Bureau of Disease Control and Veterinary Service

DVIQ = Division of Veterinary Inspection and Quarantine

Re

gio

nal

leve

l

Regional livestock office no. 2 (Eastern Region)

DVIQ = Division of Veterinary Inspection and Quarantine

Figure 2.5 Data collection plan for assessment process

53

Chapter 3 An Assessment of the Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) Control Program in the

Proposed FMD-Free Zone in Thailand Part I: Policy Design

Abstract

A proposed Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) - free zone in the eastern region of Thailand

was evaluated by FMD experts with the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) during

2012-2013. The zone, however, did not qualify for an FMD-free zone with vaccination

designation because it did not comply with the requirements in the OIE Terrestrial Code.

Thailand revised its FMD control regulations to be in compliance with recommendations of the

OIE review team and since 2013, has implemented a revised FMD control program in the

proposed FMD-free zone. These revisions and implementation, however, have not been

evaluated. This study was conducted to determine whether the design of the current FMD control

system in the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand follows the OIE’s requirements for

establishing an FMD-free zone with vaccination.

This assessment was conducted by interviews of Thailand’s Department of Livestock

Development (DLD) national officers who formulate policies related to FMD control program

and by reviews of DLD existing written policies and documents. An assessment matrix,

developed to be used to detect potential shortcomings of current policy design, was then used in

order to determine how well the current FMD control program meets the OIE’s requirements.

The assessment evaluated the surveillance system, vaccine strategy, animal movement control

system, and response plans.

This assessment found that the design of current FMD control system is appropriate and

meets the OIE’s requirements. A second phase of the assessment is being conducted to determine

whether the implementation of the current FMD control program in the proposed FMD-free zone

in Thailand follows the requirements to establish an FMD-free zone.

Keywords: Foot and Mouth Disease; FMD-free zone; assessment; policy design; Thailand

54

Introduction

Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) is one of the most economically important infectious

diseases of livestock [1–4]. The impact of FMD not only includes direct losses and reduced

production but also includes indirect losses, trade restrictions, and the costs of FMD control [5].

An outbreak of FMD in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2001 caused a loss of approximately £3.1

billion [2]. The losses to FMD in India were estimated in 1994 at US$ 446.11 million due to

animal death and treatment cost [6]. Australia, an FMD-free country, estimated in 2001 that if

there were to be an FMD outbreak, the export revenues would drop by AUD$5.8 billion [7]. In

Thailand, during 2014-2016, approximately US$ 10-11 million (1 USD ~ 35 Thai Baht) were

spent annually in a national FMD control program with additional costs related to establishing

the proposed FMD-free zone of US$ 1.2-1.5 million [8].

The first record of FMD in Thailand was in 1953 [9,10]. Thailand started disease control

measures, using vaccination, in 1958 [10]. Efforts to establish a formal FMD control program

were initiated in 1991, including control of animal movements, stamping out, and vaccination

programs [10,11]. In the past three decades, a number of policies, laws, and regulation have been

formulated and adopted in order to improve the FMD control system in Thailand. However, the

control of FMD still remains a challenge. Outbreaks of FMD have occurred sporadically and

have been reported throughout the country, except for the eastern region of Thailand [12].

In 2012, the Department of Livestock Development (DLD) proposed to the World

Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) that the eastern region of Thailand become officially

recognized as an FMD-free zone with vaccination [13]. In 2013, a mission by the OIE was

carried out to evaluate the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand [13]. The report from OIE-FMD

experts found that the proposed FMD-free zone was not in full compliance with the OIE’s

requirements [13]. Based on the evaluation by the OIE-FMD experts, the DLD revised the FMD

control regulations in order to be in compliance with the recommendations of the OIE. Following

the experts’ suggestions, a revised FMD control program in the proposed FMD-free zone has

been implemented. These revisions have not been evaluated to determine whether the current

FMD control program follows the OIE’s requirements for establishing an FMD-free zone in

Thailand.

A study was conducted to assess the design of the current FMD control program in the

proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand. The study aims to determine whether the design of the

current FMD control system follows the OIE’s requirements for establishing an FMD-free zone

55

with vaccination. Findings of the assessment will be beneficial for DLD in further improving the

FMD control program in Thailand.

Methodology

This policy design study was conducted by (i) interviews of DLD national officers who

formulate policies related to the FMD control program and (ii) reviews of DLD existing written

policies and documents. The policies in this study referred to laws, regulations, and

proclamations related to the FMD control program in the proposed FMD-free zone that were

enacted or written during 2013-2016. This timeframe was significant because DLD revised some

regulations in 2013 to improve Thailand’s FMD control system and to meet the OIE’s

requirements.

Interviews of DLD national officers

A purposive sampling method was conducted to recruit participants for the interviews.

Interviews were conducted with DLD national officers who formulate FMD control policies and

had experience with policy implementation. Interview questions were developed to assess the

surveillance system, reporting system, vaccination program, control of animal movement, and

response plans. The questions were designed for each group of officers. For example, DLD

national officers who work in the animal movement control unit were asked about DLD

regulation of animal movement control. Questions regarding surveillance were asked of DLD

national officers who work in the disease control unit. Interview questions for DLD national

officers are attached in APPENDIX 9.

A total of nine DLD officers (out of 14) who had experience with or formulated FMD

control policy were interviewed. Details and number of interviewees of this study shows in Table I.

Reviews of DLD existing written policy and documents

Laws, regulations, and related documents used in this study included: Animal Epidemics

Act B.E.2558 (2015), DLD Regulation on Animal Movement Control B.E. 2558 (2015), FMD

surveillance plan of the proposed FMD-free zone 2016, DLD proclamation regarding vaccination

program, FMD vaccination program in the proposed FMD-free zone 2016, National FMD

Strategic Plan of Thailand, and Thailand’s official FMD control program (endorsement by the

OIE in 2016).

56

Data analysis

This is a qualitative study using the assessment matrix as an analytical tool. An

assessment matrix of FMD policy design was applied to determine how well the current FMD

control program meets the OIE’s requirements. Using this matrix, existing policy and documents

related to FMD control program were reviewed, then the policy and document contents were

comparatively analyzed against the assessment matrix criteria based on the OIE’s requirements.

The matrix has detailed criteria to evaluate the data collected from the policy reviews and

interviews in order to determine any shortcomings of the current policy design. Table II

summarizes the OIE’s requirements for an official recognition of FMD-free zone and the criteria

in the assessment matrix to identify shortcomings of policy design.

Results

Surveillance system

A review of the FMD surveillance plan for the proposed FMD-free zone 2016 and

Animal Epidemics Act B.E. 2558 (2015) found that both active and passive surveillance are

included in the surveillance system. The DLD passive surveillance system relies on reports of

disease and suspected cases from field level. Disease reporting network and laboratory

coordination are established in order to enhance disease control system. The disease reporting

and laboratory coordination diagram is illustrated in figure 1. The disease reporting network

includes DLD officers, laboratory workers, private veterinarians, farmers, head of villagers,

villagers, and livestock volunteers also known as community-based animal health workers (any

persons who live in the same village as livestock farmers or are from neighboring area or can be

farmers themselves. They assist DLD officers by providing basic services related to animal

health control system such as vaccination, animal health observation, and giving husbandry

advice. Livestock volunteers play an important role in providing animal health services in most

part of Thailand). The Animal Epidemics Act (APPENDIX 12, Thai version) clearly states that

farmers and private veterinarians must notify DLD officers within 12 hours of any notifiable

diseases including FMD. Any violator is subject to fines or imprisonment.

These findings indicate that the design of DLD surveillance system is appropriate and

meets the OIE’s requirements which state that “a surveillance system should be the responsibility

of the Veterinary Authority” [14] (Article 8.8.40, bullet 1). The OIE also requires that “a

surveillance system should provide an early warning system to report suspected cases throughout

57

the entire production and a procedure should be in place for the rapid collection and transport of

samples to a laboratory for FMD diagnosis” [14] (Article 8.8.40, bullet 1). Although the policy

design includes a disease reporting network and laboratory coordination, this evaluation did not

assess the implementation of the DLD surveillance system and therefore did not evaluate if it

would provide an early warning system, rapid collection, or transport of sample

Active serological surveillance is conducted in the proposed FMD-free zone. The

surveillance plan specifies that serological surveillance is conducted biannually. The sampling

plan includes beef, dairy, swine, sheep, and goats which are raised in backyard operations,

commercial farms, and DLD facilities in the proposed FMD-free zone. These findings indicated

that the surveillance plan covers all susceptible species and all levels of animal units. The

surveillance plan also is conducted continuously which is in compliance with the OIE’s

requirements.

This study used “Epitools epidemiological calculators” (http://epitools.ausvet.com.au/

content.php?page=FreedomSS) to calculate sample size for demonstration of freedom (detection

of disease) in a finite population with 95% confidence level, 98% test sensitivity, and 2%

prevalence. A full report of sample size calculation is shown in APPENDIX 13. The calculation

result showed that required sample size was 152 herds in total, including all species. In 2016,

DLD collected blood samples from 1,185 herds out of a total of 17,702 herds based on their

calculation to demonstrate the absence of FMD infection with 95% confidence and 98.2%

sensitivity of the test for each targeted species. The samples included 233 beef herds, 249 dairy

herds, 73 buffalo herds, 118 sheep and goat herds, 275 commercial swine herds, and 237

backyard swine herds. A maximum of thirty samples were collected from each herd. Routinely,

if the herd size is less than 30 head, all animals are sampled. A total of 35,550 blood samples

were collected by active serological surveillance in 2016. The sample sizes collected by DLD

exceeded the minimum sample sizes calculated by this study. This indicates that DLD has an

appropriate sample plan and adequate sample sizes to detect the disease in accordance with the

OIE’s requirements which state that the surveillance strategies employed to “substantiate

freedom from FMD infection or transmission” should be based on “randomized or targeted”

sampling at an acceptable “level of statistical confidences” [14] (Article 8.8.40 bullet 4).

One of the OIE’s requirements is that “if an increased likelihood of infection in particular

localities or species can be identified, targeted sampling may be appropriate” [14] (Article 8.8.40

bullet 4). A national DLD officer revealed that “the risk is higher in backyard swine farms than

http://epitools.ausvet.com.au/%20content.php?page=FreedomSS

http://epitools.ausvet.com.au/%20content.php?page=FreedomSS

58

in commercial swine farms. Sampling plans for backyard swine and commercial swine farms

were separately calculated” (personal communication, January 27, 2018)

The surveillance plan further states that if any sample is tested positive, DLD laboratory

officers must inform DLD regional and local officers in order to quarantine infected herds,

monitor the health status of other animals from the same herds where infected animals are found,

and report the management plan for infected herds to the DLD at the national level.

Additionally, in 2015, DLD resubmitted Thailand’s official FMD control program to the

OIE (personal communication, January 27, 2018). In 2016, the OIE officially endorsed the

official FMD control program which included the surveillance plan. A national DLD officer

implied that by the OIE endorsement of the official FMD control program in 2016, the

surveillance plan was approved and met the OIE’s requirements.

In summary, this study found the existing surveillance system has been appropriately

designed and meets the OIE’s requirements which are 1) the surveillance is in the form of a

continuing program, 2) the sampling strategy is designed with appropriate prevalence and

acceptable level of statistical confidence, and 3) the sample sizes are adequate to detect the

presence of FMD infection or transmission.

Vaccination program

The DLD proclamation regarding the FMD vaccination program provides for the creation

of a committee which has authority to make decisions on which vaccine strain is needed. The

committee consists of DLD officers from Bureau of Disease Control and Veterinary Services

(BDCVS), Bureau of Veterinary Biologics (BVB), and Regional Reference Laboratory for Foot

and Mouth Disease in South East Asia (RRL). The only time the committee meets is when there

is uncontrolled FMD outbreak (an outbreak which cannot be controlled by existing control

measurements). The RRL identifies strains of virus from all samples submitted by local DLD

officers, farmers, and private veterinarians. When virus strains from field samples do not match

with the vaccine strain in use, RRL notifies BDCVS, and the committee is called for a meeting to

consider alternative vaccine strains. Once the alternative virus strain is selected, the RRL

transfers virus seeds for vaccine production to the BVB. The BVB is responsible for producing

vaccines and testing (pre-marketing quality control) before distributing vaccines to the field.

Vaccine testing includes sterility, purity, safety, and potency testing. After vaccine distribution,

59

the vaccines are randomly sampled for post-marketing quality control conducted by the

Veterinary Biologics Assay and Research Center (VBAC).

The decision regarding which vaccine strain to develop is based on the antigenic

relationship to field isolation strains which is expressed as ‘r’ value. The RRL follows the OIE

guideline to obtain the ‘r’ value [15]. The ‘r’ value is interpreted as follows [16]:

‘r’ value < 0.2 indicates that field isolations and current vaccine strains were distantly

related. The vaccine is unlikely to protect against the field isolation.

‘r’ value = 0.2 - 0.39 indicates that field isolations were antigenically related to current

vaccine strains. The vaccine strain might be suitable for use if no closer match can be found.

‘r’ value = 0.4 – 1.0 indicated that field isolations and current vaccine strains were

closely related. The vaccine contains the virus strain that is likely to confer protection.

The national FMD vaccination program calls for dairy cattle to be vaccinated every four

months; beef cattle, sheep, and goats to be vaccinated every six months. Animals are vaccinated

by DLD officers and/or livestock volunteers (community-based animal health workers). All

vaccines used in dairy, beef, sheep, and goats are produced and provided by DLD at no cost to

farmers. The national FMD vaccination program does not provide routine vaccination services to

swine; however, DLD recommends that farmers vaccinate fattening and breeder pigs at 8 and 12

weeks and breeding pigs every 4-6 months. DLD does not provide free vaccination services to

swine producers because: 1) the majority of swine producers are commercial farms so they can

support themselves and 2) the DLD-FMD vaccine production plant has limited production

capacity. Practices of FMD vaccination in swine vary by type of farm and production (i.e.

breeders, piglets, and fattening). For example, one farm may conduct FMD vaccination in

breeders every 3, 6, 9, and 12 months, while another farm may conduct FMD vaccination in

breeders during late pregnancy. The variation in practice of FMD vaccination depends on the

incidence of FMD outbreaks in the area of the location of the farm. If the farm is located in an

area that has regular outbreaks, private veterinarians and/or farmers will vaccinate their animals

more frequently. The vaccines used in swine are produced and provided by DLD (80%) at a low

cost to swine farmers, the rest are imported vaccines.

Vaccination against FMD is one of the requirements for farmers to obtain an animal

movement permit. In order to get a movement permit from DLD officers, farmers must present a

certificate of FMD vaccination which is signed by a DLD accredited veterinarian (a private

veterinarian who is authorized by the DLD to perform certain duties and functions in support of

60

the national animal health program. Private veterinarians must hold a license for practicing

veterinary medicine which is provided by the Veterinary Council (Board of Veterinary). Private

veterinarians must attend, complete a training program, and pass the exam for accredited

veterinarians. In Thailand, private veterinarians who want to work for commercial or

agribusiness farms are required to be accredited).

All the above findings indicate that the vaccine strategy has been appropriately designed.

To be specific, the policies regarding vaccination program specify that 1) the vaccination

program includes all susceptible species and 2) the designated committee has authority to make

decisions on vaccine strains needed and to specify how vaccine strains are determined. In terms

of the design of a vaccination program, the findings suggest that the design meets the OIE’s

requirements, which states that 1) “compulsory systematic vaccination in the target population”

should be “carried out to achieve adequate vaccination coverage and population immunity” and

2) vaccination should be “carried out following appropriate vaccine strain selection” [14].

Animal movement control system

The DLD regulation on animal movement control B.E. 2558 (2015) covers not only

susceptible animals such as swine, cattle, and small ruminants but also semen, embryos, and

animal products derived from susceptible animals such as milk, skins, hides, and wools. The

regulation also covers processed food, cooked, and semi-cooked food that are made from

susceptible animals such as sausage, salami, and canned meat.

Animal movement between provinces requires a movement permit from DLD officers.

The regulation states that DLD officers must inspect and observe animal health status before and

during loading of animals. Before loading animals on vehicles and after loading animals off

vehicles, farmers with a movement permit must clean and disinfect vehicles and equipment that

were used for animal transportation. The expiration date of movement permits (usually within 48

hours), vehicle license number, and route of transportation are specified in the animal movement

permit.

The regulation specifies different requirements for different movement purposes. There

are different requirements for transport of the following; semen, meat products, wool and hair,

bristles, hide and skin, animals intended for slaughtering, and animals not intended for

slaughtering. Private veterinarians accredited by DLD and veterinary officers must certify

http://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=glossaire.htm#terme_vaccination


61

compliance with relevant requirements. The regulation includes the major essential requirements

in accordance with the OIE Terrestrial Code [14]. For example;

i. Animals show no clinical signs of FMD on the day of shipment.

ii. Animals were kept in the establishment of origin for 90 days or since birth if younger

than 90 days.

iii. FMD has not occurred within the establishment of origin for 90 days and within a 10

km radius of the establishment for 30 days.

iv. Animals are isolated in an establishment for the 30 days prior to shipment.

v. Animals in isolation are subject to diagnostics for evidence of FMDV with negative

results on samples collected at least 28 days after the beginning of isolation period.

vi. Animals are not exposed to any sources of FMDV during their transportation from

the establishment final destination.

vii. Semen is collected from donor males intended to be used for artificial insemination

with negative results to FMD infection.

viii. Meat products must be deboned, defatted, kept at a temperature 2-4C to maintain pH

<6, and have been processed with heat treatment to ensure the destruction of FMDV.

ix. Hide and skin must be treated with 2% sodium carbonate (Na2CO3) for at least 28

days.

Additionally, DLD includes a requirement specifying that animals must be FMD

vaccinated at least 30 days but no later than 120 days before the movement is allowed with the

exception of piglets aged <8 weeks, and calves, buffalo, sheep, and goats aged <4 months.

The DLD regulation also specifies that animals should be transported in a vehicle which

is cleaned and disinfected under the supervision of the veterinary authority. However, the

regulation and animal movement permit do not mention whether the vehicles must have

sufficient bedding to absorb urine and droppings during animal transportation, or whether the

vehicles must have a flooring surface that minimizes the leakage of urine or feces. The DLD

regulation on animal movement control B.E. 2558 (2015) (Thai version) is included in

APPENDIX 13.

In conclusion, the study found that 1) the regulation covers all susceptible and animal

products under the control of animal movement, 2) the requirements (before movement is

allowed) are adequate to prevent disease spread in accordance with the OIE Terrestrial Code,

62

and 3) there is a requirement specifying that the vehicles for livestock transportation must be

cleaned and disinfected. From these findings, it could be implied that animal movement control

regulation has been appropriately designed and meets the OIE’s requirements.

Response plans

A review of Thailand’s official FMD control program (endorsement by the OIE in 2016)

found that the current response plans for FMD outbreak includes following the procedures [8];

Quarantine of the infected premises and surrounding risk area. When FMD

infected cases are found, DLD declares the outbreak and risk area and issues an

official proclamation regarding the quarantine of animals. The risk area is

identified as the area within a 5 kilometer radius surrounding an infected

premises. If the infected premises is located in an area which has a high density of

susceptible animals, the risk area can be expanded. For example, the risk area can

be a village in a sub-district, a whole district, or 2-3 districts in one province

(administrative level in Thailand: village < sub-district < district < province).

During the quarantine period, DLD officers intensely conduct a disease

investigation to find more suspected cases, vaccinate susceptible animals, control

animal movement, and clean and disinfect farms with suspected cases. The

quarantine proclamation expires 30 days after the last suspected case has been

reported. and the quarantine is lifted.,

Control of movement of animals in the infected area and/or within a 5 kilometer

radius,

Outbreak investigation and tracing back to identify the source of origin,

Disinfection of livestock pens, vehicles, farm equipment and material in the

infected premises,

Disposal of carcasses, their products and infected materials such as bedding and

feedstuff,

Ring vaccination in a 5 kilometer radius excluding the infected and in-contact

herds (in-contact herds are the herds that are contacted with infected herds but

they do not show clinical signs of FMD. No vaccination in infected and in-contact

herds because infected herds are subject to quarantine and treatment pending on-

63

site stamping out. In-contact herds are quarantined and slaughtered at the nearest

slaughter house),

Active surveillance for clinical signs during the outbreak,

Biosecurity enhancement,

Public awareness for farmers and stakeholders,

Cooperation at the national level with all authorities that may be involved in the

FMD control program,

International communication immediately with OIE and trading partners,

Stamping out (animals that are infected with FMD and showed FMD clinical sign

are disposed of on-site. No one gets benefit from these animal carcasses)

Modified stamping out or slaughtering for consumption (animals that are in

contacted with FMD infected animals and no show of FMD clinical sign are

slaughtered at the nearest slaughterhouse under supervision of DLD officers.

Livestock producers still get benefit from animal carcasses of modified stamping

out i.e. selling meat products that pass meat inspection. The meat products of

FMD susceptible animals must be processed to ensure the destruction of FMDV

in accordance with the OIE Terrestrial Manual such as debone, defat, and heat

treatment with a core temperature at least 70C for a minimum of 30 mins, or treat

with salt (NaCl) and completely dried [14].), and

Compensation at 75% of the local market price for the case of stamping out (on-

site disposal).

Within a month, if there is no new outbreak and all response procedures are fully

implemented, it is then considered that the outbreak has been successfully

controlled. Quarantines are then released.

The above response plan procedures meet the OIE’s requirements for response.

According to the Animal Epidemics Act B.E. 2558 (2015), DLD will compensate farmers

if they notify a local DLD officers of an FMD suspected case within 12 hours after clinical signs

have been noticed, and their FMD infected and exposed animals are stamped out or disposed of

on site. However, if farmers fail to notify DLD officers of FMD suspected case within 12 hours,

they will not receive compensation. If exposed FMD animals are slaughtered for consumption

(modified stamping out), farmers will not be compensated [17]. (Farmers have to inform a local

64

DLD officer, even if they have noticed a suspected case during weekends. Some farmers report a

suspected case to a livestock volunteer, then the livestock volunteer will notify the local DLD

officer. Local DLD officers and livestock volunteers build a network to work together in order to

respond to the disease promptly. Local DLD officers determine whether farmers have notified an

FMD suspected case within 12 hours by clinical signs and number of animals showing clinical

signs. Since FMDV replicates and spreads rapidly, clinical signs can be easily seen. Local DLD

officers use their own experience to decide whether farmers have failed to notify of disease

within 12 hours.)

The Thailand’s official FMD control program also indicates the response plans if the

annual serological surveillance finds positive animals. The response plans state that “if non

structure protein (NSP) seropositive animals are found, all the NSP seropositive animals are

subject to be slaughtered. All susceptible animals in the same herds are retested for the NSP.

Clinical observation must be intensively and continuously conducted in the risk area.” The above

response plan is a revised version which adheres to a recommendation stated in the report of the

OIE-FMD Expert Mission to Thailand in 2013 [13].

Findings indicate that the current DLD response plans have been appropriately designed

and meet the OIE’s requirements. They include appropriate follow up plans, investigation, and

further serological tests when a positive serological test is found. Though the Terrestrial code

does not mention compensation, DLD utilizes a compensation scheme to subsidize farmers.


This study evaluates the design of the FMD control program in the proposed FMD-free

zone in Thailand and validates the framework for the assessment of FMD control policy and

assessment tools which were developed from a previous study. This paper is the first assessment

of policy design of Thailand’s existing FMD control program after its revision in 2013. The

criteria to evaluate policy design in the assessment matrix are based on the OIE’s requirements

and FMD control practices in Thailand. This framework and assessment matrix should be

applicable for the evaluation of the FMD control program in other parts of Thailand and other

FMD threatened countries. The framework, however, may need to be modified for each

country’s situation. For example, this study did not evaluate the testing and diagnosis system

because the OIE Performance Veterinary Service (PVS) evaluations found the DLD’s existing

testing and diagnostic system is adequate for diagnosis and meets international standards. Other

65

countries may need to also evaluate this component. Since this study did not evaluate testing and

diagnosis system, this limitation may result in overlooking some important features when

assessing the FMD control system.

Findings of this study are that the current FMD control system in the proposed FMD-free

zone is appropriately designed and meets the OIE’s requirements. First, the surveillance system

includes active and passive surveillance in the surveillance plan, and the surveillance plan covers

all susceptible species and all levels of animal units. The sample size calculated by DLD

exceeded the minimum sample size needed to demonstrate freedom of disease. Sample size

calculation by DLD were designed for each targeted species. That is, DLD calculated sample

sizes for (1) dairy cattle herds, (2) beef and buffalo herds, (3) sheep and goat herds, (4) swine

herds raised in non DLD-accredited farms5, and (5) swine herds raised in DLD-accredited farms,

while this study calculated sample sizes using a total number of herds of all susceptible animals.

Second, the vaccination strategy clearly indicates the criteria for selection of vaccine

strain and who has authority to make vaccine strain decisions. In addition, the vaccination

program includes all susceptible species in the program. Although the vaccination strategy meets

the criteria of appropriate policy design and the OIE’s requirements, it could be strengthened by

clearly specifying a time for routine meetings of committee with authority to make decisions on

vaccine strains. For example, the committee should meet every 6 months to be informed and

updated on the current FMD situation in order to be able to make decisions promptly. The

committee should not wait until there is an outbreak that is not being controlled by current

vaccines because the FMD virus rapidly replicates and easily spreads.

Vaccines produced by DLD are under DLD quality control and are tested for matching

with field strains. However, DLD is not able to conduct vaccine matching of imported vaccines

and does not have information regarding quality and number of imported FMD vaccines.

Currently, all imported animal drugs and veterinary biologic products including FMD vaccines

are under the authority of the Food and Drug Administration Thailand (FDA-Thai), Ministry of

Public Health. In order to obtain a permit for distribution and sale of FMD imported vaccine,

persons wishing to import vaccines need to submit applications with supporting documents such

5 A DLD accredited farm is a farm certified by DLD to have proper farm biosecurity. In order to promote livestock

industry, DLD encourages farmers, especially backyard farmers, to promote their farms’ biosecurity. To be a DLD-

accredited farm, farmers must follow DLD’s basic requirements of biosecurity measures such as having a separate

area for workers, visitors, and animals, having a disinfection and sanitization station for cleaning boots, having

fences to exclude other animals.

66

as product characteristics, Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) certification of manufactures,

manufacturing process, quality control process, and validation and/or evaluation process to FDA-

Thai. Then, FDA-Thai will approve and issue a permit based on the submitted documents. It is

recommended that DLD have authority over the FMD imported vaccines as well. For example,

in the United States, the United States Department of Agriculture-Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service (USDA-APHIS) has authority to regulate veterinary biologics to ensure that

the veterinary biologics are safe, potent, and effective [18]. Another suggestion for better FMD

vaccine management is to provide the DLD authority to test and control FMD vaccines after

importation and prior to distribution at the field level. This may help DLD have more

information regarding quality and virus strains used in FMD imported vaccines.

Third, the existing animal movement control system in Thailand is appropriately

designed in accordance with the OIE Terrestrial Code. However, this study found ways to

improve the control of animal movement which would better prevent the potential spread of

FMD. That is, the regulation should specify that vehicles need sufficient bedding to absorb urine

and minimize the leakage of urine and feces. In addition, all vehicles used for animal

transportation should be inspected and approved by DLD in order to ensure the vehicles are

suitable for animal transportation and are not a source of disease spread. There is evidence

proving that an FMD virus can be found and excreted in urine and feces [19,20]. In Thailand,

vehicles used for animal transportation in the FMD contaminated zone are sometimes used in

FMD-free zone. Though the vehicles are cleaned and disinfected after each use, the cleaning

process may not be properly controlled and monitored; virus contamination may exist.

Inappropriate vehicle control may lead to the contamination and spread of virus from the FMD

contaminated zone to an FMD-free zone. Without the appropriate requirements of the use of

vehicles for livestock transportation, vehicles could be a potential source of disease spread.

Fourth, the response plans indicate appropriate follow up plans and investigation and

contain a compensation scheme. The current response plans include the recommendation of OIE-

FMD experts regarding the follow-up of NSP seropositive animals and in-contact susceptible

animals. This study determined that the compensation scheme is acceptable to farmers as they

will be compensated at 75% of local market if they notify DLD officers of FMD suspected cases

within 12 hours. Some Southeast Asian countries, such as Cambodia [21] and Philippines

(Tapdasan, E., personal communication, 2018), do not have a policy for compensation. Vietnam

has a compensation scheme in place, and the compensation rate is 75% of market price (Dung,

67

PT., personal communication, 2018). The compensation scheme of DLD potentially motivates

farmers to notify disease to DLD officers. However, DLD should clearly specify the criteria for

when the FMD infected animals will be destroyed by stamping out and when they will be

slaughtered for meat production. These criteria are important for stakeholders because the 75%

compensation will only be compensated in the case of stamping out but not in the case of

slaughtering. The criteria need to be clearly communicated to stakeholders to avoid confusion.

The results of this assessment will provide information that can assist the DLD in

improving the current FMD control system. In addition, to evaluating the policy design of the

FMD control program, implementation of the current FMD program should also be evaluated. A

second phase of this study is being conducted to determine whether the implementation of the

current FMD control program in the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand meets the

requirements to establish an FMD-free zone with vaccination.

Acknowledgement

This study was part of a PhD degree being undertaken by the first author at the Virginia-

Maryland College of Veterinary Medicine, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, USA. This project was

also supported financially by the Royal Thai Government Scholarship. The authors especially

thank the DLD veterinary officers who contributed their time to provide valuable information

and participate in this project.

References


Tech., 21 (3), 637–644. doi:10.20506/rst.21.3.1356.




3. Kitching R.. (1999). – Foot-and-mouth disease: current world situation. Vaccine, 17 (13–

14), 1772–1774. doi:10.1016/S0264-410X(98)00442-3.

4. USDA-APHIS_VS (2013). – Foot-and-Mouth Disease: Factsheet. Available at:

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/animal_health/2013/fs_fmd_general.pdf.

5. Knight-Jones T.J.D. & Rushton J. (2013). – The economic impacts of foot and mouth

disease - What are they, how big are they and where do they occur? Prev. Vet. Med., 112

(3–4), 162–173. doi:10.1016/j.prevetmed.2013.07.013.

68

6. Saxena R. (1994). – Economic value of milk loss caused by Foot and Mouth Diseases

(FMD) in India. Institute of Rural Management, Anand.

7. GARNER M.G., FISHER B.S. & MURRAY J.G. (2002). – Economic aspects of foot and

mouth disease: perspectives of a free country, Australia. Rev. Sci. Tech. l’OIE, 21 (3),

625–635. doi:10.20506/rst.21.3.1357.




9. Kehren T. & Tisdell C. (1997). – An overview of the Occurence of FMD in Thailand and

Policies for its Control. Brisbane. Available at:

http://ageconsearch.tind.io//bitstream/164590/2/WP39.pdf.




11. Hanyanum W., Awaiyawanon K., Wongdee R. & Musikul P. (1994). – Diagnosis and

Epidemiology of Foot-and-Mouth Disease in Southeast Asia. . In Proceedings of an

International Workshop Held at Lampang, September 6-9, 1993, ACIAR Proceedings

(J.W. Coplan, L.J. Gleeson & C. Chamnanpood, eds), Canberra. pp 191–196

12. OIE SUB-REGIONAL REPRESENTATION FOR SOUTH-EAST ASIA (SRR-SEA)

(2015). – Report of the 21st Meeting of the OIE Sub- Commission for Foot and Mouth

Disease Control in South-East Asia and China. Manila. Available at: http://www.rr-

asia.oie.int/fileadmin/SRR_Activities/documents/21meeting-report.pdf.


Thailand. Thailand.




April 2019).

15. World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) (2012). – Foot and Mouth Disease. . In

Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals7th ed.. pp 145–

173Available at:

http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/fr/Health_standards/tahm/2.01.05_FMD.pdf.

16. Ferris N.P. & Donaldson A.I. (1992). – The World Reference Laboratory for Foot and

Mouth Disease: a review of thirty-three years of activity (1958-1991). Rev. Sci. Tech.

doi:10.20506/rst.11.3.626.



69

18. USDA-APHIS (2017). – Veterinary Biologics. Available at:

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalhealth/veterinary-biologics (accessed

on 21 February 2019).


465–93. doi:10.1128/CMR.17.2.465.

20. Alexandersen S., Zhang Z., Donaldson A.. & Garland A.J.. (2003). – The Pathogenesis

and Diagnosis of Foot-and-Mouth Disease. J. Comp. Pathol., 129 (1), 1–36.

doi:10.1016/S0021-9975(03)00041-0.

21. ASEAN (2010). – Prevention, control and eradication of avian influenza in ASEAN:

strategies and success stories. Jakarta, Indonesia. Available at:

https://asean.org/?static_post=hpai-in-asean-strategies-and-success-stories-2.

70

Tables

Table 3-1 Details and number of interviewees of this study

National DLD officers* Number of interviewees Number of key persons who are

involved in FMD control policy

making

Disease control unit (BDCVS) 3 5

Vaccine unit (RRL, BVB, VBAC) 5 6

Animal movement control unit

(AQIS)

1 3

Total 9 14 *excluding Director General (n=1) and Deputy Director General (n=1) who is in charge of the animal health unit.

71


criteria to identify shortcomings of policy design

Sections OIE’s Requirements * Assessment Matrix Criteria to Identify Shortcomings of Policy Design

1. Surveillance

system

- Veterinary Authority should be responsible for the

surveillance system.






infection and transmission should be carefully designed and

implemented to avoid producing results that are insufficient

to be accepted by the OIE or trading partners.

- Sampling design should incorporate an epidemiologically

appropriate design prevalence.

- Sample size should be adequate to detect the presence of

FMD infection and transmission.

1.1 Passive surveillance is not included in the surveillance plan.

1.2 Active surveillance is not included in the surveillance plan.

1.3 Surveillance program is not conducted annually.

1.4 The surveillance plan does not cover all susceptible species and/or all

levels of animal units such as the industrial level, small scale farmers,

and government facilities.

1.5 Sample size and sampling strategy are not appropriate. ** **Inappropriate underlying assumptions for sample size calculation:

1.5.1 Sample size is not calculated to demonstrate the absence of

FMD infection.

1.5.2 Sample size is not calculated with at least 90% confidence

(acceptable level) with sensitivity and specificity of the test at

least 90%.

2. Vaccine strategy - Routine vaccination has been carried out for the purposes of

the prevention of FMD and carried out following appropriate

vaccine strain selection.



2.1 Policy does not specify who has authority to make decisions on

vaccine strains needed.

2.2 Policy does not specify how vaccine strains are determined.

2.3 Not all susceptible species are included in the overall vaccine plan.

3. Animal

movement

control system




3.1 Animals (susceptible species) and/or animal products are not covered

under movement regulations.

3.2 Requirements (before movement is allowed) are not adequate to detect


3.3 There are no regulations or requirements regarding the registration and

sanitization of vehicles for livestock transportation.



- The investigation should include reactor animals, susceptible

animals of the same unit, and susceptible animals that have

been in contact with reactor animals.





accessible.

4.1 There are no appropriate follow up plans when a serological test (NSP)

is positive. The follow up plan does not include: trace-back to origin,

investigation, further serological tests (confirmation), quarantines

(herds or animals), quarantine release plans (what is criteria to release

quarantine), and/or requirements to remove animals (slaughter or

stamping out).

4.2 Compensation is not included in the response plans.

*Adapted from the Terrestrial Code chapter 8.8 “Infection with Foot and Mouth Disease Virus.”



72

Figures

Figure 3.1 The DLD disease reporting network and laboratory coordination

73

Chapter 4 An Assessment of Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) Control Program in the

Proposed FMD-Free Zone in Thailand Part II: Implementation and Engagement of

Stakeholders

Abstract

In 2015, the Department of Livestock Development (DLD) within the government of

Thailand revised laws and regulations related to the Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) control

system in order to be in compliance with the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE)’s

requirements. Since the implementation of the revised FMD control program, there has not been

an evaluation to determine the effectiveness and appropriateness of the program. This is the

evaluation of the implementation of the current FMD control program in the proposed FMD-free

zone in Thailand after the program revision in 2015.

The study was conducted by (i) questionnaire surveys with local DLD officers, private

veterinarians, and farmers, (ii) interviews with national and regional DLD officers and private

veterinarians, and (iii) field observations. The study used an assessment matrix, which was

developed to be used to detect potential shortcomings of the implementation and stakeholders’

engagement, as an analytical tool to determine how well the implementation of the program,

including stakeholders’ engagement, meets the OIE’s requirements. This assessment did not

evaluate the FMD testing and diagnostic systems.

This assessment found that the current implementation of the FMD control program in

the proposed FMD-free zone needs further improvement in order to meet the OIE’s

requirements. The surveillance system should be transparently evaluated to ensure that there is

no evidence of infection with FMD virus and transmission and to ensure it meets OIE FMD

surveillance standards. There should be an increase of stakeholders’ awareness of disease

reporting requirements. Evidence of adequate vaccination coverage and population immunity

should be available and accessible. Allocation of staff at local level should be reconsidered for

more appropriate service deliveries. Communications between DLD and stakeholders regarding

the FMD control program need to be strengthened for more effective message delivery. Findings

of this assessment can assist DLD to further improve the current FMD control system.

Keywords: Foot and Mouth Disease; FMD-free zone; assessment; implementation; Thailand

74

Introduction

Foot and Mouth Disease is a highly contagious and the most economically important

infectious disease of livestock. [1–3]. The disease is endemic in South America, Sub-Saharan

Africa, Asia, and more prominent in developing countries, including Thailand. Thailand has been

a member of the South-East Asia and China FMD Campaign (SEACFMD) since 1997 in order to

prevent, control, and eradicate FMD at the regional level [8,9]. This campaign is a formal

program of the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) South-East Asia sub-regional, to

prevent and control transboundary animal diseases and to strengthen Veterinary Services in the

region [9,10]. In 2012, the Department of Livestock Development (DLD) proposed that the

eastern region of Thailand, shows in APPENDIX 1, become officially recognized as an FMD-

free zone with vaccination [11]. However, the proposed FMD-free zone was not in full

compliance with the OIE’s requirements [12]. Then in 2015, the DLD revised laws and

regulations related to FMD control and implemented revisions of the FMD control system in

order to be in compliance with the OIE’s requirements for a recognition of FMD-free zone.

However, since the implementation of the revised FMD control program in 2015,

Thailand has not been evaluated to determine whether its implementation meets the OIE’s

requirements for official recognition of FMD-free zone. This paper describes the first assessment

of implementation of the current FMD control program. An assessment of the current FMD

control program in the proposed FMD-free zone was conducted in two parts; (i) policy design

and (ii) implementation and engagement of stakeholders. This paper focuses on an assessment of

implementation of FMD control program in the proposed FMD-free zone, including the

engagement of stakeholders. The study aims to determine whether the current implementation of

current FMD control system in the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand is consistent with

international requirements for establishing an FMD-free zone with vaccination. Findings of the

assessment can be used to make recommendations for improvement of the FMD control program

in Thailand.

Methodology

This study collected data by conducting (i) questionnaire surveys with local DLD

officers, private veterinarians, and farmers, (ii) interviews with national and regional DLD

officers and private veterinarians, and (iii) field observations to evaluate the current

implementation of FMD control program and engagement of stakeholders. More details

75

regarding questionnaire surveys, interviews, and field observation are explained below. Study

site and samples, assessment’s condition, and data analysis are also explained in this section.

Questionnaire Surveys

An online survey tool, Qualtrics, was used to develop questionnaires and collect the data.

Questionnaires were designed for each specific group, including DLD local officers, private

veterinarians, and farmers. Each questionnaire was divided into sections such as surveillance and

reporting, prevention, vaccination program, animal movement control, and communication

among stakeholders. Participants self-reported on the questionnaires which focused on the

practices of stakeholders related to the control of FMD within the past three years. At the end of

the questionnaire, participants were asked if they were willing to participate in individual

interviews. Of those, only private veterinarians agreed to follow-up interviews. The

questionnaires used in this study are presented in APPENDIX 5, 6, and 7.

Multistage distribution and snowball technique were used to deliver questionnaires to

potential participants through focal persons. Each set of questionnaires generated reusable survey

links and Quick Response (QR) codes or barcodes. Focal persons of each stakeholder group were

informed of the scope of this study. The focal persons were individuals who (i) are members of

the target groups, (ii) have connections with other participants, and (iii) are willing to participate

in this study. The focal persons were asked if they were interested in participating and recruiting

potential participants to this study. The focal persons also responded to the questionnaires. They

then forwarded the links and QR codes to potential participants using social communication tools

such as Line, What’s app, Snapchat, and Facebook. Potential participants were able to further

distribute the links and QR codes to other potential participants. Figure 4.1 shows the

questionnaire distribution process. The questionnaire links and QR codes were also posted in a

magazine and on webpages related to livestock and agriculture business. For those cases when

potential participants, such as a farmer group, did not have internet access, the questionnaire was

administered on a face-to-face basis.

Interviews

Interviews were conducted to get in-depth information regarding the implementation of

the FMD control system in the proposed FMD-free zone. A purposive sampling method was

used to recruit participants for the interviews. Two types of participants were included for the

76

interviews: (1) participants who agreed to participate in the individual interview while

responding to the questionnaires, and (2) participants who were officers at the national and

regional levels that have experience with FMD control policy and its implementation. Lists of

interview questions are attached in APPENDIX 8, 9 and 10.

A total of 16 participants were interviewed including 9 DLD officers at national level, 2

DLD officers at regional levels, and 5 private veterinarians. Details of participants used in data

analysis are shown in APPENDIX 11.

Participants Selection

This study focused on DLD local officers, private veterinarians, and farmers who work in

and/or have duties related to the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand. Questionnaire links and

QR codes were distributed to 41 focal persons, including 16 DLD local officers, 15 private

veterinarians, and 10 farmers. Fourteen days after sharing the questionnaire links and QR codes,

the links and QR codes were re-sent as reminders to the focal persons. The questionnaire links

and QR codes allowed focal persons and potential participants to distribute and respond to the

questionnaires within four months, December of 2017 to March of 2018. The links and QR codes

were then made inactive.

A convenience method was used for selecting dairy and sheep farmers who did not have

internet access. Ten dairy farmers and a sheep farmer were visited at their farms to fill out

questionnaires. The dairy farmers were recruited in this study by a Dairy Herd Health Unit

officer (DHHU, who is specifically assigned by DLD to work and collaborate with dairy farmers

and dairy cooperatives), as a focal person, with professional connections with the farmers. The

sheep farmer was recruited by a provincial livestock officer, as a focal person, because the

officer needed to visit the farm for a farm registration.

Field Data Collection

Field visits were conducted during January – February 2018 to collect data related to

stakeholders’ activities such as farm biosecurity, vaccination, animal record keeping, visitor

record keeping, and cleaning and disinfection of the farms. Face-to-face questionnaires were also

conducted during field visits. When face-to-face questionnaires were conducted, if the

participants agreed, records of stakeholders’ activities were reviewed and compared with their

responses.

77

Scope of the assessment

This study did not evaluate the testing and diagnosis system as DLD’s existing testing

and diagnosis system were adequate and rapid, met international standards, and confirmed by the

OIE Performance Veterinary Service (PVS) evaluation. Therefore, the assessment was conducted

assuming this condition was satisfied.

Data analysis

This is a qualitative study using an assessment matrix as an analytical tool. Descriptive

statistics were also performed to summarize the responses. The assessment matrix contained

detailed criteria to evaluate the data collected from questionnaire surveys and field observations

in order to determine shortcomings of implementation (APPENDIX 4). This study comparatively

analyzed participants’ responses and information collected during field observations against the

assessment matrix criteria. For example, if the provincial officers reported “never or 1-2 times

during the past three years” to the survey question “you received information regarding the FMD

surveillance findings in the proposed FMD-free zone from DLD national officers”, the matrix

indicated lack of adequate communication on the findings of FMD active surveillance.

According to this matrix analysis, the surveillance system has not been appropriately

implemented. Similarly, if farmers responded “never” to the survey question “you received an

updated reporting protocol from the officers,” the matrix system interpreted that there was a lack

of communication on the reporting protocol. This matrix interpretation indicated that there is an

inappropriate implementation of the reporting system. Table 4-1 summarizes the OIE’s

requirements for an official recognition of FMD-free zone and the criteria to determine

shortcomings for the FMD control program implementation and engagement of stakeholders.

Results

The Qualtrics survey showed that 197 participants accessed the links; however, only 110

responses were used for data analysis6, including responses from 34 DLD local officers, 32

private veterinarians, and 44 farmers. Eighty-seven participants were filtered out because they 1)

6 Not all of the data in the 110 responses were included in data analysis. Some of the responses were dropped

because there were invalid or inconsistent. For example, farmers were asked whether DLD officers collected blood

or tissue samples for FMD diagnosis and then farmers were asked if they were informed of laboratory results. If the

farmers reported that DLD officers always informed them of laboratory results but reported that the officers never

collected blood or tissue sample for FMD diagnosis, their responses were not used in the analysis.

78

clicked the link but did not respond to any questions, 2) did not work related to the proposed

FMD-free zone, or 3) did not agree to participate in this study after they read the objective and

consent form of this study. Table 4-2 shows the numbers of distributors of questionnaires,

questionnaires returned, responses used for analysis, and target population in the proposed FMD-

free zone.

Surveillance system

This study found that the existing surveillance system is not effectively and appropriately

implemented. Findings include; a lack of communication of the findings of the FMD active

surveillance program between DLD officers and stakeholders, partial implementation of passive

surveillance, and lack of a transparent evaluation of the FMD surveillance program. Table 4-3

shows participants’ responses regarding the current implementation of surveillance system in the

proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand.

First, there was a lack of communication of the findings of the FMD active surveillance

program between DLD officers and stakeholders. Because DLD officers conduct FMD active

surveillance biannually, it can be expected that stakeholders receive information regarding the

findings of active surveillance 1-2 times a year. However, the majority of private veterinarians

(68.18%) and farmers (57.14%) in this study reported that they never received official reports of

FMD surveillance findings. On the other hand, the majority of provincial DLD officers (80%)

and district DLD officers (100%) reported that they officially received reports of FMD

surveillance findings from DLD national level at least 1-2 times/year. This indicates that reports

of FMD surveillance findings are shared among DLD national and local levels, but are not

shared to stakeholders.

Interviews with private veterinarians (4 out of 5) revealed that they were not informed of

the actual FMD status in their area. They received information regarding potential FMD

outbreaks in their area from farmers, livestock traders, and other private veterinarians. One of the

private veterinarians employed by a company farm stated that she “contacts private veterinarians

who are technical sale or sale suppliers” when she “would like to know FMD status. Local DLD

officers never provide any information regarding FMD status in [her] area.” One of the private

veterinarians stated that “the FMD status at provincial level relies on word of mouth from

farmers and livestock traders.” He claimed that “[he] contacts a national officer to find out actual

FMD status at national level.” Although the communication regarding the surveillance findings

79

is not one of the OIE’s requirements, this study identifies a lack of this communication as a

shortcoming of the current surveillance system in the proposed FMD-free zone. Reports of FMD

surveillance should be available online or upon request to farmers and private veterinarians.

Secondly, the study found partial implementation of passive surveillance. Though a

majority of farmers (87.1%) and private veterinarians (97.73%) reported that they routinely

visited farms and observed animal health status (Table 4-3), farmers (54.55%, 6/11) and private

veterinarians (86.67%, 13/15) reported that they never notified DLD officers when an FMD

suspected case was found. More findings about disease notification will be discussed in the

section on the reporting system.

Farmers reported that they observed animal health status daily, while private

veterinarians reported that they visited their clients’ farms and observed animal health status

monthly. The majority of local DLD officers (93.75%) also reported that they routinely visited

farms and observed animal health status in their area of responsibility (Table 4-3). This study

found provincial officers visit farms less frequently (once in 2-3 months) than district officers

(once a month), officers of livestock production research center (once a week), and officers of

Dairy Herd Health Unit (DHHU) (every day). There are no rules or guidelines indicating how

often animal observations and farm visits should be. The more often officers and private

veterinarians visit farms and observe animal health status, the more rapidly disease can be

detected.

The above findings indicate that the current surveillance system is not able to provide an

early warning system to report suspected cases and does not fulfill the OIE’s requirements which

states that 1) “surveillance system” including clinical surveillance should be conducted “as a

continuing program” and “should provide an early warning system to report suspected cases

throughout the entire production” and 2) “farmers, workers, and veterinarians should report

promptly any suspicion of FMD” [16].

Third, the implementation of FMD surveillance program has been evaluated internally,

but those results are not publicly available. An interview with a national DLD officer revealed

that the surveillance program was last audited by the World Organization for Animal Health

(OIE) in 2013, and there has been no external audit since then. The national DLD officer claimed

that surveillance activities are monitored annually by BDCVS staff to ensure that surveillance is

implemented appropriately. Provincial and district DLD officers also reported that they follow

the surveillance sampling plan which is designed by the BDCVS. When the provincial and

80

district DLD officers conducted serological surveillance, they keep records of farm owners,

locations, animal species, herd sizes, animal identification, animal health status, and vaccine

status. These records are submitted to the national and regional DLD officers as well.

Additionally, provincial and district DLD officers stated that if FMD surveillance find positive

results, they are able to trace back to the farms but might not be able to trace back to all animals

because animals might have lost their ear tags or farmers might have sold animals before they

receive laboratory results. However, this study is not able to access such reports of monitoring

and evaluation of DLD’s surveillance activities.

Though the Terrestrial Code does not discuss evaluations of surveillance systems, it

states that “programmes to demonstrate no evidence of infection with FMDV and transmission

should be carefully designed and implemented to avoid producing results that are insufficient to

be accepted by the OIE or trading partners, or being excessively costly and logistically

complicated” [16] (Article 8.8.40 bullet 2). Without transparent evaluation, there is no

affirmation whether the existing surveillance system will provide sufficient results that will be

accepted by the OIE.

Reporting system

This study found that the reporting system in the proposed FMD-free zone is not fully

implemented. Findings include; non-uniform implementation of the reporting protocol, lack of

access to FMD reports and analysis, and lack of monitoring of compliance with reporting

protocol. Table 4-4 shows the participants’ responses regarding current communication and

implementation of the reporting protocol.

The revised reporting protocol of 2015 requires private veterinarians and farmers to

report an FMD suspected case to DLD officers within 12 hours instead of within 24 hours. This

notification can be done by phone calls or personal communication. In addition, it requires local

DLD officers, after being informed of the suspected case and conducting a disease investigation,

to report the notification of FMD suspected case to national DLD officers within 24 hours

instead of within 48 hours. The notification from local DLD officers to national DLD officers

needs to be done through an intranet system called “E-smart Surveillance”.

Before new laws and regulations are enforced, national level DLD will meet the

stakeholders or hold town hall meetings to inform them about updated information of new

regulations. Additionally, official letters regarding updated information are sent to DLD local

81

level and livestock associations. Updated regulations, protocols, and requirements are also posted

on DLD’s website. Local DLD officers usually inform farmers and private veterinarians of any

updated information and protocols through personal communication and town hall meetings.

This information can also be found on DLD local offices’ websites. Thus, it can be implied that

stakeholders should receive information regarding the reporting protocols that were updated in

2015 at least 1-2 times during the past 3 years through personal communication or meetings, and

they should always report any FMD suspected case to officers.

This study found that farmers (80%) and private veterinarians (68.18%) received

information regarding the updated disease reporting protocols at some time after 2015. Most

farmers (44.68%, 21/47) received information by personal communication, while private

veterinarians received information from different sources including personal communication

(25.93%, 7/27), stakeholders meeting (22.22%, 6/27), and official letters (22.22%, 6/27).

However, the majority of farmers (54.55%) and private veterinarians (86.67%) did not notify

DLD officers of FMD suspected cases (Table 4-4). Local DLD officers reported that they always

notified DLD national officers of a suspected case within 24 hours when they were informed of a

suspected case (Table 4-4).

Farmers and private veterinarians clarified that they do not want to report suspected cases

of FMD because they are concerned that DLD officers would restrict their animal movement

and/or condemn their animals without compensation. Animals can be overstocked as a result of

animal movement prohibitions. One of the farmers in this study believed that reporting of any

FMD suspected case would result in humiliation and trade restrictions. One of the private

veterinarians also claimed that he/she does not have authority over farm owners and is not able to

influence farm owners to report FMD suspected cases. However, DLD accredited private

veterinarians are required to report any notifiable disease to DLD officers. Moreover, another

private veterinarian mentioned that there are no actions taken by the DLD officers when they

notify of FMD suspected cases. These responses emphasize that the reporting protocol is not

uniformly implemented at all levels. Thus, the implementation of the reporting system does not

fully comply with the OIE’s requirements which states that “Farmers, workers who have day-to-

day contact with livestock, as well as veterinary paraprofessionals, veterinarians and

diagnosticians, should report promptly any suspicion of FMD” [16] (Article 8.8.41 bullet 1).

This study also found that reports of FMD situation are not available or easily accessible.

Reports of the FMD situation at the national level but not at the regional level are posted on the

82

webpage of the Bureau of Disease Control and Veterinary Services (BDCVS). These reports of

FMD situation indicate locations and number of outbreaks, number of affected animals, species

of affected animals, and FMD serotypes. However, causes of outbreaks are not clarified and

included in the reports. The reports of the FMD situation on BDCVS webpage are not up-to-date

and the latest update was in September 2017. In addition, there are no reports of the FMD

situation or analysis of FMD outbreaks available on a regional webpage. Interviews with private

veterinarians (n=3) revealed that they do not know where they could find an official report of

FMD outbreaks so they are not able to use any information in the report to plan for prevention

and control of FMD in their client farms. In addition, they do not know whom they should

contact to get information on the actual FMD situation in their areas. If there is an FMD outbreak

in neighboring farms, they will usually be informed by farmers. Unavailability or inaccessibility

of official reports of analysis of FMD outbreaks can lead to inappropriate prevention and control

of FMD. Thus, this study also identifies inaccessibility of reports of analysis of FMD outbreaks

as a shortcoming of the current FMD control system even though the OIE’s requirements do not

state whether the reports should be available for public access.

The stakeholders’ compliance with the reporting protocol is not routinely monitored by

the DLD. There were no records of violations and penalties available when this study was

conducted at the field level. An interview with a national DLD officer revealed that DLD officers

will issue notices and suspend an accreditation of private veterinarians if the private veterinarians

fail to monitor antibiotics and drugs used in animals. However, DLD officers do not issue such

required notices or suspension of accreditation when there is a lack of disease notification. To

ensure the existing reporting system meets the OIE’s requirements which states that stakeholders

“should report promptly any suspicion of FMD” and “the Veterinary Authority should

implement programs to raise awareness among them” [16] (Article 8.8.41 bullet 1), a monitoring

of compliance with reporting protocols should be implemented.

Vaccination program

This study found the FMD vaccination program is not fully implemented. Results reveal

a lack of communication on vaccine strategy between DLD officers and private veterinarians, a

lack of communication regarding sero-monitoring of post vaccination evaluation, a lack of

communication of vaccination matching monitoring between DLD officers and private

veterinarians, and inappropriate vaccine quality control. Table 4-5 shows participants’ responses

83

regarding the current implementation of vaccination program in the proposed FMD-free zone in

Thailand.

First, a lack of communication on vaccine strategy between DLD officers and private

veterinarians was found. Since FMD virus has a very high antigenic variation [17, 18], FMD

vaccines are needed to be monitored and updated regularly. This study suggested that

stakeholders should receive information regarding the vaccine strategy 1-2 times/year, which

could indicate what vaccine strain should be used, how often animals should be vaccinated, and

what species need an FMD vaccination. The communication on vaccine strategy could be done

by personal communication, stakeholders or town hall meeting, or official letters.

In fact, this study found whereas the majority of farmers (65.71%) received information

regarding updated vaccine strategy at least 1-2 times/year by personal communication, the

majority of private veterinarians (54.54%) did not receive an updated vaccine strategy (Table 4-

5). These findings aligned with reports from provincial and district officers which indicated they

provided information regarding vaccine strategy to farmers more than private veterinarians

(Table 4-5).

Despite the lack of communication between DLD officers and stakeholders, this study

found that all covered species are still vaccinated to some degree. In Thailand, FMD vaccination

program calls for most livestock to be vaccinated at least 1-2 times/year. The majority of farmers

(97.37%) reported that their animals had been FMD vaccinated at least 1-2 times/year and the

majority of private veterinarians (84.62%) reported that they always advised their clients to do

FMD vaccination at least 1-2 times/year (Table 4-5). Provincial and district officers also reported

that they conducted and monitored FMD vaccination in accordance with the national FMD

vaccination campaign (Table 4-5). In addition, most farmers, private veterinarians, and officers

reported that they kept FMD vaccination records (Table 4-5).

Though the vaccination has been routinely conducted, a lack of communication on

vaccine strategy including vaccine strain use may lead to improper vaccination implementation.

For example, farmers may routinely vaccinate their animals with FMD vaccine against the virus

serotype O but the field virus may be serotype A. In point of fact, there is no cross-protection

immunity from different serotypes of FMD virus [19,20]. Findings imply that the

implementation of vaccination does not meet the OIE’s requirements which states that

“vaccination has been carried out to achieve adequate vaccination coverage and population

immunity” [16] (Article 8.8.3 bullet 3c.).

84

Second, there was a lack of communication regarding post vaccination sero-monitoring.

The BDCVS designs an evaluation of post vaccination by conducting a serological surveillance

after 1-2 months of FMD vaccination, and FMD vaccination is conducted routinely every 6

months (in most species except in dairy cattle which is more frequent). Thus, it can be expected

that DLD local officers conduct serological surveillance for post vaccination evaluation 1-2

times/year and that reports of post vaccination evaluation are regularly distributed to DLD local

officers and stakeholders especially private veterinarians.

This study found that provincial and district officers always conducted sero-surveillance

for post vaccination evaluation after they vaccinated animals (Table 4-5). The majority of them

(83.33%, 10 out of 12) reported that they conduct sero-surveillance within 1-3 months after

vaccination. However, not all provincial and district officers received reports of post vaccination

evaluation. Similarly, the majority of private veterinarians (72.73%) and farmers (55.88%)

claimed that they never receive reports of post vaccination evaluation from DLD officers (Table

4-5). These reports are only shared among DLD national officers and the committee who has

authority to make decisions on which vaccine strain is needed. As a result, this study cannot

evaluate whether DLD’s vaccination program provides adequate population immunity due to the

absence of such reports and the lack of evidence that proves vaccination coverage and population

immunity. Thus, it is unknown whether the implementation of the vaccination program meets the

OIE’s requirements.

Third, this study also found a lack of communication of vaccination matching monitoring

between DLD officers and private veterinarians. Interviews with officers of Regional Reference

Laboratory for Foot and Mouth Disease in South East Asia (RRL) (n=2) revealed that when there

is an FMD outbreak, local DLD officers will collect and submit samples to RRL. Officers of

RRL identify FMD subtypes and conduct vaccine matching tests each time all samples are

submitted from field level. When the antigenic relationship (‘r’ value) is below 0.2, they search

for a new virus seed and report that to BDCVS. The committee then call for a meeting to make a

decision on strain selection for vaccine production. Thus, it can be expected that local DLD

officers and stakeholders, especially private veterinarians, should be informed of the vaccine

matching monitoring at least 1-2 times during the past 3 years. In fact, this study found that

reports of vaccine matching monitoring are mostly shared among DLD officers but are not

shared to private veterinarians, as the sharing of the reports is not required by DLD. This study

suggests that communication with private veterinarians regarding the vaccine matching is

85

important to ensure that they use vaccines with the proper vaccine strain. It needs to be

highlighted that private veterinarians and farmers in this study are not able to access to official

reports regarding the actual FMD status or strain in their area. In addition, FMD vaccines

distributed in Thailand can be either imported vaccines or DLD-produced vaccines. Currently,

DLD is not able to identify the antigenic relationship (r value) between imported vaccines and

FMD virus field strains7 because the imported vaccines are not under the supervision and

authority of DLD. On the other hand, DLD officers who work in vaccine units (n=4) confidently

claimed that DLD-produced vaccines are selected based on FMD virus field strain. Private

veterinarians may have limited ways of knowing whether vaccine used in their clients’ farms

matched with the virus field strains.

Private veterinarians (63.64%, 14/22) reported that they used FMD vaccines, either

imported or DLD-produced vaccines, without knowing whether the vaccine was selected based

on known FMD virus field strains in the area. Interviews with private veterinarians (n=5) also

revealed that they have never been informed of either post vaccination evaluation or vaccine

matching test of FMD vaccines used in Thailand. The vaccines used in their clients’ farms are

those that are currently available in the market. For example, if FMD vaccines type O produced

by DLD are not available or have been sold out, farmers have to buy imported FMD vaccine type

O to use in their farms. Though the private veterinarians have little information about vaccine

strain matching and protective level, they still use the vaccines and advise farmers to do FMD

vaccination, based on the belief that vaccinating animals is better than not taking any action at

all. These findings indicate that they are unsure if their clients’ animals have immunity against

the virus field strain. It can be implied that the current vaccination strategy is not appropriately

implemented and does not meet the OIE’s requirements because there is a lack of evidence to

prove that “vaccination has been carried out to achieve adequate vaccination coverage and

population immunity” [16] (Article 8.8.3 bullet 3c.).

Fourth, inappropriate vaccine quality control was also found. Interviews with officers of

BVB (n=2) revealed that DLD-produced vaccines are tested twice for quality control, during the

vaccine production process and before the vaccine distribution. The tests are for safety, potency,

and sterility of vaccines. Officers from BVB (n=2) claimed that testing protocols follow the

7 In order to identify antigenic relationship (r-value) between virus vaccine and virus filed strain, seed virus is

needed. Imported vaccines were produced by a commercial company that holds a copyright of the seed virus. Thus,

DLD did not have access to the seed of imported vaccines.

86

OIE’s guideline8. They explained that safety and sterility tests are conducted in every vaccine

lot; however, potency tests are conducted 2 times/year. The potency test9 is not conducted in

every lot because there are insufficient animals that could be used in experiments and because of

limitations of laboratory facilities. Duration of immunity is not routinely tested. Vaccine shelf

life have also not been tested for the past 3 years. One of the BVB officers indicated that

“vaccine productions are shorthanded and the vaccines are distributed to the field level right after

production. Most farmers and local DLD officers immediately vaccinate animals within a week

of receiving the vaccine. Thus, farmers and local DLD officers never keep vaccines longer than 3

months.” However, an expired FMD vaccine was found during the field visits.

An interview with an officer of Veterinary Biologics Assay and Research Center (VBAC)

revealed that DLD-produced vaccines are also tested by VBAC for safety and sterility but the

test does not include potency testing10. Testing methods of VBAC are the same as those

conducted in BVB facilities. While there is post-marketing quality control11 of vaccines for

poultry diseases conducted by VBAC, there is no such quality control of FMD vaccines. The

VBAC officer revealed that there are no budget allocations for FMD vaccines post-marketing

quality control testing and there are limited laboratory facilities. Findings from this interview

were consistent with opinions of provincial and district officers. The majority of provincial and

district officers (41.67%, 5/12) reported that they did not know whether vaccines were tested for

stability and/or quality control after distribution and 33.33% (4/12) of them reported that

8 FMD Diagnostic manual by the OIE can be accessed at

http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Health_standards/tahm/3.01.08_FMD.pdf 9 Potency test of DLD FMD vaccine is examined on the final product. It is a testing standard of vaccine challenge

test. There are two tests; PD50 test (50% protective dose) and PGP test (protection against generalized foot

infection). Animals used in these tests are obtained from FMD-free DLD or commercial facilities, have not

previously been vaccinated against FMD, and are free from antibodies to FMDV.

In cattle, DLD uses PD50 test. Three groups of five cattle are vaccinated with different doses and two cattle are

unvaccinated for a control group. Three weeks after an FMD vaccination, cattle receive an intradermolingual

(intradermal of the tongue) live virus challenge. Cattle are observed for 8 days. Unvaccinated animals must develop

lesions on at least three feet. The PD50 of the vaccine is determined according to the OIE recommended method. The

vaccine should contain at least 3PD50 per dose for cattle.

In swine, DLD uses PGP test. A group of 16 FMD-seronegative swine are vaccinated with a full swine dose and

a control group of two unvaccinated swine. Four weeks after an FMD vaccination, swine receive an

intradermolingual live virus challenge. Swine are observed for 7-8 days. Unvaccinated swine must develop lesions

on at least three feet. This test suggests that 12 out of 16 swine must be protected. 10

Potency test needs animals/livestock to use in experiments, VBAC does not have laboratory facilities to keep

those animals and conduct the test. 11

Post-marketing quality control of vaccines is conducted to monitor and ensure the quality, safety, and stability of

the vaccines that are distributed to field level.

http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Health_standards/tahm/3.01.08_FMD.pdf

87

vaccines had never been tested after distribution. Without conducting post-marketing

surveillance, it may be considered that the quality of DLD vaccines is unknown. Though the

officers claimed that the vaccine quality control is conducted in accordance with the OIE’s

Terrestrial Manual, there is a lack of evidence to prove that the quality of vaccines after

distribution was certified. Findings indicate that vaccine strategy is not appropriately

implemented and imply that the vaccine strategy does not meet the OIE’s requirements.

Animal movement control system

This study found partial implementation of an animal movement control system.

Findings included; lack of communication between officers and stakeholders regarding updated

protocols related to animal movement control, inadequate animal health inspection, and

inappropriate vehicles used in animal movement. Table 4-6 shows the participants’ responses

regarding the current implementation of animal movement control system.

The last time that the regulation for animal movement control was updated was in 2015.

Although there are no changes of steps for farmers or livestock producers to get an animal

movement permit, additional requirements are added. The steps to get an animal movement

permit are illustrated in Figure 4.2. The amended DLD’s regulation of animal movement control

2015 includes some requirements in accordance with the OIE Terrestrial Manual [16]; for

example, animals must be kept at least 90 days or since birth if animals are younger than 3

months in the establishment of origin, FMD has not occurred within the establishment of origin,

and animals must be FMD vaccinated. It can be expected that the movement control protocols

that were updated in 2015 should be communicated among DLD officers and between officers

and stakeholders at least 1-2 times during the past 3 years through personal communication,

official letters, or stakeholder meetings.

In fact, the study found the protocol of animal movement control has been

communicated among DLD officers but not between officers and stakeholders since the last

update of the regulation for animal movement control in 2015 (Table 4-6). Officers reported that

they usually received information regarding animal movement control through official meetings

and official letters. Though there was a lack of communication regarding movement control

protocols, farmers and private veterinarians still obtained animal movement permits before

animals were allowed to be transported (Table 4-6).

88

Animal inspections, however, were not fully conducted (Table 4-6). The inspections

should take place before DLD officers issue animal movement permits, during loading of

animals on vehicles, and while vehicles go through animal checkpoints. An interview with a

regional DLD officer revealed that provincial and district officers may not be able to visit all

farms and inspect animal health status due to insufficient DLD officers. Some officers request

farmers to bring animals (on vehicles) to stop by at their office to get inspected and receive an

animal movement permit at the same time. Some officers issue movement permit based on

paperwork provided by private veterinary inspection (DLD accredited veterinarians). Provincial

and district officers randomly inspect animal health status when there are any suspicious cases

(based on their personal judgments).

Though provincial and district DLD officers randomly conducted animal inspections,

DLD officers at quarantine station (100%) reported that they always inspected vehicles and

observed animal health status while the vehicles passed through their checkpoints/quarantine

stations (Table 4-6). An interview with a DLD officer of animal movement control unit revealed

that routes of animal transportation are denoted in animal movement permits. All vehicles must

stop at designated animal checkpoints to recount the number of animals, inspect animal health,

and disinfect the exterior of the vehicles. After these processes are done, DLD officers sign on

the permits and allow drivers to proceed to the next stops. If the vehicles miss a designated

animal checkpoint, the next checkpoint will reject movement permission and animals will be

quarantined until the proper documents are obtained.

The above findings can imply that the current implementation of animal movement

control does not meet the OIE’s requirements as there is a lack of evidence to prove that the

control of susceptible animals and their products has been properly implemented and supervised.

According to participants’ reports, they seem to strictly follow DLD’s requirements

regarding cleaning and disinfection of vehicles. The majority of farmers (~80%) reported that

they cleaned and disinfected vehicles before loading animals (Table 4-6). Provincial and district

DLD officers (72.73%) also reported that they usually monitored records of cleaning and

disinfection as well (Table 4-6). Although DLD’s regulation of animal movement control does

not state whether the vehicles must have sufficient bedding to absorb urine and dropping during

animal transportation, provincial and district DLD officers (75%) reported that they monitored

whether vehicles had sufficient bedding to minimize the leakage of urine and feces (Table 4-6).

However, during field observation, some vehicles did not have sufficient bedding for animal

89

transportation. The leakage and dropping of water or urine along the road was seen (Figure 4.3).

Again, this finding indicates that the control of movement of animals is not properly

implemented and supervised by Veterinary Authority and did not meet the OIE’s requirements.

Response plans

The participants’ survey revealed that response plans are not fully implemented. The

study found ineffective communication between officers and private veterinarians, lack of

training on preparedness and response plans, inappropriate response when an FMD suspected

case was reported, inappropriate response when an FMD positive case was found, inappropriate

compensation, and inappropriate repopulation. Table 4-7 shows participants’ responses regarding

the communication of the response plan and the training of preparedness and response plans.

To increase awareness of FMD, it is expected that the response plan should be

communicated to stakeholders at least 1-2 times during past 3 years, and the training of response

plan should be conducted at least 1-2 times during past 3 years. This study found that the

response plan was not entirely communicated between DLD officers and stakeholders.

Participants’ responses showed that farmers received information regarding the response plan

from DLD officers more than private veterinarians (Table 4-7). Additionally, training of

preparedness and response plans was not delivered to the stakeholder level. It was regularly

performed at the officer level. The training was provided by DLD national level to provincial and

district officers at least 1-2 times/years (Table 4-7). Even though DLD officers provided a

training of preparedness and response plans to farmers and private veterinarians, the majority of

them still reported that they had never been trained (Table 4-7). It can be implied from the

findings that some farmers and private veterinarians in the proposed FMD-free zone may not

know DLD’s protocols for response when a suspected case or an outbreak occurs.

This study also found inadequate responses when an FMD suspected case was reported.

Table 4-8 shows participants’ responses regarding the response when a suspected case is found.

In accordance with the OIE’s requirements, immediate follow-up and investigation to

confirm or rule out from FMD infection are required after suspected cases are reported [16].

Samples should be submitted for diagnosis, unless the suspected cases can be excluded by

epidemiological and clinical investigation [16]. The sampled animals should be kept in the

establishment pending test results [16]. According to the DLD officers' responses, the majority of

90

provincial and district officers followed DLD’s response plans and OIE’s requirements by

conducting disease investigation (100%), collecting and submitting samples (83.33%) for FMD

diagnosis, communication with stakeholders of laboratory results (67.67%), and quarantine of

suspected animals (100%) (Table 4-8). However, the responses from private veterinarians and

farmers who participated in this study revealed that DLD officers were not able to provide

services to all of them (Table 4-8). Only 60% of farmers reported that DLD officers conducted

disease investigations and collected and submitted samples for FMD diagnosis (Table 4-8).

Although all private veterinarians who participated in this study reported that DLD officers

conducted disease investigation, only half of them reported that DLD officers collected and

submitted samples for FMD diagnosis (Table 4-8). Additionally, only half of private

veterinarians and farmers reported that DLD officers quarantined suspected animals and herds. It

can be implied from findings that not all suspected cases are investigated to confirm or rule out

of FMD infection or quarantined. This indicates that the follow up when suspected cases are

found does not fully meet with the OIE’s requirements.

However, this study found DLD officers, private veterinarians, and farmers appropriately

followed the DLD’s response plans when a positive case was found. They did quarantine

infected animals and herds and disinfect and dispose of infected carcasses, bedding, and

materials. Although these measures are not specified in the OIE’s requirements, they are

indicated in Thailand’s official FMD control program which was endorsed by OIE in 2018 [21].

Table 4-9 shows participants’ responses regarding their activities when a positive case is found.

As part of the response plans, ring vaccination is conducted to control FMD outbreaks,

and DLD is required to provide emergency vaccines. Emergency vaccines provided by DLD are

provided at no cost for ruminants and at low cost are provided for swine. Though the majority of

provincial and district officers (80%) reported that they vaccinated all susceptible animals

surrounding the index (infected) case in a 5 kilometer radius, vaccines were not sufficiently

available for all susceptible animals (Table 4-9). Most private veterinarians (71.42%) and

farmers (70%) reported that DLD subsidized emergency vaccines to control FMD outbreak in

their farms (Table 4-9). Farmers (n=6) reported that DLD provided FMD vaccines at no cost to

cover 70% of their animals and at low cost to cover 30% of their animals. However, private

veterinarians (n=6) reported that DLD provided FMD vaccines at no cost for only 6% and

provided low-cost vaccines for only 60% of their clients’ animals. All these private veterinarians

work on swine farms. On the other hand, provincial and district officers reported that vaccines at

91

no cost provided by DLD covered 70% of susceptible animals in their responsible area and

vaccines at low cost covered 40% of the animals. Farmers and private veterinarians’ responses

indicated that not all susceptible animals were vaccinated. This indicates that the implementation

of vaccination does not meet the OIE’s requirements because there is no evidence to prove that

adequate vaccine coverage of the target population have been achieved.

Although stamping out (on-site mass culling) and modified stamping out (slaughtering at

the nearest slaughterhouse) of infected and exposed animals is specified in the DLD’s response

plan, this study found that most FMD infected and exposed animals were not slaughtered by

either method. Table 4-10 shows participants’ responses regarding the slaughtering of FMD

infected and exposed animals.

Among private veterinarians (n=2) who reported there was slaughtering of FMD infected

and exposed animals, they reported that their clients never received compensation from DLD

officers. However, a DLD district officer (n=1) who reported the slaughtering of FMD infected

animals also reported that farmers in their area occasionally received compensation. The officer

claimed that those farmers who received compensation were satisfied with rate of 75% of local

market price.

Some private veterinarians (25%) and farmers (33.33%) with animals showing clinical

signs but not definitively diagnosed as having FMD reported they were not sure if those

potentially infected and exposed animals were slaughtered. This can happen because farmers

might have sold those animals to livestock traders. Private veterinarians may not be at the farm

when farmers sold their animals. “Not sure” responses of officers indicate that DLD officers are

not supervising and monitoring if infected and exposed animals are slaughtered. These findings

suggest that DLD officers do not properly implement the response plans in accordance with

Thailand’s official FMD control program. Although the OIE does not require stamping-out when

there is an outbreak in a free zone with vaccination, the OIE does require evidence of no FMDV

transmission and circulation for at least 12 months [16]. This study indicates that it is difficult to

eradicate the virus circulation if infected and exposed animals are still kept in the herd, and

vaccines are not available to cover all susceptible animals.

Private veterinarians (n=3) revealed that most of their clients usually separate FMD

infected animals in different pens and treat (supportive treatment) those animals until they

recovered. Then their clients might sell those animals to local livestock traders (at cheaper

prices) or local slaughterhouses. One private veterinarian claimed that he/she used to stamp out

92

infected animals in his/her client farm (5-7 years ago). His/her client did not receive any

compensation because the client preferred not to notify DLD officers. However, when the client

learned that neighboring farms never slaughtered infected animals and were still able to sell

those animals, the client then treated infected animals as usual until animals recovered before

selling them. The private veterinarians also mentioned that their clients believed that stamping

out was more economically devastating than treating infected animals. Thus, their clients decided

to keep infected animals on their farms. These findings support the belief that the virus may exist

and circulate in the environment, even though no FMD clinical signs are noticed.

According to a district officer, before farmers introduce new animals to their herds,

he/she advised and monitored farmers to clean and disinfect livestock pens. The district officer

reviewed the documentation of imported animals to ensure they originated from FMD-negative

herds. However, the district officer reported that he/she did not require FMD-negative laboratory

results of all newly introduced animals. On the other hand, private veterinarians (n=5) working

for company farms revealed that the companies require FMD-negative laboratory results for their

imported animals. However, not all of their clients (especially backyard farmers) require a FMD-

negative test. Since cost of laboratory testing is paid out of farmers (purchasers) pocket, some

backyard farmers are unable to pay for laboratory costs. Findings indicate that the introduction or

importation of susceptible animals into the proposed FMD-free zone does not follow the DLD

regulation and does not meet the OIE’s requirements.

Engagement of stakeholders

This study found that stakeholders (farmers and private veterinarians) in the proposed-

FMD free zone usually practice FMD control activities in accordance with the current FMD

control program. Farmers and private veterinarians visit farms and observe animal health status

regularly. They also routinely conduct FMD vaccination for their animals. Although private

veterinarians are not able to identify vaccine quality or are unsure of vaccine strain matching,

they still recommend farmers conduct vaccination. Private veterinarians and farmers usually

receive a movement permit before they transport their animals. Farmers also clean and disinfect

vehicles that used for animal transportation. When DLD officers quarantine animals if there is an

outbreak, farmers also follow the instructions of the quarantine protocols. Private veterinarians

also monitor and advise farmers to follow the DLD officers’ instructions of the protocols.

93

During field visits, the study found that farmers conducted the biosecurity measurements

in accordance with the DLD officers’ recommendations. Farmers did not allow visitors and

livestock traders to enter their farms. They had a designated area for visitors, and livestock

traders. Livestock traders were not allowed to enter to farms. Among those visited farmers

(n=11), they kept records of visitors such as names of visitors, date of the visits, and reason for

visiting. Farmers also kept their animal records such as names of animals, ear-tag IDs,

vaccination records, date of when those animals were introduced to the farms, treatments done

when animals were sick.

The study also found good collaboration between local DLD officers (provincial DLD

officers and DHHU staff) and farmers, especially ruminant and small ruminant farmers. Farmers

always welcome officers to visit their farms. In addition, dairy farmers and small ruminant

farmers agreed to participate in this study. However, the study did not receive good collaboration

from swine farmers, who generally do not interact much with the DLD. This study tried to reach

out to swine farmers but did not get any responses from them. Thus, the study was not able to

collect data from swine farmers.

Even though farmers and private veterinarians participate well and collaborate with DLD

officers in many activities regarding the FMD surveillance program, vaccination program, and

control of animal movement, they are not fully engaged in the FMD control program, especially

in the reporting system. That is, farmers and private veterinarians fail to notify DLD officers of

an FMD suspected case within 12 hours. The survey responses of farmers and private

veterinarians revealed that 86.57% (13/15) of private veterinarians and 54.55% (6/11) of farmers

do not notify DLD officers within 12 hours when they found FMD suspected cases. Findings

imply that stakeholders do not understand the importance of early reporting.

This study is not able to identify whether farmers in this study had sufficient knowledge

to detect the disease because the questionnaire was not developed in order to identify the disease

knowledge of farmers. However, based on the questions concerning farmers’ experiences and

their familiarity with the disease, farmers’ knowledge regarding FMD can be implied. Farmers

who had experiences with farming > 10 years are the majority of this study (34.09%, 15/44).

Participating farmers (n=44) reported they are familiar with FMD or know what FMD is. These

findings suggest that farmers know what FMD suspected case look like but they do not want to

report to DLD officers. As a result, FMD suspected cases are underreported in the proposed

FMD-free zone, and DLD officers and stakeholders are unaware of actual FMD status.

94


This paper is the first evaluation of the implementation of the current FMD control

program in the proposed FMD-free zone after the revisions of Thai’s FMD control system in

2013. It is a multi-stakeholder study including DLD officers, private veterinarians, and farmers.

Thirty percent (30%) of DLD officers and private veterinarians who work in or have duties

related to the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand responded to the study’s questionnaires.

However, less than 1% (44/17702) of farmers in the same zone responded to the questionnaires.

The lower number of questionnaire responses can lead to inaccurate interpretation of this

segment of the targeted population. For example, local DLD officers reported they always

communicate with stakeholders regarding information of FMD control program, while private

veterinarians and farmers reported that they never receive the information from the officers. This

can be either because private veterinarians and farmers who participated in this study are not a

group of people with whom local DLD officers communicate or because the officers do not

actually provide private veterinarians and farmers with the information. This is one of the

limitations of this study. Future study needs more participants, especially farmers, for a more

accurate representation of the population in order to gain more accurate and diverse feedback.

Farmers’ responses are lower than other stakeholders because farmers have limited

internet access and some are illiterate. Online questionnaires may not work well for this type of

study. Though face-to-face questionnaires would have been more effective in the farmers’ group,

the travel time to study sites and budget was a limiting factor. Fenig and Levav (1993) and

Sturges and Hanrahan (2004) claimed that phone interviews are useful, successful, and cost-

efficient in qualitative research [22,23]. However, phone interviews may not work in Thailand

due to a large number of telemarketers. Potential interviewees may perceive the call as sales calls

and therefore refuse to answer the phone. In addition, farmers do not want to get involved with

the study unless they are introduced to the interviewer by local DLD officers or private

veterinarians who have a connection or know them personally.

When farmers’ responses are classified based on their farm species, there are 15

responses from dairy farmers but there is only one response from a goat farmer and one from a

buffalo farmer. Therefore, this study does not compare responses from farmers of different

animal species. This is another limitation of this study.

There are greater responses from swine private veterinarians than those who worked with

cattle and other species because private veterinarians who work in or are associated with the

95

proposed FMD-free zone are mostly swine private veterinarians. A private veterinarian reported

that there are only five private veterinarians working with ruminants in the proposed FMD-free

zone (personal communication, Mar 24, 2018). Private veterinarians who work with cattle also

work with sheep, goat, and buffaloes (personal communication, Mar 24, 2018). For more

comprehensive results, future research would also need to identify and include those private

veterinarians in the interviews.

There is a possibility of participant selection bias as a result of the process of

questionnaire distribution. The questionnaire link was initially distributed to identified focal

persons, with a request to distribute further. The focal persons were selected with the criteria that

they; (i) are members of the target groups, (ii) have connections with other potential participants,

and (iii) are willing to participate in this study. They were identified based on personal

knowledge of those working in this field. The focal persons were asked to forward the

questionnaire link to other potential participants, who were selected using the same criteria as

above. However, it is recognized that this sample selection process could result in selection

bias due to a non-random sampling of the population. The focal persons and other potential

participants may have only distributed the questionnaire link to groups of people that they are

familiar with, and who share a similar perspective. Therefore, the study’s findings may have

been influenced by this bias and may not accurately represent feedback from the population as a

whole.

Findings of the assessment of the FMD surveillance system highlight some activities that

are not fully implemented. Lack of effective communication negatively impacts appropriate

surveillance implementation. Frieden (2014) stated that effective communication can convey

critical information and convince key stakeholders to support program implementation and lead

to program effectiveness [24]. Results show that farmers and private veterinarians do not receive

reports of FMD surveillance findings from DLD officers, which leads to the reason why farmers

and private veterinarians distrust and are not collaborative with DLD officers. Farmers and

private veterinarians are unaware of the actual FMD situation. In order to participate

appropriately in the FMD control program, this study suggests that farmers and private

veterinarians should be able to access findings of FMD surveillance, especially of their own

farms.

Regarding farm visits and animal health observation, DLD officers and private

veterinarians visit farms routinely but infrequently. Therefore, the officers and private

96

veterinarians may miss an onset of the disease because the incubation period of FMD is short (2-

14 days) and because the virus replicates and spreads rapidly [17,25,26]. In order to control the

spread of the disease and respond to the outbreak quickly, rapid detection is needed [27–30].

Officers of Dairy Herd Health Unit visit farms more often than other officers because they are

specifically assigned to work with one species, dairy cattle, so they can work intensely and

closely with farmers. Officers of the DLD livestock production research center also need to

monitor animal estrus cycles for artificial insemination, so they visit farms more often than

provincial and district livestock DLD officers. Provincial and district DLD officers visit farms

less frequently than other groups because each provincial livestock office has only 1-3 officers,

and each district livestock office has only 1-2 officers who work in animal health. Those officers

are responsible for all animal health issues, including zoonotic diseases in multiple species [31].

This indicates that DLD local offices are understaffed. The distribution of DLD local officers in

the proposed FMD-free zone is shown in APPENDIX 15. Overwhelming workloads and

insufficient number of officers can be one of the reasons why they are not able to visit farms

frequently and deliver services appropriately.

Since officers are not able to visit farms frequently, disease notification is a crucial

activity in FMD control program. This study evaluates how well stakeholders follow the DLD’s

regulations regarding the required notification of FMD suspected cases within 12 hours in

accordance with the Animal Epidemics Act. Thus, “within 12 hours” was specified in the

questionnaire regarding the disease notification question. When private veterinarians and farmers

reported that they never notified DLD officers of FMD suspected cases within 12 hours, the

results do not reveal whether they never notified officers at all or they notified officers after the

12-hour timeframe. This is considered a limitation of this study.

Farmers seem to receive information regarding disease notification more frequently than

private veterinarians. It is possible that the local DLD officers have a better relationship and meet

more often with farmers than private veterinarians. Thus, the local officers have more

opportunities to inform farmers than to inform private veterinarians. Ineffective communication

between local DLD officers and private veterinarians results in a negligence of reporting of

possible FMD. Private veterinarians may not notify DLD officers of FMD suspected cases and

leave the notification to be the responsibility of farmers.

A shortcoming in the DLD accreditation program can be noticed from the statement of

private veterinarians who reported that they do not have authority and are not able to influence

97

farm owners to notify DLD officers of FMD suspected cases. Because private veterinarians are

hired by farm owners, it is understandable why private veterinarians claimed that they were not

able to influence farmers, especially swine farm owners, to notify DLD officers of the disease.

Though private veterinarians who are eligible to work for private farms must be accredited by

DLD, in practice, however, it is found that private veterinarians fail to fully comply with

accredited protocols and DLD regulations on reporting requirements. Therefore, compliance with

regulations and with accredited program should be more closely monitored.

According to the DLD accreditation program, DLD (Bureau of Livestock Standards and

Certification, BLSC) provides training programs for private veterinarians [32]. The training

programs include laws and regulations, rule and responsibilities, disease notification, national

disease control program, animal movement control, sample collection for disease diagnosis, good

agricultural practice for livestock, animal welfare, antimicrobial use and residues in farms, etc.

(personal communication, 2018). At the end of the training, an examination is required (personal

communication, 2018). Private veterinarians must attend 80% of the training program and have a

score of 60% or better in order to be DLD accredited veterinarians (personal communication,

2018). Accreditation is renewable every two years without additional training (personal

communication, 2018). When errors or irregularities are found, DLD issues a verbal notice,

suspends, or revokes the accreditation (personal communication, 2018). However, there have

been no reports of issuing such notices or suspension of accreditation related to a lack of disease

notification. To strengthen DLD accreditation program and also disease reporting system,

monitoring of disease reporting compliance should be conducted.

Improving availability and accessibility of official reports of analysis of FMD outbreaks

at the regional level could also provide benefit to the DLD by improving the current FMD

control system and to promote stakeholder engagement. Private veterinarians can use the official

reports to design an appropriate FMD prevention and control plans for their clients. Farmers may

increase their awareness and strengthen their biosecurity and prevention and control of FMD in

their farms if they are aware of the FMD status in their regions.

Vaccination strategy is one of the critical components in recognition of the proposed

FMD-free zone in Thailand. However, the current vaccination strategy in the proposed FMD-free

zone still needs to be improved. Information regarding vaccine strategy is not thoroughly

communicated to stakeholders. This can lead to ineffective implementation of the vaccination

program. As mentioned, as local DLD officers may have a better relationship and meet with

98

farmers more often than private veterinarians, farmers often receive information regarding FMD

control program through personal communication. Usually, DLD officers at the national level

call for stakeholder meetings when they want to inform private veterinarians of any information

regarding the FMD control program, including the vaccine strategy. The information is shared

with representatives of associations of veterinarians and livestock producers who attend the

meetings. However, the representatives may not thoroughly distribute information regarding the

FMD control program to all private veterinarians in the associations. Thus, not all private

veterinarians have the same understanding regarding the vaccine strategy.

Although this study found that private veterinarians and farmers both vaccinate animals

and cooperate well with DLD officers who also may conduct the vaccinations. It further suggests

that DLD should share data related to vaccination program, such as reports of post vaccination

evaluation and vaccine strain matching, to stakeholders. Because private veterinarians and

farmers are not able to access available evidence on the effectiveness of FMD vaccines, they are

doubtful whether the vaccines can protect their animals. This may result in non-collaboration of

stakeholders in the future. Making the data related to FMD control program available, accessible,

and transparent can enhance the engagement of stakeholders, and earn DLD more trust.

Vaccines should be available and sufficient to cover all susceptible species under normal

situations (not only during FMD outbreaks). With the growing demand for FMD vaccines, DLD

should evaluate capacity and availability of DLD’s vaccine production plant to meet the growing

needs. Though establishing a new vaccine plant may solve the immediate problem of the

shortage of FMD vaccines, it may not be the best sustainable solution in the long run. One of the

challenges DLD is facing is insufficient budgets; availability and sustainability of government

budgets to maintain and continue development of the plants is of concern.

In addition, the DLD should work closely with the Food and Drug Administration

Thailand (FDA-Thai), Ministry of Public Health, in managing of imported FMD vaccine.

Though the DLD does not have authority over the FMD imported vaccine, the DLD should be

able to test and control the vaccine after importation or prior to distribution at the field level. For

better FMD vaccine management, information of FMD imported vaccine such as virus strains

used and quality control should be shared among these two agencies.

Animal movement control is also an important element to prevent and control the spread

of FMD. Vehicles used for animal transportation should be cleaned, disinfected, and should not

be a source of virus transmission. Additionally, the DLD should encourage farmers and livestock

99

traders to have appropriate bedding to prevent and stop leakage of urine and water. Local officers

should inspect all animals before they are transported in order to ensure that they are in good

conditions and do not show any clinical signs. In reality, however, because local DLD offices are

understaffed, they are not able to inspect all animals. The allocation of staff at the local level

should be reconsidered by DLD so as to improve the ability to more appropriately deliver

services.

Having sufficient staff at the local level can also improve the DLD’s disease responses.

Results of this study indicate that the current disease responses are not effectively implemented.

For example, farmers and private veterinarians reported that they do not receive any response

from DLD officers when they report suspected FMD, even though local DLD officers reported

that they always respond to disease notification. Understaffing of DLD at the local level could be

one of the limitations to the effective implementation of FMD control activities.

In summary, the current implementation of the FMD control program in the proposed

FMD-free zone needs further improvement in order to meet the OIE’s requirements. The

surveillance system should be transparently evaluated to ensure that the system is able to prove

there is no evidence of infection with FMDV transmission, as required by the OIE. The reporting

system should be closely monitored by DLD to ensure that stakeholders follow the OIE’s

requirements by reporting promptly any suspicion of FMD. There should also be an increase of

stakeholders’ awareness regarding the need for disease notification. Evidence demonstrating that

all FMD susceptible species in the proposed FMD-free zone achieve adequate vaccination

coverage and population immunity should be available and accessible. DLD staff at the local

level should be reallocated in order to strengthen their ability to immediately respond and

provide adequate follow-up when notified of FMD suspected cases and outbreaks.

Finally, communications between the DLD and stakeholders regarding the FMD control

program needs to be strengthened. Increasing regularity of stakeholder meetings can be one way

to improve communication among stakeholders. Webinar (web-based seminars) can be an option

for DLD to approach target audiences. It is particularly useful for delivering press conferences

and corporate events in order to reach a large audience [33]. Expanding information sharing and

distribution can be done by posting important information on the DLD’s webpage. Social

networks or social media such as Twitter, Facebook, and Line application can be used as a tool

for information distribution as well. Social media is also used to engage in important

conversations [34]. It is a cost effective way to communicate with and to reach a greater

100

audience [34]. Additionally, the DLD may develop their own mobile application as a channel to

connect with stakeholders, especially private veterinarians. These options can help DLD

approach the target audience and allow information regarding the FMD control program to be

shared among stakeholders in order to enhance stakeholders’ understanding.

101

References


Tech., 21 (3), 637–644. doi:10.20506/rst.21.3.1356.




3. World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) (2018). – Foot & Mouth disease (FMD).

Available at: http://www.oie.int/animal-health-in-the-world/animal-diseases/foot-and-

mouth-disease/ (accessed on 2 February 2019).

4. Pattnaik B., Subramaniam S., Sanyal A., Mohapatra J.K., Dash B.B., Ranjan R. & Rout

M. (2012). – Foot-and-mouth Disease: Global Status and Future Road Map for Control

and Prevention in India. Agric. Res., 1 (2), 132–147. doi:10.1007/s40003-012-0012-z.

5. Rweyemamu M., Roeder P., MacKay D., Sumption K., Brownlie J., Leforban Y.,

Valarcher J.F., Knowles N.J. & Saraiva V. (2008). – Epidemiological patterns of foot-and-

mouth disease worldwide. Transbound. Emerg. Dis., 55 (February 2006), 57–72.

doi:10.1111/j.1865-1682.2007.01013.x.



Asia. Rev. Sci. Tech., 21 (3), 465–475.






9. World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) (2011). – SEACFMD 2020, A Roadmap to

Prevent, Control and Eradicate Foot and Mouth Disease (by 2020) in South-East Asia and

China. (September). Available at: http://www.rr-

asia.oie.int/fileadmin/SRR_Activities/SEACFMD_2020_for_print_5_June_2012.pdf

(accessed on 9 July 2015).

10. World Organisation for Animal Health (2016). – SEACFMD Roadmap: A strategic

framework to control, prevent and eradicate foot and mouth disease in South-East Asia

and China. 3rd ed.Available at: http://www.rr-

asia.oie.int/fileadmin/SRR_Activities/documents/SEACFMD_Roadmap_merged_resized.

pdf (accessed on 18 April 2019).



Bangkok, Thailand.

102


Thailand. Thailand.

13. FAO/OIE (2011). – The Progressive Control Pathway for FMD control (PCP-FMD)

Principles, Stage Descriptions and Standards. Available at:

http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/commissions/docs/pcp/pcp-26012011.pdf.

14. Department of Livestock Development (2012). – National FMD strategic plan of

Thailand. 2nd ed., Bangkok, Thailand. doi:10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2.

15. Department of Livestock Development (Information and Communication Technology

Center) (2016). – 2015 Census of farmers and livestock in Thailand. Available at:

http://ict.dld.go.th/th2/index.php/th/report/447-report-thailand-livestock/reportservey2558-

1/870-report-survey58-1 (accessed on 3 September 2018).




April 2019).


465–93. doi:10.1128/CMR.17.2.465.

18. Mumford J. a (2007). – Vaccines and viral antigenic diversity. Rev. Sci. Tech., 26 (1), 69–

90.

19. Alexandersen S., Zhang Z. & Donaldson A.I. (2002). – Aspects of the persistence of foot-

and-mouth disease virus in animals—the carrier problem. Microbes Infect., 4 (10), 1099–

1110. doi:10.1016/S1286-4579(02)01634-9.

20. Hernandez J., Martinez M.A., Rocha E., Domingo E. & Mateu M.G. (1992). – Generation

of a subtype-specific neutralization epitope in foot-and-mouth disease virus of a different

subtype. J. Gen. Virol., 73 (1), 213–216. doi:10.1099/0022-1317-73-1-213.




22. Fenig S., Levav I., Kohn R. & Yelin N. (1993). – Telephone vs face-to-face interviewing

in a community psychiatric survey. Am. J. Public Health, 83 (6), 896–898.

doi:10.2105/AJPH.83.6.896.

23. Sturges J.E. & Hanrahan K.J. (2004). – Comparing Telephone and Face-to-Face

Qualitative Interviewing: A Research Note. Qual. Res., 4 (1), 107–118.

doi:10.1177/1468794104041110.

24. Frieden T.R. (2014). – Six Components Necessary for Effective Public Health Program

Implementation. Am. J. Public Health, 10 (1), 17–22. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2013.301608.

103

25. World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) – Foot & Mouth Disease. Gen. Dis. Inf.

Sheets, , 1–6. Available at:

http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Animal_Health_in_the_World/docs/pdf/FMD-

EN.pdf.

26. Mahy B.W.J. (2005). – Introduction and history of foot-and-mouth disease virus. Curr.

Top. Microbiol. Immunol., 288, 1–8. doi:10.1007/3-540-27109-0_1.

27. Scudamore J.M. & Harris D.M. (2002). – Control of foot and mouth disease: lessons from

the experience of the outbreak in Great Britain in 2001. Rev. Sci. Tech., 21 (February

2001), 699–710.

28. Isoda N., Kadohira M., Sekiguchi S. & Schuppers M. (2012). – Review: Evaluation of

Foot‐and‐Mouth Disease Control Using Fault Tree Analysis. Transbound. Emerg. Dis., 62

(3), 233–244. doi:10.1111/tbed.12116.

29. Paton D.J., Sumption K.J. & Charleston B. (2009). – Options for control of foot-and-

mouth disease: knowledge, capability and policy. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol.

Sci., 364 (1530), 2657–67. doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0100.

30. Goller K. V., Dill V., Madi M., Martin P., Stede Y. Van der, Vandenberge V., Haas B.,

Borm S. Van, Koenen F., Kasanga C.J., Ndusilo N., Beer M., Liu L., Mioulet V., Armson

B., King D.P. & Fowler V.L. (2018). – Rapid and simple detection of foot-and-mouth

disease virus: Evaluation of a cartridge-based molecular detection system for use in basic

laboratories. Transbound. Emerg. Dis., 65 (2), 578–584. doi:10.1111/tbed.12744.

31. Department of Livestock Development (Personnel Division) (2015). – DLD employee

statistics. Available at: http://person.dld.go.th/2557/statistics_person.php (accessed on 3

September 2018).

32. Department of Livestock Development (Bureau of Livestock Standards and Certification)

– Veterinary Accreditation Program. Available at:

http://certify.dld.go.th/certify/index.php/th/2016-05-01-14-47-42/2017-11-15-02-35-

10/717-2560 (accessed on 4 September 2018).

33. Christ P. (2005). – Internet Technologies and Trends Transforming Public Relations. J.

Website Promot., 1 (4), 39–60. doi:10.1300/J238v01n04.

34. DiStaso M.W., McCorkindale T. & Wright D.K. (2011). – How public relations

executives perceive and measure the impact of social media in their organizations. Public

Relat. Rev., 37 (3), 325–328. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.06.005.

104

Tables


criteria to identify shortcomings of implementation of current FMD control program* and engagement of stakeholders


1. Surveillance

system





- Surveillance program to demonstrate no evidence of

FMDV infection and transmission should be implemented.

- Surveillance system should provide an early warning

system to report suspected cases.

1.1 Officers do not regularly visit farms and observe animals.

1.2 Farmers do not regularly observe abnormalities of their animals.

1.3 Officers do not routinely conduct active serological surveillance.

1.4 There is a lack of communication of findings of the surveillance program and

laboratory results.

1.5 The implementation of surveillance program is not evaluated.

2. Reporting

system

- A member country should have a record of regular and

prompt animal disease reporting.

- Farmers, workers who have day-to-day contact with

livestock, veterinary paraprofessionals, veterinarians, and

diagnosticians should report promptly any suspicion of

FMD.

2.1 There is a lack of communication of reporting protocols.

2.2 Reporting protocol is not uniformly implemented at all levels.

2.3 There is no disease report analysis at the local or national level.

2.4 No one is using the disease report analysis for prevention and control of FMD.

2.5 Compliance with reporting protocol is not monitored.

3. Vaccine

strategy

- Routine vaccination has been carried out for the purposes

of the prevention of FMD and carried out following

appropriate vaccine strain selection.



- Serological surveillance to estimate population immunity

and/or efficiency of the vaccination program should be

conducted at 1-2 months after vaccination.

- The vaccine used complies with the standards described in

the Terrestrial Manual such as quality control, purity, and

safety of vaccines.

3.1 There is a lack of communication on vaccine strategy (e.g., type of vaccine &

adjuvant, included species, vaccine strain, and vaccine interval)

3.2 All animal species covered by the policy are not vaccinated.

3.3 There is a lack of vaccination record keeping and other information related to


3.4 There is a lack of appropriate sero-monitoring program for post vaccination

evaluation.

3.5 There is a lack of vaccine matching monitoring and communication of vaccine

matching tests.

3.6 There is a lack of quality control and/or records on efficacy of vaccine production

4. Animal

movement

control




4.1 There is a lack of communication of movement control protocols.

4.2 Animal identification cannot differentiate between animals originating from

inside or outside of the proposed FMD-free zone.

4.3 DLD officers issue movement permits without animal inspection.

4.4 Animals and/or animal products are not transported in appropriate vehicles.

4.5 Animal checkpoints are not sufficient and are not located in appropriate areas to

105


screen animal transportation.

4.6 Veterinary officers and support staff do not appropriately conduct animal

inspection at checkpoints.

4.7 Compliance with movement control regulations is not monitored.



- The investigation should include reactor animals,

susceptible animals of the same unit, and susceptible

animals that have been in contact with reactor animals.





accessible.

5.1 There is a lack of communication of response plans.

5.2 Officers do not respond or provide inadequate response when FMD suspected

cases are reported e.g. no tracing back, no re-investigation, and no confirmation

of serological test.

5.3 Record of positive herds and/or animals is not appropriate to trace back to the

origin.

5.4 There is no quarantine when positive animals are found.

5.5 Infected carcasses, byproducts, and material (fodder, waste manure, and bedding)

are not adequately disposed.

5.6 Emergency vaccine is not sufficient for affected animals.

5.7 Compensation is not sufficient when infected animals are slaughtered during the

outbreak.

5.8 Local officers and farmers inappropriately restock new animals.

6. Engagement of

stakeholders

There are no OIE’s recommendations regarding

engagement of stakeholders

6.1 Farmers do not have sufficient knowledge to detect or recognize disease.

6.2 Farmers and private veterinarians do not have similar understandings of the

objectives of the FMD control program or of the importance of FMD

surveillance, early reporting, and movement control

6.3 Farmers and private veterinarians do not practice in accordance with DLD FMD

control program.

*The study assumed that the existing testing-diagnosis system is adequate, provides rapid diagnoses, meets international standards, and satisfies the performance veterinarian services based

on the PVS evaluation by OIE. It is not included in the assessment system.

**Adapted from the Terrestrial Code chapter 8.8 “Infection with Foot and Mouth Disease Virus.” Complete requirements can be accessed at



106

Table 4-2 The number of questionnaire distributors, questionnaires returned, responses used for

analysis, and target population in the proposed FMD-free zone

Group Number of

questionnaire

distributors

Questionnaires

returned

Responses used

for analysis

Target population in

the proposed FMD-

free zone

DLD Local officers a 16 51 34 109*

Private veterinarians b 15 67 32 102**

Farmers c 10 79 44 17702*

Total 41 197 110 17,913

a Responses were included veterinary officers, para-veterinary officers, animal husbandry staff, and livestock

assistants who worked for either provincial livestock offices, district livestock offices, animal quarantine stations,

dairy herd health unit, or the livestock production research center. b The majority of private veterinarians (68.75%, 22/32) who participated in this study were swine veterinarians and

they were all DLD accredited veterinarians. DLD accredited veterinarian is a private veterinarian who is authorized

by the DLD to perform certain tasks that support the national animal health program. Private veterinarians must hold

a license for practicing veterinary medicine which is provided by the Veterinary Council (Board of Veterinary).

Private veterinarians must attend, complete a training program, and pass the exam for accredited veterinarians. In

Thailand, private veterinarians who want to work for commercial or agribusiness farms are required to be

accredited. c Responses were collected from farmers who work in swine, dairy, beef, sheep, goat, and buffalo farms.

*Source: Department of Livestock Development, Information and Communication Technology Center 2015 [15]

**The number of private veterinarians was determined in 2018. A representative private veterinarian of each

company was contacted and was asked to fill in a spreadsheet the number of veterinarians in their companies who

work in the proposed FMD-free zone.

107

Table 4-3 The survey participants’ responses regarding the current implementation of surveillance

system in the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand

Aspect N Never

1-2 times during

the past 3 years

At least 1-2

times/year

Communication of the findings of the FMD active

surveillance program

- Provincial officers received information

regarding the findings from national officers

5

1 (20%)

4 (80%)

- District officers received information regarding

the findings from provincial officers

5

5 (100%)

- Provincial and district officers inform farmers

of the findings

9 4 (44.44%) 5 (55.56%)

- Provincial and district officers inform private

veterinarians of the findings

9 6 (66.67%) 2 (22.22%) 1 (11.11%)

- Private veterinarians received information

regarding the findings from officers

22

15 (68.18%)

1 (4.55%) 6 (27.27%)

- Farmers received information regarding the

findings from officers

35 20 (57.14%) 4 (11.43%) 11 (31.43%)

Farms visits and animal health observation

Local officers;

- Provincial officers

- District officers

- Dairy Herd Health Unit staff

- Others (livestock production research center

staff)

16

6

8

1

1

1 (6.25%)

1 (16.67%)

15 (93.75%)

5 (83.33%)

8 (100%)

1 (100%)

1 (100%)

Private veterinarians 31 2 (6.45%) 2 (6.45%) 27 (87.1%)

Farmers 44 1 (2.27%) 43 (97.73%)

N = Number of respondents

108

Table 4-4 The survey participants’ responses regarding the current implementation of reporting

system in the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand since the last protocol update in 2015

Aspect N Never

1-2 times during

the past 3 years

At least 1-2

times/year

Communication of the reporting protocol

- Provincial officers received the reporting

protocol from national officers.

5

1 (20%)

4 (80%)

- District officers received the reporting protocol

from provincial officers.

5

5 (100%)


of the reporting protocol.

9

9 (100%)


veterinarians of the reporting protocol.

9

7 (77.78%)

2 (22.22%)

- Private veterinarians received the reporting

protocol from officers.

22

7 (31.82%) 8 (36.36%)

7 (31.82%)

- Farmers received the reporting protocol from

officers.

35 7 (20%) 6 (17.14%) 22 (62.86%)

Implementation of reporting protocol

- Provincial and district officers notified to

national officers within 24 hours of FMD

suspected cases.

9

3 (33.33%)*

6 (66.6

- Private veterinarians notified officers of FMD

suspected cases within 12 hours.

15 13 (86.67%) 2 (13.33%)*

- Farmers notified officers of FMD suspected

cases within 12 hours.

11 6 (54.55%) 2 (18.18%)* 3 (27.27%)

N = Number of respondents

*They have seen FMD suspected case 1-2 times during the past 3 years

109

Table 4-5 The survey participants’ responses regarding the current implementation of vaccination

program in the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand

Aspect N Never

1-2 times during

the past 3 years

At least 1-2

times/year

Communication of the vaccine strategy*

- Provincial officers received an updated vaccine

strategy from national officers.

5

4 (80%)

1 (20%)

- District officers received an updated vaccine

strategy from provincial officers.

5

5 (100%)

- Provincial and district officers informed farmers

of an updated vaccine strategy.

8

2 (25%)

6 (75%)

- Provincial and district officers informed private

veterinarians of an updated vaccine strategy.

8

3 (37.5%)

2 (25%)

3 (37.5%)

- Private veterinarians received an updated

vaccine strategy from officers.

22 12 (54.54%) 5 (22.73%) 5 (22.73%)

- Farmers received an updated vaccine strategy

from officers.

35 8 (22.86%) 4 (11.43%) 23 (65.71%)

Vaccination

- Provincial and district officers monitored FMD

vaccination program conducted following the

national FMD vaccination campaign.

12

1 (8.33%)

11 (91.67%)

- Provincial and district officers conducted FMD

vaccination program following the national

FMD vaccination campaign.

11

11 (100%)

- Private veterinarians advised their clients to do

FMD vaccination.

26 2 (7.69%) 2 (7.69%) 22 (84.62%)

- Farmers vaccinated their animals. 38 1 (2.63%) 37 (97.37%)

Record keeping

- Provincial and district officers kept those

vaccination records.

12

1 (8.33%)

11 (91.67%)

- Private veterinarians advised their client to keep

FMD vaccination records.

26

2 (7.69%)

1 (3.85%) 23 (88.46%)

- Farmers kept those vaccination records. 38 1 (2.63%) 37 (97.37%)

Post vaccination evaluation

- Provincial and district officers conducted sero-

surveillance for post vaccination evaluation.

12

12 (100%)

- Provincial officers received post vaccination

evaluation reports from national officers.

5

1 (20%)

2 (40%)

2 (40%)

- District officers received post vaccination

evaluation reports from provincial officers.

5 1 (20%) 4 (80%)


of post vaccination evaluation reports.

8

5 (62.5%)

1 (12.5%)

2 (25%)


veterinarians of post vaccination evaluation

reports.

8 3 (37.5%) 1 (12.5%) 4 (50%)

110

Aspect N Never

1-2 times during

the past 3 years

At least 1-2

times/year

- Private veterinarians received post vaccination

evaluation reports from officers.

22 16 (72.73%) 2 (9.09%) 4 (18.18%)

- Farmers received post vaccination evaluation

reports from officers.

34 19 (55.88%) 4 (11.76%) 11 (32.36%)

Communication of vaccine matching test

- Provincial officers received reports of vaccine-

matching tests from national officers

5

4 (80%)

1 (20%)

- District officers received reports of vaccine-

matching tests from provincial officers.

5 2 (40%) 3 (60%)

*Regarding type of vaccine, vaccine strain, vaccine interval, and the species are included

111

Table 4-6 The survey participants’ responses regarding the current implementation of animal

movement control system in the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand since the last protocol update

in 2015

Aspect N Never

1-2 times during

the past 3 years

At least 1-2

times/year

Communication of the updated protocol of animal

movement control


regarding the movement control protocol from

national officers.

5

1 (20%)

2 (40%)

2 (40%)


the movement control protocol from provincial

officers.

5

5 (100%)


regarding the movement control protocol from

officers.

22

8 (36.36%)

5 (22.73%)

9 (40.91%)

- Farmers received information regarding the

movement control protocol from officers.

34 19 (55.88%) 5 (14.71%) 10 (29.41%)

Animal movement permits

- Farmers submitted an application for a

movement permit to the DLD officers.

18

2 (11.11%)

1 (5.56%)*

15 (83.33%)

- Farmers received a movement permit before

their animals were transported.

16 1 (6.25%) 15 (93.75%)

- Private veterinarians reported that animal

movement permits were obtained before

animals were transported.

17 17 (100%)

Animal health inspection

- Farmers reported that DLD officers observe

animal health status during loading animals on

vehicles.

17

6 (35.29%)

2 (11.77%)

9 (52.94%)

- Private veterinarians reported that DLD officers

observe animal health status during loading

animals on vehicles.

16 10 (62.5%) 6 (37.5%)

- Provincial and district officers observed animal

health status during loading animals on

vehicles.

12 2 (16.67%) 10 (83.33%)

- Quarantine station staff observed animal health

status while vehicles passed animal checkpoints.

17 17 (100%)

Vehicle which are used for animal transportation

- Farmers cleaned the vehicles.

22

4 (18.18%)

18 (81.82%)

- Farmers disinfected the vehicles. 25 6 (24%) 19 (76%)

- Farmers kept records of cleaning and

disinfection of those vehicles.

25 15 (60%) 1 (4%) 9 (36%)

- Farmers reported that DLD officers monitored

records of cleaning and disinfection.

18

10 (55.56%)

8 (44.44%)

112

Aspect N Never

1-2 times during

the past 3 years

At least 1-2

times/year

- Farmers reported that DLD officers monitored

all vehicles for sufficient bedding to absorb

urine and dropping.

20

12 (60%)

5 (25%)

3 (15%)

- Private veterinarians monitored records of

cleaning and disinfection.

19

5 (26.31%)

2 (10.53%)

12 (63.16%)

- Private veterinarians monitored all vehicles for

sufficient bedding to absorb urine and dropping

18

12 (66.67%)

1 (5.55%) 5 (27.78%)

- Provincial and district DLD officers monitored

records of cleaning and disinfection.

11 3 (27.27%) (72.73%)

- Provincial and district DLD officers monitored

all vehicles for sufficient bedding to absorb

urine and dropping.

12 3 (25%) 9 (75%)

*They transported their animals 1-2 times during the past 3 years.

113

Table 4-7 The survey participants’ responses regarding the communication of the response plan

and the training of preparedness and response plans

Aspect N Never

1-2 times during

the past 3 years

At least 1-2

times/year

Communication of the response plan


regarding the response plan from national

officers.

5

5 (100%)


the response plan from provincial officers.

5

1 (20%)

4 (80%)


of the response plan.

8

1 (12.5%)

7 (87.5%)


veterinarians of the response plan.

8 3 (37.5%) 3 (37.5%) 2 (25%)


regarding the response plan from officers.

22 10 (45.45%)

7 (31.82%)

5 (22.73%)

- Farmers received information the response plan

from officers.

32 9 (28.13%) 6 (18.75%) 17 (53.12%)

Training of preparedness and response plans

- Provincial officers had been trained by national

officers on preparedness and response plans.

5

1 (20%)

4 (80%)

- District officers had been trained by provincial


5

1 (20%)

4 (80%)

- Provincial and district officers provided training

courses regarding preparedness and response

plans to farmers.

8

3 (37.5%)

2 (25%)

3 (37.5%)

- Provincial and district officers provided training

courses regarding preparedness and response

plans to private veterinarians.

8

4 (50%)

3 (37.5%)

1 (12.5%)

- Private veterinarians had been trained by DLD


21

15 (71.43%)

2 (9.52%)

4 (19.05%)

- Farmers had been trained by DLD officers on

preparedness and response plans.

31 17 (54.84%) 4 (12.9%) 10 (32.26%)

114

Table 4-8 The survey participants’ responses regarding their activities when suspected case is

reported

Aspect N Never

1-2 times during

the past 3 years*

Always

Disease investigation

- Provincial and district officers conducted

disease investigation when they received a

notification of FMD suspected cases.

7

1 (14.29%)

6 (85.71%)


conducted disease investigation after they notify

DLD officers of FMD suspected cases. **

2

1 (50%)

1 (50%)

- Farmers reported that DLD officers conducted

disease investigation after they notify DLD

officers of FMD suspected cases. **

5 2 (40%) 1 (20%) 2 (40%)

Sample collection and submission

- Provincial and district officers collected and

submitted samples to a laboratory for FMD

diagnosis during disease investigation.

6

1(16.67%)

2 (33.33%)

3 (50%)


collected and submitted samples for FMD

diagnosis during disease investigation. ***

2 1 (50%) 1 (50%)

- Farmers reported that DLD officers collected

and submitted samples for FMD diagnosis

during disease investigation. ***

3 1 (33.33%) 1 (33.33%) 1 (33.33%)

Communication of laboratory results


veterinarians regarding laboratory results.

6

2 (33.33%)

1 (16.67%)

3 (50%)


regarding laboratory results.

6 2 (33.33%) 4 (66.67%)


informed them of laboratory results.

2

1 (50%) 1 (50%)

- Farmers reported that DLD officers informed

them of laboratory results.

2 1 (50%) 1 (50%)

Quarantine of suspected animals and/or herds

- Provincial and district officers quarantined

suspected animals until laboratory results were

confirmed negative.

5

5 (100%)


suspected herds until laboratory results were

confirmed negative.

4 1 (25%) 3 (75%)


quarantined clients’ suspected animals until

laboratory results were confirmed negative.

2

1 (50%)

1 (50%)


quarantined clients’ suspected herds until


2

1 (50%)

1 (50%)

115

Aspect N Never

1-2 times during

the past 3 years*

Always

- Farmers reported that DLD officers quarantined

suspected animals until laboratory results were

confirmed negative.

2

1 (50%)

1 (50%)


suspected herds until laboratory results were

confirmed negative.

2 1 (50%) 1 (50%)

* Participants, who responded in this category, had seen FMD 1-2 times during the past 3 years.

** Consider only participants who reported that they notified officers of FMD suspected cases within 12 hours.

*** Consider only participants who reported that DLD officers conducted disease investigation.

116

Table 4-9 The survey participants’ responses regarding their activities when a positive case is

found

Aspect N Never

1-2 times during

the past 3 years*

Always

Quarantine of infected animals and/or herds


animals when animals are confirmed FMD

positive.

5

1 (20%)

4 (80%)

- Provincial and district officers quarantined herd

when it included an FMD positive cases.

5 1 (20%) 4 (80%)


quarantined clients’ animals when animals are

confirmed FMD positive.

9 4 (44.44%) 3 (33.33%) 2 (22.22%)


quarantined clients’ herd when it included an

FMD positive cases.

7 2 (28.57%) 3 (42.86%) 2 (28.57%)

- Private veterinarians advised their clients to

follow the DLD officers’ instructions regarding

quarantine requirements.

7 2 (28.57%) 2 (28.57%) 3 (42.86%)

- Private veterinarians monitored their clients

follow the DLD officers’ instructions regarding


7 3 (42.86%) 1 (14.28%) 3 (42.86%)


animals when animals are confirmed FMD

positive.

10 3 (30%) 3 (30%) 4 (40%)


herd when it included an FMD positive cases.

10 3 (30%) 3 (30%)

4 (40%)

- Farmers follow the DLD officers’ instructions

regarding quarantine requirements.

10 3 (30%) 3 (30%) 4 (40%)

Disinfect and dispose of infected carcasses, bedding,

and materials

- Provincial and district officers advised farmers

to disinfect and dispose of infected carcasses,

bedding, and material following the DLD

recommendation.

5

1 (20%)

4 (80%)

- Provincial and district officers monitored

farmers that they followed the DLD

recommendation of disinfect and dispose of

infected carcasses, bedding, and material.

5 1 (20%) 4 (80%)

Emergency vaccine;

- Provincial and district officers vaccinated all

susceptible animals surrounding the index case.

5

1 (20%)

4 (80%)

- Private veterinarians reported that DLD

subsidized emergency vaccines to control FMD

outbreaks in clients’ farms.

7 2 (28.57%) 3 (42.86%) 2 (28.57%)

117

Aspect N Never

1-2 times during

the past 3 years*

Always

- Farmers reported that DLD subsidized

emergency vaccines to control FMD outbreaks

in their farms.

10 3 (30%) 1 (10%) 6 (60%)

*The survey found that participants who responded this category reported that their animals or clients’ animals have

been confirmed as FMD positive 1-2 times during the past 3 years.

118

Table 4-10 Survey participants’ responses regarding the slaughtering of FMD infected and exposed

animals

Slaughtering

of animals

Officers’ reports (n=5) Private veterinarians’

reports (n=8)

Farmers’ reports (n=9)

Yes No Not sure Yes No Not sure Yes No Not sure

FMD infected

animals

1

(20%)

2

(40%)

2

(40%)

4

(50%)

3

(37.5%)

1

(12.5%)

8

(88.89%)

1

(11.11%)

FMD exposed

animals

2

(40%)

3

(60%)

2

(25%)

5

(62.5%)

1

(12.5%)

7

(77.78%)

2

(22.22%)

119

Figures

Researcher

Focal

persons

Potential

participants

Potential

participants

Potential

participants

Figure 4.1 Questionnaire distribution process

120

Figure 4.2 Steps of getting an animal movement permit

121

Figure 4.3 Inappropriate vehicles for animal transportation found during field observation.

Water or

urine

leakage

Water

or urine

leakage

Water or

urine

leakage

Water/

urine

stain

122

Chapter 5 Conclusions and Recommendations to Thailand to Improve the Current FMD

Control Program in the Proposed FMD-Free Zone

After a thorough assessment of FMD control policies and their implementation in the

proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand, the assessment team came up with the following

conclusions:

⮚ The design of the current FMD control system in the proposed FMD-free zone in

Thailand, including the surveillance system, vaccine strategy, movement control, and

response plans, is appropriate and meets the OIE’s requirements for establishing an

FMD-free zone with vaccination. However, the assessment still found ways to improve

and strengthen the FMD control system in the proposed FMD-free zone.

Recommendations will be provided in the next section.

⮚ The implementation of the surveillance system, reporting system, vaccine strategy,

movement control, and response plans need improvement in order to fulfill the OIE’s

requirements.

⮚ Gaps among the implementation of each system and the OIE’s requirements are

summarized as follows:

o Surveillance system: the current surveillance system was not able to “provide an

early warning system to report suspected cases” [9] (the OIE Terrestrial Code

Article 8.8.40 bullet 1).

o Reporting system: the reporting protocol was not uniformly implemented at all

levels. Stakeholders did not “report promptly any suspicion of FMD” [9] (the OIE

Terrestrial Code Article 8.8.41 bullet 1).

o Vaccine strategy: there was insufficient evidence to prove that “compulsory

vaccination in the target population has been carried out to achieve adequate

vaccination coverage and population immunity and with appropriate vaccine

strain selection” [9] (the OIE Terrestrial Code Article 8.8.3 bullet 3c and 3d).

o Animal movement control: there was a lack of evidence to prove that “the control

of the movement of susceptible animals and their products has been properly

implemented and supervised” [9] (Article 8.8.4 bullet 4d).

o Response plans: there was inadequate response, follow-up, and investigation to

confirm or rule out FMD infection as it required by the OIE.

123

⮚ Stakeholder engagement: Though private veterinarians and farmers in the proposed

FMD-free zone are supportive stakeholders who are aware of FMD control activities and

practice in accordance with the current FMD control program, one of the DLD’s

challenges is to enhance their engagement on disease reporting.

Recommendations

Based on the above conclusions, the following future needs and opportunities were

identified.

⮚ Policy/program design:

o Though the design of vaccination strategy meets the OIE’s requirements, which

clearly indicates the criteria for selection of vaccine strain and who has authority to

make the vaccine strain decisions, it could be strengthened by clearly specifying a

time for routine meetings of the committee with authority to make decisions on

vaccine strains. The committee should meet at a certain time of the year, every year to

review virus circulating strains and make recommendations for vaccine strains. They

should not wait until there is an outbreak - one that might not be able to be controlled

by current vaccines since because the FMD virus rapidly replicates and easily

spreads.

o Not only should the Food and Drug Administration Thailand (FDA-Thai) Ministry of

Public Health have authority over the importation of animal drugs and veterinary

biological products, but the DLD should have the authority to test and control FMD

imported vaccines after importation and prior to distribution at the field level for

better FMD vaccine management. The DLD will also have more information

regarding quality and virus strains used in FMD imported vaccines.

o The DLD regulation regarding animal movement control is appropriately designed

and in accordance with the OIE Terrestrial Code, but it should also clearly specify

requirements of vehicles used for animal transportation. For example, vehicles need

sufficient bedding to absorb urine and minimize the leakage of urine and feces.

Moreover, vehicles used for animal transportation should be inspected and approved

by DLD officers in order to ensure the vehicles are suitable for animal transportation

and are not a source of disease spread.

124

o The DLD should clearly specify the criteria for when FMD infected animals will be

destroyed by stamping out and when they will be slaughtered for meat production.

These criteria are important for stakeholders because compensation at 75 % of the

market price of the animal will only be paid in the case of stamping out, not in the

case of slaughtering. Also, the criteria need to be clearly communicated to

stakeholders to avoid confusion.

⮚ Policy/program implementation:

o Findings of FMD active surveillance should be publicly available and accessible, so

private veterinarians and farmers will be aware of the actual FMD status. In addition,

private veterinarians and farmers should be able to access findings of FMD

surveillance of their own farms, so they can plan appropriately to prevent and control

FMD.

o DLD officers should increase private veterinarians’ and farmers’ awareness regarding

rapid disease reporting and closely monitor whether private veterinarians and farmers

comply with the DLD’s reporting protocols. In addition, DLD officers should clearly

communicate with private veterinarians and farmers about the response plans when

FMD suspected cases and/or FMD positive cases are found.

o The DLD should make official reports, such as reports of FMD status, post-

vaccination evaluation, and vaccine strain matching publicly available and accessible.

Reports of FMD status should clearly identify source and epidemiology of outbreaks.

o FMD vaccines should be available and sufficient to cover all susceptible species not

only during FMD outbreaks but also under normal situations. The DLD may increase

capacity and availability of the DLD’s vaccine production plant by establishing a new

vaccine plant. However, that may not be feasible due to the current DLD budget

constraints, yet an effective vaccination program is essential for a successful FMD

control program.

o The DLD should work closely with FDA-Thai to better manage the importation of

FMD vaccine. Information of FMD imported vaccine, such as virus strains used and

quality control, should be shared among these two agencies.

125

o The DLD should revise their human resource plan to better allocate staff at local

levels to improve delivery of Veterinary Services.

o Communications between the DLD and stakeholders regarding the FMD control

program need to be strengthened for more effective message delivery. The DLD may

set up or increase regularity of stakeholder meetings. Webinars (web-based seminars)

and/or teleconference should be used to enhance communication with target

audiences, especially private veterinarians. Effective and adequate communication

could enhance stakeholders’ engagement in the FMD control program.

o The Thai government should support DLD recruitment of more veterinarians and

should have sufficient well-trained staff to work at the provincial and district levels in

order to deliver Veterinary Services appropriately and effectively.

o The Thai government should recognize the importance and benefits of establishing an

FMD-free zone and should have a strong commitment to support the DLD to make

sure that the proposed FMD-free zone will be recognized by the OIE.

The above recommendations are prioritized in the following table (Table 5-1). The

recommendations are prioritized based on an analysis of the feasibility factors. The first priority

recommendation is that the DLD should take immediate steps to strengthen communication with

stakeholders regarding the FMD control program. Although the impact of this implementation is

not as high as some of the other recommendations, strengthening communication does not

require special techniques or high levels of financial support to initiate and maintain. The DLD is

able to apply its tools, such as social media, podcasts, and mobile application, that are currently

available without external support to enhance its communication. Strengthening communication

can also be implemented immediately under current DLD authorities.

To strengthen communication, an immediate step the DLD can take is to update their

websites regarding the proposed FMD-free zone and the current FMD control program. This

should make the information easier to find. There are many approaches to strengthen and to

enhance DLD communication options, such as having regular stakeholder meetings, using video

conferencing to expand its communication, and publishing and distributing meeting notes to

stakeholders. Future research is needed to identify the cost-effectiveness and feasibility of each

approach.

126

Tables

Table 5-1 Prioritized table of recommendations to improve the current FMD control implementation program

Recommendations Goals

Feasibility factors

Technical support Legal support Investment /

Financial support

Period of time Impacts

1) Strengthen

communication

between the DLD

and stakeholders

regarding the

current FMD

control program

To increase

stakeholder

awareness

regarding the

current FMD

control system

This

recommendation

does not require

external technical

support.

The DLD has

authority to

implement the

recommendation.

This recommendation

does not require a

high level of financial

support to initiate and

maintain.

This

recommendation

can be

implemented

immediately.

Medium - Though stakeholders

will increase their awareness and

their engagement in the current

FMD control program,

FMD may not be controlled by

this implementation alone.

2) Make official

reports publicly

available and

accessible

To increase

transparency,

raise

awareness, and

improve

collaboration

between DLD

and

stakeholders

This

recommendation

does not require

external technical

support.

The DLD has

authority to

implement the

recommendation.

This recommendation

does not require a



maintain.

This

recommendation

can be

implemented

immediately.

High - there are positive and

negative outcomes if the reports

are made publicly available. The

negative outcome is that it may

affect trade if FMD is revealed

to be circulating. The positive

outcome is that the reports may

increase stakeholder awareness

and their concerns about the

disease situation in their farms

and surrounding areas.

3) Work closely

with the FDA-

Thai to ensure

imported

vaccines are of

the proper type

and quality

To ensure

imported

vaccines are

the appropriate

type and

quality to

control FMD in

Thailand

This

recommendation

does not require

external technical

support.

The DLD does

not have

authority to

implement this

recommendation

alone and needs

support from the

higher level

government.

This recommendation

does not require a



maintain.

This

recommendation

takes time to

initiate and

make an

agreement

(MOU) among

two authorities.

Medium -The DLD will have

more information regarding the

imported vaccines that are

currently available in the market.

FMD could be better controlled

if the imported vaccines contain

the virus that matches with the

field virus.

127

Recommendations Goals

Feasibility factors

Technical support Legal support Investment /

Financial support

Period of time Impacts

4) Revise the DLD's

human resources

plan

To better

allocate staff at

the local level

and to recruit

more

veterinarians

and technical

staff to work at

the local level

in high demand

areas

This

recommendation

does not require

external technical

support.

The DLD has

authority to

implement this

recommendation but the human

resources plan

also needs to be

approved by

another

government

agency (Office of

the Civil Service

Commission).

This recommendation

does require some

financial support to

hire more staff

working at the local

level.

This

recommendation

takes time to

propose a

revised plan and

to get approval

from another

government

agency.

Medium – The DLD will have

sufficient local staff to provide

better delivery of Veterinary

Services.

5) Establish a new

FMD vaccine

production plant

To increase

capacity and

availability of

DLD

production of

FMD vaccine,

ensure proper

vaccine type is

used

This

recommendation

requires technical

support from other

resources such as

international

agencies.

The DLD has

authority to

implement this

recommendation.

This recommendation

does require a very



maintain. Also, it

may require extra

financial support

from the higher level

of government.

It can be time-

consuming to

plan, construct,

and establish a

new vaccine

plant.

High - FMD would be better

controlled if there were vaccines

sufficiently available to cover all

susceptible animals and such

vaccines contain the current field

strain. Would minimize or

eliminate the need to import

vaccines.

128

Recommendations for potential future research

Further research is needed relative to some of the recommendations to determine which

options are most practical, cost-effective, and sustainable. This suggested research includes:

o Determine what type of communication and methods are preferable by stakeholders;

i.e. official letter, personal communication, electronic communication, cell phone

alerts, stakeholder meetings, or some other communication method(s)

o Determine the cost and effectiveness of each communication approach

o Conduct a workload assessment and determine optimal DLD staffing in the proposed

FMD-free zone

o Conduct a feasibility study of constructing and operating a new FMD vaccine plant

o Conduct an updated study to assess the cost-benefit and feasibility of applying for the

designation of the proposed FMD-free zone as an OIE -designated official FMD-free

zone

129

APPENDICES

130

APPENDIX 1.

Geography of Thailand and the proposed FMD-free zone

The Kingdom of Thailand (Thailand) is located in the center of Southeast Asia and shares

land borders with Myanmar (to the North and West), Laos (to the North and East), Cambodia (to

the East), and Malaysia (to the south). Thailand has two coastlines: on the East (Gulf of

Thailand) and the South (Andaman Sea). The total area of Thailand is 513,115 km2. Thailand is

divided into 6 geographical regions based on natural features, including North, Northeast,

Central, East, West, and South. These regions are comprised of 77 provinces. In line with

Department of Livestock Development (DLD) functional responsibility, the 77 provinces are

grouped into 9 livestock regions (Figure 1). Most of Thailand has a tropical wet and dry climate.

Average temperatures in Thailand range from 19C (66.2F) to 38C (100.4F).

Figure 1: Map of Thailand shows 77 provinces and 9 Livestock regions

131

The proposed FMD-free zone is located in livestock region 2, in the eastern part of

Thailand (Figure 2). Only seven of nine provinces (64 districts, 481 sub-districts) livestock

region 2 are included in the proposed FMD-free zone: Chonburi, Rayong, Chantaburi, Trat,

Sakeaw, Prachinburi, and Chachengsao. The geographical barriers that separate the proposed

FMD-free zone and the rest of country are the Bangpakong River (west of the proposed FMD-

free zone), the Kaoyai Mountain (north of the proposed FMD-free zone), the Gulf of Thailand

(south of the proposed FMD-free zone), and the Bantad Mountain Range (east of the proposed

FMD-free zone and a natural boundary with Cambodia).

Figure 2: The proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand (livestock region 2)

The livestock production system in the proposed FMD-free zone is diverse, ranging from

backyard to agribusiness farms (integrated farms). Since the eastern part of Thailand is the

largest swine production area, swine commodities in the proposed FMD-free zone are usually

seen on integrated farms. The farming in general are seen on a backyard farming. Comparing to

the rest of the country, backyard farming in the proposed FMD-free zone is upscale to enhance

farmer’s living standard and farm biosecurity. For example, farmers have fencing that separates

the living area and farming area; they restrict visitors and vehicles entering to their farms. The

most populated livestock in the proposed FMD-free zone is swine population while sheep is the

least populated in this zone. Table 1 shows the number of livestock in the proposed FMD-free

zone. Figure 3 shows livestock density distribution.

132

Table 1. Number of livestock in the proposed FMD-free zone, 2017 (source: Department of Livestock Development)

Province Beef cattle Dairy cattle Buffaloes Sheep Goats Swine

Chonburi 11,374 1,508 4,615 1,101 3,355 518,072

Rayong 13,985 - 590 49 819 161,162

Chantabuti 1,855 2,515 606 13 138 74,911

Trat 1,739 - 762 138 436 71,515

Chachengsao 13,785 140 2,714 643 2,110 222,993

Prachinburi 6,541 55 8,219 17 469 202,737

Sakeaw 37,858 21,193 10,582 303 2,136 20,367

Total 87,137 25,411 28,088 2,264 9,463 1,271,757

Figure 3. Livestock density distribution in the proposed FMD-free zone, 2017

133

APPENDIX 2.

Process of the official recognition of disease status

by the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE)1

Official recognition of disease status by the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE)

currently applies to six diseases: African Horse Sickness (AHS), Bovine Spongiform

Encephalopathy (BSE), Classical Swine Fever (CSF), Contagious Bovine Pleuropneumonia

(CBPP), Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD), and Peste des Petits Ruminants (PPR). Member

countries applying for official recognition of a specific disease status must submit an application

(dossier) to the Director General of the OIE, and the dossier must be signed by the delegate of the

member country. OIE, the Scientific and Technical Department, at Headquarters screens the

dossier upon receipt. If an information gap is observed, OIE Headquarters may request an

amendment or additional information.

The dossier should be submitted 45 days before the deadline, which falls on the date of the

relevant ad hoc group meeting. The ad hoc groups are groups of world specialists for each disease.

After each General Session, the Director General writes a letter to inform the delegate of the

member country of the scheduled ad hoc group meetings. Any dossier received after the deadline

will be investigated in the following cycle.

The responsibility to assess the applications of member countries, in accordance with the

Terrestrial Code, belongs to the OIE Scientific Commission for Animal Diseases (Scientific

Commission), which operates on behalf of the World Assembly. The assessment of the Scientific

Commission is usually preceded by an assessment or recommendation by the relevant ad hoc

group. Any ad hoc group members who have conflict of interests or relations with a particular

dossier do not take part in the decision-making. Reports of the ad hoc group are provided to the

Director General through the Scientific Commission for consideration. These reports do not

predetermine the Scientific Commission’s conclusion; however, these aid the Scientific

Commission in making decisions and formulating recommendations for adoption by the World

Assembly at the General Session. The Scientific Commission may request an expert mission to an

applicant member country through the Director General to verify the facts in the dossier before

1 Source: World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) – Standard operating procedures for official recognition of disease status

and for the endorsement of official control programmes of member countries for FMD.

134

making a decision or recommendation. If an application of a member country has been evaluated

by the Scientific Commission, the member country receives a letter from the Director General,

stating the evaluation results including reasons for a positive or negative outcome. In the case of a

negative outcome, the letter also indicates the gaps that should be addressed in the future and is

not released to the public.

Once the Scientific Commission has recommended which countries should receive official

disease statuses, the Director General distributes a list of those countries to all member countries’

delegates prior to each General Session for comments. Member countries have 60 days to register

any objection based on scientific or technical information.

The disease status is officially recognized and approved by adoption of resolutions in the

World Assembly, which is the last day of the General Session. A certificate of official disease

status recognition is provided to each member country at the end of the General Session. The list

of member countries obtaining an officially recognized disease status is updated and posted on the

OIE website by the OIE Headquarters.

Figure 2 Process of official recognition of disease status

Adapted from Standard operating procedures for official recognition of disease status, OIE

135

Member countries obtaining an official recognition of disease status must reconfirm every

year that their status has remained unchanged, and they must submit the relevant data to the

Terrestrial Code for the recognized status category. The delegates must sign annual reconfirmation

forms and deliver these to the Director General. Failure to submit the annual reconfirmation forms

and relevant data results in suspension of official disease status.

Information and relevant data required by the OIE for official recognition of disease status

The OIE develops guidelines and questionnaires to assist member countries in developing

their dossiers. Dossiers of member countries are kept confidential unless the member countries

allow the OIE Headquarters to place the dossiers in the public domain. There are four categories

of FMD status recognition; (1) FMD-free country where vaccination is not practiced, (2) FMD-

free country where vaccination is practiced, (3) FMD-free zone where vaccination is not practiced,

and (4) FMD-free zone where vaccination practiced. This research focuses on “FMD-free zone

where vaccination is practiced”.

The dossier of any member country required to obtain official recognition as an FMD-free

country where vaccination is practiced must include national veterinary service, FMD diagnosis-

surveillance-eradication-prevention, and contingency planning and outbreak response programs.

The dossier should explain geographical and physical factors related to FMD circulation and

livestock industry in the applicant country. General information about the country, neighboring

countries that share borders, countries that share a link of FMD epidemiology, and a map

identifying these factors shall be provided.

National Veterinary Services

The applicant country must demonstrate appropriate organizations and legislation related

to Veterinary Services. Chain of command, responsibilities and structure of the organizations must

be defined and documented. The organization structure must clearly present the relationships

among government ministers, a department authority of the Chief Veterinary Officer, and

Veterinary Services. Also the relationships with other authorities and industrial sectors should be

described, and the role and responsibilities of the Chief Veterinary Officer must be defined.

Veterinary Services must meet the fundamental principles of quality: independence,

impartially, integrity, and objectivity. Veterinary Services employees must have relevant

qualifications, experience, and expertise to make reliable professional judgements. The legal

framework must state and verify the responsibilities and organization of Veterinary Services which

136

control the animal identification system, animal movement control, disease surveillance, disease

control, import control, reporting systems, training, inspection and certification, traceability

systems, and communication of epidemiological information. Veterinary Services’ relationships

with field systems, laboratories, and other services should be described. Effective systems for

animal disease surveillance and notification systems must be demonstrated and adequately cover

animal populations. Standards and procedures related to animal disease control, surveillance,

diagnosis, prevention and eradication must be developed and documented for all stakeholders in

each relevant activity. Veterinary Services should have sufficient human resources, financial

resources, and effective organization to maintain ability to control animal disease and animal

health promotion.

The OIE also requests member countries to provide a list and summary of all FMD related

legislation. Veterinary Services must ensure that these policies are truly understood, implemented

and maintained at all levels of organization. In addition, the dossier must explain the role of

farmers, livestock industry, and related stakeholders in FMD surveillance and control, including

training and awareness programs. The role of private veterinarians related to FMD activities must

be included.

As the veterinary statutory body is not part of Veterinary Services, but rather complements

the evaluation of Veterinary Services, an evaluation of its legal framework, organization structure,

and function should be concerned. The veterinary statutory body is an organization or association

representing the veterinarians of the country that is free from political and commercial interests. It

must have the legal powers to enforce and control veterinarian and para-veterinarian practices. The

registration, licensing, and standards of veterinary professionals and para-veterinary professionals

should be included in the evaluation.

FMD eradication

An applicant country must describe its FMD history: the first date of virus detection, source

and origin of infection, date of the last case, and types and subtypes of FMD. The dossier must

explain how FMD was controlled and eradicated, and what strategy and policy were implemented

in the country. Each control and eradication activity should be described in all levels of

organization. If operational guidelines exist, the applicant should summarize and include these

guidelines in the dossier.

Vaccination strategies should be included in this section, providing the details of vaccine

strain selection, potency test, type of vaccine, purity, details of vaccine matching performed,

137

vaccinated animal species, identification of vaccinated animals, record and record keeping, and

the date of last vaccination operation. Not only must the vaccine strategy be provided, but also

evidence of vaccine effectiveness, vaccination coverage, and serological surveillance.

Animal identification and movement control must be implemented in an applicant country.

The dossier should describe how susceptible animals are identified and which methods are applied

to identify those animals. Herd registration and traceability need to be described. In addition, paths

of movement and the action taken when illegal movement is detected must be included.

FMD diagnosis

The applicant country must provide documents related to FMD diagnosis techniques,

transport of specimens, and risk management in diagnostic laboratory and animal facilities. If the

applicant has FMD diagnosis laboratories, a list of approved laboratories must be provided. If not,

the applicant’s country must provide names of laboratories, procedures to handle and submit

samples to laboratories, follow-up procedures, and time frame to obtain results.

An overview of the FMD approved laboratories must be discussed, including the following

topics: procedure for official accreditation, internal quality management systems, inter-laboratory

proficiency testing, virus handling procedure, biosafety and biosecurity measurements, laboratory

capacity in tests and samples processing, and type of tests and their performance (sensitivity and

specificity).

FMD surveillance

The applicant country must explain the criteria for suspicious FMD, the procedure to notify

an FMD suspected case, and penalties if failure to notify. A summary table should be provided

with the number of suspected cases, number of tested samples, species, type of sample, testing

method, and results for the past two years.

Serological and virological surveillance must be conducted and freedom from infection

demonstrated. The applicant country should provide details on surveillance design (target

population, sample size, level of confidence, sampling strategy), frequency of surveillance

conducting, and a summary table of serological and virological surveillance. If suspicious or

positive results are found, the applicant must give details on follow-up actions.

The applicant country must give details about susceptible animal species in the country,

production systems and maps showing the distribution of the susceptible animal population,

including estimation of wildlife population and geographic distribution. Current measures to

prevent contact between domestic and susceptible wildlife species must be provided.

138

The number and location of slaughterhouses, livestock markets, and events related to

susceptible livestock should be provided in the dossier. The applicant country also should describe

the patterns of livestock movement, transportation of susceptible animals, and handling of those

animals.

FMD prevention

The dossier should include not only information about the applicant country but also its

collaboration with neighboring countries. The applicant country should provide relevant

information about neighboring countries (e.g. size and distance from border to affected animals).

The dossier should present any collaboration and coordination of FMD related activities with

neighboring countries, including information sharing. If swill feeds are applied in the applicant

country, measures to monitor and control contamination of infected agents must be provided. Also

corrective action to prevent future FMD outbreaks must be provided.

The applicant country must describe the criteria for approving imports of susceptible

animals or their products from other countries. Also import conditions, required test procedures,

quarantine and isolation periods, and summaries of countries or zones that are allowed should be

described. The dossier must include the control measures and internal movement control that are

applied on imported animals and animal products. If imported animals and products require import

permits or health certificates, the applicant country should describe and provide the documents

related to the procedure to certify or obtain health certificates.

A map location and the number of ports, airports and land crossings must be attached to

the dossier. The applicant country must explain the import control and the communication systems

between central authorities and border inspection posts, and between border inspection posts. If

the import control system is an independent body which is not part of official services, the

applicant country needs to report its structure and management system, staffing levels, resources,

and its responsibility to Veterinary Services. Safe disposal and management of waste should be

detailed, especially waste from international traffic, the responsibilities body, quantity of disposal,

and disposal locations.

The dossier must include regulations concerning the import, procedure, type of products,

and frequency of checking at point of entry into the applicant country or the final destination.

Action when an illegal import is detected must be explained.

139

Contingency planning and outbreak response program

The applicant country must provide guidelines and contingency plans for dealing with

suspected or confirmed FMD outbreaks. Quarantine measures for suspicious cases and premises

must be described, including procedures to follow suspicious cases and premises. The applicant

country must explain the actions taken to control and report of the disease if there is an FMD

outbreak. In addition, sampling and testing procedures to confirm the causative agent, control and

eradication procedures, procedures to access of antigen and vaccine bank, and details of any

compensation during FMD outbreak must be included in the contingency plans.

In summary, the ad hoc group and the Scientific Commission consider and certify an

applicant country as FMD-free based on the scientific evidence. The evidence to qualify a country

as FMD-free, where vaccination is practiced, is described:

Member countries must have regular animal disease records and a prompt animal

disease reporting system;

In the past two years, there have been no FMD cases and no evidence of FMDV

transmission during the past 12 months;

Disease surveillance has been implemented to detect FMD clinical signs and shows no

evidence of FMDV infection in unvaccinated animals and FMDV transmission in

vaccinated animals;

Regular prevention and early detection of FMD have been implemented;

Vaccination must be compulsory, be carried out to prevent FMD with appropriate

vaccine strain selection, and meet adequate vaccination coverage and population

immunity;

Member countries have properly implemented and supervised the prevention of FMDV

and the movement control of susceptible animals and animal products into the applicant

country.

Reference

1. World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) (2012). – Standard operating procedures for

official recognition of disease status and for the endorsement of official control

programmes of member countries for FMD. (July), 1–9.

140

APPENDIX 3.

Assessment matrix to identify shortcomings of policy design

(1) Surveillance system is not appropriately designed to find the FMD infection

Indicators of shortcomings Measurements Methods Data sources

(1) Passive surveillance is not included in the

surveillance plan.

(2) Active surveillance is not included in the

surveillance plan.

1. The surveillance plan do not specify roles of

farmers and private veterinarians to report any

suspected case to officers as a passive

surveillance.

2. The surveillance plan do not include these

following activities as an active surveillance:

i. Annually serological test (to estimate

FMD prevalence)

ii. Routinely farm visit by veterinary

services

a. Review the DLD rules on disease

surveillance and prevention

b. Review disease surveillance plan

and design

Disease

control unit

(3) The surveillance plan is not covered all

susceptible species and/or all levels of

animal units such as industrial level, small

scale farmers, government facilities, etc.

(4) Sample size and sampling strategy are not

appropriate.

1. Referenced population do not include all

susceptible farmed animals (beef cattle, dairy

cattle, swine, sheep, and goat) that are raised in

the proposed FMD-free zone.

2. Referenced population do not include all types

of production (backyard, industrial, government

facilities).

3. Inappropriate underline assumptions for

sample size calculation:

i. Sample size is not calculated to

demonstrate the absence of FMD infection

ii. Sample size is not calculated with at least

90% confidence* with sensitivity and

specificity of the test at least 90%*

(*acceptable level)

a. Review surveillance sampling

strategy

Disease

control unit

141

(2) Vaccination program is not appropriately designed


(1) Policy does not specify who has

authority to make decision on vaccine

strain needed.

1. Veterinary at the national level are not able to

present any document that specify a responsible

team/units to make a decision on vaccine strain.

a. Interview officers who is in charge

of development of vaccine strategy

b. Review vaccination strategy

c. Review roles and responsibilities of

policy actors

- Disease

control unit

- Vaccine unit

- Field visits

(2) Policy does not specify how vaccine

strains are determined.

2. Veterinary at the national level are not able to

present any document that clarify how vaccine

strain are determined and what criteria are used

for determination.




c. Review plan of vaccine selection,

production, and distribution

- Disease

control unit

- Vaccine unit

(3) Not all susceptible species including

swine are included in the overall vaccine

strategy.

1. vaccine strategy do not specify routine

vaccination programs (typically 1-3 times a year)

in all covered species based on scientific report

of the duration of immunity of a vaccine;

(1) Beef cattle

(2) Dairy cattle

(3) Swine

(4) Sheep

(5) Goat




c. Review vaccination campaign

design

- Disease

control unit

- Vaccine unit

142

(3) Control of movement of animals and animal products into the proposed FMD-free zone is not appropriately designed


(1) Animals (susceptible species) and/or

animal products are not covered under

movement regulations.

1. The movement regulation does not include all

following

i. Swine

ii. Dairy cattle and beef cattle

iii. Sheep and goat

iv. Wildlife

v. Animal feed, and

vi. All products derived from susceptible

animals such as milk, hide, skin, etc.

a. Review DLD rules on animals and

animal products movement control

Disease

control unit

(2) Requirements (before movement are

allowed) are not adequate to detect


1. Requirements do not specify the following

criteria:

i. Animals show no clinical sign of FMD on

the day of shipment

ii. Animals are kept in the establishment of

origin for 90 days or since birth if younger

than 90 days

iii. FMD has not occurred within the

establishment of origin for 90 days and

within a 10 km radius of the establishment

for 30 days.

iv. Animals are isolated in an establishment

for the 30 days prior to shipment.

v. Animals in isolation is subject to diagnostic

for evidence of FMDV with negative

results on samples collected at least 28

days after start of isolation period.

vi. Animals were not exposed to any source of

FMDV during their transportation from the

establishment to the place of shipment.

a. Review DLD rules on animals and

animal products movement control

b. Interview officers who is in charge

of development of animal movement

regulations

Animal

movement

control unit

143


(3) There is no regulation or requirements

for the use of vehicles for livestock

transportation

1. The regulation does not specify requirements

for the use of vehicles for livestock

transportation.

2. The regulation does not specify that “the

animals should be transported under the

supervision of the Veterinary Authority in a

vehicle, which was cleansed and disinfected

before loading, directly from the establishment of

origin to the slaughterhouse/abattoir without

coming into contact with other susceptible

animals”

3. Officers are not able to present any document

related to vehicles control regulation.

a. Review any existing vehicles policy

b. Interview national and regional

officers

- Animal

movement

control unit

- Field visits

(4) Response plan is not appropriately designed to stop FMDV circulation

Indicators of shortcomings

(Response plan design)

Measurements Methods Data sources

(1) There is no appropriate follow up plan,

investigation, further serological tests,

quarantine, and/or requirement to

remove animals if serological test (NSP)

was positive.

1. The follow up plan does not include:

i. Trace-back to origin

ii. Retest (confirmation)

iii. Quarantine (herds or animals)

iv. Quarantine release plan (what is criteria to

release quarantine)

a. Review current response,

management, and follow up plan when

positive animals are found

Disease

control unit

(2) Response plan does not include a

compensation.

1. Officers are not able to present any document

verify a compensation.

2. Criteria for compensation are not described in

details i.e. compensate to individual infected

animals or whole herds, compensation will not

be paid if farmers do not report disease to

officers, etc.


of development of compensation

scheme

b. Review an existing policy

(Ministerial Regulation on animal

compensation due to disease outbreak)

- Disease

control unit

- Field visits

144

APPENDIX 4.

Assessment matrix to identify shortcoming of implementation

(1) Surveillance system has not been appropriately implemented.

Indicators of failure

(surveillance

implementation)

Measurements Methods

National level/ National

officers

Local officers Private veterinarians Farmers

Provincial officers District officers

(1) Lack of

communication on

the findings of the

FMD active

surveillance.

Note: FMD sero-

surveillance has been

conducted biannually

Study expectation:

stakeholders received

information regarding

the surveillance 1-2

times/year

a. They report that they

have never informed

local officers, of the

FMD surveillance

findings in the

proposed FMD-free

zone.

b. They report that they

have never informed

private veterinarians

and farmers of the

FMD surveillance

findings in the

proposed FMD-free

zone.


have never or 1-2

times during the past

three years received

information of the

FMD surveillance

findings in the

proposed FMD-free

zone from the national

officers.


have never or 1-2


three years informed

district officers of the

FMD surveillance

findings in the

proposed FMD-free

zone.

c. They report that they

have never or 1-2




and farmers the FMD

surveillance findings

in the proposed FMD-

free zone.

d. They report that they

have never or 1-2



have never or 1-2



information of the

FMD surveillance

findings in the

proposed FMD-free

zone from above

level.


have never or 1-2




and farmers the FMD


in the proposed

FMD-free zone.


have never or 1-2

times during the

past three years received laboratory

results from

laboratories.


have never or 1-2

times during the

past three years informed private


have never or 1-2

times during the

past three years received information

of the FMD


in the proposed

FMD-free zone from

officers.


have never or 1-2

times during the


results from officers.


have never or 1-2

times during the

past three years received information

of the FMD


in the proposed

FMD-free zone from

officers.


have never or 1-2

times during the


results from officers.

a. Question

naire

b. Interview

145


(surveillance

implementation)



officers Local officers Private veterinarians Farmers



laboratory results from

the laboratories.

e. They report that they

have never or 1-2



private veterinarians of

the laboratory results.

f. They report that they

have never or 1-2



farmers of the

laboratory results.

veterinarians of the

laboratory results.


have never or 1-2

times during the

past three years informed private

veterinarians of the

laboratory results.

(2) There are no routine

farm visits and

animal health

observation.


have never or 1-2 times

during the past three

years visited farms and

observed animal health

status in their

responsible areas.


have never or 1-2


three years visited

farms and observed

animal health status in

their responsible areas.




years visited clients

farms and observed

their clients animal

health status




years observed their

animal health status.

Questionn

aire

(3) The surveillance

program is not

evaluated.

a. They report that the

FMD surveillance

program have never

been audited by

internal or external

partners to identify

potential biases and

ensure the functional

system to provide

verifiable data and

documentation.


have never kept

records when they

conduct a national

surveillance program.

b. They are not able to

trace back to the origin

of animals if the

surveillance found

positive results.


have never kept

records when they

conduct a national

surveillance program.


trace back to the origin

of animals if the

surveillance found

positive results.

a. Interview

b. Collection

and analysis

existing

data

146


(surveillance

implementation)





(5.1) If the surveillance program is evaluated,

ii. Surveillance program is not able to detect NSP positive animals.

iii. Samples are not taken from interested population and represent all covered species and types of production.

iv. There is no following action taken if positive results were found:

- Re-serological test

- Trace-back to the origin of animals

- Written quarantine (law enforcement)

- Verbal quarantine

v. There are no previous records of action that has been taken on positive results.

vi. Proportion of NSP positive and tested animals is not decreased.

Review

surveillance

program &

evaluation

reports.

(2) Reporting system has not been appropriately implemented.

Indicators of

shortcomings



officers

Local level Private veterinarians Farmers


(1) Lack of

communication of

reporting protocol


have never informed

local officers about an

updated reporting

protocol.


have never informed


about an updated

reporting protocol.


have never informed

farmers about an

updated reporting

protocol.


have never received

an updated reporting

protocol from

national officers.


have never informed

district officers of an

updated reporting

protocol.


have never informed


of an updated

reporting protocol.


have never informed

farmers of an updated

reporting protocol.


have never received an

updated reporting

protocol from

provincial officers.


have never informed


an updated reporting

protocol from



have never informed

farmers of an updated

reporting protocol from




updated reporting

protocol from the DLD

officer.



updated reporting

protocol from the DLD

officer.

a. Question

naire

b. Interview

147

Indicators of

shortcomings



officers Local level Private veterinarians Farmers


d. They do not clarify the

report protocol in the

same direction with the

local officers.

e. They do not clarify

the report protocol in

the same direction

with the national

officers.


report protocol in the


national and provincial

officers.

Interview

e. They are not able to

present record of

communication.

f. They are not able to

present record of

communication.


present record of

communication.

Collection

and

analysis

existing

data

(2) Reporting protocol

is not uniformly

implemented at all

levels.


have never received

disease reports from

local officers, private

veterinarians, and

farmers. (if there is any

suspected case)


have never notified

the national officers

within 24 hours

when they noticed or

received any

notification of

suspected case.


have never notified the

national officers within

24 hours when they

noticed or received any

notification of

suspected case.



DLD officer within 12

hours when they

noticed any

notification of

suspected case.



DLD officer within 12

hours when they

noticed any

notification of

suspected case.

a. Question

naire

b. Interview

c. Collection

and

analysis

existing

data

(3) There is no disease

report analysis at the

local or national

level.

a. The BDCVS do not

assign any responsible

unit to monitor FMD

status and analyze

disease outbreak.


do not regularly

analyze disease report.

a. They report that

there is no disease

report analysis at

local level.

(Interview)

a. They report that there

is no disease report

analysis at local level.

(Interview)

a. Review

organization

structure

b. Interview

c. Question

naire

(4) No one is using the

disease report

analysis for

prevention and

control of FMD.


do not regularly use

disease report analysis

to develop FMD

control and its

prevention plans.



disease report

analysis for

prevention and

control of FMD in

their responsible

areas.




for prevention and

control of FMD in

their responsible areas.




for prevention and

control of FMD in

their responsible

farms.

Interview

148

Indicators of

shortcomings



officers Local level Private veterinarians Farmers


b. They strongly

disagree or disagree that they can easily

access the disease

report analysis.

b. They strongly disagree

or disagree that they

can easily access the

disease report analysis.

b. They strongly disagree

or disagree that they

can easily access the

disease report analysis.

They strongly disagree

or disagree that they can

easily access the disease

report analysis.

Questionn

aire

(5) Compliance with

reporting protocol is

not monitored.

a. They are not able to

provide records of

violators and penalties

if local officers fail to

follow the reporting

protocol.


provide records of


if private veterinarians

fail to follow the

reporting protocol.

c. They are not able to

provide records of


if farmers fail to


protocol.


provide records of

violators and

penalties if district

officers fail to


protocol.


provide records of

violators and

penalties if private

veterinarians fail to


protocol.


provide records of

violators and

penalties if farmers

fail to follow the

reporting protocol.


provide records of



fail to follow the

reporting protocol.

d. They are not able to

provide records of


if farmers fail to


protocol.

Collection

and

analysis

existing

data

149

(3) Vaccination program has not been appropriately implemented.


(vaccination

implementation)



officers

Local officers Private

veterinarians

Farmers


(1) Lack of

communication on

vaccine strategy*

* Concerning type of

vaccine & adjuvant, the

species are included,

vaccine strain, and

vaccine interval

Note: FMD virus has a

very high antigenic

variation. Thus vaccine

need to be monitored

and updated.

Study expectation:

Stakeholders should

receive information

regarding the vaccine

strategy 1-2 times/year.

a. They report that they have

never or 1-2 time during

past 3 years informed local

officers about new

information and updated

vaccine strategy.

b. They report that they have


past 3 years informed

private veterinarians about

new information and

updated vaccine strategy.

c. They report that they have



farmers about type of

vaccine, vaccine adjuvant,

vaccine strain, and vaccine

interval that they should

apply to their livestock.

d. They are not able to present

record of communication.



past 3 years received any


vaccine strategy from the

national officers.



past 3 years informed the

district officers about new


vaccine strategy.




private veterinarians about

new information and

updated vaccine strategy.

d. They report that they have



farmers about type of

vaccine, vaccine adjuvant,

vaccine strain, and vaccine

interval that they should

apply to their livestock.

e. They are not able to present

record of communication.


have never or 1-2 time

during past 3 years

received any information

and updated vaccine

strategy from the

provincial officers or

above level.



during past 3 years

informed private

veterinarians about new

information and

updated vaccine

strategy.



during past 3 years

informed farmers about

type of vaccine, vaccine

adjuvant, vaccine strain,

and vaccine interval.

d.They are not able to

present record of

communication.

a. They report that

they have never or

1-2 time during

past 3 years

received any

information and

updated vaccine

strategy from

officers.

a. They report that

they have never

or 1-2 time

during past 3

years received

any information

about type of

vaccine, vaccine

adjuvant, vaccine

strain, and

vaccine interval

from officers.

a. Questionn

aire

b. Interview

c. Collection

and analysis

existing

data

150


(vaccination

implementation)



officers Local officers Private

veterinarians

Farmers


(2) Not all covered

species are

vaccinated

Note: Vaccination

campaign was

conducted at least 2

times/year (varied by

species)

Study expectation:

Stakeholders should

conduct FMD

vaccination at least 1-2

times/year.


never or 1-2 times during

the past three years

monitored FMD vaccination

following the national





conducted FMD vaccination

following the national





years monitored FMD

vaccination following the

national vaccination

campaign.




years conducted FMD

vaccination following the

national vaccination

campaign.

a. They report that

they have never or

1-2 times during

the past three years advised their clients

do FMD

vaccination

a. They report that

their animal have

been never or 1-2

times during the

past three years

done FMD

vaccination.

Questionnaire

(3) Lack of

vaccination record

keeping and other

information related

to vaccination

campaign.

Note: Vaccination

campaign was



species)

Study expectation:

Stakeholders should

keep records of

vaccination every time.


never received the FMD

vaccination records from

local officers.

b. They are not able to present

those vaccination records.



the past three years kept the

FMD vaccination records.

b. They report that they do

keep record (only) at herd

level.

c. They are not able to present

those vaccination records.




monitored vaccine cold

chain while they store it in

their cold storage.




years kept the FMD

vaccination records.

b. They report that they do

keep record (only) at

herd level.


present those vaccination

records.




monitor vaccine cold

chain while they store it

in their cold storage.

a. They report that

they have never or

1-2 times during

the past three years advised their clients

to keep the FMD

vaccination

records.

b. They report that

they have never or

1-2 times during

the past three years monitored their

clients to keep the

FMD vaccination

records.


present those

vaccination

records.

a. They report that

they have never

or 1-2 times

during the past

three years kept

the FMD

vaccination

records.

b. They are not able

to present those

vaccination

records.

a. Questionnaire

b. Interview

c. Collection

and analysis

existing data

151


(vaccination

implementation)




veterinarians

Farmers


(4) Lack of appropriate

sero-monitoring

program for post

vaccination

evaluation

Note: Vaccination

campaign was



species). DLD always

conduct sero-

surveillance for post

vaccination evaluation

after vaccination was

conducted.

Study expectation:

stakeholders received


the post vaccination

evaluation 1-2

times/year.

a. The sero-monitoring

program does not include

samples from all the covered

species.

b. Sampling frame of sero-

monitoring program does

not include all type of

productions (backyard,

industrial, government

facilities).

c. The post vaccination

evaluation report shows the

sero-conversion (herd level

immunity) has not reached

up to 80%.

d. National officers are not

able to present the post

vaccination evaluation plan

and report.

e. They report that they have

never informed local

officers about the post


reports.

f. They report that they have

never informed private

veterinarians about the post


reports.

g. They report that they have

never informed farmers

about the post vaccination

evaluation reports.


conduct a sero-surveillance

for post vaccination

evaluation less than 3 weeks

or more than six months

after animals are vaccinated,

or they are not sure of the

timing.


never received post


reports from the national

officers.


never informed district

officers about the post


reports.


never informed private

veterinarians about the post


reports.

e. They report that they have

never informed farmers

about the post vaccination

evaluation reports.


conduct a sero-

surveillance for post


less than 3 weeks or

more than six months

after animals are

vaccinated, or they are

not sure of the timing.


have never received post


reports from above level.


have never informed


about the post


reports.


have never informed

farmers about the post


reports.

a. They report that

they have never

received post

vaccination

evaluation reports

from officers.

a. They report that

they have never

received post

vaccination

evaluation

reports from

officers.

a. Review post

vaccination

evaluation

plan

b. Questionnaire

c. Interview

d. Collection

and analysis

existing data

152


(vaccination

implementation)




veterinarians

Farmers


(5) Lack of vaccine

matching

monitoring

a. They (BVB, RRL officers)

report that they never

conduct vaccine-matching

tests on the DLD’s

vaccines with the field

virus.

b. They (BVB, RRL officers)

report that they never

conduct vaccine-matching

tests on commercial

vaccines with the field

virus.

a. Interview

b. Collection

and analysis

existing data

(6) Lack of

communication of

vaccine matching

tests


never received any

information on vaccine

matching tests.


have never received any

information on vaccine

matching tests.


strongly disagree or

they don’t know that whether an FMD

vaccine, that they

use, has been

selected based on the

FMD virus field

strain

a. They report that

they strongly

disagree or they

don’t know that whether an FMD

vaccine, that they

use, has been

selected based on

the FMD virus

field strain

Questionnaire

(7) Lack of quality

control and/or

records on efficacy

of vaccine

production

a. National officers (BVB)

report that they have never

tested and recorded vaccine

efficacy before launching and

distribution.

b. National officers (BVB)



stability before launching and

distribution.

c. National officers (BVB)



a. They report that after

vaccine is distributed to

their offices, vaccine

stability has never been

tested and monitored by the

BVB or they don’t know.

b. They report that after

vaccine is distributed to

their offices, vaccine

stability has never been

tested and monitored by

the BVB or they don’t

know.

a. Interview

b. Questionnaire

c. Collection

and analysis

existing data

153


(vaccination

implementation)




veterinarians

Farmers


purity before launching and

distribution.

d. National officers (BVB)


tested and recorded duration

of immunity of vaccine.

e. National officers (BVB)

report that duration of

immunity of vaccine does not

last up to 4-6 month.

f. National officers (BVB)

report that vaccine shelf life

when stored at 2-8°C does

not reach 1-2 years.

g. National officers (BVB)

report that vaccine does not

have protective level at least

75% for swine or 3PD50 for

cattle.

h. National officers (BVB) are

not able to present records of

vaccine efficacy, stability,

purity, duration of immunity,

and vaccine shelf life.

154

(4) Control of movement of animals and animal products into the proposed FMD-free zone has not been appropriately implemented.


(movement control

implementation)



officers

Local officers Private veterinarians Farmers


(1) There is no

communication on

movement control

protocol

Note: Some

requirements regarding

the movement control

protocol were revised

since 2015.

Study expectation:

Stakeholders should

receive updated


movement control

protocol 1-2 times

during past 3 years.


have never informed

local officers about any

information or updated

movement control

protocol.


have never informed


about any information

or updated movement

control protocol.


have never informed

farmers about any


movement control

protocol


movement control

protocol in the same

direction with other

officers.


present record of

communication




movement control

protocol from national

officers.


have never informed

district officers about any


movement control

protocol.


have never informed


about any information or

updated movement

control protocol.


have never informed

farmers about any


movement control

protocol.

e. They do not clarify the

movement control



officers.


present record of

communication.




movement control

protocol from above

level.


have never informed


about any information

or updated movement

control protocol.


have never informed

farmers about any


movement control

protocol.


movement control



officers.


present record of

communication.


have never received

any information or

updated movement

control protocol from

officers.

b. They do not clarify

the movement control


direction with

officers.




movement control

protocol from officers.

b. They do not clarify the

movement control


direction with officers.

a. Questionnaire

b. Interview

c. Collection

and analysis

existing

data

155


(movement control

implementation)





(2) Animal identification

cannot differentiate

between animals

originating from

inside or outside of

the proposed FMD-

free zone.


disagree or strongly

disagree that the animal

identification is able to

identify animals

originating from (inside

or outside of the

proposed FMD-free

zone).





identify animals


or outside of the

proposed FMD-free

zone).



disagree that the

animal identification

is able to identify

animals originating

from (inside or

outside of the

proposed FMD-free

zone).





identify animals


or outside of the

proposed FMD-free

zone).

a. Questionnaire

b. Field

Observation

(3) DLD officers issuing

movement permits

without animal

inspection.


have never visited farms

and inspected animal

health status before

issuing the movement

permits.


have never visited

farms and inspected

animal health status

before issuing the

movement permits.


DLD officers have

never visited their

(client) farms and

inspected animal



permits.


DLD officers have

never visited their farms

and inspected animal



permits.

Questionnaire

(4) Animals and/or

animal products are

not transported in an

appropriate vehicle.


have never checked

vehicles used for animal

transportation whether

vehicles are cleaned or

disinfected.


have never monitored

records of vehicles

cleaning and

disinfection.


have never checked

vehicles for sufficient

bedding to absorb urine

and droppings.


have never checked

vehicles used for animal



disinfected.



records of vehicles

cleaning and

disinfection.


have never checked


bedding to absorb urine

and droppings.


have never checked

vehicles used for

animal transportation

whether vehicles are

cleaned or

disinfected.



records of vehicles

cleaning and

disinfection records.


have never checked


bedding to absorb

urine and droppings.


DLD officers have

never checked vehicles

used for animal



disinfected.

b. They report that the

DLD officers have

never checked vehicles

for sufficient bedding to

absorb urine and

droppings.


have never cleaned and

disinfected their

vehicles before loading

a. Questionnaire

b. Field

observation

156


(movement control

implementation)





and after unloading

animals.


have never kept those

cleaning and

disinfection records.

(5) Animal checkpoints

are not sufficient

and are not located

in appropriate areas

to screen animal

transportation.

a. Animal checkpoints are not presented and located on each main route of

animal transportation (before entering to the proposed FMD-free zone).

a. Review

location and

number of

check points

b. Field

observation

(6) Veterinary officers

and support staffs do

not appropriately

conduct animal

inspection at the

checkpoints.

*animal movement

control is conducted

by the Division of

Veterinarian

Inspection and

Quarantine (DVIQ)

and the animal

quarantine station

staffs (at local level).

These local staffs are

not part of provincial

and district offices.

a. They do not inspect animal health status and match

with animal health records or animal ID.

b. They do not trace back to the origin of herds of

animals and animal products.

c. They do not check all the following criteria before

animals are transported into the proposed FMD-

free:

i. Animals do not show FMD clinical signs.

ii. Animals are born in FMD-free farm or raised in

FMD-free farm at least 90 days.

iii. Animals are tested (serological test) with

negative of FMDV.

iv. Animals are vaccinated with FMD vaccine at

least 30 days and no longer than 120 days. (*this

is not include in OIE code but include in DLD

regulation)

v. Surrounding area (10 km of farm) has no

outbreak within 90 days.

vi. Animals are transported with health certification

from veterinarians or support staff.

vii. Animals are transported in an appropriate

vehicle (clean, disinfection, no overload, and

sufficient bedding).

a. Interview

b. Field

observation

157


(movement control

implementation)





(7) Compliance of

movement control is

not monitored.


provide records of


if local officers fail to

follow movement

control protocol.


provide records of



and farmers fail to

follow report protocol.

a. They report that they have never kept records of

violators and punishment of private veterinarians

and farmers who are failure to follow movement

protocol.

a. Interview

(DVIQ,

AQS)

b. Review

records of

activities

(5) Response plan has not been appropriately implemented.


(response plan)





(1) Lack of

communication on

response plan


have never informed

local officers about the

response plan.


have never informed


about the response plan.


have never informed

farmers about the

response plan.


have never received

information about the

response plan from

national officers.


have never informed

district officers about

the response plan.


have never informed


about the response plan.


have never informed

farmers about the

response plan.


never receive


response plan from

national officers.


have never informed

district officers about

the response plan.


have never informed

farmers about the

response plan.


have never informed

farmers about the

response plan.

a. They report that

they have never

received

information about

the response plan

from officers.


have never received


response plan from

officers.

Questionnaire

158


(response plan)






response plan in the


other officers.




other officers.




other officers.

Interview


present record of

communication.

g. They are not able to

present record of

communication.


present record of

communication.

Field observation

(2) Officers do not

response or provide

inadequate response

when any suspected

cases is reported.


have never responded to

any notification i.e.

disease investigation,

sample collection.


have never informed


laboratory results.


have never informed

farmers of laboratory

results.


have never quarantined

suspected animals and

herds until laboratory

tests are confirmed.


have never reported the

quarantine to national

officers or above level.


have never informed

about a quarantine

release plan to private

veterinarians.


have never responded

to any notification i.e.

disease investigation,

sample collection.


have never informed


laboratory results.


have never informed

farmers of laboratory

results.


have never

quarantined suspected

animals and herds until

laboratory tests are

confirmed.


have never reported

the quarantine to

national officers or

above level.


have never informed

about a quarantine

a. They report that

DLD officers have

never responded to

their notification i.e.

disease

investigation,

sample collection.


have never received

laboratory results

from DLD officers.

c. They report that

DLD officers have

never quarantined

their client animals.

d. They report that

DLD officers have

never informed them

of a quarantine

release plan when

DLD officers

quarantine their

animals.

a. They report that DLD

officers have never

responded to their

notification i.e. disease

investigation, sample

collection.


have never received

laboratory results from

DLD officers.

c. They report that DLD

officers have never

quarantined their

animals.

d. They report that DLD

officers have never

informed them of a

quarantine release plan

when DLD officers

quarantine their

animals.

a. Questionnair

e

b. Collection

and analysis

existing data

159


(response plan)





g. They report that they

have never informed

about a quarantine

release plan to farmers.

release plan to private

veterinarians.


have never informed

about a quarantine

release plan to farmers.

(3) Record of positive

herds and/or animals

is not appropriate to

trace back to the

origin.


present the herd and

animal records.



animal records in their

responsibility areas.

b. They are unable to trace

back to the herds and

individual animals.



animal records in their

responsibility areas.

b. They are unable to trace

back to the herds and

individual animals.

a. Interview

b. Collection and

analysis

existing data

(4) There is no

quarantine when

positive animals are

found



animal(s) when animal(s)

are confirmed FMD

positive.



herds which include

positive animal(s)



animal(s) when

animal(s) are confirmed

FMD positive.



herds which include

positive animal(s)


officers have never

quarantined their

client’s animals or

herds when animals

are confirmed FMD

positive.


have never advised

their client to

quarantine animals or

herds following the

officer’s instructions.



their client to

quarantine animals or

herds following the

officer’s instructions.


officers have never

quarantined their

animals or herds when

animals are confirmed

FMD positive.



their animals or herds

following the officer’s

instructions.

Questionnaire

(5) Infected carcasses,

byproducts, and

material (fodder,

waste manure, and


have never disinfected

and disposed of infected

carcasses, bedding, and


have never disinfected

and disposed of infected

carcasses, bedding, and


officers have never

recommended them

the DLD protocol to


officers have never

recommended them the

DLD protocol to

Questionnaire

160


(response plan)





bedding) are not

adequately disposed.

material following the

DLD recommendations.

material following the

DLD recommendations.

disinfect and dispose

of infected carcasses,

by products, and

material.

disinfect and dispose of

infected carcasses, by

products, and material.

(6) Emergency vaccine is

not enough for

affected animals.

a. They report that the DLD

subsidize 80% or lower*

of emergency vaccine for

all susceptible animals in

their responsibility area

(80% is calculated from

the combination of free

vaccines and low cost

vaccines)


DLD subsidize 80% or

lower of emergency

vaccine for all

susceptible animals in

their responsibility area


DLD subsidize 80%

or lower of

emergency vaccine

for all susceptible

animals in their

client’s farms


DLD subsidize 80% or

lower of emergency

vaccine for all

susceptible animals in

their farms

Questionnaire

(7) Compensation is not

appropriate if infected

animals are

slaughtered during

outbreak.


have never

compensated to farmers

if animals are

slaughtered because of

FMD infection.



disagree that farmers

are satisfied with the

compensation of 75% of

estimated market price.

a. They report that farmers

have never received

compensation if animals

are slaughtered because

of FMD infection.



disagree that farmers are

satisfied with the



a. They report that farmers

have never received



of FMD infection.



disagree that farmers




a. They report that

their client have

never received

compensation if

animals are

slaughtered because

of FMD infection.



disagree that their

client are satisfied

with the

compensation of

75% of estimated

market price.


have never received



of FMD infection.



disagree that their client




a. Interview

b. Questionnaire

161


(response plan)





(8) Local officers and

farmers

inappropriately

restock new animals.


have never advised

farmers to clean

livestock pens before

introducing new

animals.



farmers to clean


introducing new

animals


have never advised

farmers to disinfect


introducing new

animals.





introducing new

animals.



those cleaning and

disinfection records

before introducing new

animals.


have never advised

farmers to wait at least

28 days after cleaning

and disinfection before


have never advised

farmers to clean


introducing new

animals.



farmers to clean


introducing new

animals


have never advised



introducing new

animals.





introducing new

animals.



those cleaning and

disinfection records

before introducing new

animals.


have never advised






and advised their

client to clean and

disinfect farms before

introducing new

animals.



and advised their

client to wait at least


and disinfection

before introducing

new animals.


have never traced

back to the origins of

introduced animals

that are from FMD-

negative herds.


have never checked

all introduced animals

that are confirmed

FMD negative.


have never received

an official permit for

introducing new

animals to the herds.


have never cleaned and

disinfected farms before

introducing new

animals.


have never waited at

least 28 days after

cleaning and

disinfection before

introducing new

animals.


have never traced back

to the origins of

introduced animals that

are from FMD-negative

herds.


have never checked all


are confirmed FMD

negative.



official permit for

introducing new

animals to the herds.

Questionnaire

162


(response plan)





introducing new

animals.






introducing new

animals.

h. They report that they


to the origins of



herds.

i. They report that they

have never required

FMD-negative

laboratory results of all

introduced animals.

introducing new

animals.






introducing new

animals.

h. They report that they


to the origins of



herds.


have never required

FMD-negative

laboratory results of all

introduced animals.

163

APPENDIX 5.

Questionnaire for farmers

(Translated version for the IRB approval, the original questionnaire was in Thai language)

To whom it may concern,

I am Dr. Naree Ketusing, a PhD student at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, and I am conducting a research project

on “Assessment or Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) control policy and its implementation in the proposed FMD free zone in Thailand”.

The purpose of this study is to identify gaps in the policy and its implementation in the proposed FMD-free zone as well as to propose

recommendations for Thailand to improve the system so as to satisfy international requirements for recognition as an FMD-free zone.

Because you are considered a stakeholder who may or may not be affected by this policy, your feedback and comments are valuable for

this project. I would like to ask your voluntary participation in responding to this questionnaire. This questionnaire includes 9 sections.

Section 1: Screening question

Section 2: Surveillance, report of suspected cases, and response to report

Section 3: Prevention

Section 4: Animal movement control

Section 5: Disease control after FMD positive was confirmed

Section 6: Compensation

Section 7: Repopulation

Section 8: Government services and communication

Section 9: Participation in individual interview, background information, and comments

Total time for this survey will be no longer than 20 minutes. Results of this study will be included in a PhD dissertation, published, and

shared to the Department of Livestock Development (DLD) to propose recommendations for Thailand to improve the system so as to

satisfy international requirements for recognition as an FMD-free zone.

This survey is voluntary and limited to people 18 years of age and older. Please be ensured that your participation will be completely

confidential as your names will not be collected or used in analyzing data or presenting finding.

Should you have any questions, concerns, or comments related to this research topic, you may contact the co-investigator, Dr. Naree

Ketusing at [email protected]

Should you have any questions or concerns about your rights as a research subject, you may contact the VT IRB Chair, Dr. David M.

Moore at [email protected]

Thank you for your time and cooperation.

Section 1: Screening

1.1 I ……………………….

(1) Agree to participate in this study *go to section 2

(2) Do not agree to participate in this study *end of survey (system will direct to exist page)


*please recall the activities related to FMD control during past 3 year *

2.1 I observe animal health status daily.

(1) Never

(2) 1-2 times during past 3 years

(3) 1-2 times a year

(4) >2 times a year

(5) Always

2.2 I have noticed Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) suspected cases in my farm.

(1) Never *go to section 3



(4) > 2 times a year

(5) I don’t know what FMD suspected cases look like

*go to section 3

2.3 Please rate the following statement *please recall the activities related to FMD control during past 3 year *

Question Never

(1)

1-2 times

during past

3 years (2)

1-2

times /

year (3)

>2

times /

year (4)

Always

(5)

I notify the Department of Livestock Development (DLD) officers within 12

hours if I noticed FMD suspects.

mailto:[email protected]


164

Question Never

(1)

1-2 times

during past

3 years (2)

1-2

times /

year (3)

>2

times /

year (4)

Always

(5)

The DLD officers conduct disease investigation after I notify them of any

suspected cases.

During disease investigation, the DLD officers collected and submitted tissue

or blood samples to the DLD’s laboratories.

The DLD officers informed me about laboratory results of the sample

collection mentioned above.

The DLD officers quarantined my individual animal (s) until laboratory results

were confirmed negative.

The DLD officers quarantined my herd(s) until laboratory results were

confirmed FMD negative.

After the DLD officers quarantined animals/herds, the DLD officers informed

me about the requirements to release quarantine.

2.4 please specify your reason for not to report the DLD within 12 hours………………….

2.5 How did The DLD officers inform you to quarantine FMD suspected “animals or herds”?

(1) Personal communication

(2) Official letter

(3) The DLD officers never inform me when they quarantine FMD suspected animals or herds.

(4) The DLD officers never quarantine FMD suspected animals or herds.


3.1 Please rate the following statement *please recall the activities related to FMD control during past 3 year*

Question

Never

(1)

1-2 times

during past

3 years (2)

1-2

times /

year (3)

>2

times /

year (4)

Alway

s (5)

1 I keep records of all vehicles entering farms.

2 I keep records of all visitors.

3 I disinfect all vehicles before entering farms.

4 I require all visitors follow biosecurity procedures before entering

farms. (for example: change cloth, boots, showering)

5 I clean livestock pens before introducing new livestock.

6 I keep records of livestock pens cleaning.

7 I disinfect livestock pens before introducing new livestock.

8 I keep records of livestock pens disinfection.

9 I wait at least 5 days after cleaning and disinfection before introducing new

livestock.

10 I know that all introduced animals are from FMD-negative herds.

11 I require FMD-negative laboratory results of all introduced animals.

12 I isolate new introduced animals for at least 28 days.

13 My animals have been FMD vaccinated (during past 3 year).

14 I keep those vaccination records.

15 The DLD subsidizes FMD vaccines for my animals.

3.2 Are FMD vaccines subsidized by the DLD (that is, free vaccines) sufficiently available for all livestock in your farms? (Please rate

the percentages of livestock received the DLD vaccine)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

3.3 Are FMD vaccines subsidized by the DLD (low cost vaccines) sufficiently available for all livestock in your farms? (Please rate the

percentages of livestock received the DLD vaccine)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

165

3.4 How do you clean and disinfect animal pens? (Please select all relevant terms)

(1) Cleaning with water

(2) Cleaning with soap or detergent

(3) Chemical disinfection, please give an example of disinfection ……………………………………………………

(4) Other, please specify…………………….

3.5 How do you clean and disinfect vehicles? (Please select all relevant terms)





3.6 What biosecurity measure do you apply to visitors? (Please select all relevant terms)

(1) Shower before entering farms

(2) Provide and change clothes (farms used only)

(3) Provide and change shoes or boots (farms used only)

(4) Dipping shoes or boots with disinfectants before entering farms

(5) Restricted area for visitors (separate from farm area)



*please recall the activities related to FMD control during past 3 year*

4.1 My animal(s) have been transported to other provinces.

(1) Never… go to 4.3


(3) 1-2 times / year

(4) 1-2 times / 6 months


(6) Every month


Question

Never

(1)

1-2 times

during past

3 years (2)

1-2

times /

year (3)

>2

times /

year (4)

Alway

s (5)

Not

sure

(6)

I clean vehicles before loading animal(s).

I keep vehicle cleaning records.

Before movement of animals, I submit an application form for a

movement permit to the DLD officers.

I receive animal movement permits from the DLD officers before I

transport animals.

After receiving a movement permit, the DLD officers visit farms and

observe animal health status during loading animals on vehicles.

The DLD officers monitor all vehicles for sufficient bedding to absorb

urine and dropping.

After loading animals on vehicles, I disinfect the vehicles.

I keep vehicle disinfection records.

The DLD officers monitor records of vehicle cleaning and disinfection.

During animal transportation and stops at the animal quarantine station,

the DLD officers (at animal quarantine station) observe animal health

status.

During animal transportation and stops at the animal quarantine station,

the DLD officers (at animal quarantine station) disinfect vehicles that

are used for animal transportation.

I clean vehicles after unloading animals.

I keep those cleaning records.

4.3 The animal identification is able to identify animal origins (inside and outside of the proposed FMD-free zone).

(1) Strongly disagree

(2) Disagree

(3) Neither disagree nor agree

(4) Agree

(5) Strongly agree

166



5.1 Serum sample have been collected and tested to monitor FMD status on my farms.

(1) Never *go to question 5.3


(3) Every year

(4) Every 6 month

(5) Every 3 month

(6) Every month

5.2 I received those laboratory results.

(1) Never



(4) > 2 times / year

(5) Always

5.3 My livestock have been confirmed as FMD positive.





(5) Always


Question

Never

(1)

1-2 times

during past

3 years (2)

1-2

times /

year (3)

>2

times /

year (4)

Alway

s (5)

The DLD officers quarantined my animals when they were confirmed FMD

positive.

The DLD officers quarantined my herd when it included positive cases.

I follow the DLD officers’ instructions regarding quarantine requirements.

The DLD subsidized emergency vaccines to control FMD outbreak in my

farms. **if never is selected, go to question 5.7

5.5 Are emergency vaccines subsidized by the DLD (that is, free vaccines) sufficiently available for all susceptible livestock in my

farms? (Please rate the percentages of livestock received the DLD vaccine)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

5.6 Are emergency vaccines subsidized by the DLD (low cost vaccines) sufficiently available for all susceptible livestock in my farms?

(Please rate the percentages of livestock received the DLD vaccine)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

5.7 FMD positive animals in my farms have been slaughtered.

(1) Yes

(2) No *go to section 8_ Government services and communication

(3) Not sure

5.8 FMD exposed animals in my farms have been slaughtered.

(1) Yes

(2) No *go to section 8_ Government services and communication

(3) Not sure

Section 6: Compensation (Display this section if 5.7 or 5.8 are not select “no”)


Question Never

(1) Rarely (2) Sometimes (3)

Very often

(4)

Always

(5)

6.1 I receive compensation if my animals were

slaughtered for FMD.

Question

Strongly

disagree

(1)

Disagree (2)

Neither agree

nor disagree

(3)

Agree (4)

Strongl

y agree

(5)

6.2 I am satisfied with the compensation (75% of

estimated market price).

167



7.1 Please rate the following statement

Question

Never

(1)

1-2 times

during past

3 years (2)

1-2

times /

year (3)

>2

times /

year (4)

Alway

s (5)

I clean livestock pens before introducing new livestock.

I disinfect livestock pens before introducing new livestock.

I wait at least 28 days after cleaning and disinfection before introducing new

livestock.

I know that the origins of introduced livestock that are from FMD-negative

herds.

I require FMD-negative laboratory results of all introduced livestock.

I receive official permits allowing importation of new livestock to premises.

7.2 Please rate the percentage of each the following statements (How much? How many time?)

(1) I receive official permits allowing importation of new livestock to premises.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

(2) I inform private veterinarian (who looks after my farm) of when I received official permits allowing importation of new livestock to

their premises.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


8.1 Please rate the following statement*please recall the activities related to FMD control during past 3 year*

Question

Never

(1)

1-2 times

during past

3 years (2)

1-2

times /

year (3)

3-4

times /

year (4)

>4

times /

year (5)

1 The DLD officers observed livestock health in my farm(s).

2

The DLD officers informed me when I should notify them of FMD suspected

or FMD cases.

3

The DLD officers informed me about FMD surveillance findings in the

proposed FMD-free zone.

4

The DLD officers informed me about type of vaccine, vaccine adjuvant,

vaccine strain, and vaccine interval that should apply to my livestock.

5

The DLD officers informed me about the relevant of virus strain at field level

and vaccine used. (vaccine-matching test )

6

The DLD officers informed me about the post-vaccination evaluation reports.

7 The DLD officers informed me about movement control protocol.

8 The DLD officers informed me about the disposal and disinfection protocol.

9

The DLD officers informed me about response plan when animals were

confirmed with FMD positive.

10

The DLD officers provided me with training on preparedness and response

plans.

8.2 How did The DLD officers inform you about information mentioned above? (Please select all that apply) skip this question if you

never received any information from The DLD officers

(1) Stakeholders meeting

(2) Official letter


(4) Online posting via official website

(5) Other, please specify …………………

8.3 I can easily access the national FMD disease analysis report.


(2) Disagree


(4) Agree

(5) Strongly agree

(6) I don’t know

168

8.4 I can easily access the regional FMD disease analysis report.


(2) Disagree


(4) Agree

(5) Strongly agree

(6) I don’t know

8.5 When I use an FMD vaccine, I am sure that the vaccine has been selected based on the FMD virus field strain.


(2) Disagree


(4) Agree

(5) Strongly agree

(6) I don’t know

Section 9: Participation in individual interview, background information, and comments

9.1 Will you agree to participate in individual interview if the researcher needs more information?

(1) Yes, please specify your email……………………

(2) No

9.2 How long have you had experience with farming?

(3) 5 years

(4) 5-10 years

(5) > 10 years

9.3 What species do you farm? (Please select all that apply)

(1) Swine

(2) Dairy cattle

(3) Beef cattle

(4) Sheep

(5) Goat

(6) Other, please specify………….......

9.4 How many total livestock on your farm?

(1) < 10

(2) 10 - 30

(3) 31 to <50

(4) 50 - 500

(5) > 500 – 5000

(6) > 5000

9.5 Where is your farm located? (Please select all that apply)

(1) Chonburi province

(2) Rayong province

(3) Chantaburi province

(4) Trat province

(5) Chachengsao province

(6) Sa-keaw province

(7) Prachinburi province

9.6 Are your farms certified for biosecurity by the Department of Livestock Development (DLD)?

(1) Yes (2) No

9.7 I familiar with FMD

(1) Not at all

(2) Slightly familiar

(3) Somewhat familiar

(4) Moderately familiar

(5) Extremely familiar

9.7 Gender

(1) Male

(2) Female

9.8 Age group

(1) 18 - 25

(2) 26 - 35

(3) 36 - 45

(4) 46 - 55

(5) > 55

9.9 Highest education

(1) Lower than high school

(2) High school

(3) Associate degree

(4) Bachelor degree

(5) Higher than bachelor degree

(6) Other, please specify

9.10 Comments

169

APPENDIX 6.

Questionnaires for private veterinarians

(Translated version for IRB approval, the original questionnaire will be in Thai language)


I am Dr. Naree Ketusing, a PhD student at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University and I am conducting a research project on

“Assessment or Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) control policy and its implementation in the proposed FMD free zone in Thailand”.

The purpose of this study is to identify gaps in Thailand’s Foot and Mouth Disease control policy and its implementation in the

proposed FMD-free zone as well as to propose recommendations for Thailand to improve the system so as to satisfy international

requirements for recognition as an FMD-free zone.



Section 1: Screening questions

Section 2: Surveillance, report of suspected cases, and response



Section 5: Disease control after FMD positive is confirmed




Section 9: Participation in individual interview and comments


will be shared with the Department of Livestock Development (DLD) to propose recommendations for Thailand to improve the system

so as to satisfy international requirements for recognition as an FMD-free zone.








Section 1: Screening questions 1.1 I ……………………….

(1) Agree to participate in this study *go to 1.2

(2) Do not agree to participate in this study *end of questionnaire (system will direct to an exit page)

1.2 I work……………………….

(1) At provinces inside the proposed Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) free zone

(2) At provinces outside the proposed FMD-free zone but my work is relevant to provinces in the proposed FMD-free zone

(3) My work is not relevant to provinces in the proposed FMD-free zone *end of questionnaire (system will direct to an exit

page)


*please recall the activities related to FMD control during the past three years *

2.1 I observe my client’s animal health status for clinical signs of FMD.

(1) Never

(2) 1-2 times during the past three years


(4) >2 times a year

(5) Every month

2.2 I noticed suspected cases of FMD in farms belonging to my clients.




(4) >2 times a year

(5) I don’t know what FMD suspected cases look like

*go to section 2.6



170

2.3 Please respond to each of the following statements *please recall the activities related to FMD control during the past three years*

Question Never

(1)

1-2 times

during the

past three

yearๆs (2)

1-2

times /

year (3)

>2

times /

year (4)

Always

(5)

I notify the Department of Livestock Development (DLD) officers within 12

hours if I noticed FMD suspects.

The DLD officers conduct disease investigation after I notify them of any

suspected cases.

During disease investigation, the DLD officers collected and submitted tissue

or blood samples to the DLD’s laboratories.

The DLD officers informed me about laboratory results of the sample

collection mentioned above.

The DLD officers quarantined my clients’ individual animal (s) until


The DLD officers quarantined my clients’ herd(s) until laboratory results were

confirmed negative.

After the DLD officers quarantined animals/herds, the DLD officers informed

me about the quarantine release plan.

2.4 Please tell us why you did not notify FMD suspected cases to DLD officers (additional)

2.5 How did the DLD officers inform you that they have quarantined your client’s suspected (individual) animal or herds?


(2) Official letter

(3) The DLD officers never inform me or my clients when they quarantine suspected (individual) animal or herds.

(4) The DLD officers never quarantine suspected livestock or herds.


Question

Never

(1)

1-2 times

during the

past three

years (2)

1-2

times /

year (3)

>2

times /

year (4)

Alway

s (5)

When I notice or my client informs me of any suspected cases, I collect blood

or tissue samples.

I submit those samples to the DLD’s laboratories.

I submit those samples to private laboratories.

I inform the DLD officers if I have submitted those samples to a private

laboratory.

I receive laboratory results of the sample collection mentioned above.



Question

Never

(1)

1-2 times

during the

past three

years (2)

1-2

times /

year (3)

>2

times /

year (4)

Always

(monthly)

(5)

I advise my clients to keep records of all vehicles entering their farms.

I monitor records of vehicles entering farms.

I advise my clients to keep records of visitors.

I monitor records of visitors.

I advise my clients to disinfect vehicles before entering farms.

I monitor whether my clients disinfect vehicles before entering farms.

I advise my clients to follow biosecurity procedures for all visitors before

entering farms. (for example: change cloth, boots, showering)

I monitor my clients to see if they follow biosecurity procedures for all

visitors before entering farms.

171

Question

Never

(1)

1-2 times

during the

past three

years (2)

1-2

times /

year (3)

>2

times /

year (4)

Always

(monthly)

(5)

I advise my clients to clean livestock pens before introducing new livestock.

I advise my clients to keep records of livestock pens cleaning.

I monitor cleaning records of livestock pens.

I advise my clients to disinfect livestock pens before introducing new

livestock.

I advise my clients to keep records of livestock pens disinfection.

I monitor disinfection records of livestock pens.

I advise my clients to wait at least 5 days after cleaning and disinfection

before introducing new livestock.

I monitor that all livestock are introduced at least 5 days after cleaning and

disinfection.

I advise my clients that all introduced livestock should originate from FMD-

negative herds.

I monitor all introduced livestock are obtained FMD-negative laboratory

results.

I advise my clients to isolate introduced livestock for at least 28 days.

I monitor to see if all introduced livestock are isolated for at least 28 days.

I advise my clients to do FMD vaccination.

I advise my clients to keep FMD vaccination records.

I monitor FMD vaccination records.

The DLD subsidizes FMD vaccines for my clients’ livestock.

3.2 Are FMD vaccines subsidized by the DLD (that is, free vaccines) sufficiently available for all livestock in your clients’ farms?

(Please rate the percentages of livestock received the DLD vaccine)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

3.3 Are FMD vaccines subsidized by the DLD (low cost vaccines) sufficiently available for all livestock in your clients’ farms? (Please

rate the percentages of livestock received the DLD vaccine))

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

3.4 How do you advise your clients to clean and disinfect livestock pens? (Please select all relevant terms)





3.5 How do you advise your clients to clean and disinfect vehicles? (Please select all relevant terms)





3.6 What biosecurity measures do you advise your clients to use with visitors? (Please select all that apply)

(1) Shower before entering farms

(2) Provide and change clothes (farms used only)

(3) Provide and change shoes or boots (farms used only)

(4) Dip shoes or boots with disinfectants before entering the farm

(5) Restricts area for visitors (separate from farm area)



*please recall the activities related to FMD control during the past three years*

4.1 Livestock in my clients’ farms have been transported to other provinces.

(1) Never….. go to 4.3





(6) Every month

172


Question

Never

(1)

1-2 times

during the

past three

years (2)

1-2

times /

year (3)

>2

times /

year (4)

Alway

s (5)

I advise my clients to clean vehicles before loading animal(s).

I advise my clients to keep vehicle cleaning records.

I monitor vehicle cleaning records.

I monitor all vehicles for sufficient bedding to absorb urine and droppings.

Animal movement permits are obtained before animals are transported to other

provinces.

After receiving a movement permit, the DLD officers visit farms and observe

animal health status during loading animals on vehicles.

The DLD officers monitor all vehicles for sufficient bedding to absorb urine and

droppings.

After loading livestock on vehicles, I advise my clients to disinfect the vehicles.

I advise my clients to keep vehicle disinfection records.

I monitor vehicle disinfection records.

The DLD officers monitor the vehicle cleaning and disinfection records before

allowing animals movement.

I advise my clients to clean vehicles after unloading livestock.

I advise my clients to keep those cleaning records.

I monitor those cleaning records.

4.3 Animal identification is able to identify animal origins (inside and outside of the proposed FMD-free zone).


(2) Disagree


(4) Agree

(5) Strongly agree



5.1 Serological surveillance is conducted to monitor FMD status on my clients’ farms.

(1) Never *go to section 5.3


(3) Every year

(4) Every 6 months

(5) Every 3 months

(6) Every month

5.2 I received those laboratory results.

(1) Never




(5) Always

5.3 My clients’ livestock have been confirmed as FMD positive.


(2) 1-2 clients during the past three years

(3) 1-2 clients / year

(4) > 2 clients / year

(5) Always


Question

Never

(1)

1-2 times

during the

past three

years (2)

1-2

times /

year (3)

>2

times /

year (4)

Alway

s (5)

The DLD officers quarantined my clients’ individual animals when they were

confirmed FMD positive.

The DLD officers quarantined my clients’ herd when it included positive

cases.

I advised my clients to follow the DLD officers’ instructions regarding


I monitored that my clients followed the DLD officers’ instructions regarding


The DLD subsidized emergency vaccines to control FMD outbreaks in my

clients’ farms.*

*if never is selected, go to question 5.7

173


clients’ farms? (Please rate the percentages of livestock received the DLD vaccine)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

5.6 Are emergency vaccines subsidized by the DLD (low cost vaccines) sufficiently available for all susceptible livestock in my clients’

farms? (Please rate the percentages of livestock received the DLD vaccine)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

5.7 FMD positive animals owned by my clients are slaughtered.

(1) Yes

(2) No

(3) Not sure

5.8 FMD exposed animals owned by my clients are slaughtered.

(1) Yes

(2) No

(3) Not sure

Section 6: Compensation (Display this section if 5.7 or 5.8 are not select “no”)


Question Never

(1) Rarely (2) Sometimes (3)

Very often

(4)

Always

(5)

6.1 My clients receive compensation when their livestock

were slaughtered for FMD.

Question

Strongly

disagree

(1)

Disagree (2)

Neither agree

nor disagree

(3)

Agree (4) Strongly

agree (5)

6.2 My clients are satisfied with the compensation they

receive (75% of estimated market price).

Section 7: Repopulation *please recall the activities related to FMD control during the past three years*

7.1 Please respond to each of the following statements

Question

Never

(1)

1-2 times

during the

past three

years (2)

1-2

times /

year (3)

>2

times /

year (4)

Alway

s (5)

I advise my clients to clean farms before introducing new livestock.

I monitor that my clients clean farms before introducing new livestock.

I advise that my clients disinfect farms before introducing new livestock.

I monitor that my clients disinfect farms before introducing new livestock.

I advise my clients to wait at least 28 days after cleaning and disinfection


I monitor that my clients wait at least 28 days after cleaning and disinfection


I know that the origins of introduced livestock that are from FMD-negative

herds.

I recommend FMD-negative laboratory results for all introduced livestock.

7.2 Please rate the percentage of each the following statements (How much? How many time?)

(1) My clients receive official permits allowing importation of new livestock to premises.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

(2) My clients inform me when they received official permits allowing importation of new livestock to their premises.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

174



Question

Never

(1)

1-2 times

during the

past three

years (2)

1-2

times /

year (3)

3-4

times /

year (4)

>4

times /

year (5)

The DLD officers observed livestock health in my clients’ farms.

The DLD officers informed me when I should notify them of FMD suspects

or FMD cases.

The DLD officers informed me about FMD surveillance findings in the


The DLD officers informed me about vaccine strategy2.

The DLD officers informed me about the post-vaccination evaluation

reports.

The DLD officers informed me about movement control protocol.

The DLD officers informed me about the disposal and disinfection protocol.

The DLD officers informed me about response plan when livestock were


The DLD officers provided me with training on preparedness and response

plans.

8.2 How did The DLD officers inform you about the information mentioned above (on questions of 8.1)? (Please select all that apply)

skip this question if you never received any information from The DLD officers


(2) Official letter




8.3 When I use an FMD vaccine, I am sure that the vaccine has been selected based on the FMD virus field strain.


(2) Disagree


(4) Agree

(5) Strongly agree

(6) I don’t know

8.4 I can easily access the national FMD status report.


(2) Disagree


(4) Agree

(5) Strongly agree

(6) I don’t know

8.5 I can easily access the regional FMD status report.


(2) Disagree


(4) Agree

(5) Strongly agree

(6) I don’t know


9.1 What is your employment type?

(1) Veterinarian employed by company farms or contracted farms

(2) Veterinarian consultant

(3) Technical sale or sale supplier

(4) Other, please specify ………………………..

9.2 What is your area of expertise/ species? (Please select all that apply)

(1) Swine

(2) Dairy cattle

(3) Beef cattle

(4) Sheep

(5) Goat

(6) Other, please specify …………...............

9.3 I am a DLD accredited veterinarian of ……………………. (Please select all that apply)

(1) Swine

(2) Dairy cattle

(3) Beef cattle

(4) Sheep

2 Concerning type of vaccine & adjuvant, the species included, vaccine strain, and vaccine interval

(5) Goat

(6) Other, please specify …………...............

(7) I am not an accredited veterinarian

175

9.4 How long have you had experience working with Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD)?

(1) <5 years

(2) 5-10 years

(3) > 10 years

9.5 How often have the DLD officers trained you to do sample collection and submission for FMD diagnosis?

(1) Never


(3) Once a year

(4) Every 6 months

(5) Every 3 months

9.6 When was your last training related to FMD?

(1) < 1 year

(2) 1-2 years

(3) 3-5 years

(4) 6-10 years

(5) > 10 years

(6) Never been trained

9.7 Are you?

(1) Male (2) Female

9.8 Age group

(1) < 30

(2) 30 - 40

(3) 41 - 50

(4) 51 – 60

(5) > 60

9.9 Are you interested in participating in an individual interview if the researcher needs more information?

(1) Yes, please specify your email……………………

(2) No

9.10 Comments

176

APPENDIX 7.

Questionnaires for local officers

(Translated version for the IRB approval, the original questionnaire will be in Thai language)


I am Dr. Naree Ketusing, a PhD student at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, and I am conducting a research project

on “Assessment or Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) control policy and its implementation in the proposed FMD free zone in Thailand”.

The purpose of this study is to identify gaps in the policy and its implementation in the proposed FMD-free zone as well as to propose

recommendations for Thailand to improve the system so as to satisfy international requirements for recognition as an FMD-free zone.



Section 1: Screening questions


Section 3: Vaccination program





Section 8: Communication from the national officers

Section 9: Communication from provincial officers

Section 10: Communication to district officers (This section for provincial livestock officers)

Section 11: Communication to private veterinarians (This section for all local officers)

Section 12: Communication to farmers (This section for all local officers)



shared to the Department of Livestock Development (DLD) to propose recommendations for Thailand to improve the system so as to

satisfy international requirements for recognition as an FMD-free zone.








Section 1: Screening questions 1.1 I ……………………….

(1) Agree to participate in this study

(2) Do not agree to participate in this study *end of questionnaire (system will direct to an exit page)

1.2 I am working for……………………….

(1) Provincial livestock office (animal health control section)

(2) Provincial livestock office (Livestock product promotion section)

(3) District livestock office

(4) Animal quarantine station

(5) Dairy Herd Health Unit (DHHU)

(6) Other, please specify ……………………………………



177

Section 2: Surveillance, reporting of suspected cases, and response to the reports (Display this section if animal quarantine station is not selected)

*please recall the activities related to FMD control during past 3 year *

2.1 I observe animal health status for clinical signs of FMD in my responsibility area.




(4) >2 times a year

(5) Every month

2.2 I visit farms…….

(1) Routinely in order to observe animal health status (please specify how often you visit farms………………………….)

(2) Only when farmers call and need help.

(3) Only when I need to conduct national FMD surveillance program.

(4) Only when I need to conduct national FMD vaccination program.

(5) Other, please specify ………………

(6) Never visit farm

2.3 I receive a notification of FMD suspected cases in my responsibility area.

(1) Never



(4) >2 times a year

(5) Every month

2.4 I found FMD suspected cases in my responsibility area.




(4) >2 times a year

(5) Every month


Question Never

(1)

1-2 times

during past

3 years (2)

1-2

times /

year (3)

>2

times /

year (4)

Alway

s (5)

I notify the national officers or above level officers within 24 hours if I noticed

or received any notification of FMD suspected case.

I conduct disease investigation when I received a notification of FMD suspected

cases.

I collect tissue or blood samples of FMD suspected cases.

I inform private veterinarians about laboratory results of the sample collection

mentioned above.

I inform farmers about laboratory results of the sample collection mentioned

above.

I quarantine suspected animal(s) until laboratory results were confirmed

negative.

I quarantine suspected herd(s) until laboratory results were confirmed negative.

I report the quarantine to the national or above level.

I inform private veterinarians of requirements to release quarantine (quarantine

release plan).

I inform farmers of requirements to release quarantine (quarantine release plan).

2.6 How did you inform private veterinarians regarding the quarantine of suspected “animals or herds”?


(2) Official letter

(3) I never inform them when I quarantine suspected animal(s) or herd(s).

(4) I never quarantine any suspected animal(s) or herd(s).

2.7 How did you inform farmers regarding the quarantine of suspected “animals or herds”?


(2) Official letter

(3) I never inform them when I quarantine suspected animal(s) or herd(s).


178

2.8 How did you report the quarantine to the national or above level?


(2) Official letter

(3) I never report to above level.


Section 3: Vaccination program (Display this section if animal quarantine station is not selected)

3.1 What kinds of animal species are included in the national FMD vaccination campaign? (Please select all that apply).

(1) Swine

(2) Beef cattle

(3) Dairy cattle

(4) Sheep

(5) Goat

(6) Other, please specify

……………………………………


Question Never

(1)

1-2 times

during past

3 years (2)

1-2

times /

year (3)

>2

times /

year (4)

Alway

s (5)

I monitor FMD vaccination program conducted following the national FMD


I conduct FMD vaccination following the national FMD vaccination campaign.

I keep those vaccination records (herd level).

I keep those vaccination records (animal level).

I keep records of vaccine cold-chain while vaccines are stored in cold storage.

Serum samples are collected (to monitor sero-conversion), after I conduct the

national FMD vaccination campaign.

3.3 How long after you conduct a vaccination program and then collect serum samples to monitor sero-conversion?

(1) Less than a month

(2) 1-3 month after vaccination

(3) 4-6 month after vaccination

(4) More than 6 months after vaccination

(5) Not sure

3.4 What is temperature that you store vaccines?

(1) < 0 C (I keep vaccine in freezer)

(2) 2-8 C

(3) 8-12 C

(4) 12-25 C

(5) > 25 C

(6) Not sure

3.5 The Bureau of Veterinary Biologic (BVB) did random testing of vaccine stability after the BVB distributed vaccine to my office.

(1) Never



(4) > 2 times a year

(5) I don’t know



4.1 All animals transport to other provinces need animal movement permits.


(8) Disagree


(10) Agree

(11) Strongly agree

(12) Not sure


(Display this section if animal quarantine station and DHHU is not selected)

Question

Never

(1)

1-2 times

during past

3 years (2)

1-2

times /

year (3)

>2

times /

year (4)

Alway

s (5)

Before animal(s) are transported to other provinces, I observed animal health

status during loading animals.

Before animal(s) are transported to other provinces, I monitored records of

cleaning and disinfection of vehicles that are used for animal transportation.

179

Question

Never

(1)

1-2 times

during past

3 years (2)

1-2

times /

year (3)

>2

times /

year (4)

Alway

s (5)

Before animal(s) are transported to other provinces, I observed animal health

status during loading animals.

Before animal(s) are transported to other provinces, I monitored all vehicles

for sufficient bedding to absorb urine and dropping.

When animal(s) are transported into my responsible area, I observed animal

health status during unloading animals.


(Display this section if animal quarantine station is selected)

Question

Never

(1)

1-2 times

during past

3 years (2)

1-2

times /

year (3)

>2

times /

year (4)

Alway

s (5)

I observe animal health status while all vehicles are passed my station.

I monitor all vehicles for sufficient bedding to absorb urine and dropping.

I disinfect all vehicles that are used for animal transportation while they are

passed my station.

I keep vehicle disinfection records.

4.4 The animal identification is able to identify animal origins (inside and outside of the proposed FMD-free zone).


(2) Disagree


(4) Agree

(5) Strongly agree

Section 5: Disease control after FMD positive was confirmed *please recall the activities related to FMD control during past 3 year*

(Display this section if animal quarantine station and DHHU is not selected)

5.1 I conduct serological surveillance to monitor FMD status in my responsibility area.

(1) Never * go to question 5.3




(5) Always

5.2 I receive laboratory results.

(1) Never




(5) Always

5.3 Animals in my responsible area are confirmed as FMD positive.





(5) Always


Question

Never

(1)

1-2 times

during past

3 years (2)

1-2

times /

year (3)

>2

times /

year (4)

Alway

s (5)

I quarantine animal(s) when they are confirmed FMD positive.

I quarantine herd(s) when it include positive cases.

I advise farmers to disinfect and disposal infected carcasses, bedding, and

material following the DLD recommendation.

I monitor farmers that they follow the DLD recommendation of disinfect and

disposal infected carcasses, bedding, and material.

After FMD positive confirmation, I vaccinate all susceptible animals

surrounding the index case (5km radius).


responsibility area? (Please rate the percentages of livestock received the DLD vaccine)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

180

5.6 Are emergency vaccines subsidized by the DLD (low cost vaccines) sufficiently available for all susceptible livestock in my

responsibility area? (Please rate the percentages of livestock received the DLD vaccine)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

5.7 FMD positive animal(s) in my responsibility area have been slaughtered.

(4) Yes

(5) No

(6) Not sure

5.8 FMD exposed animal(s) in my responsibility area have been slaughtered.

(1) Yes

(2) No

(3) Not sure

Section 6: Compensation (Display this section if 5.7 and 5.8 are not select “no”) and (Display this section if animal quarantine station

and DHHU are not selected)


6.1 Farmers in my responsibility area receive compensation when their livestock were slaughtered for FMD.

(1) Never

(2) Rarely

(3) Sometimes

(4) Very often

(5) Always

6.2 Farmers are satisfied with the compensation (75% of estimated market price).


(2) Disagree


(4) Agree

(5) Strongly agree

Section 7: Repopulation (Display this section if 5.7 and 5.8 are not select “no”) and (Display this section if animal quarantine station

is not selected)


Question

Never

(1)

1-2 times

during past

3 years (2)

1-2

times /

year (3)

>2

times /

year (4)

Alway

s (5)

I advise farmers to clean livestock pens before introducing new livestock.

I monitor farmers to clean livestock pens before introducing new livestock.

I advise farmers to disinfect livestock before introducing new livestock.

I monitor farmers to disinfect livestock before introducing new livestock.

I monitor those cleaning and disinfection records before allow new animals

introduction.

I advise farmers to wait at least 28 days after cleaning and disinfection

before introducing new animals.

I monitor farmers to wait at least 28 days after cleaning and disinfection

before introducing new animals.

I trace back to the origins of introduced animals that are from FMD-negative

herds.

I require FMD-negative laboratory results of all introduced animals.

Section 8: Communication from the national officers (This section for provincial livestock officers, animal quarantine officers,

and DHHU)


Question

Never

(1)

1-2 times

during past

3 years (2)

1-2

times /

year (3)

3-4

times /

year (4)

>4

times /

year (5)

The national officers inform me when I should notify them of FMD suspects

or FMD cases.

181

Question

Never

(1)

1-2 times

during past

3 years (2)

1-2

times /

year (3)

3-4

times /

year (4)

>4

times /

year (5)

The national officers inform me about FMD surveillance findings in the


The national officers inform me about vaccine strategy3.

The national officers inform me about results of vaccine-matching tests.

The national officers inform me about the post-vaccination evaluation

reports.

The national officers inform me about movement control protocol.

The national officers inform me about the disposal and disinfection protocol.

The national officers inform me about response plan when animals were


The national officers provide me with training on preparedness and response

plans.

8.2 How did the national officers inform you about information mentioned in question 8.1? (Please select all that apply)

Skip this question if you never received any information from the officers

(6) Town hall meeting

(7) Official letter






(2) Disagree


(4) Agree

(5) Strongly agree

(6) I don’t know



(8) Disagree


(10) Agree

(11) Strongly agree

(12) I don’t know

Section 9: Communication from provincial officers (This section for district livestock officers)


Question

Never

(1)

1-2 times

during past

3 years (2)

1-2

times /

year (3)

3-4

times /

year (4)

>4

times /

year (5)

The provincial officers inform me when I should notify them of FMD

suspects or FMD cases.

The provincial officers inform me about FMD surveillance findings in the


The provincial officers inform me about vaccine strategy4.

The provincial officers inform me about results of vaccine-matching tests.

The provincial officers inform me about the post-vaccination evaluation

reports.

The provincial officers inform me about movement control protocol.

The provincial officers inform me about the disposal and disinfection

protocol.

The provincial officers inform me about response plan when animals were


The provincial officers or above level provide me with training on

preparedness and response plans.

9.2 How did the provincial officers inform you about information mentioned in question 9.1? (Please select all that apply) skip this

question if you never received any information from the provincial officers


(2) Official letter


3 Concerning type of vaccine & adjuvant, the species included, vaccine strain, and vaccine interval 4 Concerning type of vaccine & adjuvant, the species included, vaccine strain, and vaccine interval



182



(2) Disagree


(4) Agree

(5) Strongly agree

(6) I don’t know



(2) Disagree


(4) Agree

(5) Strongly agree

(6) I don’t know

Section 10: Communication to district officers (This section for provincial livestock officers)


Question

Never

(1)

1-2 times

during past

3 years (2)

1-2

times /

year (3)

3-4

times /

year (4)

>4

times /

year (5)

I inform district officers when they should notify me of FMD suspects or

FMD cases.

I inform district officers the report of FMD surveillance findings in region 2

(the proposed FMD-free zone).

I inform district officers the vaccine strategy5.

I inform district officers the vaccine-matching test.

I inform district officers the post-vaccination evaluation reports.

I inform district officers the movement control protocol.

I inform district officers the disposal and disinfection protocol.

I inform district officers the response plan.

I provide training courses on preparedness and response plans to district

officers.

10.2 How did you inform district officers about information mentioned in question 10.1? (Please select all that apply) skip this question

if you never received any information from the provincial officers


(2) Official letter




10.3 Please specify the reason that you are not able to provide information mentioned above.

(1) Did not receive information from the national level

(2) Lack of staffing


Section 11: Communication to private veterinarians (This section for all local officers)


Question

Never

(1)

1-2 times

during past

3 years (2)

1-2

times /

year (3)

3-4

times /

year (4)

>4

times /

year (5)

I inform private veterinarians when they should notify the DLD officers of

FMD suspected cases.

I inform private veterinarians the FMD surveillance finding in region 2 (the

proposed FMD-free zone).

I inform private veterinarians the vaccine strategy6.

I inform private veterinarians the vaccine-matching test.

I inform private veterinarians the post-vaccination evaluation reports.

I inform private veterinarians the movement control protocol.

I inform private veterinarians the disposal and disinfection protocol.

I inform private veterinarians the response plan.

I provide training courses on preparedness and response plans to private

veterinarians.

5 Concerning type of vaccine & adjuvant, the species include, vaccine strain, and vaccine interval 6 Concerning type of vaccine & adjuvant, the species include, vaccine strain, and vaccine interval

183

11.2 How did you inform private veterinarians about information mentioned in question 11.1? (Please select all that apply) skip this

question if you never received any information from the provincial officers


(2) Official letter






(2) The information is confidential for officers



Section 12: Communication to farmers (This section for all local officers)


Question

Never

(1)

1-2 times

during past

3 years (2)

1-2

times /

year (3)

3-4

times /

year (4)

>4

times /

year (5)

I inform farmers when they should notify the DLD officers of FMD

suspected cases.

I inform farmers the FMD surveillance finding in region 2 (the proposed

FMD-free zone).

I inform farmers about type of vaccine, vaccine adjuvant, vaccine strain, and

vaccine interval that they should apply to their livestock.

I inform farmers about the relevant of virus strain at field level and vaccine

used. (vaccine-matching test )

I inform farmers the post-vaccination evaluation reports.

I inform farmers the movement control protocol.

I inform farmers the disposal and disinfection protocol.

I inform farmers the response plan.

I provide training courses on preparedness and response plans to farmers.

12.2 How did you inform farmers about information mentioned in question 12.1? (Please select all that apply) skip this question if you

never received any information from the provincial officers


(2) Official letter






(2) The information is restricted for officers




13.1 I am a ……..

(1) Veterinarian

(2) Para-veterinarian

(3) Animal husbandry

(4) Livestock assistant

(5) Other, please specify………………………..

13.2 My responsible area is ……….

(1) Chonburi province

(2) Rayong province

(3) Chantaburi province

(4) Trat province

(5) Chachengsao province

(6) Sa-keaw province

(7) Prachinburi province

(8) Other, please specify…………………..

184

13.3 How long have you had experience working with Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD)?

(1) <5 years

(2) 5-10 years

(3) > 10 years

13.4 How often have the national level or above level or laboratories trained you to do sample collection and

submission for FMD diagnosis?

(1) Never


(3) Once a year

(4) Every 6 months

(5) Every 3 months

13.5 When was your last training related to FMD?

(1) < 1 year

(2) 1-2 years

(3) 3-5 years

(4) 6-10 years

(5) > 10 years

13.6 Are you?

(1) Male

(2) Female

13.7 Age group

(1) 18 - 25

(2) 26 - 35

(3) 36 - 45

(4) 46 - 55

(5) > 55

13.8 Are you interested in participating in an individual interview if the researcher needs more information?

(1) Yes, please specify your email…………….

(2) No

13.9 Comments

185

APPENDIX 8.

Interview questions for private veterinarians

Please describe what you have done when you have found an FMD suspected case.

1. a) Please describe where you could find FMD status report (national and regional).

b) Do you use FMD national or regional status report for prevention and control FMD in

your clients’ farms?

2. If your clients’ animal(s) test FMD positive, please describe how you identify that animal

and what you do.

3. Please describe how you choose vaccine (vaccine strain) to apply to animals in your clients’

farms.

4. Are FMD vaccines that used in your clients’ farms randomly tested by the DLD for quality

control purposes? (both commercial and DLD vaccine)

5. Please describe movement control protocol when your clients want to transport their

animal(s) into other province.

6. What feedback you do have for the DLD to improve veterinary services and for

accomplishing the FMD-free zone?

186

APPENDIX 9.

Interview questions and document lists for DLD officers at national level

Interview questions for national officers (all units)

1. Please describe your unit’s responsibilities related to FMD

Interview questions for national officers (Disease control = BDCVS)

Reporting system

1. Please describe the FMD reporting protocol that your unit provides to the regional, provincial

and district officers, private vets, and farmers when they find a suspected animal. (When

should they report? And to whom?)

2. a) Does your unit inform the regional, provincial and district officers, private vets and

farmers about the reporting protocol? If so, how? (town hall meeting / post on webpage /

personal communication)

b) What is reporting protocol?

c) How often does your unit inform the regional, provincial and district officers, private vets

and farmers?

3. Please describe how your unit monitors the regional, provincial, and district officers, private

veterinarians, and farmers to see if they comply with report protocol.

4. a) Is there a designated unit responsible for disease status/report analysis?

b) Which designated position or unit is responsible for these analyses at national, regional,

and provincial level?

5. How often are disease reports analyzed (at the national, regional, and provincial level)?

6. Please describe:

a) How your unit inform regional, provincial, and district officer, private veterinarians, and

farmers about these analyses. (town hall meeting / post on webpage / personal

communication)

b) How often your unit inform regional, provincial, and district officer, private

veterinarians, and farmers about these analyses.

7. a) How your unit utilize these report analyses? (using for develop the FMD prevention and

control plan, vaccination program, surveillance program)

b) How often your unit utilize these report analyses?

Surveillance system

8. a) Is the FMD surveillance program audited by internal or external partners? If so how often?

b) What are the findings?

c) How does your unit make the corrections?

9. Please describe:

a) How your unit inform the surveillance findings to the regional, provincial, and district

officers, private veterinarians, and farmers.

b) How often your unit inform the surveillance findings to the regional, provincial, and

district officers, private veterinarians, and farmers.

10. Please describe a follow up plan if serological surveillance results are FMD positive (NSP

positive).

187

Vaccination

11. Which DLD unit is responsible for informing the regional, provincial, and district officers,

private veterinarians, and farmers about vaccination strategies? (vaccine strain, serotype,

interval of vaccination)

12. How often does this unit inform the regional, provincial, and district officers, private

veterinarians, and farmers about vaccine strategies?

13. Please describe how your unit monitors the vaccination campaign carried out by the

provincial and district officers and if it’s conducted per the criteria provided by the national

level.

14. a) Please describe how your unit monitors if the farmers have conducted FMD vaccination.

b) What is the procedure if they do not vaccine?

15. Please describe:

a) Does your unit conduct post vaccination evaluation?

b) How does your unit conduct post vaccination evaluation program?

c) How often does your unit conduct post vaccination evaluation program?

d) How does your unit inform the regional, provincial, and district officers, private

veterinarians, and farmers about post vaccination evaluation? (post vaccination

evaluation – field coverage, immunity protection: sero-conversion, field and vaccine

strain matching)

16. When vaccination program is a failure, is there a designated unit responsible for vaccine

analysis? (For example: animal(s) still show clinical signs even farmers claimed that they do

vaccination, and vaccine and filed strain are matched, what unit takes responsibility to rule

out? and what happens?)

17. a) How does your unit communicate to vaccine group about vaccine production, seed virus

selection, and how much your unit needs for the production?

b) How often does your unit communicate to vaccine group?

18. Please describe how your unit estimates the number of vaccines for vaccine production.

(including emergency vaccine)

Response plan

19. Please describe the steps that the regional, provincial, and district officers, private

veterinarians, and farmers should take in the case of confirmed FMD positive animals in their

responsible area or their farms. (Please describe the response plan --emergency vaccine,

quarantine, cleaning, disinfection, disposal of carcass)

20. How does your unit inform the regional, provincial, and district officers, private

veterinarians, and farmers the response plan to the local officers, private veterinarians, and

farmers?

21. How are FMD infected and exposed animals managed? (buried or slaughtered or treated,

onsite or slaughterhouse)

22. Is disposition of these animals officially reported? (see records)

23. Please describe the compensation scheme (what is the criteria for compensation? Are all

slaughtered animals compensated? Do you think that farmers are satisfied with 75%

compensation?)

Documents may need during interview (disease control officers)

188

1. Records of communication on report protocol (non-human subject data)

2. Records of violators and penalties (report protocol) human subject data but no need to see or

take note of any personal identifiable data)

3. Records of communication on surveillance plan and the findings (non-human subject data)

4. Records of actions that have been taken on positive results (non-human subject data)

5. Quarantine reports from local officers (non-human subject data)

6. Records of communication on vaccination strategy (non-human subject data)

7. Vaccination records (Did they receive from the local officers?) (non-human subject data)

8. Records of communication on the response plan (non-human subject data)

9. Records of slaughter and disposition animals (non-human subject data)

10. Records of herds and animals (non-human subject data)

Observation: Is animal identification able to identify animals’ origins (inside or outside the

proposed FMD-free zone)

Interview questions for national officers (Vaccine group: BVB, RRL, VBARC)

1. Please describe how often your unit tests and records the vaccine quality control and

production following these aspects: (How often they test? and Are they able to provide

records?)

a. Vaccine efficacy

b. Vaccine stability

c. Vaccine purity

d. Duration of immunity (Does the duration last up to 4-6 month? Does recommendation

to do vaccination rely on the duration of immunity?)

e. Vaccine shelf life (what is recommendation of the DLD vaccine on shelf life and

vaccine storage?)

f. Vaccine protective level

2. Please describe criteria to choose the seed virus for vaccine production.

3. How often does your unit conduct vaccine-matching tests on the DLD’s vaccines with the

field virus?

4. a) How does your unit communicate to other DLD groups (disease control group) about

vaccine quality control, seed virus selection, vaccine-matching tests?

b) How often does your unit communicate to other DLD groups (disease control group) about

vaccine quality control, seed virus selection, vaccine-matching tests?

5. a) Does your unit conduct vaccine-matching test on the commercial vaccines with the field

virus? If so, how? If not, why?

b) How often?

6. a) How often does your unit inform the local officers, private veterinarians, and farmers of

strains of virus cause outbreaks and endemic?

b) Who is responsible to provide information about the strain of the virus that is currently in

the field?

c) How do you inform them? (Vaccine-matching type)

7. a) Is the DLD able to regulate the commercial vaccine?

b) How does the DLD regulate commercial vaccine importation?

c) What vaccine strain is allowed and disallowed for importation?

189

d) Does the DLD have information of vaccine importation?

e) How does the DLD regulate the efficacy of commercial vaccine?

f) Does your unit keep record of commercial vaccine used?

8. Please describe how your unit estimates the number of vaccine to be produced.

9. Please describe how your unit delivers vaccines to local level

Documents may need during interview (vaccine group)

1. Records of vaccine quality test (non-human subject data)

2. Records of vaccine-matching test (non-human subject data)

3. Records of communication (vaccine-matching test, vaccine strategy) (non-human subject

data)

4. Record of vaccine used (both DLD and commercial vaccine: type, strain) (non-human

subject data)

Interview questions for national officers (animal movement control)

1. a) Please describe movement control protocol if farmers want to transport their animals to

other provinces.

b) How often do you inform the regional, provincial, and district officers, private

veterinarians, and farmers about movement protocol?

2. Please describe what documents do farmers / drivers have to provide to the officers at the

quarantine station

3. a) Please describe tasks of officers at the quarantine station?

b) Do they have to monitor and disinfect every (or random) vehicles that pass through a

quarantine station?

c) Do they observe all animals’ health status?

4. a) Does your unit monitor officers at the quarantine station to see if they do their tasks? If so,

how? b) What happens if they do not do their task?

5. a) Does your unit monitor farmers and private vets if they follow the movement control

protocol? If so, how?

b) What happens if they do not comply the movement control protocol?

6. a) How does your unit identify violators? (Inappropriate documents, failure to vaccinate

animals before movement, or do not stop at animal check points)

b) What are the consequences if they violate movement protocol?

Documents may need during interview

1. Records of communication on movement protocol (non-human subject data)

2. Record of animal movement (number of animal(s) movement, date, ID, test, other

documents) (non-human subject data)

3. Records of violators (officers, private veterinarians, and officers) who fail to comply with

movement protocol (human subject data but no need to see or take note of any personal

identifiable data)

4. Record of punishments (human subject data but no need to see or take note of any personal

identifiable data)

190

APPENDIX 10.

Interview questions and document lists for DLD officers at regional level

1. Are your unit’s responsibilities are related to the following topics? If so, please describe

activities related to these following topics.

- FMD reporting system

- FMD Surveillance

- Animal movement control (animal health observation? Checking documents? Permit

issuing?)

- Vaccination program (Distribution of vaccine? Estimation of vaccine required?)

- Response plan (management of FMD infected and exposed animals?)

Reporting system

1. Please describe how your unit monitors the provincial and district officers, private

veterinarians, and farmers to see if they are complying with the reporting protocol

2. Is there a designated unit responsible for disease status/report analysis? Which designated

position or unit is responsible for these analyses at the regional and the provincial level?

3. How often is disease report analyzed (at the regional and the provincial level)?

4. a) Does your unit inform provincial, and district officer, private veterinarians, and farmers

about disease report analyses? If so, how? (Town hall meeting / post on webpage / personal

communication)

b) How often does your unit inform provincial, and district officer, private veterinarians, and

farmers about these analyses?

5. a) How does your unit utilize these report analyses? (planning FMD prevention and control

plan, vaccination program, surveillance program)

b) How often does your unit utilize these report analyses?

Surveillance system

6. Please describe what your actions are if serological surveillance results are FMD positive

(NSP positive).

Animal movement control

7. Does your unit monitor farmers and private veterinarians to see if farmers and private

veterinarians are following the movement control protocol? If so, explain how your unit do

it? What happens if farmers and private veterinarians do not comply with the movement

control protocol?

8. a) How does your unit identify violators? (Inappropriate documents, failure to vaccinate

animals before movement, or do not stop at animal check points)

b) What are the consequences of violations?

Vaccination

9. Please describe:

a) How often national officers provide you about vaccination strategies. (Do they inform

you about vaccine strain, serotype, and vaccination interval?)

b) What information national officers provide you about vaccination strategies? (Do they

inform you about vaccine strain, serotype, and vaccination interval?)

191

10. Please describe how your unit monitors vaccination campaigns carried out by provincial and

district officers and if they are conducted per the criteria provided at the national level.

11. Please describe:

a) How your unit verifies if farmers have conducted FMD vaccination?

b) What is the procedure, if they do not vaccine?

12. a) Does your unit conduct post vaccination evaluation?

b) How your unit conducts post vaccination evaluation program. (After vaccination what is

the time frame of post vaccination evaluation? How is post vaccine evaluation conducted in

swine? How and how often does the national level inform you about the results of

evaluation?)

Response plan

13. Please describe the steps that regional, provincial, and district officers, private veterinarians,

and farmers should take in the case of confirmed FMD positive animals in their responsible

area or their farms. (Please describe the response plan --emergency vaccine, quarantine,

cleaning, disinfection, disposal of carcass)

14. How are FMD infected and exposed animals managed? (buried or slaughtered or treated,

onsite or at the slaughterhouse)

15. Is disposition of these animals officially reported at the national level? (ask if possible to

look at records)

Observations at regional level

1. Animal check points and quarantine stations before entering the proposed FMD-free zone

2. Animal identification system (to see if animal ID is able to identify animal(s)’ origins)

Documents may need during interview

1. Records of herds and animals in the region (non-human subject data)

2. Records of communication on

a. surveillance plan and the findings (from the national level to regional and provincial

level)

b. vaccination strategy

c. response plan

3. Records of issuing movement permits (what documents are needed to issue movement

permits) (non-human subject data)

4. Records of actions that have been taken on positive results (FMD infected animals) (non-

human subject data)

5. Records of slaughter and disposition animals (non-human subject data)

6. Quarantine reports (from provincial level and to national level) (non-human subject data)

7. Vaccination records (from provincial and district level) (non-human subject data)

8. Violators and penalties record (reporting protocol, vaccination, movement control) (human

subject data but no need to see or take note of any personal identifiable data)

192

APPENDIX 11.

Details of research participants using in data analysis

Participants Interviews Questionnaires

Officers National Disease control unit 3

Vaccine unit 5

Animal movement control unit 1

Regional 2

Local

Provincial level 6

District level 8

Dairy Herd Health Unit 1

Animal quarantine stations 18

Biotechnology Research Center (AI

center)

1

Total 11 34

Private

Veterinarians

Employed by company farms or contracted farms 2 7

Consultant 1 2

Technical sale or sale supplier 2 12

Others (e.g. faculty) 1

None specified 10

Total 5 32

Farmers Pig 9

Dairy 15

Beef 8

Sheep 5

Goat 1

Buffalo 1

None specified 5

Total 44

Grand Total 16 110

193

APPENDIX 12.

Animal Epidemics Act B.E. 2558 (2015) (Thai language)

หนา ๒๒ เลม ๑๓๒ ตอนท ๑๔ ก ราชกจจานเบกษา ๒ มนาคม ๒๕๕๘

พระราชบญญต โรคระบาดสตว พ.ศ. ๒๕๕๘

ภมพลอดลยเดช ป.ร. ใหไว ณ วนท ๒๕ กมภาพนธ พ.ศ. ๒๕๕๘

เปนปท ๗๐ ในรชกาลปจจบน พระบาทสมเดจพระปรมนทรมหาภมพลอดลยเดช มพระบรมราชโองการโปรดเกลา ฯ

ใหประกาศวา โดยทเปนการสมควรปรบปรงกฎหมายวาดวยโรคระบาดสตว จงทรงพระกรณาโปรดเกลา ฯ ใหตราพระราชบญญตขนไวโดยคาแนะนาและยนยอมของ

สภานตบญญตแหงชาต ดงตอไปน มาตรา ๑ พระราชบญญตนเรยกวา “พระราชบญญตโรคระบาดสตว พ.ศ. ๒๕๕๘” มาตรา ๒ พระราชบญญตนใหใชบงคบตงแตวนถดจากวนประกาศในราชกจจานเบกษา

เปนตนไป มาตรา ๓ ใหยกเลก (๑) พระราชบญญตโรคระบาดสตว พ.ศ. ๒๔๙๙ (๒) พระราชบญญตโรคระบาดสตว (ฉบบท ๒) พ.ศ. ๒๕๔๒ มาตรา ๔ ในพระราชบญญตน “สตว” หมายความวา (๑) ชาง มา โค กระบอ ลา ลอ แพะ แกะ กวาง สกร หมปา สนข แมว กระตาย ลง ชะน

และใหหมายความรวมถงนาเชอสาหรบผสมพนธและเอมบรโอของสตวเหลานดวย (๒) สตวปกจาพวกนก ไก เปด หาน และใหหมายความรวมถงนาเชอสาหรบผสมพนธและไข

สาหรบใชทาพนธดวย

Animal Epidemics Act B.E. 2558 (2019)

194

หนา ๒๓ เลม ๑๓๒ ตอนท ๑๔ ก ราชกจจานเบกษา ๒ มนาคม ๒๕๕๘

(๓) สตวชนดอนตามทรฐมนตรประกาศกาหนด และใหหมายความรวมถงนาเชอสาหรบผสมพนธ เอมบรโอ และไขสาหรบใชทาพนธของสตวชนดนนดวย

“เอมบรโอ” หมายความวา ตวออนของสตวทยงไมเจรญเตบโตจนถงขนทมอวยวะ และยงไมฝงตวทผนงมดลกของสตวนน

“ซากสตว” หมายความวา รางกายหรอสวนของรางกายสตวทตายแลว สงใด ๆ ทไดจากสตว ทมชวตหรอสตวทตายแลว และใหหมายความรวมถงอาหารสกททา ประกอบ หรอปรงจากซากสตว หรอสงประดษฐสาเรจรปททาจากซากสตวตามทรฐมนตรประกาศกาหนด

“โรคระบาด” หมายความวา กาฬโรคเปด โรคไขหวดนก โรคแซลโมเนลลา โรคทรคเนลลา โรคนวคาสเซล โรคบรเซลลา โรคปากและเทาเปอย โรคพษสนขบา โรครนเดอรเปสต โรคเลปโทสไปรา โรคโลหตจางตดเชอในมา โรคววบา โรคสมองอกเสบนปาห โรคอหวาตสกร โรคแอนแทรกซ โรคเฮโมรายกเซปทซเมย วณโรค และโรคอนตามทรฐมนตรประกาศกาหนด

“พาหะของโรคระบาด” หมายความวา (๑) สตวซงไมปรากฏอาการของโรคระบาดแตมเชอโรคระบาด หรอมเหตอนควรสงสยวา

ไดรบเชอโรคระบาด ซงอาจตดตอคนหรอสตวอนได (๒) ซากสตวของสตวทเปนโรคระบาดหรอของสตวตาม (๑) (๓) ซากสตวทมเหตอนควรสงสยวามเชอโรคระบาด “เขตควบคมโรคระบาด” หมายความวา ทองททดาเนนการปองกนและควบคมมใหมโรคระบาด

หรอเชอโรคระบาดชนดหนงหรอหลายชนด เพอกาหนดเปนเขตปลอดโรคระบาด “เขตปลอดโรคระบาด” หมายความวา เขตควบคมโรคระบาดทสามารถควบคมมใหมโรคระบาด

หรอเชอโรคระบาดชนดหนงหรอหลายชนดในสตวหรอซากสตว “เขตกนชนโรคระบาด” หมายความวา ทองททดาเนนการปองกนและควบคมมใหโรคระบาด

หรอเชอโรคระบาดชนดหนงหรอหลายชนดแพรกระจายเขาเขตปลอดโรคระบาดหรอเขาในราชอาณาจกร “เครองหมายประจาตวสตว” หมายความวา เครองหมายซงพนกงานเจาหนาท สารวตร หรอ

สตวแพทยทาหรอสงใหเจาของทาไวทตวสตวหรอซากสตว หรอยานพาหนะ อาคารสถานท ภาชนะ สงหอหมหรอกกขง เพอประโยชนในการจาแนกหรอตรวจสอบสตวหรอซากสตว

“เจาของ” หมายความวา เจาของกรรมสทธและผครอบครอง ในกรณของสตวหากไมปรากฏเจาของหรอไมสามารถหาเจาของได ใหหมายความรวมถงผเลยง ผใหทอยอาศยและผควบคมสตวดวย

“ดานกกกนสตว” หมายความวา ทสาหรบกกสตวหรอซากสตวเพอตรวจโรคระบาดตามทอธบดประกาศกาหนด

“อายด” หมายความวา หามจาหนาย จาย โอนหรอเคลอนยาย “สตวแพทย” หมายความวา

195

หนา ๒๔ เลม ๑๓๒ ตอนท ๑๔ ก ราชกจจานเบกษา ๒ มนาคม ๒๕๕๘

(๑) นายสตวแพทยและสตวแพทยของกรมปศสตว (๒) ผซงรฐมนตรแตงตงใหเปนสตวแพทยเพอปฏบตการตามพระราชบญญตน และตองม

คณสมบตตามทรฐมนตรประกาศกาหนด “สารวตร” หมายความวา ผซงรฐมนตรแตงตงใหเปนสารวตรเพอปฏบตการตามพระราชบญญตน

และตองมคณสมบตตามทรฐมนตรประกาศกาหนด “นายทะเบยน” หมายความวา ผซงรฐมนตรแตงตงใหเปนนายทะเบยน “พนกงานเจาหนาท” หมายความวา ผซงรฐมนตรแตงตงเพอปฏบตการตามพระราชบญญตน “ผวาราชการจงหวด” หมายความรวมถง ผวาราชการกรงเทพมหานคร “อธบด” หมายความวา อธบดกรมปศสตว “รฐมนตร” หมายความวา รฐมนตรผรกษาการตามพระราชบญญตน มาตรา ๕ ใหรฐมนตรวาการกระทรวงเกษตรและสหกรณรกษาการตามพระราชบญญตน

และใหมอานาจแตงตงพนกงานเจาหนาท นายทะเบยน สารวตร และสตวแพทย ออกกฎกระทรวงกาหนดคาธรรมเนยมไมเกนอตราทายพระราชบญญตน ยกเวนคาธรรมเนยม และกาหนดกจการอน กบออกประกาศและระเบยบเพอปฏบตการตามพระราชบญญตน

กฎกระทรวง ประกาศและระเบยบนน เมอไดประกาศในราชกจจานเบกษาแลวใหใชบงคบได มาตรา ๖ ใหอธบดมอานาจออกประกาศและระเบยบเพอปฏบตการตามพระราชบญญตน ประกาศและระเบยบนน เมอไดประกาศในราชกจจานเบกษาแลวใหใชบงคบได

หมวด ๑ การปองกนและควบคมโรคระบาด

สวนท ๑ บททวไป

มาตรา ๗ เพอประโยชนในการปองกนและควบคมโรคระบาด ใหเจาของสตว ดงตอไปน ปฏบตตามระบบการปองกนและควบคมโรคระบาด

(๑) ชาง มา โค กระบอ แพะ แกะ กวาง สกร หมปา (๒) สนข แมว (๓) นก ไก เปด หาน (๔) สตวชนดอนตามทรฐมนตรประกาศกาหนด ระบบการปองกนและควบคมโรคระบาดตามวรรคหนง ใหเปนไปตามหลกเกณฑ วธการและเงอนไข

ทกาหนดในกฎกระทรวง ทงน ในกฎกระทรวงดงกลาวใหคานงถงความเหมาะสมเกยวกบสภาพของสตว และวตถประสงคของการเลยงสตวแตละชนด

196

หนา ๒๕ เลม ๑๓๒ ตอนท ๑๔ ก ราชกจจานเบกษา ๒ มนาคม ๒๕๕๘

มาตรา ๘ เพอประโยชนในการปองกนและควบคมโรคระบาด ใหเจาของสตวหรอซากสตว ดงตอไปน ปฏบตตามหลกเกณฑ วธการและเงอนไขทอธบดประกาศกาหนดจานวนสตวหรอซากสตวลกษณะของยานพาหนะและอปกรณในการเคลอนยายสตวหรอซากสตว

(๑) ชาง มา โค กระบอ แพะ แกะ กวาง สกร หมปา (๒) นก ไก เปด หาน รวมถงไขสาหรบใชทาพนธ (๓) ซากสตวของสตวตาม (๑) หรอ (๒) (๔) สตวหรอซากสตวชนดอนตามทรฐมนตรประกาศกาหนด มาตรา ๙ ในทองทใดเมออธบดเหนสมควรใหมการปองกนและควบคมโรคระบาดในสตวชนดใด

ใหอธบดประกาศกาหนดใหทองทนนทงหมดหรอบางสวนของทองทตองมการทาเครองหมายประจาตวสตวสาหรบสตวหรอซากสตวชนดนน

การทาเครองหมายประจาตวสตว ลกษณะ ราคาและการยกเวนราคาเครองหมายประจาตวสตว และการดาเนนการกอนหรอหลงการทาเครองหมายประจาตวสตว ใหเปนไปตามหลกเกณฑ วธการและเงอนไขทอธบดประกาศกาหนด

ในกรณทประกาศตามวรรคสองกาหนดใหเจาของสตวหรอซากสตวมหนาททาเครองหมายประจาตวสตว หรอดาเนนการกอนหรอหลงการทาเครองหมายประจาตวสตว ใหเจาของสตวหรอซากสตว ปฏบตใหเปนไปตามประกาศดงกลาว

มาตรา ๑๐ หามมใหผใด (๑) ทาเครองหมายประจาตวสตวปลอม หรอแปลงหรอแกไขเครองหมายประจาตวสตวทแทจรง

เพอใหเขาใจวาเปนเครองหมายประจาตวสตวตามพระราชบญญตน (๒) ใชเครองหมายประจาตวสตวปลอม หรอเครองหมายประจาตวสตวทมการแปลงหรอแกไข (๓) ทาลายเครองหมายประจาตวสตว ใชหรอยนยอมใหผอนใชเครองหมายประจาตวสตว

เพอใหเกดความเขาใจผดในการจาแนกหรอตรวจสอบสตวหรอซากสตว มาตรา ๑๑ ใหเจาของสตวแจงตอพนกงานเจาหนาท สารวตร หรอสตวแพทย ภายในเวลา

สบสองชวโมงนบแตเวลาททราบวาสตวปวยหรอตาย เมอมกรณ ดงตอไปน (๑) มสตวปวยหรอตายโดยรวาเปนโรคระบาด (๒) มสตวปวยหรอตายโดยไมรสาเหต (๓) ในหมบานเดยวกน หรอบร เวณใกล เคยงกน มสตวปวยหรอตายมอาการคลายคลงกน

ในระยะเวลาหางกนไมเกนเจดวน การแจงและการดาเนนการกบสตวปวยหรอตายตามวรรคหนง และการกาหนดชนด จานวน

และลกษณะการปวยหรอตายของสตวตาม (๒) และ (๓) ใหเปนไปตามทอธบดประกาศกาหนด เมอมสตวตามวรรคหนงปวย ใหเจาของสตวควบคมสตวปวยทงหมดไวภายในบรเวณทสตวอย

และหามมใหเจาของสตวหรอบคคลอนใดเคลอนยายสตวปวยไปจากบรเวณนน เมอมสตวตามวรรคหนงตาย

197

หนา ๒๖ เลม ๑๓๒ ตอนท ๑๔ ก ราชกจจานเบกษา ๒ มนาคม ๒๕๕๘

ใหเจาของสตวควบคมซากสตวนนใหคงอย ณ ททสตวนนตายและหามมใหเจาของสตวหรอบคคลอนใด เคลอนยาย ชาแหละ หรอกระทาการอนใดแกซากสตวนน เวนแตมการดาเนนการกบสตวปวยหรอตายตามทอธบดประกาศกาหนดตามวรรคสอง หรอสตวแพทยไดตรวจพสจนแลววาสตวนนมไดปวยหรอตายโดยโรคระบาด หรอสตวแพทยสงเปนอยางอน

มาตรา ๑๒ เมอไดมการแจงตามมาตรา ๑๑ หรอมเหตอนควรสงสยวามสตวปวยหรอตาย โดยโรคระบาด พนกงานเจาหนาท หรอสารวตรมอานาจออกคาสงเปนหนงสอใหเจาของสตวจดการ ดงตอไปน

(๑) กกขง แยก หรอยายสตวปวยหรอสงสยวาปวยไวภายในเขตตามวธการทกาหนด (๒) ฝง หรอเผาซากสตวนน ณ ททกาหนด ถาการฝงหรอเผาไมอาจทาไดใหทาลายโดยวธอน

ตามทเหนสมควร (๓) กกขง แยก หรอยายสตวทอยรวมฝงหรอเคยอยรวมฝงกบสตวทปวยหรอสงสยวาปวยหรอตาย

ไวภายในเขตตามวธการทกาหนด มาตรา ๑๓ เมอไดมการแจงตามมาตรา ๑๑ หรอตรวจพบ หรอมเหตอนควรสงสยวามสตวปวย

หรอตายโดยโรคระบาด นอกจากสตวแพทยมอานาจตามมาตรา ๔๐ แลว ใหมอานาจตรวจสตวหรอซากสตว รวมทงออกคาสงเปนหนงสอใหเจาของสตวหรอซากสตวจดการ ดงตอไปน

(๑) กกขง แยก หรอยายสตวปวยหรอสงสยวาปวยไวภายในเขตตามวธการทกาหนด หรอใหไดรบการรกษาตามทเหนสมควร

(๒) ฝง หรอเผาซากสตวนนทงหมดหรอแตบางสวน ณ ททกาหนด ถาการฝงหรอเผาไมอาจทาได ใหทาลายโดยวธอนตามทเหนสมควร

(๓) กกขง แยก หรอยายสตวทอยรวมฝงหรอเคยอยรวมฝงกบสตวทปวยหรอสงสยวาปวยหรอตายไวภายในเขตตามวธการทกาหนด หรอใหไดรบการปองกนโรคระบาดตามทเหนสมควร

(๔) ทาลายสตวทเปนโรคระบาดหรอมเหตอนควรสงสยวาเปนโรคระบาด หรอสตวหรอซากสตวทเปนพาหะของโรคระบาด ตามหลกเกณฑและวธการทอธบดประกาศกาหนด ทงน ใหชดใชราคาแกเจาของสตวหรอซากสตวไมตากวาสามในสของราคาสตวหรอซากสตวซงอาจขายไดในตลาดทองทกอนเกด โรคระบาด ตามหลกเกณฑและวธการทกาหนดในกฎกระทรวง เวนแตกรณทเจาของสตวหรอซากสตวไดจงใจกระทาความผดตอบทบญญตแหงพระราชบญญตน

(๕) กาจดเชอโรคทอาหารสตวหรอซากสตวทเปนพาหะของโรคระบาดตามวธการทกาหนด (๖) ทาความสะอาดและทาลายเชอโรคระบาดในททมเชอโรคระบาดหรอสงสยวามเชอโรคระบาด

ตามวธการทกาหนด มาตรา ๑๔ เมอมสตวทไมปรากฏเจาของปวยหรอตายในทดนของบคคลใดโดยรวาเปน

โรคระบาดหรอโดยไมรสาเหต ใหเจาของทดนนนมหนาทแจงตอพนกงานเจาหนาท สารวตร หรอสตวแพทย

198

หนา ๒๗ เลม ๑๓๒ ตอนท ๑๔ ก ราชกจจานเบกษา ๒ มนาคม ๒๕๕๘

ภายในเวลาสบสองชวโมงนบแตเวลาททราบวาสตวปวยหรอตาย และใหนาความในมาตรา ๑๑ วรรคสอง มาใชบงคบกบเจาของทดนดวยโดยอนโลม

หามมใหบคคลใดเคลอนยาย ชาแหละ หรอกระทาการอนใดแกสตวหรอซากสตวตามวรรคหนง เวนแตมการดาเนนการกบสตวปวยหรอตายตามทอธบดประกาศกาหนดตามมาตรา ๑๑ วรรคสอง หรอสตวแพทยไดตรวจพสจนแลววาสตวนนมไดปวยหรอตายโดยโรคระบาด หรอสตวแพทยสงเปนอยางอน

ในกรณทสตวหรอซากสตวตามวรรคหนง เปนโรคระบาดหรอมเหตอนควรสงสยวาเปนโรคระบาด ใหสตวแพทยทาลายสตวหรอซากสตวนน และสตวหรอซากสตวอนทเปนพาหะของโรคระบาด หรอจดการโดยวธอนตามทเหนสมควรเพอปองกนมใหโรคระบาดแพรกระจายตอไป

เมอปรากฏเจาของสตวในภายหลง ใหกรมปศสตวหรอเจาของทดนมสทธเรยกรองคาใชจาย ทจาเปนเทาทจายจรงจากเจาของสตวไดตามหลกเกณฑและวธการทอธบดประกาศกาหนด

มาตรา ๑๕ เมอพนกงานเจาหนาท สารวตร หรอสตวแพทยไดรบแจงหรอตรวจพบวามสตวปวยหรอตายโดยรวาเปนโรคระบาดหรอโดยไมรสาเหตในทสาธารณะ หรอในทดนทไมปรากฏเจาของ พนกงานเจาหนาท สารวตร หรอสตวแพทยมอานาจกกสตวทปวยหรอตายนนไวตามทเหนสมควรภายในบรเวณนน

หามมใหบคคลใดเคลอนยาย ชาแหละ หรอกระทาการอนใดแกสตวหรอซากสตวตามวรรคหนง จนกวาสตวแพทยไดตรวจพสจนแลววาสตวนนมไดปวยหรอตายโดยโรคระบาดหรอสตวแพทยสงเปนอยางอน

ในกรณทสตวหรอซากสตวตามวรรคหนง เปนโรคระบาดหรอมเหตอนควรสงสยวาเปนโรคระบาด ใหสตวแพทยทาลายสตวหรอซากสตวนน และสตวหรอซากสตวอนทเปนพาหะของโรคระบาด หรอจดการโดยวธอนตามทเหนสมควรเพอปองกนมใหโรคระบาดแพรกระจายตอไป

เมอปรากฏเจาของสตวในภายหลง ใหกรมปศสตวมสทธเรยกรองคาใชจายทจาเปนเทาทจายจรงจากเจาของสตวไดตามหลกเกณฑและวธการทอธบดประกาศกาหนด

มาตรา ๑๖ หามมใหบคคลใดขดซากสตวทฝงไวแลวตามบทบญญตแหงพระราชบญญตน เวนแตไดรบอนญาตเปนหนงสอจากสตวแพทย หรอเปนการดาเนนการโดยสตวแพทย

สวนท ๒ เขตปลอดโรคระบาด

มาตรา ๑๗ ในทองทใดเมอรฐมนตรเหนสมควรใหมการปองกนการเกดโรคระบาดโรคใด ในสตวชนดใด ใหรฐมนตรประกาศกาหนดทองทนนทงหมดหรอบางสวนเปนเขตปลอดโรคระบาด หรอเขตกนชนโรคระบาดสาหรบโรคนนในสตวชนดนน และใหระบชนดของสตวและซากสตวทหามเคลอนยายไวในประกาศดวย

กอนการประกาศกาหนดใหทองทใดเปนเขตปลอดโรคระบาดตามวรรคหนง ใหรฐมนตรประกาศกาหนดทองทนนเปนเขตควบคมโรคระบาด และใหระบชนดของสตวและโรคระบาด รวมทงชนดของสตวและซากสตวทหามเคลอนยายไวในประกาศดวย

199

หนา ๒๘ เลม ๑๓๒ ตอนท ๑๔ ก ราชกจจานเบกษา ๒ มนาคม ๒๕๕๘

เมอไดประกาศเปนเขตควบคมโรคระบาดตามวรรคสองแลว ใหอธบดประกาศกาหนดหลกเกณฑ วธการและเงอนไขเพอใหมการประกาศเปนเขตปลอดโรคระบาด

มาตรา ๑๘ เมอไดประกาศเขตควบคมโรคระบาด เขตปลอดโรคระบาด หรอเขตกนชนโรคระบาดตามมาตรา ๑๗ แลว หามมใหผใดเคลอนยายสตวหรอซากสตวตามทระบในประกาศดงกลาวเขาในหรอผานเขตนน เวนแตไดรบอนญาตเปนหนงสอจากอธบดหรอสตวแพทยซงอธบดมอบหมายทกครงทมการเคลอนยาย

มาตรา ๑๙ ภายในเขตควบคมโรคระบาด เขตปลอดโรคระบาดหรอเขตกนชนโรคระบาด ถาปรากฏวามโรคระบาด หรอมเหตอนควรสงสยวามโรคระบาด สตวแพทยจะประกาศเขตโรคระบาดชวคราวตามมาตรา ๒๐ หรอผวาราชการจงหวดจะประกาศเขตโรคระบาดหรอเขตเฝาระวงโรคระบาดตามมาตรา ๒๑ แลวแตกรณ กได

เมอสามารถควบคมโรคระบาดนนในเขตโรคระบาดได หรอไมมเหตอนควรสงสยวามโรคระบาดนนในเขตเฝาระวงโรคระบาด แลวแตกรณ ใหผวาราชการจงหวดสงยกเลกประกาศเขตโรคระบาดหรอ เขตเฝาระวงโรคระบาดตามวรรคหนงโดยเรว และปดประกาศใหประชาชนในทองทนนทราบ ในกรณ ทเขตดงกลาวเคยเปนเขตปลอดโรคระบาดตามมาตรา ๑๗ วรรคหนง ใหถอวาเขตนนเปนเขตควบคม โรคระบาดตามมาตรา ๑๗ วรรคสอง

สวนท ๓ เขตโรคระบาด

มาตรา ๒๐ ในกรณทสตวแพทยเหนวา โรคระบาดทตรวจพบในทองททรบผดชอบจะระบาดออกไป หรอทองทอนทตดตอกบทองทนนจะระบาดเขามา และทองททรบผดชอบนนยงไมมการประกาศใหเปนเขตโรคระบาด หรอเขตเฝาระวงโรคระบาดตามมาตรา ๒๑ ใหสตวแพทยมอานาจประกาศกาหนดเขตโรคระบาดชวคราวในทองททรบผดชอบมรศมไมเกนหากโลเมตรจากททตรวจพบโรคระบาดนน และใหระบชนดของสตวและโรคระบาด รวมทงสตวและซากสตวทหามเคลอนยายไวในประกาศดวย

ประกาศตามวรรคหนง ใหใชบงคบไดสามสบวนนบแตวนประกาศและใหปดไว ณ สานกงานเขต ทวาการอาเภอ ททาการองคการบรหารสวนตาบล สานกงานเทศบาล ททาการกานน ททาการผใหญบาน และทชมนมชนภายในทองทนน

มาตรา ๒๑ ในทองทจงหวดใดมหรอสงสยวามโรคระบาด ใหผวาราชการจงหวดมอานาจประกาศกาหนดทองทจงหวดนนทงหมดหรอบางสวนเปนเขตโรคระบาด หรอเขตเฝาระวงโรคระบาด แลวแตกรณ และใหระบชนดของสตวและโรคระบาด รวมทงสตวและซากสตวทหามเคลอนยายไวในประกาศดวย

ประกาศตามวรรคหนง ใหปดไว ณ ศาลากลางจงหวด ศาลาวาการกรงเทพมหานคร ศาลาวาการ เมองพทยา สานกงานเขต ทวาการอาเภอ ททาการองคการบรหารสวนจงหวด ททาการองคการบรหาร

200

หนา ๒๙ เลม ๑๓๒ ตอนท ๑๔ ก ราชกจจานเบกษา ๒ มนาคม ๒๕๕๘

สวนตาบล สานกงานเทศบาล ททาการกานน ททาการผใหญบาน ทชมนมชนภายในทองทนน และททาการองคกรปกครองสวนทองถนอนทมกฎหมายจดตง

มาตรา ๒๒ เมอไดประกาศกาหนดเขตโรคระบาดชวคราวตามมาตรา ๒๐ หรอประกาศกาหนดเขตโรคระบาดหรอเขตเฝาระวงโรคระบาดตามมาตรา ๒๑ หามมใหผใดเคลอนยายสตวหรอซากสตวตามทกาหนดในประกาศดงกลาว เขา ออก ผาน หรอภายในเขตนน เวนแตไดรบอนญาตเปนหนงสอจากสตวแพทยผมหนาทรบผดชอบประจาเขตนนทกครงทมการเคลอนยาย

มาตรา ๒๓ ภายในเขตโรคระบาด หรอเขตเฝาระวงโรคระบาดตามมาตรา ๒๑ เมอสามารถควบคมโรคระบาดนนในเขตโรคระบาดได หรอไมมเหตอนควรสงสยวามโรคระบาดนนในเขตเฝาระวง โรคระบาด แลวแตกรณ ใหผวาราชการจงหวดสงยกเลกประกาศเขตโรคระบาดหรอเขตเฝาระวงโรคระบาดโดยเรว และปดประกาศใหประชาชนในทองทนนทราบ

หมวด ๒ การขออนญาต การออกใบอนญาต และหนาทของผรบใบอนญาต

มาตรา ๒๔ เพอประโยชนในการปองกนและควบคมโรคระบาดอนเกดจากการคาสตวหรอ ซากสตว ผใดทาการคาหรอหากาไรในลกษณะคนกลางซงสตวหรอซากสตวดงตอไปน ตองไดรบใบอนญาตจากนายทะเบยน

(๑) ชาง มา โค กระบอ แพะ แกะ กวาง สกร หมปา สนข แมว (๒) นก ไก เปด หาน รวมถงไขสาหรบใชทาพนธ (๓) ซากสตวของสตวตาม (๑) หรอ (๒) (๔) สตวหรอซากสตวชนดอนตามทรฐมนตรประกาศกาหนด การขออนญาตและการออกใบอนญาต ใหเปนไปตามหลกเกณฑ วธการและเงอนไขทอธบด

ประกาศกาหนด มาตรา ๒๕ เพอประโยชนในการปองกนและควบคมโรคระบาดอนเกดจากนาเชอสาหรบผสมพนธ

หรอเอมบรโอของสตว ผใดขาย จาหนาย จาย แจก แลกเปลยน หรอมไวเพอขายซงนาเชอสาหรบผสมพนธหรอเอมบรโอของชาง มา โค กระบอ แพะ แกะ กวาง สกร หมปา หรอสตวชนดอนตามทรฐมนตรประกาศกาหนด หรอมพอพนธของสตวดงกลาวเพอใหบรการผสมพนธแกสตวของบคคลอนโดยวธธรรมชาต ตองไดรบใบอนญาตจากนายทะเบยน

การขออนญาตและการออกใบอนญาต ใหเปนไปตามหลกเกณฑ วธการและเงอนไขทอธบดประกาศกาหนด

มาตรา ๒๖ ใบอนญาตตามมาตรา ๒๔ และมาตรา ๒๕ ใหมอายหนงปนบแตวนทออกใบอนญาต ถาผรบใบอนญาตประสงคจะขอตออายใบอนญาต ใหยนคาขอกอนใบอนญาตสนอาย เมอไดยนคาขอแลว ใหประกอบกจการตอไปไดจนกวานายทะเบยนจะสงไมอนญาตใหตออายใบอนญาตนน

201

หนา ๓๐ เลม ๑๓๒ ตอนท ๑๔ ก ราชกจจานเบกษา ๒ มนาคม ๒๕๕๘

การขอตออายใบอนญาตและการอนญาต ใหเปนไปตามหลกเกณฑ วธการและเงอนไขทอธบดประกาศกาหนด

มาตรา ๒๗ ในกรณทผรบใบอนญาตประสงคจะโอนใบอนญาตตามมาตรา ๒๔ หรอมาตรา ๒๕ ใหยนคาขอตอนายทะเบยน และใหการโอนมผลเมอไดรบอนญาตจากนายทะเบยน

การขอโอนใบอนญาตและการอนญาต ใหเปนไปตามหลกเกณฑ วธการและเงอนไขทอธบดประกาศกาหนด

มาตรา ๒๘ ในกรณทผรบใบอนญาตตามมาตรา ๒๔ หรอมาตรา ๒๕ ตาย และมทายาท หรอผไดรบความยนยอมจากทายาทยนคาขอแสดงความจานงตอนายทะเบยนภายในสามสบวนนบแตวนทผรบใบอนญาตตาย เพอขอประกอบกจการทผตายไดรบอนญาตนนตอไป เมอไดรบอนญาตจากนายทะเบยนแลว ใหผแสดงความจานงนนประกอบกจการตอไปไดจนกวาใบอนญาตนนสนอาย ในกรณเชนวานใหถอวา ผแสดงความจานงเปนผรบใบอนญาตตามมาตรา ๒๔ หรอมาตรา ๒๕ แลวแตกรณ ตงแตวนท ผรบใบอนญาตตาย

การขอแสดงความจานงและการอนญาต ใหเปนไปตามหลกเกณฑ วธการและเงอนไขทอธบดประกาศกาหนด

มาตรา ๒๙ ในกรณทใบอนญาตตามมาตรา ๒๔ หรอมาตรา ๒๕ สญหาย ชารดหรอถกทาลายในสาระสาคญ ใหผรบใบอนญาตแจงตอนายทะเบยนและยนคาขอรบใบแทนใบอนญาตภายในสามสบวนนบแตวนทไดทราบการสญหาย ชารดหรอถกทาลายดงกลาว

การขอและการออกใบแทนใบอนญาต ใหเปนไปตามหลกเกณฑ วธการและเงอนไขทอธบดประกาศกาหนด

มาตรา ๓๐ ในกรณทผรบใบอนญาตตามมาตรา ๒๔ หรอมาตรา ๒๕ ประสงคจะเปลยนแปลงแกไขรายการในใบอนญาต ใหยนคาขอตอนายทะเบยน

การขอและการอนญาตแกไขรายการในใบอนญาต และรายละเอยดของรายการทขอเปลยนแปลงแกไข ใหเปนไปตามหลกเกณฑ วธการและเงอนไขทอธบดประกาศกาหนด

มาตรา ๓๑ เพอประโยชนในการปองกนและควบคมโรคระบาด ผใดนาเขา สงออก หรอนาผานราชอาณาจกรซงสตวหรอซากสตว ตองไดรบใบอนญาตจากอธบดหรอผซงอธบดมอบหมายทกครงทนาเขา สงออกหรอนาผานราชอาณาจกร

การขออนญาต การออกใบอนญาต และวธการนาเขา สงออก หรอนาผานราชอาณาจกร ใหเปนไปตามหลกเกณฑ วธการและเงอนไขทอธบดประกาศกาหนด

มาตรา ๓๒ ใหผรบใบอนญาตตามมาตรา ๓๑ ปฏบตดงตอไปน (๑) ทาเครองหมายประจาตวสตวกอนการนาเขา สงออก หรอนาผานราชอาณาจกรซงสตว

หรอซากสตว และใหนาความในมาตรา ๙ วรรคสอง และวรรคสาม มาใชบงคบโดยอนโลม

202

หนา ๓๑ เลม ๑๓๒ ตอนท ๑๔ ก ราชกจจานเบกษา ๒ มนาคม ๒๕๕๘

(๒) นาสตวหรอซากสตวทไดดาเนนการตาม (๑) เขา ออกหรอผานทาเขาหรอทาออกตามทรฐมนตรประกาศกาหนด และใหปฏบตตามหลกเกณฑ วธการและเงอนไขทกาหนดในกฎกระทรวง

มาตรา ๓๓ เมอปรากฏวาทองทใดภายนอกราชอาณาจกรมหรอสงสยวามโรคระบาด ใหอธบดมอานาจประกาศเพอชะลอการนาเขาหรอนาผานราชอาณาจกรซงสตวหรอซากสตวจากทองทนนไดครงละไมเกนเกาสบวน หากรฐมนตรเหนสมควรอาจประกาศกาหนดหามการนาเขา หรอนาผานราชอาณาจกรซงสตวหรอซากสตวจากทองทนนได

มาตรา ๓๔ ภายใตบงคบมาตรา ๑๘ และมาตรา ๒๒ เพอประโยชนในการปองกนและควบคมโรคระบาด ผใดนาสตวหรอซากสตวดงตอไปนไปยงทองทจงหวดอนตองทาเครองหมายประจาตวสตว และใหนาความในมาตรา ๙ วรรคสอง และวรรคสาม มาใชบงคบโดยอนโลม และตองไดรบใบอนญาตจากสตวแพทยประจาทองทตนทางทกครง

(๑) ชาง มา โค กระบอ แพะ แกะ กวาง สกร หมปา หรอนาเชอสาหรบผสมพนธหรอเอมบรโอของสตวดงกลาว

(๒) นก ไก เปด หาน หรอนาเชอสาหรบผสมพนธ หรอไขสาหรบใชทาพนธ (๓) ซากสตวของสตวตาม (๑) หรอ (๒) (๔) สตวหรอซากสตวชนดอนตามทรฐมนตรประกาศกาหนด การขออนญาตและการออกใบอนญาต การตรวจโรคและทาลายเชอโรคจากสตวหรอซากสตว

ตามวรรคหนง ใหเปนไปตามหลกเกณฑ วธการและเงอนไขทอธบดประกาศกาหนด การออกใบอนญาตตามวรรคสอง สตวแพทยจะกาหนดเงอนไขเกยวกบยานพาหนะและการใชเสนทาง

หรอเงอนไขอนตามทจาเปนไวในใบอนญาตกได มาตรา ๓๕ ผรบใบอนญาตตามมาตรา ๓๔ ตองนาสตวหรอซากสตวผานดานกกกนสตว

ทงน ใหปฏบตตามหลกเกณฑ วธการและเงอนไขทอธบดประกาศกาหนด มาตรา ๓๖ ผใดประสงคจะใหมการดาเนนการเกยวกบการขออนญาตตามพระราชบญญตน

ในตางประเทศ หรอนอกสถานททาการโดยปกตในวนหยดราชการหรอนอกเวลาราชการ ใหผนนจดหายานพาหนะและรบผดชอบชาระคาปวยการและคาใชจายอนทจาเปนตองจายเนองในการปฏบตงานดงกลาวตามอตราทกาหนดในกฎกระทรวง

การจายคาปวยการและคาใชจายอนทจาเปนตองจายเนองในการปฏบตงานใหแกผปฏบตงานตามวรรคหนง ใหเปนไปตามหลกเกณฑ วธการและเงอนไขทอธบดประกาศกาหนด

มาตรา ๓๗ คาธรรมเนยมทเรยกเกบจากใบอนญาตนาสตวหรอซากสตวเขา ออก หรอผานราชอาณาจกร และคาทพกสตวหรอซากสตวทนาเขามาในหรอสงออกไปนอกราชอาณาจกร ใหหกไวเปนคาใชจายในการตรวจหรอควบคมการนาสตวหรอซากสตวเขา ออก หรอผานราชอาณาจกรเปนจานวนไมเกนรอยละหาสบของเงนคาธรรมเนยมดงกลาว สวนทเหลอใหนาสงเปนรายไดแผนดน ทงน ตามระเบยบ ทอธบดกาหนดโดยความเหนชอบของกระทรวงการคลง

203

หนา ๓๒ เลม ๑๓๒ ตอนท ๑๔ ก ราชกจจานเบกษา ๒ มนาคม ๒๕๕๘

หมวด ๓ การพกใชและการเพกถอนใบอนญาต

มาตรา ๓๘ เมอปรากฏวาผรบใบอนญาตตามมาตรา ๒๔ หรอมาตรา ๒๕ ฝาฝนหรอไมปฏบตตามหลกเกณฑ วธการและเงอนไขทอธบดประกาศกาหนดตามมาตรา ๒๔ หรอมาตรา ๒๕ แลวแตกรณ หากสตวแพทยเหนสมควร ใหเสนอความเหนตอนายทะเบยนเพอพจารณาสงพกใชหรอเพกถอนใบอนญาต และนายทะเบยนมอานาจสงพกใชใบอนญาตไดครงละไมเกนเกาสบวน ทงน ในคาสงดงกลาวจะกาหนดเงอนไขเทาทจาเปนใหผถกพกใชใบอนญาตตองปฏบตไวดวยกได

ในกรณทมการฟองผรบใบอนญาตดงกลาวตอศาลวาฝาฝนหรอไมปฏบตตามหลกเกณฑ วธการและเงอนไขทอธบดกาหนดตามมาตรา ๒๔ หรอมาตรา ๒๕ แลวแตกรณ นายทะเบยนจะสงพกใชใบอนญาตนนไวจนกวาศาลจะมคาพพากษาถงทสดกได

หามมใหผรบใบอนญาตตามมาตรา ๒๔ หรอมาตรา ๒๕ ซงถกสงพกใชใบอนญาตประกอบกจการตามใบอนญาตทถกสงพกใชนน

ใหนายทะเบยนมอานาจสงเพกถอนใบอนญาตในกรณทผรบใบอนญาตฝาฝนคาสงพกใชใบอนญาตตามวรรคหนง หรอกรณทจะกอใหเกดความเสยหายรายแรงตามทอธบดประกาศกาหนด

มาตรา ๓๙ นายทะเบยนมอานาจสงเพกถอนคาสงพกใชใบอนญาตกอนกาหนดเวลาได เมอปรากฏวาผรบใบอนญาตไดปฏบตตามหลกเกณฑ วธการและเงอนไขทอธบดประกาศกาหนดตามมาตรา ๒๔ หรอมาตรา ๒๕ และไดปฏบตตามเงอนไขทนายทะเบยนกาหนดตามมาตรา ๓๘ วรรคหนง แลว

หมวด ๔ อานาจหนาทของสตวแพทยและสารวตร

มาตรา ๔๐ เพอประโยชนในการปองกนและควบคมโรคระบาด เมอปรากฏวามหรอสงสยวามเชอโรคระบาด หรอพาหะของโรคระบาด ใหสตวแพทยมอานาจ ดงตอไปน

(๑) ออกประกาศหรอสงเปนหนงสอใหเจาของสตวหรอซากสตวแจงจานวนสตวหรอซากสตว และถาเหนสมควรจะใหนาสตวหรอซากสตวนนมาเพอใหสตวแพทยทาการตรวจโรค เกบตวอยาง ปองกนโรคระบาด หรอทาเครองหมายประจาตวสตว กได

(๒) สงเปนหนงสอใหเจาของสตวหรอซากสตวกกสตวหรอซากสตวไว ณ ททเหนสมควร ตามความจาเปนเพอตรวจโรค

(๓) เรยกตรวจยานพาหนะ หรอเขาไปในอาคาร หรอสถานทอนใดเพอตรวจโรค เกบตวอยาง ปองกนโรคระบาด หรอทาเครองหมายประจาตวสตว ในการนใหสตวแพทยมอานาจสงเปนหนงสอ ใหเจาของยานพาหนะ อาคารหรอสถานทอนใด ทาความสะอาดและทาลายเชอโรคระบาดหรอพาหะของ

204

หนา ๓๓ เลม ๑๓๒ ตอนท ๑๔ ก ราชกจจานเบกษา ๒ มนาคม ๒๕๕๘

โรคระบาดในททมเชอโรคระบาดหรอสงสยวามเชอโรคระบาด ตามวธการทกาหนด ทงน การเขาไปในอาคาร หรอสถานทดงกลาว ใหกระทาไดระหวางพระอาทตยขนและตก หรอในเวลาทาการของอาคารหรอสถานทนน และหากยงดาเนนการไมแลวเสรจ จะดาเนนการตอไปจนแลวเสรจกได

(๔) ตรวจสตวหรอซากสตว หรอสงของใด ๆ ทเปนของกลางและถกยดหรออายดไวตามพระราชบญญตนหรอตามกฎหมายอน ในกรณทสตวหรอซากสตวดงกลาวเปนโรคระบาด หรอเปนพาหะของโรคระบาด ใหมอานาจดาเนนการกบสตวหรอซากสตวนนตามระเบยบทอธบดกาหนด คาใชจาย ในการตรวจหรอการดาเนนการดงกลาว ใหเจาของสตวหรอซากสตวเปนผรบผดชอบ

(๕) ทาลายสงของใด ๆ ทมเชอโรคระบาดหรอมเหตอนควรสงสยวามเชอโรคระบาด ตามหลกเกณฑและวธการทอธบดประกาศกาหนด ทงน ใหชดใชราคาสงของแกเจาของตามหลกเกณฑและวธการทกาหนดในกฎกระทรวง เวนแตกรณทเจาของไดจงใจกระทาความผดตอบทบญญตแหงพระราชบญญตน

การดาเนนการของสตวแพทยตามวรรคหนง ใหผทเกยวของอานวยความสะดวกตามสมควร ในการปฏบตการตามพระราชบญญตน ใหสตวแพทยเปนเจาพนกงานตามประมวลกฎหมายอาญา มาตรา ๔๑ ในการปฏบตการตามพระราชบญญตน ใหสารวตรมอานาจ ดงตอไปน (๑) เขาไปในสานกงานหรอสถานประกอบการของผรบใบอนญาตตามมาตรา ๒๔ หรอมาตรา ๒๕

เพอตรวจหรอควบคมใหการเปนไปตามพระราชบญญตน (๒) เขาไปในอาคาร หรอสถานทอ นใด ในกรณท มเหตอนควรสงสยวาจะมการฝาฝน

หรอไมปฏบตตามพระราชบญญตน เพอตรวจคนและยดหรออายดสตวหรอซากสตวทเกยวกบการกระทาความผดตามพระราชบญญตน หรอพยานหลกฐานอนท เ กยวของ หรอจบกมผกระทาความผด ตามพระราชบญญตน โดยไมตองมหมายคน ในกรณ ดงตอไปน

(ก) เมอปรากฏความผดซงหนากาลงกระทาในอาคารหรอสถานทนน (ข) เมอบคคลทไดกระทาความผดซงหนา ขณะทถกไลจบหนเขาไป หรอมเหตอนแนนแฟน

ควรสงสยวาไดเขาไปซกซอนตวอยในอาคารหรอสถานทนน (ค) เมอมพยานหลกฐานตามสมควรวาสตวหรอซากสตวทเกยวกบการกระทาความผด

ตามพระราชบญญตน หรอพยานหลกฐานอนทเกยวของ ไดซอนหรออยในอาคารหรอสถานทนน ประกอบกบตองมเหตอนควรเชอวาเนองจากการเนนชากวาจะเอาหมายคนมาได สตวหรอซากสตว หรอพยานหลกฐานนนจะถกโยกยาย ทาลาย หรอทาใหเปลยนสภาพไปจากเดม

(ง) เมอผจะตองถกจบเปนเจาของอาคารหรอสถานท และการจบนนมหมายจบหรอจบไดโดยไมตองมหมายตามทประมวลกฎหมายวธพจารณาความอาญาบญญตไว

(๓) สงเจาของหรอผควบคมยานพาหนะใหหยดหรอจอด เพอตรวจหรอควบคมใหการเปนไปตามพระราชบญญตน หรอเพอตรวจคนยานพาหนะในกรณทมเหตอนควรสงสยวาจะมการฝาฝนหรอ ไมปฏบตตามพระราชบญญตน

205

หนา ๓๔ เลม ๑๓๒ ตอนท ๑๔ ก ราชกจจานเบกษา ๒ มนาคม ๒๕๕๘

(๔) จบกมผกระทาความผดตามพระราชบญญตนโดยไมตองมหมายจบ เมอปรากฏวาม การกระทาความผดซงหนา หรอมเหตอนทประมวลกฎหมายวธพจารณาความอาญาบญญตไว เพอสงพนกงานสอบสวนดาเนนการตอไปตามประมวลกฎหมายวธพจารณาความอาญา

(๕) ตรวจสตวหรอซากสตว เอกสาร หรอพยานหลกฐานอนทเกยวของเพอใหการเปนไปตามพระราชบญญตน หรอในกรณทมเหตอนควรสงสยวาจะมการฝาฝนหรอไมปฏบตตามพระราชบญญตน

(๖) ยดหรออายดสตวหรอซากสตว ยานพาหนะ เอกสาร หรอพยานหลกฐานอนทเกยวของกบการกระทาความผดตามพระราชบญญตน ทงน ไมรวมถงสตวหรอซากสตวตามมาตรา ๔๒ วรรคสาม

ในการนใหสารวตรมอานาจสอบถามขอเทจจรง หรอเรยกเอกสารหรอพยานหลกฐานอนทเกยวของจากเจาของอาคารหรอสถานท หรอเจาของหรอผควบคมยานพาหนะนนได

การดาเนนการตาม (๑) หรอ (๒) ใหกระทาไดระหวางพระอาทตยขนและตกหรอในเวลาทาการของสานกงานหรอสถานประกอบการของผรบใบอนญาตตามมาตรา ๒๔ หรอมาตรา ๒๕ หรอของอาคารหรอสถานทนน ทงน หากยงดาเนนการไมแลวเสรจ จะดาเนนการตอไปจนแลวเสรจกได

การดาเนนการตาม (๑) ใหปฏบตตามระเบยบทอธบดกาหนด ระเบยบดงกลาวอยางนอย ตองกาหนดถงการแสดงความบรสทธกอนการเขาไป การมอบบนทกเหตผลในการเขาไปใหแกเจาของสานกงานหรอสถานประกอบการ และการรายงานผลการปฏบตหนาทตอผบงคบบญชา

การคนและการจบตามมาตราน ใหสารวตรปฏบตตามประมวลกฎหมายวธพจารณาความอาญา การดาเนนการของสารวตรตามมาตราน ใหผทเกยวของอานวยความสะดวกตามสมควร มาตรา ๔๒ ใหสารวตรมอานาจยดหรออายดสตวหรอซากสตวทนาเขาหรอนาผานราชอาณาจกร

เมอสตวหรอซากสตวดงกลาวมเหตอนควรสงสยวาเปนโรคระบาดหรอเปนพาหะของโรคระบาด ในกรณทสตวหรอซากสตวตามวรรคหนง เปนโรคระบาดหรอเปนพาหะของโรคระบาด ใหสตวแพทย

ทาลายสตวหรอซากสตวนน หรอจดการโดยวธอนตามระเบยบทอธบดกาหนด ในกรณทสตวหรอซากสตวตามวรรคหนงไดนาเขา หรอนาผานราชอาณาจกรโดยไมไดรบใบอนญาต

ตามมาตรา ๓๑ หรอไมปฏบตตามมาตรา ๓๒ หรอมาตรา ๓๓ ใหดาเนนการ ดงตอไปน (๑) กรณทสตวหรอซากสตวดงกลาวมไดเปนโรคระบาดหรอมไดเปนพาหะของโรคระบาด

ใหสารวตรมอานาจสงใหเจาของ ผนาเขาหรอนาผานสงกลบสตวหรอซากสตวนนไปยงประเทศตนทาง ทงน การดาเนนการสงกลบใหเปนไปตามหลกเกณฑและวธการทอธบดประกาศกาหนด

(๒) กรณทวธการตรวจพสจนไมอาจกระทาไดโดยงายหรอไมคมคาในอนทจะพสจนวาสตว หรอซากสตวดงกลาวเปนโรคระบาดหรอเปนพาหะของโรคระบาด ใหสตวแพทยทาลายสตวหรอซากสตวนน หรอจดการโดยวธอนตามระเบยบทอธบดกาหนด

คาใชจายเกยวกบการยด อายด หรอทาลาย ใหเจาของ ผนาเขาหรอนาผานสตวหรอซากสตวเปนผรบผดชอบ

206

หนา ๓๕ เลม ๑๓๒ ตอนท ๑๔ ก ราชกจจานเบกษา ๒ มนาคม ๒๕๕๘

มาตรา ๔๓ สตวหรอซากสตวตามมาตรา ๔๒ วรรคสาม (๑) ใหตกเปนของกรมปศสตว ในกรณ ดงตอไปน

(๑) ไมปรากฏเจาของ ผนาเขาหรอนาผาน หรอไมมผมาแสดงตวเปนเจาของผนาเขาหรอ นาผานภายในสสบหาวนนบแตวนทไดมการประกาศหาตวบคคลดงกลาว ทงน การออกประกาศ ใหเปนไปตามหลกเกณฑและวธการทอธบดประกาศกาหนด

(๒) เจาของ ผนาเขาหรอนาผานไมสงกลบหรอไมสามารถสงกลบไปยงประเทศตนทางภายในเวลาสสบหาวนนบแตวนททราบคาสงใหสงกลบ

ในกรณทสตวหรอซากสตวตามมาตรา ๔๒ วรรคสาม (๑) เปนของเสยงายหรอถาเกบไว จะเปนการเสยงตอความเสยหาย หรอจะเสยคาใชจายในการเกบรกษาเกนคาของสงนน สารวตรทไดรบมอบหมายจากอธบดจะจดการขายทอดตลาดเสยกอนทสงนนจะตกเปนของกรมปศสตวกได ทงน ใหนาความในมาตรา ๔๖ วรรคสอง มาใชบงคบโดยอนโลม

เมอพนกาหนดเวลาตามวรรคหนงแลว ใหสารวตรทไดรบมอบหมายจากอธบดมอานาจจดการขายทอดตลาดสตวหรอซากสตวตามวรรคหนง ทงน ใหนาความในมาตรา ๔๗ มาใชบงคบโดยอนโลม

มาตรา ๔๔ ในการปฏบตการตามพระราชบญญตน ใหสารวตรเปนพนกงานฝายปกครอง หรอตารวจตามประมวลกฎหมายวธพจารณาความอาญา

มาตรา ๔๕ ในการปฏบตหนาทของสตวแพทยหรอสารวตรตามพระราชบญญตน ใหแสดง บตรประจาตวตอบคคลทเกยวของ

บตรประจาตวตามวรรคหนง ใหเปนไปตามแบบทอธบดประกาศกาหนด หมวด ๕

การขายทอดตลาด และการจายเงนสนบน

มาตรา ๔๖ สงทยดหรออายดไวตามมาตรา ๔๑ (๖) ใหตกเปนของกรมปศสตว ในกรณ ดงตอไปน

(๑) ไมปรากฏเจาของ หรอไมมผมาแสดงตวเปนเจาของภายในสสบหาวนนบแตวนทไดม การประกาศหาตวเจาของ ทงน การออกประกาศดงกลาวใหเปนไปตามหลกเกณฑและวธการทอธบดประกาศกาหนด

(๒) ไมมการดาเนนคดและผเปนเจาของมไดรองขอคนภายในสสบหาวนนบแตวนทไดรบ แจงคาสงวาไมมการดาเนนคด

(๓) มการดาเนนคดและพนกงานอยการมคาสงเดดขาดไมฟองคดหรอศาลไมไดพพากษาใหรบ และผเปนเจาของมไดรองขอคนภายในสสบหาวนนบแตวนททราบคาสงเดดขาดไมฟองคด หรอวนทศาล มคาพพากษาถงทสด แลวแตกรณ

207

หนา ๓๖ เลม ๑๓๒ ตอนท ๑๔ ก ราชกจจานเบกษา ๒ มนาคม ๒๕๕๘

ในกรณทสงทยดหรออายดไวตามมาตรา ๔๑ (๖) เปนของเสยงาย หรอถาเกบไวจะเปน การเสยงตอความเสยหาย หรอจะเสยคาใชจายในการเกบรกษาเกนคาของสงนน สารวตรทไดรบมอบหมายจากอธบดจะจดการขายทอดตลาดเสยกอนคดถงทสด หรอกอนทสงนนจะตกเปนของกรมปศสตวกได เงนคาของสงนนเมอหกคาใชจายแลว เหลอเงนจานวนสทธเทาใดใหยดไวแทนสงนนโดยฝากไวกบ ธนาคารของรฐ หรอธนาคารพาณชยตามทตกลงกบกระทรวงการคลง

มาตรา ๔๗ สงทยดหรออายดไวตามมาตรา ๔๑ (๖) เฉพาะในสวนทตกเปนของกรมปศสตวตามมาตรา ๔๖ วรรคหนง สารวตรทไดรบมอบหมายจากอธบดมอานาจจดการขายทอดตลาด และใหหกเงนทขายไดเปนคาใชจายตามทจายจรงในการดาเนนการใด ๆ เพอใหสตวหรอซากสตวของกลาง ปลอดจากโรคระบาด เหลอเทาใดใหหกไวไมเกนกงหนงเพอจายเปนเงนสนบน สวนทเหลอใหนาสง เปนเงนรายไดแผนดน การจายเงนสนบนใหเปนไปตามระเบยบทรฐมนตรกาหนดโดยความเหนชอบของกระทรวงการคลง

มาตรา ๔๘ ในกรณทมการจบกมผกระทาความผด เมอพนกงานอยการรองขอใหศาลสงจายเงนสนบนแกผนาจบรอยละยสบหาของจานวนเงนสทธจากการขายทอดตลาดของกลางทศาลสงรบ สวนทเหลอใหนาสงเปนเงนรายไดแผนดน

มาตรา ๔๙ การขายทอดตลาดตามมาตรา ๔๖ วรรคสอง มาตรา ๔๗ หรอมาตรา ๔๘ ใหเปนไปตามหลกเกณฑ วธการและเงอนไขทรฐมนตรประกาศกาหนด

มาตรา ๕๐ ในกรณทมของกลางตามมาตรา ๔๗ หรอมาตรา ๔๘ แตขายทอดตลาด ของกลางไมได หรอในกรณทไมมของกลาง ใหจายเงนสนบนจากเงนคาปรบทไดชาระตอศาลหรอคาปรบจากการเปรยบเทยบไมเกนกงหนงของจานวนเงนคาปรบดงกลาว การจายเงนสนบนใหเปนไปตามระเบยบ ทรฐมนตรกาหนดโดยความเหนชอบของกระทรวงการคลง

มาตรา ๕๑ ในกรณทไมมผมารบเงนสนบนตามมาตรา ๔๗ มาตรา ๔๘ หรอมาตรา ๕๐ ภายในหาป ใหนาสงเปนเงนรายไดแผนดน

หมวด ๖ การอทธรณ

มาตรา ๕๒ ในกรณทนายทะเบยนไมออกใบอนญาตตามมาตรา ๒๔ หรอมาตรา ๒๕ ไมตออายใบอนญาตตามมาตรา ๒๖ หรอไมออกใบแทนใบอนญาตตามมาตรา ๒๙ ผยนคาขอมสทธอทธรณ คาสงดงกลาวเปนหนงสอตอรฐมนตรภายในสามสบวนนบแตวนทไดรบหนงสอแจงคาสงนน

คาวนจฉยของรฐมนตรใหเปนทสด ในกรณทนายทะเบยนไมอนญาตใหตออายใบอนญาต กอนทรฐมนตรจะมคาวนจฉยอทธรณ

ตามวรรคสอง รฐมนตรอาจพจารณาอนญาตใหประกอบกจการไปพลางกอนไดเมอมคาขอของผอทธรณ

208

หนา ๓๗ เลม ๑๓๒ ตอนท ๑๔ ก ราชกจจานเบกษา ๒ มนาคม ๒๕๕๘

มาตรา ๕๓ ในกรณทนายทะเบยนมคาสงพกใชหรอเพกถอนใบอนญาตตามมาตรา ๓๘ ผรบใบอนญาตซงถกสงพกใชหรอเพกถอนใบอนญาต มสทธอทธรณเปนหนงสอตอรฐมนตรภายในสามสบวนนบแตวนททราบคาสง

การอทธรณตามวรรคหนง ยอมไมเปนการทเลาการบงคบตามคาสงพกใชหรอคาสงเพกถอนใบอนญาต

คาวนจฉยของรฐมนตรใหเปนทสด มาตรา ๕๔ การพจารณาอทธรณตามมาตรา ๕๒ และมาตรา ๕๓ ใหรฐมนตรพจารณาอทธรณ

ใหแลวเสรจภายในสามสบวนนบแตวนทไดรบคาอทธรณ ถามเหตจาเปนไมอาจพจารณาใหแลวเสรจภายในระยะเวลาดงกลาว ใหมหนงสอแจงใหผอทธรณทราบกอนครบกาหนดระยะเวลานน ในการน ใหขยายระยะเวลาพจารณาอทธรณออกไปไดอกไมเกนสองครง ครงละไมเกนสามสบวนนบแตวนท ครบกาหนดระยะเวลาดงกลาว

หมวด ๗ บทกาหนดโทษ

มาตรา ๕๕ เจาของสตวผใดไมปฏบตตามมาตรา ๗ ตองระวางโทษจาคกไมเกนหนงเดอน หรอปรบไมเกนหนงหมนบาท หรอทงจาทงปรบ และปรบเปนรายวนอกวนละไมเกนหนงพนบาทจนกวาจะไดปฏบตใหถกตอง

มาตรา ๕๖ เจาของสตวหรอซากสตวผใดไมปฏบตตามมาตรา ๘ ตองระวางโทษจาคก ไมเกนหนงเดอน หรอปรบไมเกนหนงหมนบาท หรอทงจาทงปรบ

มาตรา ๕๗ เจาของสตวหรอซากสตวผใดไมปฏบตตามมาตรา ๙ วรรคสาม ตองระวางโทษปรบไมเกนหนงหมนบาท

มาตรา ๕๘ ผใดฝาฝนมาตรา ๑๐ ตองระวางโทษจาคกไมเกนหนงป หรอปรบไมเกนสองหมนบาท หรอทงจาทงปรบ

มาตรา ๕๙ เจาของสตวผใดไมปฏบตตามมาตรา ๑๑ วรรคหนง ไมดาเนนการตามมาตรา ๑๑ วรรคสอง หรอไมปฏบตตามมาตรา ๑๑ วรรคสาม ตองระวางโทษจาคกไมเกนหนงเดอน หรอปรบไมเกนหนงหมนบาท หรอทงจาทงปรบ

มาตรา ๖๐ ผใดฝาฝนมาตรา ๑๑ วรรคสาม มาตรา ๑๔ วรรคสอง หรอมาตรา ๑๕ วรรคสอง ตองระวางโทษจาคกไมเกนหนงเดอน หรอปรบไมเกนหนงหมนบาท หรอทงจาทงปรบ

มาตรา ๖๑ เจาของสตวผใดไมปฏบตตามคาสงของพนกงานเจาหนาท หรอสารวตรตามมาตรา ๑๒ ตองระวางโทษจาคกไมเกนหนงเดอน หรอปรบไมเกนหนงหมนบาท หรอทงจาทงปรบ

209

หนา ๓๘ เลม ๑๓๒ ตอนท ๑๔ ก ราชกจจานเบกษา ๒ มนาคม ๒๕๕๘

มาตรา ๖๒ เจาของสตวหรอซากสตวผใดไมปฏบตตามคาสงของสตวแพทยตามมาตรา ๑๓ หรอประกาศหรอคาสงของสตวแพทยตามมาตรา ๔๐ (๑) หรอ (๒) ตองระวางโทษจาคกไมเกนหนงป หรอปรบไมเกนสองหมนบาท หรอทงจาทงปรบ

มาตรา ๖๓ เจาของทดนผใดไมปฏบตตามมาตรา ๑๔ วรรคหนง ตองระวางโทษปรบไมเกนหนงหมนบาท

มาตรา ๖๔ ผใดฝาฝนมาตรา ๑๖ ตองระวางโทษจาคกไมเกนหนงป หรอปรบไมเกนสองหมนบาท หรอทงจาทงปรบ

มาตรา ๖๕ ผใดฝาฝนมาตรา ๑๘ หรอมาตรา ๒๒ ตองระวางโทษจาคกไมเกนสองป หรอปรบไมเกนสหมนบาท หรอทงจาทงปรบ

มาตรา ๖๖ ผใดไมปฏบตตามมาตรา ๒๔ วรรคหนง หรอมาตรา ๒๕ วรรคหนง ตองระวางโทษจาคกไมเกนหนงป หรอปรบไมเกนสองหมนบาท หรอทงจาทงปรบ

ผรบใบอนญาตตามมาตรา ๒๔ หรอมาตรา ๒๕ ผใดไมปฏบตตามหลกเกณฑ วธการและเงอนไขทอธบดประกาศกาหนดตามมาตรา ๒๔ วรรคสอง หรอมาตรา ๒๕ วรรคสอง แลวแตกรณ ตองระวางโทษจาคกไมเกนหนงเดอน หรอปรบไมเกนหนงหมนบาท หรอทงจาทงปรบ

มาตรา ๖๗ ผรบใบอนญาตตามมาตรา ๒๔ หรอมาตรา ๒๕ ผใดไมปฏบตตามมาตรา ๒๙ วรรคหนง หรอมาตรา ๓๐ ตองระวางโทษปรบไมเกนหนงหมนบาท

มาตรา ๖๘ ผใดนาเขา สงออกหรอนาผานราชอาณาจกรซงสตวหรอซากสตวโดยไมไดรบใบอนญาตตามมาตรา ๓๑ วรรคหนง ตองระวางโทษจาคกไมเกนสองป หรอปรบไมเกนสองแสนบาท หรอทงจาทงปรบ

มาตรา ๖๙ ผรบใบอนญาตตามมาตรา ๓๑ ผใดไมปฏบตตามมาตรา ๓๒ หรอฝาฝนประกาศ ของอธบดทออกตามมาตรา ๓๓ ตองระวางโทษจาคกไมเกนหนงป หรอปรบไมเกนสองหมนบาท หรอทงจาทงปรบ

มาตรา ๗๐ ผใดฝาฝนประกาศของรฐมนตรทออกตามมาตรา ๓๓ ตองระวางโทษจาคก ไมเกนสองป หรอปรบไมเกนสหมนบาท หรอทงจาทงปรบ

มาตรา ๗๑ ผใดไมปฏบตตามมาตรา ๓๔ วรรคหนง ตองระวางโทษจาคกไมเกนหนงป หรอปรบไมเกนสองหมนบาท หรอทงจาทงปรบ

ผรบใบอนญาตตามมาตรา ๓๔ ผ ใดฝาฝนหรอไมปฏบตตามเงอนไขทสตวแพทยกาหนด ในใบอนญาตตามมาตรา ๓๔ วรรคสาม ตองระวางโทษจาคกไมเกนหนงเดอน หรอปรบไมเกนหนงหมนบาท หรอทงจาทงปรบ

มาตรา ๗๒ ผรบใบอนญาตตามมาตรา ๓๔ ผใดไมปฏบตตามมาตรา ๓๕ ตองระวางโทษจาคกไมเกนหนงเดอน หรอปรบไมเกนหนงหมนบาท หรอทงจาทงปรบ

210

หนา ๓๙ เลม ๑๓๒ ตอนท ๑๔ ก ราชกจจานเบกษา ๒ มนาคม ๒๕๕๘

มาตรา ๗๓ ผรบใบอนญาตตามมาตรา ๒๔ หรอมาตรา ๒๕ ผใดฝาฝนมาตรา ๓๘ วรรคสาม ตองระวางโทษจาคกไมเกนหนงป หรอปรบไมเกนสองหมนบาท หรอทงจาทงปรบ

มาตรา ๗๔ เจาของยานพาหนะ อาคารหรอสถานทผใดไมปฏบตตามคาสงของสตวแพทยตามมาตรา ๔๐ (๓) ตองระวางโทษจาคกไมเกนหนงป หรอปรบไมเกนสองหมนบาท หรอทงจาทงปรบ

มาตรา ๗๕ ผใดตอสหรอขดขวางการปฏบตหนาทของพนกงานเจาหนาท สารวตรหรอสตวแพทยตามพระราชบญญตน ตองระวางโทษจาคกไมเกนหนงป หรอปรบไมเกนสองหมนบาท หรอทงจาทงปรบ

ผใดไมอานวยความสะดวกตามสมควรในการปฏบตหนาทของสตวแพทยตามมาตรา ๔๐ วรรคสอง หรอสารวตรตามมาตรา ๔๑ วรรคหก หรอไมใหถอยคา ไมสงเอกสารหรอพยานหลกฐานอนทเกยวของตามมาตรา ๔๑ วรรคสอง ตองระวางโทษจาคกไมเกนหนงเดอน หรอปรบไมเกนหนงหมนบาท หรอทงจาทงปรบ

มาตรา ๗๖ ในกรณทผกระทาความผดซงตองรบโทษตามพระราชบญญตนเปนนตบคคล ถาการกระทาความผดของนตบคคลนนเกดจากการสงการ หรอการกระทาของบคคลใด หรอไมสงการ หรอไมกระทาการอนเปนหนาททตองกระทาของกรรมการผจดการ ผจดการ หรอบคคลใดซงรบผดชอบ ในการดาเนนงานของนตบคคลนน ผนนตองรบโทษตามทบญญตไวสาหรบความผดนน ๆ ดวย

มาตรา ๗๗ ความผดตามพระราชบญญตนทมโทษปรบสถานเดยวหรอโทษจาคกไมเกนหนงป ใหอธบดหรอผซงอธบดมอบหมายมอานาจเปรยบเทยบได และเมอผตองหาไดชาระเงนคาปรบตามจานวน ทเปรยบเทยบภายในระยะเวลาทกาหนดแลว ใหถอวาคดเลกกนตามบทบญญตแหงประมวลกฎหมาย วธพจารณาความอาญา

การเปรยบเทยบตามวรรคหนง ใหเปนไปตามระเบยบทอธบดกาหนด มาตรา ๗๘ เมอศาลไดพพากษาลงโทษผ ใดเนองจากไดกระทาความผดตามมาตรา ๕๘

มาตรา ๖๕ มาตรา ๖๖ มาตรา ๖๘ มาตรา ๖๙ มาตรา ๗๐ มาตรา ๗๑ หรอมาตรา ๗๒ ใหศาลมอานาจสงรบสตว ซากสตว ยานพาหนะ เครองหมายประจาตวสตว เครองมอ เครองใช ภาชนะบรรจ หรออปกรณ ทเกยวของกบการกระทาความผดเสยทงสน เวนแตทรพยสนดงกลาวเปนของผอนซงมไดรเหนเปนใจดวยในการกระทาความผด

ในกรณทศาลสงใหรบทรพยสนตามวรรคหนงแลว หากปรากฏในภายหลงโดยคารองของเจาของแทจรงวาผเปนเจาของแทจรงมไดรเหนเปนใจดวยในการกระทาความผด ใหศาลสงใหคนทรพยสนดงกลาว แตคารองของเจาของแทจรงนนจะตองกระทาตอศาลภายในสามสบวนนบแตวนทศาลมคาพพากษาถงทสด

สงทศาลสงรบตามวรรคหนงใหตกเปนของกรมปศสตว และใหสารวตรทไดรบมอบหมาย จากอธบดมอานาจดาเนนการขายทอดตลาดตามหลกเกณฑ วธการและเงอนไขทรฐมนตรประกาศกาหนดตามมาตรา ๔๙ หรอจดการอยางอนตามระเบยบทอธบดกาหนด

211

หนา ๔๐ เลม ๑๓๒ ตอนท ๑๔ ก ราชกจจานเบกษา ๒ มนาคม ๒๕๕๘

บทเฉพาะกาล

มาตรา ๗๙ ใบอนญาตทไดออกใหตามพระราชบญญตโรคระบาดสตว พ.ศ. ๒๔๙๙ ใหใชไดตอไปจนกวาจะสนอาย และถาจะตออายใบอนญาตตามพระราชบญญตน ใหยนคาขอกอนใบอนญาต สนอาย

มาตรา ๘๐ คาขออนญาตใด ๆ ทไดยนไวตามพระราชบญญตโรคระบาดสตว พ.ศ. ๒๔๙๙ และยงอยในระหวางการพจารณา ใหถอวาเปนคาขออนญาตตามพระราชบญญตนโดยอนโลม และถา คาขออนญาตดงกลาวมขอความแตกตางไปจากคาขออนญาตตามพระราชบญญตน นายทะเบยนมอานาจสงใหแกไขเพมเตมคาขออนญาตเพอใหการเปนไปตามพระราชบญญตนได

มาตรา ๘๑ กฎกระทรวง ประกาศ หรอระเบยบ ทออกตามพระราชบญญตโรคระบาดสตว พ.ศ. ๒๔๙๙ ทใชอยในวนทพระราชบญญตนใชบงคบใหคงใชบงคบไดตอไปเทาทไมขดหรอแยงกบบทบญญตแหงพระราชบญญตน จนกวาจะมกฎกระทรวง ประกาศ หรอระเบยบทออกตามพระราชบญญตน ขนใชบงคบ

การดาเนนการออกกฎกระทรวง ประกาศ หรอระเบยบตามวรรคหนง ใหดาเนนการใหแลวเสรจภายในหนงปนบแตวนทพระราชบญญตนใชบงคบ หากไมสามารถดาเนนการได ใหรฐมนตรรายงานเหตผลทไมอาจดาเนนการไดตอคณะรฐมนตรเพอทราบ

ผรบสนองพระบรมราชโองการ พลเอก ประยทธ จนทรโอชา

นายกรฐมนตร

212

อตราคาธรรมเนยม

(๑) (๒)

คาขออนญาต หรอคาขอตออายใบอนญาตตามมาตรา ๒๔ หรอมาตรา ๒๕ ใบอนญาตทาการคาหรอหากาไร ในลกษณะคนกลางซงสตวตามมาตรา ๒๔ ในกรณตอไปน (ก) นาเขาในราชอาณาจกร (ข) สงออกนอกราชอาณาจกร (ค) นาเขาในและสงออกนอกราชอาณาจกร (ง) ภายในราชอาณาจกร (จ) ภายในจงหวด

ฉบบละ ฉบบละ ฉบบละ ฉบบละ ฉบบละ ฉบบละ

๑๐๐ บาท

๒๐,๐๐๐ บาท ๒๐,๐๐๐ บาท ๓๐,๐๐๐ บาท ๔,๐๐๐ บาท ๑,๐๐๐ บาท

(๓)

ใบอนญาตทาการคาหรอหากาไร ในลกษณะคนกลางซงซากสตวตาม มาตรา ๒๔ ในกรณตอไปน (ก) นาเขาในราชอาณาจกร (ข) สงออกนอกราชอาณาจกร (ค) นาเขาในและสงออกนอกราชอาณาจกร (ง) ภายในราชอาณาจกร (จ) ภายในจงหวด

ฉบบละ ฉบบละ ฉบบละ ฉบบละ ฉบบละ

๔,๐๐๐ บาท ๔,๐๐๐ บาท ๕,๐๐๐ บาท ๑,๐๐๐ บาท ๒๐๐ บาท

(๔) ใบอนญาตขาย จาหนาย จาย แจก แลก เปลยน หรอมไวเพอขายซงนาเชอสาหรบ ผสมพนธ เอมบรโอ หรอมพอพนธของสตว เพอใหบรการผสมพนธแกสตวของบคคลอนโดยวธธรรมชาต ตามมาตรา ๒๕ ในกรณ ตอไปน (ก) สงออกนอกราชอาณาจกร (ข) ภายในราชอาณาจกร

ฉบบละ ฉบบละ

๘,๐๐๐ บาท ๒,๐๐๐ บาท

/(๕)

213

- ๒ - (๕) ใบอนญาตนาสตวเขามาในราชอาณาจกร

(ก) ชาง (ข) มา โค กระบอ ลา ลอ แพะ แกะ สกร (ค) สนข แมว กระตาย ลง ชะน (ง) นกกระจอกเทศ นกอม (จ) ไก เปด หาน และสตวปกชนดอน (ฉ) สตวชนดอน (ช) นาเชอสาหรบผสมพนธ (ซ) เอมบรโอ

(ฌ) ไขนกกระจอกเทศ ไขนกอม สาหรบใชทาพนธ (ญ) ไขสาหรบใชทาพนธ

เชอกละ ตวละ ตวละ ตวละ ตวละ ตวละ โดสละ ตวละ ฟองละ ฟองละ

๒,๕๐๐ บาท ๑,๐๐๐ บาท ๕๐๐ บาท ๒,๐๐๐ บาท ๕๐ บาท ๑,๐๐๐ บาท

ในกรณทไมสะดวก ในการนบจานวนใหคดเปน กโลกรมละ ๑,๐๐๐ บาท

๑๐๐ บาท ๑,๐๐๐ บาท

๕๐๐ บาท ๕๐ บาท

(๖) ใบอนญาตนาสตวออกนอกราชอาณาจกร (ก) ชาง (ข) มา โค กระบอ ลา ลอ แพะ แกะ สกร (ค) สนข แมว กระตาย ลง ชะน (ง) นกกระจอกเทศ นกอม (จ) ไก เปด หาน และสตวปกชนดอน (ฉ) สตวชนดอน

เชอกละ ตวละ ตวละ ตวละ ตวละ ตวละ

๕๐๐,๐๐๐ บาท ๕๐๐ บาท ๒๕๐ บาท ๕๐๐ บาท ๒๕ บาท ๕๐๐ บาท

ในกรณทไมสะดวก ในการนบจานวนใหคดเปน

กโลกรมละ ๕๐๐ บาท /(ช)

214

- ๓ -

(ช) นาเชอสาหรบผสมพนธ

(ซ) เอมบรโอ

(ฌ) ไขนกกระจอกเทศ ไขนกอม

สาหรบใชทาพนธ

(ญ) ไขสาหรบใชทาพนธ

โดสละ

ตวละ

ฟองละ

ฟองละ

๕๐ บาท

๕๐๐ บาท

๕๐ บาท

๒๕ บาท

(๗) ใบอนญาตนาสตวผานราชอาณาจกร

(ก) ชาง

(ข) มา โค กระบอ ลา ลอ แพะ แกะ สกร

(ค) สนข แมว กระตาย ลง ชะน

(ง) นกกระจอกเทศ นกอม

(จ) ไก เปด หาน และสตวปกชนดอน

(ฉ) สตวชนดอน

(ช) นาเชอสาหรบผสมพนธ

(ซ) เอมบรโอ

(ฌ) ไขนกกระจอกเทศ ไขนกอม

สาหรบใชทาพนธ

(ญ) ไขสาหรบใชทาพนธ

เชอกละ

ตวละ

ตวละ

ตวละ

ตวละ

ตวละ

โดสละ

ตวละ

ฟองละ

ฟองละ

๒๐๐,๐๐๐ บาท

๑,๐๐๐ บาท

๕๐๐ บาท

๒๕๐ บาท

๕๐ บาท

๕๐๐ บาท

ในกรณทไมสะดวก ในการนบจานวนใหคดเปน

กโลกรมละ ๕๐๐ บาท

๕๐ บาท

๒๐๐ บาท

๕๐ บาท

๕ บาท

(๘) ใบอนญาตนาซากสตวเขามาใน

ราชอาณาจกร

กโลกรมละ

๑๐๐ บาท

(๙) ใบอนญาตนาซากสตวออกนอก

ราชอาณาจกร

กโลกรมละ

๕ บาท

(๑๐) ใบอนญาตนาซากสตวผานราชอาณาจกร กโลกรมละ ๕ บาท

/(๑๑)

215

- ๔ - (๑๑) ใบแทนใบอนญาตตามมาตรา ๒๔

หรอมาตรา ๒๕ ฉบบละ

๑๐๐ บาท

(๑๒) การตออายใบอนญาตตามมาตรา ๒๔ หรอมาตรา ๒๕

ครงละ

เทากบคาธรรมเนยม สาหรบใบอนญาตนน

(๑๓) การโอนใบอนญาตตามมาตรา ๒๔ หรอมาตรา ๒๕

ครงละ

๑๐๐ บาท

(๑๔) การเปลยนแปลงแกไขรายการในใบอนญาต ตามมาตรา ๒๔ หรอมาตรา ๒๕

ครงละ

๑๐๐ บาท

(๑๕) คาทาลายเชอโรคผานดานกกกนสตว (ก) สตว (ข) ซากสตว

ตวละ กโลกรมละ

๕๐ บาท

ในกรณทไมสะดวก ในการนบจานวนใหคดเปน กโลกรมละ ๕๐ บาท

๑ บาท (๑๖) คาทพกสตวทนาเขามาในหรอสงออกไป

นอกราชอาณาจกร (ก) ชาง (ข) มา โค กระบอ (ค) สกร (ง) สนข แมว (จ) แพะ แกะ (ฉ) ไก เปด หาน และสตวปกชนดอน (ช) สตวชนดอน

เชอกละ ตวละ ตวละ ตวละ ตวละ ตวละ ตวละ

๕,๐๐๐ บาท ๕๐๐ บาท ๓๐๐ บาท ๑,๐๐๐ บาท ๒๐๐ บาท ๕๐ บาท ๕๐๐ บาท

ในกรณทไมสะดวก ในการนบจานวนใหคดเปน กโลกรมละ ๕๐๐ บาท

/(๑๗)

216

- ๕ -

(๑๗) คาทพกซากสตวทนาเขามาในหรอสงออกไปนอกราชอาณาจกร (ก) โค กระบอ สกร (ข) แพะ แกะ (ค) ไก เปด หาน และสตวปกชนดอน (ง) สตวชนดอน

กโลกรมละ กโลกรมละ กโลกรมละ กโลกรมละ

๑๐ บาท ๕ บาท ๕ บาท ๑๐ บาท

(๑๘) คาขออน ๆ ฉบบละ ๕๐ บาท

ในการคานวณนาหนก ถามเศษของกโลกรม ตงแต ๕๐๐ กรมขนไป ใหคดเปน ๑ กโลกรม ถาไมถง ๕๐๐ กรม ใหปดทง

217

หนา ๔๑ เลม ๑๓๒ ตอนท ๑๔ ก ราชกจจานเบกษา ๒ มนาคม ๒๕๕๘

หมายเหต :- เหตผลในการประกาศใชพระราชบญญตฉบบน คอ โดยทพระราชบญญตโรคระบาดสตว พ.ศ. ๒๔๙๙ ไดใชบงคบมาเปนเวลานาน สมควรปรบปรงบทบญญตบางประการใหเหมาะสมกบสภาวการณในปจจบน เพอใหการปองกนและควบคมโรคระบาดทเกดกบสตว และการทางานของสตวแพทย สารวตร และพนกงานเจาหนาท มประสทธภาพมากยงขน อนเปนการคมครองความปลอดภยในชวตและทรพยสนของประชาชน และเพอประโยชนในทางเศรษฐกจของประเทศ รวมทงปรบปรงบทกาหนดโทษและอตราคาธรรมเนยมใหเหมาะสมยงขน จงจาเปนตองตราพระราชบญญตน

218

219

APPENDIX 13.

Animal Movement Control Regulation B.E. 2558 (2015) (Thai language)

หนา ๒ เลม ๑๓๒ ตอนพเศษ ๑๘๖ ง ราชกจจานเบกษา ๑๓ สงหาคม ๒๕๕๘

ระเบยบกรมปศสตว วาดวยการอนญาตเคลอนยายสตวหรอซากสตว เขาในหรอผานเขตควบคมโรคระบาด

หรอเขตปลอดโรคระบาดชนดปากและเทาเปอย ในภาคตะวนออกของประเทศไทย

พ.ศ. ๒๕๕๘

เพอใหการปฏบตงานเกยวกบการควบคมเคลอนยายสตวหรอซากสตว เขาในหรอผาน เขตควบคมโรคระบาดหรอเขตปลอดโรคระบาดชนดปากและเทาเปอยในภาคตะวนออกของประเทศไทย ตามมาตรา ๑๘ แหงพระราชบญญตโรคระบาดสตว พ.ศ. ๒๕๕๘ เปนไปในแนวทางเดยวกน อนจะสงผลใหการปองกนและควบคมโรคระบาดมประสทธภาพ เพอประโยชนแกการปฏบตงาน ปองกนและควบคมโรคระบาดสตว การตรวจสอบอาการของสตวจาพวกโค กระบอ แพะ แกะ สกร หมปา และกวาง รวมถงการทาเครองหมายประจาตวสตว กอนการเคลอนยายเขาในหรอผานเขตควบคมโรคระบาดหรอเขตปลอดโรคระบาดชนดปากและเทาเปอยในภาคตะวนออกของประเทศไทย

อาศยอานาจตามบทบญญตแหงกฎหมายประกอบมาตรา ๓๒ แหงพระราชบญญตระเบยบบรหารราชการแผนดน พ.ศ. ๒๕๓๔ ซงแกไขเพมเตมโดยพระราชบญญตระเบยบบรหารราชการแผนดน (ฉบบท ๒) พ.ศ. ๒๕๔๕ เพอใหเปนไปตามมาตรา ๑๘ แหงพระราชบญญตโรคระบาดสตว พ.ศ. ๒๕๕๘ อธบดกรมปศสตวจงวางระเบยบใหถอปฏบตไว ดงตอไปน

ขอ ๑ ระเบยบนเรยกวา “ระเบยบกรมปศสตว วาดวยการอนญาตเคลอนยายสตว หรอซากสตว เขาในหรอผานเขตควบคมโรคระบาดหรอเขตปลอดโรคระบาดชนดปากและเทาเปอย ในภาคตะวนออกของประเทศไทย พ.ศ. ๒๕๕๘”

ขอ ๒ ระเบยบนใหใชบงคบตงแตวนถดจากวนประกาศในราชกจจานเบกษาเปนตนไป ขอ ๓ ในระเบยบน “เขตควบคมโรคระบาดหรอเขตปลอดโรคระบาดชนดปากและเทาเปอย” หมายความวา

เขตควบคมโรคระบาดหรอเขตปลอดโรคระบาดชนดปากและเทาเปอยในโค กระบอ แพะ แกะ สกร หมปา และกวาง ในภาคตะวนออกของประเทศไทย ตามประกาศกระทรวงเกษตรและสหกรณ

“สตวแพทยประจาทองท” หมายความวา สตวแพทยของกรมปศสตวซงปฏบตงานในลกษณะประจาในทองททตนเองรบผดชอบ

“สตวแพทย” หมายความวา สตวแพทยตามกฎหมายวาดวยโรคระบาดสตว “เครองหมายประจาตวสตว” หมายความวา เครองหมายประจาตวสตวตามกฎหมายวาดวย

โรคระบาดสตว “สตว” หมายความวา โค กระบอ แพะ แกะ สกร หมปา และกวาง และใหหมายความ

รวมถงนาเชอสาหรบผสมพนธและเอมบรโอของสตวเหลานดวย “ซากสตว” หมายความวา

Animal movement control regulation B.E. 2558 (2015)

220

หนา ๓ เลม ๑๓๒ ตอนพเศษ ๑๘๖ ง ราชกจจานเบกษา ๑๓ สงหาคม ๒๕๕๘

(๑) รางกายหรอสวนของรางกายโค กระบอ แพะ แกะ สกร หมปา และกวางทตายแลว (๒) สงใด ๆ ทไดจากโค กระบอ แพะ แกะ สกร หมปา และกวางทมชวตหรอทตายแลว (๓) อาหารสกททา ประกอบ หรอปรงจากซากโค กระบอ แพะ แกะ สกร หมปา และกวาง

ตามทรฐมนตรประกาศกาหนด (๔) สงประดษฐสาเรจรปททาจากซากโค กระบอ แพะ แกะ สกร หมปา และกวาง

ตามทรฐมนตรประกาศกาหนด “โรคระบาด” หมายความวา โรคระบาดตามกฎหมายวาดวยโรคระบาดสตว “พาหะของโรคระบาด” หมายความวา พาหะของโรคระบาดตามกฎหมายวาดวยโรคระบาดสตว “การตรวจโรคระบาด” หมายความวา การตรวจสขภาพสตวและสขศาสตรซากสตวทงทางกายภาพ

และหรอทางหองปฏบตการ เพอคนหาหรอทราบวาเปนโรคระบาดหรอพาหะของโรคระบาด “ทาลายเชอโรคระบาด” หมายความวา การกระทาใด ๆ เพอใหปราศจากเชอโรคระบาด

กบวสดอปกรณทสมผสกบตวสตวหรอซากสตว ยานพาหนะบรรทกสตว อาคารสถานท ภาชนะสงหอหม หรอกกขง รวมตลอดถงการกระทาทตวสตวหรอซากสตว

“คณะกรรมการ” หมายความวา คณะกรรมการตรวจรบรองสตวหรอซากสตว เขาใน หรอผานเขตควบคมโรคระบาดหรอเขตปลอดโรคระบาดชนดปากและเทาเปอยในภาคตะวนออกของประเทศไทยทกรมปศสตวแตงตง

“หนงสออนญาต” หมายความวา หนงสออนญาตใหเคลอนยายสตวหรอซากสตว เขาใน หรอผานเขตควบคมโรคระบาดหรอเขตปลอดโรคระบาดชนดปากและเทาเปอยในภาคตะวนออกของประเทศไทย

“ผออกหนงสออนญาต” หมายความวา อธบดกรมปศสตวหรอสตวแพทยซงอธบดกรมปศสตวมอบหมาย

ขอ ๔ ใหผอานวยการสานกควบคม ปองกนและบาบดโรคสตวรกษาการตามระเบยบน ขอ ๕ ใหสตวแพทยประจาทองทเปนผรบคาขออนญาตเคลอนยายสตวหรอซากสตวเขาใน

หรอผานเขตควบคมโรคระบาดหรอเขตปลอดโรคระบาดชนดปากและเทาเปอยในภาคตะวนออกของประเทศไทย

ขอ ๖ การขออนญาตเคลอนยายสตวหรอซากสตวเพอการคาหรอหากาไรในลกษณะคนกลาง หรอเพอการขาย จาหนาย จาย แจก แลกเปลยน หรอมไวเพอการขายซงนาเชอสาหรบผสมพนธ หรอเอมบรโอของสตวหรอพอพนธของสตวเพอใหบรการผสมพนธแกสตวของบคคลอน สตวแพทยประจาทองทจะตองทาการบนทกหมายเลข และสถานททนายทะเบยนออกใบอนญาตตามมาตรา ๒๔ หรอมาตรา ๒๕ แหงพระราชบญญตโรคระบาดสตว พ.ศ. ๒๕๕๘ แลวแตกรณ ไวในแบบคาขออนญาต

ขอ ๗ การขออนญาตเคลอนยายสตวเขาในหรอผานเขตควบคมโรคระบาดหรอเขตปลอด โรคระบาดชนดปากและเทาเปอยในภาคตะวนออกของประเทศไทย ใหสตวแพทยประจาทองทตรวจสอบ และดาเนนการดงตอไปน

221

หนา ๔ เลม ๑๓๒ ตอนพเศษ ๑๘๖ ง ราชกจจานเบกษา ๑๓ สงหาคม ๒๕๕๘

(๑) ใหมการทาเครองหมายประจาตวสตว ตามหลกเกณฑ วธการ และเงอนไขทอธบด กรมปศสตวประกาศกาหนด

(๒) สตวตองไดรบการฉดวคซนปองกนโรคปากและเทาเปอยมาแลวเปนระยะเวลาไมนอยกวา ๓๐ วน และไมเกน ๑๒๐ วน โดยนบถดจากวนทไดรบการฉดวคซนจนถงวนททาการเคลอนยาย การยกเวนการฉดวคซนดงกลาวในสตวดงตอไปน ใหสตวแพทยประจาทองทมอานาจพจารณาตามทเหนสมควร

ก. ลกสกรทมอายนอยกวา ๘ สปดาห ข. ลกโค ลกกระบอ ลกแพะ หรอลกแกะทมอายนอยกวา ๔ เดอน (๓) กรณสตวทเคลอนยายโดยมวตถประสงคเพอนาไปฆาในโรงฆาสตว ก. ตองเปนสตวทเลยงอยในฟารมปลอดโรคปากและเทาเปอยทกรมปศสตวรบรอง

เปนระยะเวลาไมนอยกวา ๙๐ วน กอนการเคลอนยาย โดยในพนทรอบฟารมรศม ๑๐ กโลเมตร จะตองไมมการระบาดของโรคปากและเทาเปอยเปนระยะเวลาไมนอยกวา ๙๐ วน กอนการเคลอนยายดวย

ข. ใหกกดอาการของโรคระบาดในฟารมปลอดโรคปากและเทาเปอยตามขอ ๗ (๓) ก. เปนระยะเวลาไมนอยกวา ๓๐ วน กอนการเคลอนยาย โดยสตวตองไมแสดงอาการของโรคปากและเทาเปอย และตองไมมการนาสตวกบคอนเขามาปะปนในโรงเรอนหรอฟารมทใชกกสตว และในระหวางการกก บรเวณพนทรอบฟารมดงกลาวในรศม ๑๐ กโลเมตร จะตองไมมการระบาดของโรคปากและเทาเปอย เปนระยะเวลาไมนอยกวา ๓๐ วน กอนการเคลอนยาย

ค. โรงฆาสตวตองไดรบการรบรองการปฏบตทดสาหรบโรงฆาสตว (Good Manufacturing Practice : GMP) จากกรมปศสตว

(๔) กรณสตวทเคลอนยายโดยมไดมวตถประสงคเพอนาไปฆาในโรงฆาสตว ก. ตองเปนสตวทเลยงอยในฟารมปลอดโรคปากและเทาเปอยทกรมปศสตวรบรอง

มาตงแตกาเนด หรอ ข. กรณสตวทจะเคลอนยายไมไดกาเนดในฟารมตามขอ ๗ (๔) ก. แตไดนาเขามาเลยง

จากฟารมปลอดโรคปากและเทาเปอย หรอฟารมอนซงปฏบตตามหลกเกณฑการนาสตวเขาฟารมปลอดโรค ปากและเทาเปอย จะตองเลยงอยในฟารมปลอดโรคปากและเทาเปอยดงกลาวเปนระยะเวลาไมนอยกวา ๙๐ วน กอนการเคลอนยาย และพนทรอบฟารมรศม ๑๐ กโลเมตร ตองไมมการระบาดของโรคปากและเทาเปอย เปนระยะเวลาไมนอยกวา ๙๐ วน กอนการเคลอนยายดวย

ค. ใหกกสตวตามขอ ๗ (๔) ก. และ ข. เพอดอาการของโรคระบาดในฟารมปลอดโรค ปากและเทาเปอย เปนระยะเวลาไมนอยกวา ๓๐ วน กอนการเคลอนยาย โดยสตวตองไมแสดงอาการของโรคปากและเทาเปอย และตองไมมการนาสตวกบคอนเขามาปะปนในโรงเรอนหรอฟารม ทใชกกสตว และในระหวางการกกบรเวณพนทรอบฟารมดงกลาวในรศม ๑๐ กโลเมตร จะตองไมมการระบาดของโรคปากและเทาเปอย เปนระยะเวลาไมนอยกวา ๓๐ วน กอนการเคลอนยายดวย

222

หนา ๕ เลม ๑๓๒ ตอนพเศษ ๑๘๖ ง ราชกจจานเบกษา ๑๓ สงหาคม ๒๕๕๘

ง. ในระหวางการกกตามขอ ๗ (๔) ค. ใหเกบตวอยางเพอตรวจพสจนวาไมมหลกฐาน การตดเชอโรคปากและเทาเปอยมากอน

(๕) กรณนาเชอสาหรบผสมพนธของสตว ก. นาเชอตองมาจากสตวซงอยในฟารมปลอดโรคปากและเทาเปอยทกรมปศสตวรบรอง

และสตวทกตวในฟารมตองไมมอาการของโรคปากและเทาเปอยในวนททาการรดนาเชอและหลงการรดนาเชอเปนระยะเวลา ๓๐ วน

ข. กรณนาเชอทมาจากสตวทฉดวคซนปองกนโรคปากและเทาเปอย ตองฉดวคซนดงกลาวมาแลวอยางนอย ๒ ครง โดยฉดวคซนครงสดทายเปนระยะเวลาไมนอยกวา ๓๐ วน แตไมเกน ๑๒๐ วน โดยนบถดจากวนทสตวไดรบการฉดวคซนจนถงวนทรดนาเชอ และตองมการสมเกบตวอยางนาเชอเพอตรวจพสจนวาไมมหลกฐานการตดเชอโรคปากและเทาเปอยมากอน

ค. กรณนาเชอทมาจากสตวทไมไดรบการฉดวคซนปองกนโรคปากและเทาเปอย สตวนนตองมการเกบตวอยางซรมภายหลงการรดนาเชอไปแลว ๒๑ วน แตไมเกน ๓๐ วน เพอทดสอบระดบแอนตบอดของโรคปากและเทาเปอยและตองไมพบระดบแอนตบอด โดยวธ LP-ELISA

ง. สตวรวมฝงทอยในฟารมปลอดโรคปากและเทาเปอยเพอผลตนาเชอตองไมมการฉดวคซนปองกนโรคปากและเทาเปอยภายใน ๓๐ วน กอนวนรดนาเชอ

จ. ตองไมมสตวอนเคลอนยายเขามาปะปนในโรงเรอนทใชเลยงสตวเปนระยะเวลา ๓๐ วน กอนวนทรดนาเชอ

ฉ. ในรศม ๑๐ กโลเมตร รอบฟารมปลอดโรคปากและเทาเปอยเพอผลตนาเชอ หรอสถานท เกบนาเชอ ตองไมมการระบาดของโรคปากและเทาเปอยเปนระยะเวลา ๓๐ วนกอนและหลงการรดหรอเกบนาเชอ

ช. อนญาตใหเคลอนยายนาเชอไดภายหลงรดนาเชอมาแลว ๓๐ วน (๖) ฟารมปลอดโรคปากและเทาเปอย ฟารมปลอดโรคปากและเทาเปอยเพอผลตนาเชอ

หรอสถานทเกบนาเชอ ตองไดรบการตรวจสอบและรบรองจากคณะกรรมการกอน (๗) กรณสตวทนาเขาหรอนาผานมาจากตางประเทศ ตองเปนสตวมาจากประเทศทไดรบ

การรบรองสถานภาพปลอดโรคปากและเทาเปอยจากองคการโรคระบาดสตวระหวางประเทศ (OIE) และตองปฏบตตามหลกเกณฑ วธการ และเงอนไขเกยวกบการนาเขาหรอนาผานราชอาณาจกรซงสตวและซากสตว ตามกฎหมายวาดวยโรคระบาดสตว

ขอ ๘ การขออนญาตเคลอนยายซากสตวเขาในหรอผานเขตควบคมโรคระบาดหรอเขตปลอดโรคระบาดชนดโรคปากและเทาเปอยในภาคตะวนออกของประเทศไทย ใหสตวแพทยประจาทองทตรวจสอบและดาเนนการ ดงตอไปน

(๑) กรณเปนซากสตวประเภทเนอสตว

223

หนา ๖ เลม ๑๓๒ ตอนพเศษ ๑๘๖ ง ราชกจจานเบกษา ๑๓ สงหาคม ๒๕๕๘

ก. ตองไดจากสตวซงอยในฟารมปลอดโรคปากและเทาเปอยทกรมปศสตวรบรอง เปนระยะเวลาอยางนอย ๓๐ วน และพนทรอบฟารมในรศม ๑๐ กโลเมตร จะตองไมมการระบาดของโรคปากและเทาเปอยตามระยะเวลาดงกลาวดวย

ข. ตองมาจากสตวทไดรบการฉดวคซนปองกนโรคปากและเทาเปอยมาแลวอยางนอย ๒ ครง โดยการฉดวคซนครงสดทายเปนระยะเวลาไมนอยกวา ๓๐ วน แตไมเกน ๑๒๐ วน โดยนบถดจากวนทสตวไดรบการฉดวคซนจนถงวนเขาฆาและสตวตองไดรบการตรวจกอนการฆาและหลงการฆาโดยสตวแพทย หรอตามทกฎหมายวาดวยการฆาสตวและจาหนายเนอสตวกาหนดไว

ค. ตองเปนเนอถอดกระดก ซงไมมเทา หว เครองใน และเนอดงกลาวตองไมปนตอมนาเหลอง โดยกอนการถอดกระดกจะตองเกบซากสตวไวทอณหภมระหวาง ๒ ถง ๔ องศาเซลเซยส เปนเวลา ไมนอยกวา ๒๔ ชวโมง หรอวดคาความเปนกรดดาง (PH) ทกลามเนอไดตากวา ๖.๐

ง. ตองผานกระบวนการฆาจากโรงฆาสตวทไดรบการรบรองการปฏบตทดสาหรบ โรงฆาสตว (Good Manufacturing Practice : GMP) จากกรมปศสตว

จ. โรงฆาสตวตามขอ ๘ (๑) ง. ตองไมพบโรคปากและเทาเปอยตงแตนาสตวนนเขามาฆาจนสนสดกระบวนการฆา

ฉ. โรงฆาสตว สถานทตดแตงซากสตว ทพกซากสตว ตองไดรบการตรวจสอบและรบรองจากคณะกรรมการกอน

ช. กรณเนอสตวทนาเขาหรอนาผานมาจากตางประเทศ ตองเปนเนอสตวทมาจากประเทศทไดรบการรบรองสถานภาพปลอดโรคปากและเทาเปอยจากองคการโรคระบาดสตวระหวางประเทศ (OIE) และตองปฏบตตามหลกเกณฑ วธการ และเงอนไขเกยวกบการนาเขาหรอนาผานราชอาณาจกรซงสตว และซากสตวตามกฎหมายวาดวยโรคระบาดสตว

(๒) กรณซากสตวประเภทขน (wool and hair) ใหมการทาลายเชอโรคระบาด ดงตอไปน ก. แชนาสบผสมกบโซเดยมไฮดรอกไซด หรอแชนาสบผสมกบโพแทสเซยมไฮดรอกไซด หรอ ข. ใชปนขาว หรอโซเดยมซลไฟด หรอ ค. ใชวธรมควน ๒๔ ชวโมง โดยใชฟอรมาลน ๕๓ มลลลตร และโพแทสเซยม

เปอรแมงกาเนต ๓๕ กรมตอพนทหนงลกบาศกเมตร รมควนเปนระยะเวลาอยางนอย ๒๔ ชวโมง หรอ ง. ใชนาอณหภม ๖๐ - ๗๐ องศาเซลเซยสผสมผงซกฟอก ลางทาความสะอาด หรอ จ. ใชวธเกบขนทอณหภม ๔ องศาเซลเซยส เปนระยะเวลานาน ๔ เดอน หรอท

อณหภม ๑๘ องศาเซลเซยส เปนระยะเวลานาน ๔ สปดาห หรออณหภม ๓๗ องศาเซลเซยส เปนระยะเวลานาน ๘ วน

(๓) กรณซากสตวประเภทขนแขง (bristles) ใหมการทาลายเชอโรคระบาดโดยผานกระบวนการตม ๑ ชวโมง หรอแชในสารละลายฟอรมลดไฮด ๑ % (เตรยมจากฟอรมาลน ๓๐ มลลลตร ในนา ๑ ลตร) อยางนอยนาน ๒๔ ชวโมง

224

หนา ๗ เลม ๑๓๒ ตอนพเศษ ๑๘๖ ง ราชกจจานเบกษา ๑๓ สงหาคม ๒๕๕๘

(๔) กรณซากสตวประเภทหนงสตว (hide and skin) ใหมการทาลายเชอโรคระบาด โดยใชวธหมกในเกลอทผสมโซเดยมคารบอเนต ๒ % เปนระยะเวลานาน ๒๘ วน

(๕) กรณซากสตวประเภทอนจะใหมการทาลายเชอโรคระบาดหรอไม วธการใดใหเปนไป ตามทกรมปศสตวกาหนด

ขอ ๙ กรณการปฏบตในการขออนญาตเคลอนยายสตวหรอซากสตวท ไมครบถวน ตามความในระเบยบน ผออกหนงสออนญาตจะผอนผนอนญาตใหเคลอนยายสตวหรอซากสตว เขาในหรอผาน เขตควบคมโรคระบาดหรอเขตปลอดโรคระบาดชนดปากและเทาเปอยในภาคตะวนออกของประเทศไทยกได

ขอ ๑๐ เมอสตวแพทยประจาทองทไดรบคาขอตามขอ ๕ และไดตรวจสอบหรอดาเนนการ ตามขอ ๖ ขอ ๗ หรอขอ ๘ แลว หากสตวแพทยประจาทองทตนทางเหนสมควรอนญาต ใหเคลอนยายได ใหรายงานผลการปฏบตพรอมเอกสารหลกฐานทเกยวของและเสนอความเหนตอผออกหนงสออนญาตทราบ โดยดวนทสด เพอพจารณาอนญาตใหเคลอนยายสตวหรอซากสตวเขาในหรอผานเขตควบคมโรคระบาด หรอเขตปลอดโรคระบาดชนดปากและเทาเปอยในภาคตะวนออกของประเทศไทย

ขอ ๑๑ ใหผออกหนงสออนญาต พจารณาดาเนนการดงตอไปน (๑) กอนออกหนงสออนญาตใหพจารณารายงานผลการปฏบตงานพรอมขอมลเอกสาร

หลกฐานตาง ๆ ทเกยวของในการตรวจสอบและดาเนนงานตามขอ ๑๐ ใหถกตองครบถวนตามทกาหนด ในระเบยบน

(๒) ผออกหนงสออนญาตกาหนดจานวนวนทใหใชหนงสออนญาตใหเหมาะสมกบระยะทาง ในการเดนทาง แตตองไมเกน ๔๘ ชวโมง นบจากวนอนญาต โดยไมมการปะปนกบสตวอนในระหวางการขนยาย

(๓) กรณทตองใชยานพาหนะขนสงสตวหรอซากสตวจานวนหลายคน ใหออกหนงสออนญาตเปนรายคน

(๔) แจงการขออนญาตนาสตวหรอซากสตวไปยงสตวแพทยประจาทองทปลายทางซงสตวหรอซากสตวนนจะเคลอนยายไป โดยวธดวนทสด เชน โทรสาร จดหมายอเลกทรอนกส หรอทางระบบอนเตอรเนต เปนตน

ขอ ๑๒ ใหผออกหนงสออนญาตหรอสตวแพทยทไดรบมอบหมายไปทาการตรวจโรคระบาดสตวหรอซากสตวทไดรบอนญาต หากไมพบโรคระบาด ใหควบคมการนาสตวหรอซากสตวขนยานพาหนะ ใหเรยบรอย และใหมการทาลายเชอโรคระบาดดงตอไปน กอนมอบหนงสออนญาตใหแกผขอรบหนงสออนญาต

(๑) สงใหผขอรบหนงสออนญาตชาระลางยานพาหนะ ภาชนะทใชบรรจ วสดอปกรณ ทกชนดทเกยวของกบการเคลอนยายสตวหรอซากสตวใหสะอาดกอนทจะใชบรรทกสตวหรอซากสตว

(๒) เมอนาสตวขนยานพาหนะแลว ใหทาลายเชอโรคระบาดดวยวธการฉดพนดวยนายา ฆาเชอโรคทยานพาหนะ และวสดอปกรณตาง ๆ ซงเกยวของกบการบรรทกสตว เชน วสดรองพน หรอวสดทสมผสกบสตว

225

หนา ๘ เลม ๑๓๒ ตอนพเศษ ๑๘๖ ง ราชกจจานเบกษา ๑๓ สงหาคม ๒๕๕๘

(๓) สงใหผขอรบหนงสออนญาตชาระลางยานพาหนะ ภาชนะทใชบรรจ วสดอปกรณทกชนด ทเกยวของกบการเคลอนยายสตวหรอซากสตวใหสะอาดภายหลงจากทนาสตวหรอซากสตวลงจากยานพาหนะเมอถงปลายทางแลวทนท

ขอ ๑๓ เมอสตวแพทยประจาทองทปลายทางหรอสตวแพทยทไดรบมอบหมายไดรบแจง จากผออกหนงสออนญาตตามขอ ๑๑ (๔) แลวใหตรวจสตวหรอซากสตวทเคลอนยายมาถงและใหบนทกรายการตอบรบสตวหรอซากสตวตามแบบทกรมปศสตวกาหนด โดยใหตรวจสอบโรคระบาด และจานวนสตวตามทไดรบอนญาต หากตรวจพบสตวหรอซากสตวเปนโรคระบาดหรอพาหะของโรคระบาด หรอมเหตอนควรสงสยวาเปนโรคระบาดใหรายงานปศสตวจงหวดตนทางและปลายทาง รวมถงปศสตวเขตทองทตนทางและปลายทางทราบโดยวธดวนทสดและดาเนนการควบคมโรคตามมาตรการทกรมปศสตวกาหนดตอไป

ในวนทสตวหรอซากสตวมาถงตามกาหนดทไดรบแจงจากผออกหนงสออนญาตแตสตวแพทยประจาทองทปลายทางหรอสตวแพทยทไดรบมอบหมายตรวจไมพบสตวหรอซากสตวดงกลาว จนเวลาลวงเขาไปในวนถดไปอกหนงวน หรอตรวจสอบพบวาสตวหรอซากสตวไมครบถวนหรอเกนจานวนตามทระบไวในหนงสออนญาต ใหทาการสอบสวนหาสาเหตและขอเทจจรงพรอมทงใหตดตอขอสาเนาหลกฐานหนงสออนญาตจากผออกหนงสออนญาต หากพบวามการกระทาการฝาฝนตอบทบญญต แหงกฎหมายวาดวยโรคระบาดสตว ใหดาเนนการรองทกขกลาวโทษตอพนกงานสอบสวน เพอทาการสอบสวนและดาเนนคดตอไปแลวรายงานใหผบงคบบญชาทราบ

ขอ ๑๔ ในกรณสตวทเคลอนยายโดยมไดมวตถประสงคเพอนาไปฆาในโรงฆาสตวใหสตวแพทยประจาทองทปลายทางดาเนนการกกไวเปนเอกเทศในสถานกกกนสตวปลายทางทปศสตวจงหวดรบรอง เปนเวลาไมนอยกวาสามวนนบถดจากวนทสตวมาถง

ขอ ๑๕ แบบคาขออนญาต หนงสออนญาต หนงสอรบรองตาง ๆ ใหเปนไปตามท กรมปศสตวกาหนด

ประกาศ ณ วนท ๒๔ กรกฎาคม พ.ศ. ๒๕๕๘

อยทธ หรนทรานนท อธบดกรมปศสตว

226

227

APPENDIX 14.

Sample size calculation to demonstrate freedom of disease

English

Sample size for demonstration of freedom (detection ofdisease) in a finite population

Inputs

This utility calcuates the sample size required to provide a desired probability ofdetecting disease ( herd-sensitivity) at the specified design prevalence, for a finitepopulation, assuming a test of known sensitivity and 100% specificity. These analysesuse an approximation of the hypergeometric distribution (MacDiarmid, SC (1988). NZVet J, 36:39-42).

Inputs are the size of the population, test sensitivity, the desired herd-sensitivity and thedesign (target) prevalence.

Outputs are:

the number of samples required to be tested to provide the desired herd-sensitivityfor the given design prevalence;a table and graph of sample sizes required to provide the desired herd-sensitivity,for the specified test sensitivity and a range of population sizes and designprevalences.

Populationsize (forfinitepopulations):

17702

Testsensitivity :

0.98

Desiredherdsensitivity :

0.95

Designprevalence :

0.02

Submit

Sample size to demonstrate freedom in a finite populationAnalysed: Fri Oct 05, 2018 @ 09:09

Inputs

Population size 17702

Test sensitivity 0.98

Confidence level 0.95

Design prevalence 0.02

ResultsRequired sample size for the specified level of confidence, design prevalence test sensitivity and population size =152.

The table and graph below show the sample sizes required to provide the specified probability of detecting disease,for various prevalence levels and population sizes for the specified test sensitivity.

Blank cells indicate either that the number of infected individuals for that combination of prevalence and populationsize is less than 1 or that it is not possible to attain the desired level of probability even if the entire population istested.

Prevalence= 0.005

Prevalence= 0.01

Prevalence= 0.02

Prevalence= 0.03

Prevalence= 0.04

Prevalence= 0.05

Prevalence= 0.1

Prevalence= 0.2

Population= 50

49 40 40 33 23 14

EpiTools epidemiological calculators

Home Prevalence Freedom Studies Diagnostics

Sampling

Sample size calculation to demonstrate freedom of disease

228

http://epitools.ausvet.com.au/content.php?page=Glossary#hse

http://epitools.ausvet.com.au/content.php?page=Glossary#a24



http://epitools.ausvet.com.au/content.php?page=home

Population= 100

97 80 65 54 46 27 15

Population= 200

194 159 108 81 64 53 29 15

Population= 300

238 194 121 87 68 56 30 15

Population= 500

323 230 133 93 71 58 30 16

Population= 1000

460 265 142 97 74 60 31 16

Population= 5000

577 297 151 101 76 61 31 16

Population= 10000

594 302 152 102 77 61 31 16

Population= 1e+05

610 306 153 102 77 62 31 16

Population= 1e+06

612 306 153 102 77 62 31 16

Plot of sample sizes

Download excel file of results

Download Top

[ Home | About this site | Glossary | References | Links | 134 recent calculations

This site was created by Ausvet with funding from a range of sources.

It provides a range of epidemiological tools for the use of researchers and epidemiologists particularly in

229

http://epitools.ausvet.com.au/tmp/537d7f0e3c3951347a33bf1476e247a9_result.xls

http://epitools.ausvet.com.au/content.php?page=home

http://epitools.ausvet.com.au/content.php?page=About

http://epitools.ausvet.com.au/content.php?page=Glossary

http://epitools.ausvet.com.au/content.php?page=References

http://epitools.ausvet.com.au/content.php?page=links

https://www.ausvet.com.au/

230

APPENDIX 15.

Distribution map of DLD officers at local level in the proposed FMD-free zone

231

APPENDIX 16.

Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval letter

Office of Research ComplianceInstitutional Review BoardNorth End Center, Suite 4120, Virginia Tech300 Turner Street NWBlacksburg, Virginia 24061540/231-4606 Fax 540/231-0959email [email protected] http://www.irb.vt.edu

MEMORANDUM

DATE: September 20, 2017

TO: Valerie E Ragan, Naree Ketusing

FROM: Virginia Tech Institutional Review Board (FWA00000572, expires January 29,2021)

PROTOCOL TITLE: Assessment of Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) control policy and itsimplementation in the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand

IRB NUMBER: 17-177

Effective September 20, 2017, the Virginia Tech Institution Review Board (IRB) Chair, David M Moore,approved the New Application request for the above-mentioned research protocol. This approval provides permission to begin the human subject activities outlined in the IRB-approvedprotocol and supporting documents. Plans to deviate from the approved protocol and/or supporting documents must be submitted to theIRB as an amendment request and approved by the IRB prior to the implementation of any changes,regardless of how minor, except where necessary to eliminate apparent immediate hazards to thesubjects. Report within 5 business days to the IRB any injuries or other unanticipated or adverseevents involving risks or harms to human research subjects or others. All investigators (listed above) are required to comply with the researcher requirements outlined at:http://www.irb.vt.edu/pages/responsibilities.htm

(Please review responsibilities before the commencement of your research.)

PROTOCOL INFORMATION:

Approved As: Expedited, under 45 CFR 46.110 category(ies) 5,6,7 Protocol Approval Date: September 20, 2017Protocol Expiration Date: September 19, 2018Continuing Review Due Date*: September 5, 2018*Date a Continuing Review application is due to the IRB office if human subject activities coveredunder this protocol, including data analysis, are to continue beyond the Protocol Expiration Date. FEDERALLY FUNDED RESEARCH REQUIREMENTS:

Per federal regulations, 45 CFR 46.103(f), the IRB is required to compare all federally funded grantproposals/work statements to the IRB protocol(s) which cover the human research activities includedin the proposal / work statement before funds are released. Note that this requirement does not applyto Exempt and Interim IRB protocols, or grants for which VT is not the primary awardee. The table on the following page indicates whether grant proposals are related to this IRB protocol, andwhich of the listed proposals, if any, have been compared to this IRB protocol, if required.

Institutional Review Board (IRB) Approval Letter

232

IRB Number 17-177 page 2 of 2 Virginia Tech Institutional Review Board

Date* OSP Number Sponsor Grant Comparison Conducted?

* Date this proposal number was compared, assessed as not requiring comparison, or comparisoninformation was revised.

If this IRB protocol is to cover any other grant proposals, please contact the IRB office ([email protected]) immediately.

233

234

APPENDIX 17.

Assessment report prepared for the Department of Livestock Development

235

ASSESSMENT OF FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE (FMD) CONTROL

POLICY AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION IN THE PROPOSED FMD-FREE

ZONE IN THAILAND

RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE THE CURRENT FMD CONTROL

PROGRAM IN THE THAI’s LIVESTOCK REGION 2 IN ORDER TO BE

RECOGNIZED AS AN FMD-FREE ZONE BY THE WORLD

ORGANISATION FOR ANIMAL HEALTH (OIE)

Proposed by

N. Ketusing (1, 2), S. Premashthira (2), J. Hodgson (1), K. Hult (3) & V. Ragan (1)

1 Department of Population Health Sciences, Virginia-Maryland College of Veterinary Medicine, Blacksburg, VA.

2 Department of Livestock Development, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Bangkok, Thailand

3 Department of Political Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA

236

Acronyms

BDCVS Bureau of Disease Control and Veterinary Services

BVB Bureau of Veterinary Biologics

DLD Department of Livestock Development

FAO United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization

FDA-Thai Food and Drug Administration, Thailand

FMD Foot and Mouth Disease

OIE World Organisation for Animal Health (Office International des Epizooties)

237

Executive Summary

This report is part of a PhD dissertation by the first author at the Virginia-Maryland College of

Veterinary Medicine, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, USA. It describes the outcome of an assessment

of Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) control policies and their implementation in the proposed

FMD-free zone, Livestock Region 2, in Thailand. The main objectives of the assessment were to

determine whether the revised regulations (since 2015) currently being implemented are fully in

compliance with the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE)’s requirements, and to verify

whether the implementation of the current FMD control program is sufficient to control FMD

effectively.

The assessment found that the current policies and the Department of Livestock Development

(DLD)’s regulations related to FMD control system are appropriately designed and comply with

the OIE’s requirements. However, their implementation needs more improvement in order to fulfill

the OIE’s requirements. This report offers recommendations to the DLD to improve the FMD

control system in the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand in order to be recognized as an FMD-

free zone by the OIE. For example, the DLD should implement policies that can increase

stakeholders’ awareness of disease reporting requirements. Compliance of disease reporting should

be closely monitored. In addition, official reports related to FMD control activities, such as reports

of FMD status, post vaccination evaluations, and vaccine strain matching should be publicly

available and easily accessible by stakeholders.

In order to meet the DLD’s goal of making the proposed FMD-free zone become recognized by

the OIE, this report also recommends that there should be strong commitment and support by the

higher level of Thailand’s government.

238

1. INTRODUCTION

In 2012, the Thai Department of Livestock Development (DLD), within the Ministry of Agriculture

and Cooperatives, requested an evaluation of the Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) status of Livestock

Region 2 (the proposed FMD-free zone) in Thailand by experts of the World Organization for

Animal Health (OIE) for official recognition of FMD-free status [1]. The outcome from this

evaluation revealed that the proposed FMD-free zone could not be recognized as such as the zone

was not in full compliance with the OIE’s requirements [1]. In addition, there was insufficient

evidence to validate FMD-free status within the proposed FMD-free zone [1]. As a result of this

evaluation, in 2015, the DLD revised the FMD control regulations to be in compliance with the

recommendations of the OIE experts and implemented a revised FMD control program in the

proposed zone.

To ensure that the revised regulations currently being implemented are fully in compliance with the

OIE’s requirements and that the implementation of the current FMD control program is sufficient to

control FMD effectively, an assessment of FMD control policies and their implementation in the

proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand was conducted.

This assessment was part of a PhD dissertation by Dr. Naree Ketusing at the Virginia-Maryland

College of Veterinary Medicine, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, USA. This project was also supported

financially by the Royal Thai Government Scholarship.

2. OBJECTIVES OF THE ASSESSMENT

The specific objectives of this assessment were:

⮚ To determine whether the design of the current FMD control system follows the OIE’s

requirements for establishing an FMD-free zone with vaccination;

⮚ To determine whether implementation of the FMD policies currently in place in the

proposed FMD-free zone complies with the provisions for the OIE’s recognition of an

FMD-free zone with vaccination;

⮚ To propose recommendations to policy makers so as to enhance and improve the FMD

control system in the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand to be recognized as an FMD-

free zone by the OIE.

239

3. METHODOLOGY

The assessment study utilized mixed methods research that gathered important information related

to FMD control in the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand. It was initiated by the development of

an assessment framework (Figure 1) and tools in order to identify scope and criteria of the

assessment. The framework and tools were used to evaluate both policy design and

implementation of current FMD control policies. The assessment tools included assessment

matrices, questionnaires, and interview questions. Assessment matrices were used to pinpoint

potential shortcomings of current policy design, implementation, veterinary capacity, and

stakeholder engagement in Thailand’s FMD control program. Interview questions and

questionnaires were developed to collect data regarding FMD control activities from stakeholders

(DLD officers, private veterinarians, and farmers) in the proposed FMD-free zone.

3.1 Development of Assessment Framework and Tools

3.1.1 Legal documents and materials used for the development

The assessment framework and tools were developed using DLD regulations and the OIE

terrestrial animal health code. Other official documents related to the Thailand FMD control

program were also used as the foundation for the development of the framework and assessment

tools.

The core DLD’s laws related to FMD control program included:

● Animal Epidemic Act B.E. 2558 (2015) [2]

● Control of Animal Slaughter for the Distribution of Meat Act B.E. 2559 (2016) [3]

● DLD Regulation on Animal Movement Control B.E. 2558 (2015) [4]

The primary chapters of the terrestrial code used for establishing the assessment criteria for this

study included:

● Chapter 1.4 Animal health surveillance [5];

● Chapter 1.6 Procedures for self-declaration and for official recognition by the OIE [6];

● Chapter 3.2 Evaluation of Veterinary Service [7];

● Chapter 4.3 Zoning and compartmentalization [8]; and

● Chapter 8.8 Infection with foot and mouth disease virus [9].

240

The following documents were reviewed and used for development of the framework and

assessment tools;

● National FMD Strategic Plan of Thailand [10]

● Dossier for OIE Official Recognition of Foot and Mouth Disease Free Zone with

Vaccination in the Eastern Region of Thailand [11]

● Report of OIE FMD Expert Mission to Thailand [1]

● Thailand National FMD plan for OIE Endorsement [12]

● OIE Performance Veterinarian Services (PVS) Evaluation Report (Thailand) [13]

● PVS Gap Analysis Mission Report (Thailand) [14]

The framework for assessment of FMD control policies and their implementation in the proposed

FMD-free zone is shown in figure 1.

3.2 Interviews

Interviews were conducted to get in-depth information regarding the implementation of the FMD

control system in the proposed FMD-free zone. A purposive sampling method was used to recruit

participants for the interviews. The interview participants included the DLD national officers who

formulated FMD control policies, the DLD regional officers who had experience with FMD

control implementation, and private veterinarians. Interview questions were developed to assess

the surveillance system, reporting system, vaccination program, control of animal movement, and

response plans.

A table below lists the number of participants and the scope of interviews during the assessment:

Participants Number Scope of Interviews

DLD national officers 9 (out of 14) Design of FMD control policies

DLD regional officers 2 (out of 5*) FMD control implementation

Private veterinarians 5 (out of 102*) FMD control implementation

*Total number who work in the proposed FMD-free zone

3.3 Questionnaire Survey

Three sets of questionnaires were developed, using an online survey tool named “Qualtrics”, for

three different target groups: DLD local officers, private veterinarians, and farmers. Each

questionnaire was divided into sections such as surveillance and reporting, prevention, vaccination

program, animal movement control, and communication among stakeholders. Participants self-

241

reported on the questionnaires which focused on their practices related to the control of FMD

within the past three years. For those cases when potential participants, such as a farmer group, did

not have internet access, the questionnaire was administered on a face-to-face basis.

To deliver questionnaires to potential participants, multistage distribution and snowball technique

were used. The questionnaire links and Quick Response (QR) codes allowed potential participants

to distribute and respond to the questionnaires within four months, December of 2017 to March of

2018. The links and QR codes were then made inactive.

The table below lists the number of questionnaire distributors, number of questionnaires returned,

number of responses used for analysis, and the target population in the proposed FMD-free zone:

Group Number of

questionnaire

distributors

Number of

questionnaires

returned

Number of

responses used

for analysis

Target population in

the proposed FMD-

free zone

DLD Local officers 16 51 34 109*

Private veterinarians 15 67 32 102**

Farmers 10 79 44 17702*

Total 41 197 110 17,913

*Source: Department of Livestock Development, Information and Communication Technology Center 2015 [15]

**The number of private veterinarians was determined in 2018. A representative private veterinarian of each

company was contacted and was asked to fill in a spreadsheet the number of veterinarians in their companies who

work in the proposed FMD-free zone.

3.4 Field Data Collection

Field visits were conducted from January to February 2018 to collect data related to participants’

activities such as farm biosecurity, vaccination, animals’ records keeping, visitors’ records

keeping, and cleaning and disinfection of the farms. Face-to-face questionnaires were also

conducted during field visits. When face-to-face questionnaires were conducted, records of

respondents’ activities were reviewed and compared against their responses.

3.4.1 Study Sites

Thailand is comprised of 77 provinces and is divided into six geographical regions based on

natural features including landforms, drainage, and human cultural patterns. These regions are

central, northern, northeastern, eastern, western, and southern part of Thailand. However, within

the DLD functional responsibilities, 77 provinces of Thailand are grouped into nine livestock

administrative regions (figure 2).

242

The proposed FMD-free zone was established in the Livestock Region 2, in the eastern region of

Thailand (figure 3). Geography of this region is characterized by short mountain ranges alternating

with small basins of short rivers which drain into the Gulf of Thailand. This region is bordered by

Cambodia in the east and central region of Thailand in the west. It covers an area of 34,380 square

kilometers. Livestock Region 2 comprises nine provinces namely Chanthaburi, Chonburi, Trat,

Rayong, Chachengsao, Prachinburi, Sakeaw, Nakhonnayok, and Samutprakarn.

The assessment was conducted in the proposed FMD-free zone. Due to budget and time

constraints, the field visits were undertaken in only three provinces; Chachengsao, Sakeaw, and

Chonburi.

3.5 Data Analysis

The assessment was a qualitative study using an assessment matrix as an analytical tool.

Descriptive statistics were performed to summarize the responses. Assessment matrices of FMD

policy design and their implementation were applied to determine how well the current FMD

control program meets and complies with the OIE’s requirements for the recognition of an FMD-

free zone with vaccination. Participants’ responses and data collected during field observations

were comparatively analyzed against the assessment matrix criteria.

For example, if the provincial officers reported “never or 1-2 times during the past three years” to

the survey question “have you received information regarding the FMD surveillance findings in

the proposed FMD-free zone from DLD national officers?”, the matrix indicated lack of

communication on the findings of FMD active surveillance. According to this matrix analysis, the

surveillance system has not been appropriately implemented.

4. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

4.1 Surveillance System

The assessment found the design of the DLD surveillance system is appropriate and meets the

OIE’s requirements which state that “a surveillance system should be the responsibility of the

Veterinary Authority” [1] (Article 8.8.40, bullet 1). The 2016 FMD surveillance plan for the

proposed FMD-free zone and Animal Epidemic Act B.E. 2558 (2015) includes both active and

passive surveillance. The active surveillance (serological surveillance) is conducted biannually.

The assessment also found that the DLD has an appropriate sample plan and adequate sample sizes

243

to detect the disease in accordance with the OIE’s requirements, which state that the surveillance

strategies employed to “substantiate freedom from FMD infection or transmission” should be

based on “randomized or targeted” sampling at an “acceptable level of statistical confidence” [1]

(Article 8.8.40 bullet 4).

The assessment of implementation of the surveillance system found that some surveillance

activities are not fully implemented and do not fulfill the OIE’s requirements. First, there was

ineffective communication of the findings of the FMD active surveillance program between DLD

officers and stakeholders. Not all private veterinarians and farmers receive information regarding

the findings of surveillance. They are not able to access official reports of the actual FMD status in

their area or their own farms. Secondly, the current surveillance system is not able to provide an

appropriate early warning system due to the lack of consistent reporting of suspected cases. The

assessment found that farmers (54.55%, 6/11) and private veterinarians (86.67%, 13/15) never

notify DLD officers when an FMD suspected case is found. Third, the FMD surveillance program

has been evaluated internally but those results are not publicly available. Surveillance activities are

internal monitored annually by the Bureau of Disease Control and Veterinary Services (BDCVS)

staff. However, reports of monitoring and evaluation of the surveillance activities could not be

accessed for this assessment. The surveillance program was audited externally as well but the last

external audit was in 2013 by the OIE. Without transparent evaluation, there is no concrete

evidence to validate whether the existing surveillance system will be accepted by the OIE.

4.2 Reporting System

The assessment found the reporting system in the proposed FMD-free zone is not fully

implemented and does not fully comply with the OIE’s requirements. First, the reporting protocol

was not uniformly implemented at all levels. The majority of farmers and private veterinarians

knew the disease reporting protocols but they do not report an FMD suspected case to DLD

officers. They fear that DLD officers will restrict their animal movement and/or condemn their

animals without compensation. A private veterinarian also mentioned that there were no actions

taken by DLD officers when FMD suspected cases were reported. These findings emphasized that

the current reporting system does not fully comply with the OIE’s requirement, which states that

“farmers, workers who have day-to-day contact with livestock, as well as veterinary

244

paraprofessionals, veterinarians and diagnosticians, should report promptly any suspicion of FMD”

[1] (Article 8.8.41, bullet 1).

Secondly, not all reports of FMD status are available or easily accessible. The webpage of BDCVS

contains reports of FMD status at the national level but not the regional level. These reports

indicate locations and number of outbreaks, number of affected animals, species of affected

animals, and FMD serotypes but do not identify causes of outbreaks. On a regional webpage, there

are no reports of the FMD status or analysis of FMD outbreaks available.

Third, stakeholders’ compliance with the reporting protocol is not routinely monitored by the

DLD. No records of violations and penalties were available when the assessment was conducted at

the field level.

4.3 Vaccine Strategy

The assessment of design of vaccine strategy found that 1) all susceptible species are included in

the vaccination program and 2) there is a designated committee which has authority to make

decisions on vaccine strains needed and to specify how vaccine strains are determined. Findings

suggest that the design of vaccine strategy meets the OIE’s requirement, which states that 1)

“compulsory systematic vaccination in the target population” should be “carried out to achieve

adequate vaccination coverage and population immunity” [1] (Article 8.8.3, bullet 3c) and 2)

vaccination should be “carried out following appropriate vaccine strain selection” [1] (Article

8.8.3, bullet 3d).

However, the vaccine strategy is not fully implemented and does not fulfill the OIE’s

requirements. First, ineffective communication of vaccine strategy between DLD officers and

private veterinarians was found. The communication regarding vaccine strategy includes, but is not

limited to, current vaccine strain and field strains, type of vaccine, and vaccination interval.

Though the assessment found all DLD covered species are vaccinated to some degree, ineffective

communication on vaccine strategy can lead to improper vaccination and inadequate vaccination

coverage and population immunity. Animals may be vaccinated with any FMD vaccine available

in the market, but such vaccine may not contain the current FMD virus field strain.

Secondly, the assessment found a lack of communication regarding post vaccination sero-

monitoring. Not all provincial and district DLD officers received reports of post vaccination



245

evaluation. Also, the majority of private veterinarians (72.73%, 16/22) and farmers (55.88%,

19/34) claimed that they do not receive reports of post vaccination evaluations from DLD officers.

Due to the absence of such reports and the lack of evidence of adequate vaccination coverage and

population immunity, it is unknown whether the implementation of the vaccination program meets

the OIE’s requirements.

Third, a lack of communication of vaccination matching monitoring between DLD officers and

private veterinarians was found. It needs to be emphasized that FMD vaccines distributed in

Thailand can be either imported vaccines or DLD-produced vaccines. Currently, DLD is not able

to test the antigenic relationship (r value) between imported vaccines and FMD virus field strains

because imported vaccines are not under the supervision and authority of DLD. In addition,

participating private veterinarians and farmers are not able to access official reports regarding the

actual FMD status or strain in their area. It is important to inform stakeholders of current field

virus and vaccine used strain. The assessment found that private veterinarians (63.64%, 14/22)

used FMD vaccines, either imported or DLD-produced vaccines, without knowing whether the

vaccine was selected based on FMD virus field strain. They were unsure if their clients’ animals

had immunity against the virus field strain. Findings indicate that the current vaccination strategy

is not appropriately implemented and does not meet the OIE’s requirements because there is a lack

of evidence to prove that “vaccination has been carried out to achieve adequate vaccination

coverage and population immunity” [1] (Article 8.8.3 bullet 3c.)

Fourth, the assessment also found inappropriate vaccine quality control. Although the officers

from the Bureau of Veterinary Biologics (BVB) (n=2) claimed that vaccine quality control testing

protocol follows the OIE’s Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals, they

were not able to conduct vaccine potency tests in every lot. There were insufficient animals that

could be used in experiments and there were limited laboratory facilities to do so. Duration of

immunity is not routinely tested. Vaccine shelf life had also not been tested for the past 3 years.

During the field visits, an expired FMD vaccine was found. In addition, an officer of Veterinary

Biologics Assay and Research Center (VBAC) revealed that there was no post-marketing quality

control of FMD vaccines due to a lack of budget allocations. Since there was a lack of evidence to

prove the quality of vaccines after distribution was certified, the quality of FMD vaccine produced

by the DLD is unknown. It can be implied that the current vaccine strategy does not meet the

OIE’s requirements.

246

4.4 Animal Movement Control System

The assessment of the design of the animal movement control system found that 1) the regulation

(DLD regulation of animal movement control B.E. 2558 (2015)) covers all susceptible species and

animal products, 2) the requirements (before movement is allowed) are adequate to prevent disease

spread in accordance with the OIE Terrestrial Code, and 3) there is a requirement specifying that

the vehicles for livestock transportation must be cleaned and disinfected. From these findings, it

could be implied that animal movement control regulations have been appropriately designed and

meet the OIE’s requirements.

However, the assessment found only partial implementation of the animal movement control

system. First, ineffective communication of animal movement control protocols was found

between DLD officers and private veterinarians and between DLD officers and farmers. Private

veterinarians (36.36%, 8/22) and farmers (55.88%, 19/34) never received information regarding

the movement control protocol since the last update in 2015. The protocol has been communicated

well among DLD officers (100%) through official meetings and official letters.

Secondly, animal inspections are not being fully conducted. According to the Animal Epidemic

Act B.E. 2558 (2015) and the DLD Regulation on Animal Movement Control B.E. 2558 (2015),

the inspections should take place (1) before DLD officers issue animal movement permits, (2)

when animals are loaded onto vehicles, and (3) while animals pass through animal checkpoints.

The assessment found that due to the insufficient number of provincial and district DLD officers,

the officers were not able to visit all farms and inspect animal health status prior to issuing

movement permits. Some officers request that farmers bring animals (on vehicles) to their office to

get inspected and receive an animal movement permit at the same time. However, DLD officers at

quarantine stations reported that they always observe and inspect animal health status while the

animals pass through checkpoints or quarantine stations.

Though, DLD’s regulation of animal movement control and the OIE’s requirements do not state

whether vehicles must have sufficient bedding to absorb urine and droppings during animal

transportation, inappropriate control of vehicles for animal transportation can be one of the sources

of FMD spread and infection. During field visits, the assessment found, that some vehicles did not

have sufficient bedding for animal transportation. Leakage of water and urine along the road from

those vehicles was observed (figure 4). The assessment concludes that there is a lack of evidence to

247

prove that the control of susceptible animals and their products have been properly implemented

and supervised. Thus, the implementation of animal movement control does not meet the OIE’s

requirements.

4.5 Response Plans

The assessment found that the current DLD response plans are appropriately designed and meet

the OIE’s requirements. Response plans include appropriate measurements such as disease

investigation, quarantine, control of animal movement, ring vaccination, disposal of carcass,

disinfection of infected premises, follow up plans for infected and suspected cases, and further

serological tests to a positive serological test (Non Structure Protein, NSP). DLD also utilizes a

compensation scheme to subsidize farmers even though the Terrestrial Code does not mention

compensation.

Nonetheless, the implementation of response plans needs to be further improved to meet the OIE’s

requirements. First, ineffective communication regarding response plans was found between DLD

officers and stakeholders. Private veterinarians were less informed than farmers regarding the

response plans. Second, training on preparedness and response plans was not thoroughly provided

to private veterinarians and farmers. The majority of private veterinarians (71.43%, 15/21) and

farmers (54.84%, 17/31) reported that they have never been trained to deal with any suspected

cases or outbreaks. It can be implied that majority of private veterinarians and farmers in the

proposed FMD-free zone may not be aware of DLD’s protocols when it comes to FMD outbreaks.

Third, there was inadequate response to reported FMD suspected cases by DLD officers.

Participating farmers and private veterinarians reported that after they reported FMD suspected

cases to DLD officers, DLD officers did not conduct disease investigations or collect or submit

samples for FMD diagnosis. This indicates that the implementation of response plans does not

fully meet with the OIE’s requirements as the OIE requires immediate follow-up and investigation

to confirm or rule out FMD infection.

Fourth, emergency vaccines that control FMD outbreaks were not sufficiently available for all

susceptible animals in the proposed FMD-free zone. Ring vaccination is indicated as one of the

measures to control an FMD outbreak in the DLD’s response plans. However, private veterinarians

(n=6), all of whom work on swine farms, reported that DLD provided no-cost FMD vaccines for

248

only 6% of the total number of their clients’ animals and provided low-cost vaccines for 60%. As a

result of insufficient availability of FMD vaccines in an outbreak, the implementation of response

plans does not meet the OIE’s requirements as there is no evidence to prove whether adequate

vaccine coverage of the target population had been achieved.

Fifth, FMD infected and exposed animals are not stamped out (killed and buried on site) or

slaughtered (transported to a slaughter facility) in accordance with the DLD’s response plans. The

plans specify that FMD infected and exposed animals must be stamped out or slaughtered;

however, the assessment found that most FMD infected and exposed animals were not slaughtered

by either method. Although the OIE does not require stamping-out or slaughtering when there is an

outbreak in a free zone with vaccination, the OIE does require evidence of no FMDV transmission

and circulation for at least 12 months in order for that region to be qualified as an FMD-free zone.

One participating private veterinarian commented that their clients believe that stamping out was

more economically devastating than treating infected animals so most of their clients decided to

keep potentially infected animals on their farms. It can be implied that the virus might exist and be

circulating in the proposed FMD-free zone, even though no FMD clinical signs were noticed and

no FMD suspected cases were reported.

Sixth, the introduction or importation of susceptible animals into the proposed FMD-free zone

does not follow the DLD regulation and does not meet the OIE’s requirements. The DLD

regulation specifies that animals are subject to be serologically tested for FMDV with negative

results before the movement is allowed. However, one participating district officer reported that

he/she reviews the documentation of imported animals to ensure they originated from FMD-

negative herds but does not require a FMD-negative test. Private veterinarians (n=5) working for

company farms revealed that the companies required FMD-negative laboratory results for their

imported animals, but not all of their clients (especially backyard farmers) required a FMD-

negative test. Findings indicate that not all newly introduced animals enter the herds in the

proposed FMD-free zone with FMD negative laboratory results.

All findings mentioned above indicates that the implementation of response plans needs further

improvement in order to meet the OIE’s requirements.

249

4.5 Engagement of Stakeholders

This assessment found that most private veterinarians and farmers in the proposed FMD-free zone

who participated in this study are supportive stakeholders. They usually practice and are aware of

FMD control activities in accordance with the current FMD control program. They observe animal

health status regularly. They routinely vaccinate their animals or clients’ animals with FMD

vaccine even though they are not able to identify vaccine quality or are unsure of vaccine strain

matching. They usually notify DLD officers and receive a movement permit before animals are

transported. They comply with DLD officers’ instructions when animals’ quarantine is needed.

They follow biosecurity measures recommended by DLD officers. Overall, the assessment found

good collaboration between DLD officers and stakeholders.

Although private veterinarians and farmers participate well and collaborate with DLD officers in

controlling FMD in the proposed FMD-free zone, they are not fully engaged in disease reporting

or willing to report FMD suspected cases or outbreaks. They fail to notify DLD officers of an

FMD suspected case within 12 hours. Though they recognize clinical signs of FMD suspected

cases they do not want to report to DLD officers. As a result, FMD suspected cases in the proposed

FMD-free zone could be underreported, and DLD officers and stakeholders are unaware of the

actual FMD status. Lack of early disease reporting could hinder DLD’s effort in proposing to the

OIE that Livestock Region 2 should be officially recognized as an FMD-free zone.

4.6 Conclusions

After a thorough assessment of FMD control policies and their implementation in the proposed

FMD-free zone in Thailand, the assessment team came up with the following conclusions:

⮚ The design of the current FMD control system in the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand,

including the surveillance system, vaccine strategy, movement control, and response plans,

is appropriate and meets the OIE’s requirements for establishing an FMD-free zone with

vaccination. However, the assessment still found ways to improve and strengthen the FMD

control system in the proposed FMD-free zone. Recommendations will be provided in the

next section.

⮚ The implementation of the surveillance system, reporting system, vaccine strategy,

movement control, and response plans need improvement in order to fulfill the OIE’s

requirements.

250

⮚ Gaps among the implementation of each system and the OIE’s requirements are

summarized as follows:

o Surveillance system: the current surveillance system was not able to “provide an

early warning system to report suspected cases” [9] (the OIE Terrestrial Code

Article 8.8.40 bullet 1).

o Reporting system: the reporting protocol was not uniformly implemented at all

levels. Stakeholders did not “report promptly any suspicion of FMD” [9] (the OIE

Terrestrial Code Article 8.8.41 bullet 1).

o Vaccine strategy: there was insufficient evidence to prove that “compulsory

vaccination in the target population has been carried out to achieve adequate

vaccination coverage and population immunity and with appropriate vaccine strain

selection” [9] (the OIE Terrestrial Code Article 8.8.3 bullet 3c and 3d).

o Animal movement control: there was a lack of evidence to prove that “the control

of the movement of susceptible animals and their products has been properly

implemented and supervised” [9] (Article 8.8.4 bullet 4d).

o Response plans: there was inadequate response, follow-up, and investigation to

confirm or rule out FMD infection as it required by the OIE.

⮚ Stakeholder engagement: Though private veterinarians and farmers in the proposed FMD-

free zone are supportive stakeholders who are aware of FMD control activities and practice

in accordance with the current FMD control program, one of the DLD’s challenges is to

enhance their engagement on disease reporting.

5. RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the above conclusions, the following future needs and opportunities were identified.

⮚ Policy/program design:

o Though the design of vaccination strategy meets the OIE’s requirements, which clearly

indicates the criteria for selection of vaccine strain and who has authority to make the

vaccine strain decisions, it could be strengthened by clearly specifying a time for

routine meetings of the committee with authority to make decisions on vaccine strains.

The committee should meet at a certain time of the year, every year to review virus

circulating strains and make recommendations for vaccine strains. They should not wait

until there is an outbreak - one that might not be able to be controlled by current

vaccines since because the FMD virus rapidly replicates and easily spreads.

251

o Not only should the Food and Drug Administration Thailand (FDA-Thai) Ministry of

Public Health have authority over the importation of animal drugs and veterinary

biological products, but the DLD should have the authority to test and control FMD

imported vaccines after importation and prior to distribution at the field level for better

FMD vaccine management. The DLD will also have more information regarding

quality and virus strains used in FMD imported vaccines.

o The DLD regulation regarding animal movement control is appropriately designed and

in accordance with the OIE Terrestrial Code, but it should also clearly specify

requirements of vehicles used for animal transportation. For example, vehicles need

sufficient bedding to absorb urine and minimize the leakage of urine and feces.

Moreover, vehicles used for animal transportation should be inspected and approved by

DLD officers in order to ensure the vehicles are suitable for animal transportation and

are not a source of disease spread.

o The DLD should clearly specify the criteria for when FMD infected animals will be

destroyed by stamping out and when they will be slaughtered for meat production.

These criteria are important for stakeholders because compensation at 75 % of the

market price of the animal will only be paid in the case of stamping out, not in the case

of slaughtering. Also, the criteria need to be clearly communicated to stakeholders to

avoid confusion.

⮚ Policy/program implementation:

o Findings of FMD active surveillance should be publicly available and accessible, so

private veterinarians and farmers will be aware of the actual FMD status. In addition,

private veterinarians and farmers should be able to access findings of FMD surveillance

of their own farms, so they can plan appropriately to prevent and control FMD.

o DLD officers should increase private veterinarians’ and farmers’ awareness regarding

rapid disease reporting and closely monitor whether private veterinarians and farmers

comply with the DLD’s reporting protocols. In addition, DLD officers should clearly

communicate with private veterinarians and farmers about the response plans when

FMD suspected cases and/or FMD positive cases are found.

252

o The DLD should make official reports, such as reports of FMD status, post- vaccination

evaluation, and vaccine strain matching publicly available and accessible. Reports of

FMD status should clearly identify source and epidemiology of outbreaks.

o FMD vaccines should be available and sufficient to cover all susceptible species not

only during FMD outbreaks but also under normal situations. The DLD may increase

capacity and availability of the DLD’s vaccine production plant by establishing a new

vaccine plant. However, that may not be feasible due to the current DLD budget

constraints, yet an effective vaccination program is essential for a successful FMD

control program.

o The DLD should work closely with FDA-Thai to better manage the importation of

FMD vaccine. Information of FMD imported vaccine, such as virus strains used and

quality control, should be shared among these two agencies.

o The DLD should revise their human resource plan to better allocate staff at local levels

to improve delivery of Veterinary Services.

o Communications between the DLD and stakeholders regarding the FMD control

program need to be strengthened for more effective message delivery. The DLD may

set up or increase regularity of stakeholder meetings. Webinars (web-based seminars)

and/or teleconference should be used to enhance communication with target audiences,

especially private veterinarians. Effective and adequate communication could enhance

stakeholders’ engagement in the FMD control program.

o The Thai government should support DLD recruitment of more veterinarians and

should have sufficient well-trained staff to work at the provincial and district levels in

order to deliver Veterinary Services appropriately and effectively.

o The Thai government should recognize the importance and benefits of establishing an

FMD-free zone and should have a strong commitment to support the DLD to make sure

that the proposed FMD-free zone will be recognized by the OIE.

6. REFERENCES


Thailand. Thailand.

2. The Royal Thai Government Gazette (2015). – Animal Epidemic Act B.E. 2558. 132, 22.


253

3. The Royal Thai Government Gazette (2016). – Control of Animal Slaughter for the

Distribution of Meat Act B.E. 2559. , 133, 22. Available at:

http://www.ratchakitcha.soc.go.th/DATA/PDF/2559/A/085/9.PDF.

4. Department of Livestock Development (2015). – Animal Movement Control Regulation. R.

Thai Gov. Gaz., 132, 186ง. Available at:

http://dcontrol.dld.go.th/dcontrol/images/RUMINANT/DLD/9.PDF.

5. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2018). – Animal Health Surveillance. , 1–10.

Available at:

http://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_surveillance_general.htm


6. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2018). – Procedures for self declaration and

for official recognition by the OIE. Available at:

http://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_selfdeclaration.htm (accessed

on 31 May 2018).

7. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2018). – Evaluation of Veterinary Services.

Available at:

http://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_eval_vet_serv.htm (accessed

on 31 May 2018).

8. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2018). – Zoning and compartmentalization.

Available at:

http://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_zoning_compartment.htm





April 2019).

10. Department of Livestock Development (2012). – National FMD strategic plan of Thailand.

2nd ed., Bangkok, Thailand. doi:10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2.



Bangkok, Thailand.


Endorsement 2015: Application for OIE Validation of the Official Foot and Mouth Disease

Control Programme. Bangkok, Thailand.

13. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2012). – PVS Evaluation Report (Thailand).

14. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2014). – PVS GAP Analysis Mission Report

(Thailand).

254

FIGURES

Figure 1 Evaluation Framework for the Assessment of FMD Control Policy and Its

Implementation in The Proposed FMD-Free Zone in Thailand.

Figure 2 Map of Thailand and Nine Livestock Regions

Figure 3 Map of the Proposed FMD-Free Zone in Thailand

Figure 4 Inappropriate Vehicles for Animal Transportation

255

Figure 1 Evaluation framework for the assessment of FMD control policy and its implementation in the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand.

*Conditions:

(1) Reporting system

is appropriate design.

(2) Testing and

diagnosis system is

adequate and rapid to

diagnose FMD.

Policy design

Implementation

Implementation

Policy design

Implementation

Policy design

Implementation

Policy design

Implementation

256

Figure 2 Map of Thailand and nine Livestock Regions

257

Figure 3 Map of The Proposed FMD-free Zone in Thailand

258

Figure 4 Inappropriate Vehicles for Animal Transportation

Water or

urine

leakage

Water

or urine

leakage

Water or

urine

leakage

Water/

urine

stain