May 2004
For FAO CENTAUR
GLOBAL QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC
PROFESSIONAL VETERINARY MANPOWER
V. Kouba
Former Chief, Animal Health
Service, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and
Editor-in-Chief, FAO/WHO/OIE Animal Health Yearbook
Introduction
The availability of competent public professional veterinary
manpower is a decisive factor for any effective national and international animal
health programmes. A shortage of qualified public service
veterinarians is a serious obstacle to the control of animal health and diseases
as well as to the national livestock husbandry protection and development. Public
professional veterinary manpower is of
primary importance for successful application of strategies, measures and
methods to promote, protect and restore the health of animal populations and to
protect human population health. It is the driving force for effective
transfer of scientific research results and of accumulated experience into animal
population health practice. This paper tries to evaluate global public
professional veterinary manpower situation using available data reported by
individual countries to international organizations. This quantitative analysis is dedicated to global aspects complemented
by examples from selected countries. The average values of selected indicators reflect, to a certain extent, the workload of
government veterinary officials and their ability to cope with particular responsibility,
tasks and problems. Presented analysis was carried out due to the fact that no
any global organization involved in animal health had
done it itself. This indicates general underestimation of veterinary public service importance for the
implementation of animal health policy and programmes.
The global
information system on veterinary manpower was established in 1959, within the
framework of a joint venture between the Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations (FAO), the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International
Office of Epizootics (OIE). They produced the FAO/WHO/OIE Animal Health Yearbook (2),
published by the FAO in
This paper represents a follow-up of author’s
article on quantitative analysis of global veterinary human resources published in Rev. sci. tech. Off. Int. Epiz. (10).
Materials
and methods
This study employed available data on public professional veterinary manpower - government veterinary officials - how they were published in relevant international yearbooks. Collecting and disseminating data on public professional veterinary manpower was introduced by the author of this paper when he was Editor-in-Chief of the FAO/WHO/OIE Animal Health Yearbook (2) and FAO Animal Health Officer (Veterinary Intelligence) in 1983. Original reporting of “total number of veterinarians” was divided into several categories including “government veterinary officials at central and local levels”. This system is still in use today. The data on veterinary personnel from 1996 onwards were collected by using a common questionnaire as previously, however published only by the OIE in World Animal Health yearbook (11).
The term “veterinarian” in the mentioned yearbooks was defined as “a person who has graduated from a university-level veterinary school”. The data on the number of veterinarians working as government officials were supported by national documentation required for their salary payrolls. The global analysis was complemented by examples from selected countries significantly influencing the global values and from some other ones representing different continents and conditions. These examples can facilitate the comparison between different countries. Priority was given to major exporting countries having major influence on international trade (potential channel of animal diseases export), giving “lessons” and “examples” to the others and dominating international animal health policy and organizations.
For more detailed analysis were selected data of the year 2000. However, not all countries sent relevant reports for that year. To obtain the most complete global data, the most recent reports available from those countries before the year 2000 were used to substitute the missing information. Statistical publications of the FAO on animal populations, animal production and international trade were used to calculate the different average values per one veterinarian. (4,5).
The results of this analysis have to be understood as the estimates very approximate to the reality. Not all reported data were complete or systematically updated. The data from several countries were estimates only or inexact, due to: deficiencies in reporting and administration systems, changes in information-gathering systems, misinterpretations of the indicators, irresponsibility of relevant officers, etc. Sometimes appeared in the OIE World Animal Health also nonsense data. All these deficiencies reduced the reliability also of other published data, e.g. on disease occurrence.
Examples of published data: on Belgium number of government
veterinary officials in 1999 - 148 and in 2000 -
5463 (!?); on France number of government veterinary officials in
1998 - 608 and in 1999 and 2000 always
1000 (!?); on Italy number of government veterinary officials from 1997 up to
2001 always 5340 without any change; on New Zealand number of all veterinarians
in 1999 - 1391 and in 2000 -
2186 ; on Kuwait number of government veterinary officials in 2000 – 1, in 2001 – 0 and in 2002 – 25.
Many Chief Veterinary Officers, even of major exporting countries, obviously did not know the size of the main domestic species populations. The data reported to and published by the OIE differed from those reported as official ones by their governments to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Examples: Chief Veterinary Officers reported to OIE in
comparison with official government data sent to FAO-UN: United Kingdom in 2000
less cattle by 3,184,000, less sheep by 1,411,000; Canada in 2002 more cattle
by 1,851,000; USA in 1996 less cattle by 2,339,000 and more pigs by 1,989,000;
New Zealand in 2001 less sheep by 4,209,000; France in 1996 less cattle by
1,511,000, less sheep by 2,746,000 and less pigs by 1,530,000; Italy in 1997
less sheep by 2,620,000. How these Chief Veterinary Officers can know the real health
status of animal
populations when they do not know the
simplest animal population indicator ?
Considering the above mentioned lack of situation
knowledge, so called “risk assessment” according to the World Trade
Organization – Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures,
1994 (WTO/SPS) and OIE Code, requiring many r e l i a b l e animal health data from
exporting countries to be available to importing ones, is de facto a mere theory (up to fantasy).
For
data processing was employed EPIZOO, version 4.0, a software package developed for
analysing information on animal population health/disease and veterinary
manpower (www.cbox.cz/vaclavkouba/).
Results
The global growth of the number of government veterinary officials during
evaluated period from 1983 to 2002 was very slow despite the fact that greater
government supervision and more rigorous preventive and disease control
measures were required due to rapid increase of the trade facilitating the spread
of infectious diseases as never before. Development of global
number of government veterinary officials over these years see in Table I.
The trend expressed in time series regression line was y = –
7620054.5 + 3890.52 x. Reported number of private veterinarians during the
evaluated period was growing much faster.
Reported numbers
of veterinarians in selected countries significantly influencing the global
values of the year 2002 see in Table II. Among the countries with the highest
number of government veterinary officials belonged
Reported numbers
of veterinarians in other selected countries in 2002 see in Table III.
The global number of government veterinary officials reported by individual countries for the year 2000 (including the most recently available figures for those countries which did not submit actual reports) reached 192,020 (i.e. 27.77 % of all reported veterinarians). The reported number of veterinarians employed at laboratories, universities and training institutions was 106,303 (15.38 %) and reported number of veterinarians in private service reached 320,346 (46.33 %).
According to officially reported data the global average number of inhabitants and the land area per government veterinary official in the year 2000 was as follows: 31,522 inhabitants; 13,368 people depending for their livelihood on agriculture; 6,867 people economically active in agriculture; 680 km2 of land; 71 km2 of arable land suitable for crop production and 7 km2 of land under permanent crop cultivation.
The global average numbers of animals per government veterinary official in the year 2000 were as follows: 6,932 cattle, 870 buffaloes, 313 horses, 4,711 pigs, 5,421 sheep, 3,719 goats and 74,581 chickens. Average number of cattle, sheep and pigs per one government veterinary official in selected countries in 2000 see in Table IV.
The global
average number of livestock units (LUs)
per government veterinary official in the year 2000 was 9221 *). Average number
of livestock units per one government veterinary official in selected countries
in 2000 see in Table V. Among the countries with the highest average number of
livestock units per government veterinary official belonged
*) Following conversion rates were applied:
cattle = 0.7; buffalo = 1; horse = 1; mule/ass; = 0.8; camel
= 1.1; pig = 0.25; sheep 0.1; goat =
0.1; chicken = 0.01. For the calculation it was used EPIZOO software
subprogramme 11.11.7 b.
The global average numbers of animals slaughtered in abattoirs during the year 2000 per government veterinary official were as follows: 1,445 cattle, 2,517 sheep, 1,024 goats and 6,026 pigs.
The global
average volume of livestock production during
the year 2000 per government veterinary official was as follows: 1,211 tonnes
(t) of meat in total, 295 t beef/veal, 40 t mutton/lamb, 20 t goat meat, 467 t pig
meat, 230 t poultry meat, 2,551 t cow milk and 267 t hen eggs. Average amount of produced meat and
milk per government veterinary official in selected countries in 2000 see in
Table VI. Among the countries with the
highest average of produced meat per government veterinary official belonged
The global
average numbers and monetary values of internationally traded live animals during the year 2000 per government veterinary
official were as follows: 43 cattle (US$21,617), 83 sheep (US$4,126), 80 pigs
(US$6,638), 2 horses (US$9,226) and 3,910 chickens (US$4,029). Among the
countries with highest average monetary value of exported animals per government
veterinary official belonged
The global
average volume and monetary values of internationally traded animal products during the year 2000
per government veterinary official were as follows: 120 t total meat and meat
products (US$232,819), 10 t beef/veal (US$20,028), 5 t mutton/lamb (US$11,286),
12 t pork (US$18,638) and 31 t chicken meat (US$31,609).
Average values in US$ of exported animals and animal products per government
veterinary official in selected countries in 2000 see in Table VII. Among the
countries with highest average monetary value of exported meat per government
veterinary official belonged
Examples: Countries where monetary value of exported animals and animal products
in 2000 was higher than one million US$ per government veterinary official: New
Zealand – 14,783,812; Netherlands – 14,480,214; Australia – 8,285,069; Denmark
– 7,372,482; France – 6,207,885; Canada
– 5,535,061; USA – 3,728,074; United Kingdom – 2,128,801 and Germany –
1,776,298. (Tab. VII).
Comparative
analysis of the number of government
veterinary officials between different years demonstrated that in many
countries public professional veterinary manpower was reduced in spite of increasing needs, size and complexity of the problems
related with animal health programmes and rapidly developing national and
international animal trade.
Examples of numerical
reduction of government veterinary officials as reported by the countries: Albania (1983 – 1,418; 2000 – 450), Australia
(1989 – 821; 2000 – 507), Austria (1984 – 587; 2000 - 290), Canada (1984 – 1,080;
2000 – 685), Czech and Slovak Republic (1983 – 4,150; 2000 – 1,770), Greece
(1984 – 1,150; 2000 -724), Hungary (1995 – 2,392; 2000 - 1,552), Jamaica (1984
– 25; 2000 – 11), Kenya (1996 – 1,053; 2000 – 624), Kuwait (1992 – 96; 2000 – 1),
Latvia (1995 - 458; 2000 – 305), Lithuania (1991 – 468; 2000 – 218), Malawi
(1984 – 33; 2000 – 9), Mongolia (1989 – 879; 2000 – 20), New Zealand (1993 –
263; 2000 – 192), Peru (1983 – 663; 2000 – 360), Poland (1983 – 7,368; 2000 – 1,640),
Portugal (1985 – 1,164; 2000 – 512), Romania ( 1990 – 4,637; 2000 – 2,137),
Senegal (1985 – 66; 2000 – 36), Somalia (1990 – 273; 2000 – 121), Tajikistan
(1996 – 1,233; 2000 – 697), Tanzania (1990 – 250; 2000 – 150), Turkey ( 1990 –
1,945; 2000 – 1,535), USA ( 1993 – 3,699; 2000 – 2,240), Uruguay (1990 – 488;
2000 – 299) and Vietnam (1998 – 2,554; 2000 – 1,031).
Discussion
Presented
analysis confirms very critical
veterinary public services situation contributing significantly to the
general crisis of veterinary medicine due to rapidly worsening animal health
situation in the world. (8). In this
context the attention merits the statement of
M.M. Rweyemamu and V.M. Astudillo : ”Since the mid-1980s structural adjustment
programmes in developing countries have led to a demand for the
privatization of veterinary services, thus aiming at drastically
diminishing the role of the state in
these activities. Surveillance, early warning, laboratory diagnostic
services, planning, regulation and management of disease control programme, as
well as ensuring the quality and safety
of animal products were secondary
considerations. The chain of veterinary
command that required notification of disease outbreaks enabling a response
to disease emergency and which also ensured the management of national disease
control programme, was often dismantled.”
(13). These words are valid not only
for developing countries but also for the majority of the other countries, in particular for the
most important exporting ones.
Numerically weak public veterinary
service can logically perform properly only formal control, e.g., whether the documents issued by
non-government veterinarians and laboratories correspond formally with the
regulations and instructions but not whether these documents correspond fully with
the sanitary reality (e.g. through reinvestigating animals and products
selected for export, etc.). The majority of communicable diseases have
subclinical course, i.e. there are practically not reportable by the animal
owners and not detectable by veterinary service without special testing (i.e.
BSE). No specific investigation = no
detection of affected animals = reporting and certifying specific disease free
status also in spite of
the disease agents occurrence. The veterinary certificates are often of limited value
due to the fact that the health/sanitary status and epizootiological situation are not fully known and that
they are of informative character only and not health guarantee documents. About 9/10 of known communicable diseases
of animals are not obligatorily notifiable and therefore they are not
controlled and can propagate freely.
Examples: "It
is assumed that, for every case of salmonellosis recorded in humans in the
Chief Veterinary Officers are responsible for health quality of
exported animals and animal products – as
the OIE International Animal Health Code (12) sets down: “Article 1.2.1.3.3: The Head of the
Veterinary Service of the exporting country is ultimately accountable for
veterinary certification used in international trade.”. How the Chief Veterinary Officer can be responsible for the
certificate based on investigations by a private veterinarian ? Having not
enough staff in government services, they resemble as the generals without army and therefore they must rely on not
always reliable, independent and properly trained private service. Without
effective supervision/inspection is difficult to expect necessary discipline in
implementing the “official” duties of accredited veterinarians and laboratories.
The discipline depends not only on the supervision but also on drawing
conclusions from not implementing the obligations. The history teaches that if there is a possibility for cheating,
somebody it abuses. For this kind of control there is a need of having
sufficient number of qualified government veterinary officials what is not the
case in the majority of the countries. The problem is also the recruitment of qualified
government officials what often depends inter
alia on unfortunately
lower attractiveness of their salary in comparison with the income in private
sector.
The first
international document defining public veterinary services duties was published
by R.B. Griffiths and H.O. Konigshofer in 1974 (6).The duties of government veterinary
services are multifaceted. Comparing the number of government veterinary
officials and their enormous responsibility and tasks it is clear that numerically
weak staff of public services is not in
the position to cope effectively and in full with all their duties. In some
countries they can have difficulties also with obligatory administration
consisting in paper work, using computers (data processing), management, etc.
even without any on-ground supervision and additional initiative as far as new
national animal health programmes are concerned. Very important is the duty of public
veterinary service national administration to prepare necessary animal health
legislation for general application and instructions for veterinary services. In
the majority of the countries there is minimum or no time of public services for
the work at grass root level to investigate on-ground situation, to test
animals for trade (at least for international one), to issue official attests, to
supervise non-government veterinary services (accredited veterinarians and diagnostic
laboratories), to control the implementation of animal health legal duties by
animal owners and by animal product processing units; there is minimum or no
time for initiating and organizing effective territorial and national disease surveillance
(e.g. nationwide specific disease survey testings)
and control (reduction, elimination and eradication) programmes, for organizing
postgraduate training of own staff, of
accredited veterinarians as well as training of all veterinarians for emergency
situations, etc.; there is minimum or no time for controlling properly national
and international trade in animals and their products, for border controls to
protect country territory against the introduction of animal diseases, etc.
There is difficult to imagine how numerically relatively
weak government veterinary service staff of some countries can cope with and be
responsible for country animal population health protection and disease control
as well as for sanitary guarantee of
exporting animals and their products when for example in 2002 (not considering
territory size):
- USA with 2,607 government veterinary officials reported 96,700,000 heads of cattle and
59,074,000 pigs, export of 243,394 heads
of cattle, 405,705 sheep , 206,659 pigs and 4,586,088 t meat and import of
2,505,279 heads of cattle, 5,741,275 pigs and 1,701,935 t meat;
- Australia
with 549 government veterinary officials
reported 50,669,000 heads of cattle, 113,000,000 sheep and export of 6,078,287 sheep ( 223,000,000 US$
value), 972,340 heads of cattle and
1,466,968 t meat;
- Canada with
670 government veterinary officials reported
13,699,000 heads of cattle and 14,367,100 pigs, export of 1,690,708
heads of cattle, 5,741,363 pigs, 139,692 sheep
and 1,424,057 t meat and import of 511,987 t meat;
-
There is obviously a critical situation of lacking
necessary number qualified government veterinary officials for effective
disease control and for the guarantee of communicable disease free status of
exported animals and their products.
Examples: Considering the size
of animal population (11,423,000 heads of cattle, 44,656,000 sheep and
7,284,000 pigs, etc.), animal production (708,000 MT beef, 359,000 MT
mutton/lamb, 923,000 MT pork and 105,000 MT chicken meat) and animal export (US$108,157,000)
in 2000, British government veterinary service was numerically weak (number of
government veterinary officials in 2000 – 729 (reduced from 856 in 1995) unable
to cope effectively not only with the emergency situation; British private
veterinarians failed during
foot-and-mouth disease panzootic in 2001 giving priorities to their current
curative practice (mainly due economic reasons) before their participation in
demanding long-term eradication campaign out of their homes; it was necessary
to invite foreign veterinarians in spite of not having experience with this
disease or proper training. - “A large rendering company in UK continued and
expanded its export of meat and bone meal, which may have been contaminated
with BSE, for 8 years after EU ban in 1988, to 70 countries in the Middle and
Far East.”(7). – Agriculture University of Prague imported 60 heifers from
Denmark to Lany-Pozary university ranch in 1993 and 395
heifers from France to Ruda university ranch in 1995
– import supported by government grant; in spite of international
veterinary certificates according to OIE Code both shipments were found as
affected by trichophytosis (Trichophyton
mentagrophytes) infecting also 76 persons and by paratuberculosis (disease never
reported among indigenous cattle in the whole country): the breeding programme
instead to be improved was paralysed in both ranches, originally with healthy
herds; these ranches were eliminated from normal trade and until today the paratuberculosis
cannot be eradicated.
However, there
are also some countries with major number of government veterinary officials,
but due to lack of necessary material, facilities and budgetary support their
activities are also limited (e.g.
One of the
criteria how far the public veterinary service is able to control the e x p o
r t of animals and animal products is the
average of monetary values (in US$) per
one government veterinary official (Tab.
VII). It can be supposed as logical that the major average value of this export
per government veterinary official can mean the minor chance to control effectively
private accredited veterinarians testing and issuing official certificates for this trade, i.e.
major risk to export also etiological agents of communicable diseases. This
indicator clarifies in what countries was the origin of the “new” WTO/SPS and
OIE trade policy replacing original z e r
o r i s k trade by non-transparent theoretical “r i s k a s s e s s m e n t”. This policy ‘’facilitates the export’’ at
the expense of animal and human health in importing countries due to significantly
reducing their requirements for necessary protection against the introduction
of animal diseases. This policy
favouring exporting countries represents in practice inadmissible pressure on
importing country public veterinary services to reduce sanitary defence and to avoid the
reclamations in disease introduction
cases. This concept is logically welcome by those
exporting countries
having not good knowledge of true national animal health/disease
situation and being not able to guarantee full sanitary innocuousness of
exporting commodities.
Example: Historical world record of average monetary value of exported animals and their products per government
veterinary official was reached in
It is strange
that up to now no any international organization has carried out the most important “risk assessment”
study, i.e. how far
the WTO/SPS and the OIE Code trade policy is risky for importing
countries and for animal populations health in the whole world. There is obviously
a fear to inform truthfully the farmers and consumers in the world about
serious risks and consequences, often irreparable and catastrophic, for animal
and human health in importing countries (8,9), what would seriously complicate relatively
easy “life of the exporters” of not fully healthy animals and products.
Numerically weak public veterinary services of some exporting countries having not full control of international trade can indirectly contribute to international spreading of animal diseases.
Almost all major exporting countries belong among the richest in the world. Therefore,
it should not be economic reason for keeping their public services so weak. It
is obvious that they cannot control at all the immense export but only
formally, i.e. usually through “paper” control and even without seeing exporting animals and their products. Many of
them do not want to or cannot guarantee the
export of 100 % epizootiologically (epidemiologically) healthy animals and
innocuous products, i.e. free of agents of a l l communicable diseases. They are not required by
the WTO/SPS or the OIE Code to admit and to declare openly what they cannot guarantee (e.g., identifying side
effects – specific diseases risks - early warning of the importers) as it is normal fair
trade practice in any other commodity. Instead of respecting basic principles
of market economy some of them apply the “principles” of camouflaging the troublesome
truth on unfavourable sanitary reality, if they know it at all. This was obviously
the main reason why they welcome and probably initiated the “new” WTO/SPS and
OIE policy minimizing health protective measures of
importing countries and even imposing the obligation to accept also non-healthy animals and
non-innocuous food, i.e. with the pathogens of communicable diseases!
On
the FAO web-site dated 27.5.2002 in the Spotlight "World livestock
trade" can be found following sentence ‘’The OIE Code was basically
written to protect the health of livestock in developed countries.’’
Numerically weak public veterinary
services cannot organize effective national animal health programmes (e.g. disease
eradication), usually very demanding and costly. Exception is foot-and-mouth
disease and some the most dangerous diseases threatening the developed
countries. Considering the weakness of public veterinary services there is understandable
that the most frequent strategy against communicable animal diseases is trouble-free
and cheapest “doing nothing” and applying the philosophy “what does it matter what starting risk was ?” when trade business runs
in spite of diseases occurrence and spreading. Businessmen are happy commending
“new international
veterinary policy” when getting relatively easy their profit.
(The annual size of legal international trade in animals and animal products
has reached globally about 100 billion US$). They are not interested in negative,
up to disastrous, consequences in importing countries where weak public
veterinary services very often, in particular in developing countries, are not
able to cope with the imported diseases. We are witnesses of unscrupulous
discrimination of importing developing countries, in particular the poorest
defenceless ones. Chief Veterinary Officers of importing countries have often difficulties to
resist the pressure not only from exporting countries and by discriminating
documents of some international organizations (WTO, OIE, etc.) but also from local
businessmen and somewhere even from the politicians giving the priority to
risky import without full sanitary guarantee (sometimes subsidized) before the
protection of national animal and human populations health
To ’’facilitate international trade’’
there are two possibilities: either to strengthen public veterinary service and
significantly improve animal population health status in exporting countries to
can guarantee the export of only healthy
animals and innocuous animal products, i.e. pathogen-free commodities or to limit considerably the protection of
animal and human populations health in importing countries. WTO and OIE
selected the second alternative, i.e. de facto spreading of communicable
diseases into importing countries through international trade! Debilitation of public services in
developing countries as the consequence of the WB a IMF policy contributed also
to the policy of ‘’facilitating international trade’’ at the expense of
importing countries sanitary situation.
The major
exporting countries mentioned below seem to have almost decisive influence on
relevant intergovernmental organizations policy (WTO, OIE, etc.) in spite of representing only 6 %
of all government veterinary officials in the world. These countries were
obviously behind the WTO/SPS policy at
the expense of animal and human health in importing countries abusing risk
assessment method replacing previous reasonable recommendations of the Code (“Import risk analysis is preferable to a zero
risk approach” – OIE Code 1997,
paragraph 1.4.1.1). Instead of strengthening public veterinary services and
properly controlling sanitary situation together with disease reduction and
eradication programmes (to can export really healthy animals and animal
products), they managed through WTO/SPS to start almost unlimited trade (“unimpeded flow” – OIE website of
7.6.2001) in animals and animal products with minimal risks for exporting
countries and their profits. Instead of guaranteeing the health of animals and
the innocuousness of animal products, they imposed very problematic and not
quantifiable (non-objective) “risk assessment” requirements making difficult up
to impossible to refuse non-healthy animals and non-pathogen free animal
products ! The main consequence of this catastrophic antisanitary policy is
the globalization of animal communicable diseases = global crisis of veterinary
medicine (9).
Examples of proportions from global reported number of
government veterinary officials in 2000:
Example of a country influence on the OIE: OIE World
Animal Health 2002 yearbook cover page contains the advertising of
The tendency to minimize public veterinary services
involvement in trade control is reflected in some international
documents trying to “facilitate trade”
at the expense of health not considering diseases introduction in importing
countries. There are also documents openly and explicitly calling for giving up animal health protection of importing countries
and population preventive medicine at all.
Example: "The
need to remove technical obstacles to the f r e e c i r c u l a t i o n of
animals and their products …" (!?!). "It is not longer possible
to apply the old system under which animals and animal products had to come
from specific free zones, and were subjected to isolation, quarantine, inspection
and diagnostic testing before and after export.". (1) This is
clear instruction for disease spread through international trade ! The
tragedy is that these texts were written by a very influential person of the OIE : Chief, OIE Collaborating Centre for Epidemiology and
Organization of Veterinary Services in Developing Countries and Secretary General, OIE Foot and Mouth Disease
and Other Epizootics Commission.
The Table IV with data on average number of
cattle, sheep and pigs per government veterinary official confirms the difficulty
to control properly national animal population health. The same conclusion can
be made considering average number of livestock units per government veterinary official. It can be supposed that usually the major value of these units per
government veterinary official can mean the minor knowledge of country
epizootiological situation and the minor supervision of private (accredited)
veterinarians as well as the minor possibilities to control and eradicate
diseases. (Table V).
The World Bank (WB) and the International Monetary Fond (IMF) imposed mainly upon developing countries a privatization mania, somewhere ad absurdum, to minimize public services (loosing the ability to control directly on the spot sanitary situation, trade and import) instead to strengthen them (13). There is a sad fact that so called “experts” from so called “developed countries” were imposing bilaterally or through international organizations upon these countries the policy of reducing their public services not respecting local needs and conditions, current and future disease control and eradication programmes. They were arguing by their home country “exemplary models” of reduced public services and by unilateral economic criteria being attractive for the governments (minimizing public services budgets, avoiding many complications due to strict veterinary public services control of diseases and trade, etc.). Importing countries have to cope not only with local diseases but also with imported diseases what is not the case of major exporting countries having no need for risky imports.
Example: The most blatant public service destruction
was carried out in
Other example: After 1990 public veterinary services
in many Central and Eastern Europe countries, according to so called “western
model”, were significantly reduced through
privatization of former strong, effective and successful services (when considering
their results in population health prevention and diseases eradication); almost
all national eradication, control, surveillance and preventive programmes as
well as population etiological active investigations
(surveys) must be stopped; public service direct control of national and
international trade was significantly reduced and somewhere even eliminated
(investigations of animal and animal products for trade and issuing the
majority of certificates must be therefore transferred to private practitioners). Simultaneously,
undergraduate teaching of animal population health prevention and communicable diseases
control was considerably reduced in favour of curative medicine of sick individual animals
(mainly pets), to be in line with the above mentioned “model.” E.g., strong action-oriented
undergraduate curriculum subject of theoretical/practical Epizootiology was significantly
reduced or eliminated as separate subject or converted into purely theoretical Veterinary
Epidemiology with very
limited number of teaching hours.
In some
countries due to the lack of necessary public service veterinary manpower the
farmers themselves must purchase and vaccinate their animals as requested by
relevant legislation.
Example: In the nineties of the 20th century in some South
American countries the obligatory territorial vaccination against FMD must be
carried out by the farmers themselves and public service was able only to
inspect it ad hoc and formally, i.e.
to control the documents of vaccine purchase; by using new oil vaccine the
possibility to palpate the residua disappeared what was not the case before
when the vaccines were based on aluminium hydroxide adjuvants.
Great
discrepancies between numerically relatively weak manpower of public veterinary
services and their very demanding responsibilities explain the interest of major exporting countries to
minimize (e.g. through WTO-SPS and OIE Code) protection measures of importing
countries and to make them impossible to refuse the import of non-healthy animals or non-pathogen-free products without “scientific
transparent and documented justification” !? (12). Why to justify, even scientifically, the requirement for the import of
healthy animals and innocuous animal products ? On the contrary, the transparent, documented
and convincing justification of sanitary innocuousness of animals and animal
products being exported should be the duty of exporting countries
! Simultaneously some of exporting countries managed in 1996 to minimize global information regular system
on the occurrence of all internationally reportable diseases together with
abolishing regular reporting on disease introduction cases through trade (8) making
impossible the analyses of these events (“to facilitate trade” ?!) or of objective
import risks. It is probable that these countries were
behind the OIE avoiding the inclusion of repeatedly demanded data on the size
of active specific investigations of animal populations (active surveys) into international animal health information system;
these data are extremely important for informing how far reported and published
absolute numbers on disease occurrence are reliable, i.e. if based only on ad hoc reporting (= underreporting) or
not.
The
most responsible public veterinary official work such as investigation of
animals and animal products to be exported or sold locally and issuing
“official” certificates is today, due to lack of public service capacity, in the majority of the countries practically
in the hands of private service. So called “accredited private veterinarian” is
often not independent (when investigating and certificating health status of
animals or products originated from the same area of his current activity) on
the animal owners - breeders and producers who give him the work representing for him the income.
How importing countries can trust in these cases in informative certificates,
in their objectivity and reliability? The purchaser needs h e a l t h g u a r a n t e e d o c u
m e n t with full economic responsibility, e.g.
penalization for eventual selling or exporting of not healthy animals or
products with pathogens of communicable diseases. It often looks like the
accredited veterinarian controls
“results of his work” in the given area. Enormous number of cases of
disease introduction through international trade (8,9) were obviously caused by
almost incontrollable and practically nonpunishable
“accredited veterinarians” when issuing “official certificates” not
corresponding with the sanitary reality (gap in particular education and
training, not investigating properly, use of non-adequate tests, test results
misinterpretation, not knowing the sanitary situation in place of origin, benevolent
and holey OIE Code requirements, eventually in some cases corruption and
cheating, etc.). Supervision of
“accredited” veterinarians and diagnostic laboratories by government services is usually absolutely insufficient which
is obvious when considering for example limited number of government veterinary
officials. The most critical situation is in the majority of developing
countries where weak government services are dedicating almost all their
working time to administration activities only, without necessary supervision
of non-public sector, and are often almost defenceless against the introduction
of animal diseases through trade without full sanitary guarantee and almost
powerless against introduced diseases. The businessmen prefer the testing by private accredited veterinarians than
by independent public service specialists who are less benevolent, more
consistent in respecting the regulations and more resistant to eventual
corruption.
Very important is the grade
of requirements for the selection of accredited veterinarians when the quantity
to be combined with quality (education, training and practical experience) of
these professionals. For so important work in name of public service for
national and international trade, such as carrying out official tests as the basis for issuing official certificates on the sanitary
status of animals and their products, should be selected only the most
competent veterinarians.
Example:
The author had the opportunity to attend as observer an
accreditation course
for selected private veterinarians in one American continent country: after five
days of theory without any practical training and examination every participant
got the certificate to can play key official role in animal trade.
There were also cases when international health
certificates were issued in spite of exported animals having clinical symptoms
of infectious disease or originated from herds with specific clinical symptoms.
Example: Veterinary service of
the Czech Republic detected in the 90th from 326 shipments with 19,350 “healthy” cattle imported from several
“developed” European countries in 86 shipments
trichophytosis, i.e. zoonosis with clinical manifestation very easy to
recognise (even by the farmers), in spite of official “perfect” veterinary
certificates according to OIE Code; many persons became specifically infected.
(8).
One century experience confirms extraordinary
importance of public veterinary manpower for any animal health programmes for
health prevention, disease control and eradication as well as for national and
international trade. The author, after becoming Chief of FAO Animal Health
Service (AGAH), included among the priorities of the AGAH regular programme and
budget the strengthening of public veterinary services in developing countries.
Based on rich experience of FAO member country governments and of international experts and as well as on particular
FAO Expert Consultation attended by many Chief Veterinary Officers from
different continents, it was produced and published in 1991 a manual “Guidelines for Strengthening Animal Health
Services in Developing Countries” (3) translated also in Spanish and
French. Unfortunately, the pressure from the World Bank, International Monetary
Fond and some other international organizations dismantled existing public veterinary
services in these countries minimizing up to avoiding their ability to control properly
animal population health/disease situation and trade (13).
Without
necessary number of properly managed competent public service veterinarians,
well supported materially and financially, the majority of national and
international animal health strategies, programmes, emergency plans, etc. as
well as of applied research results can be put in the drawers as paper scraps
without any follow-up practical implementation.
Conclusion and
recommendations
Presented analysis demonstrates deep gap between the
number of government veterinary officials in the majority of the countries and
the requirements for necessary animal
and human population health protection, effective disease surveillance, control, reduction and eradication to avoid pathogens
spreading mainly through national and international trade.
Public veterinary services in all the countries to be significantly strengthened in terms of the staff quantity and quality together with ensuring necessary material, facilities and budget to be able to cope effectively with national animal health/disease problems and international trade. This suggestion is not easy to implement, particularly in the countries having serious economic problems. However, the major exporting countries having enough economic resources (not only from trade profit) must strengthen public veterinary services to be able to export only healthy animals and animal products free of pathogens avoiding international spreading of animal diseases.
All provisions of
international documents facilitating, admitting or even supporting communicable disease
spreading through trade to be abolished as soon as possible giving importing
country public service the freedom to decide about import conditions without any external
interference (as it was before WTO/SPS).
(Full texts of two letters to
Dr Mike Moore (
International animal health information system,
necessary for decision making of importing country public service, to be
significantly improved to provide regular information on a l l internationally reportable diseases (at least
as it was before WTO/SPS).
Education and practical training in animal population health protection, control and eradication of emergency and other communicable diseases, in diagnosis of general and specific epizootiological (epidemiological) h e a l t h (not only of diseases) of individual animals, herds/flocks and populations as well as in the diagnosis of innocuous, i.e. pathogen free animal products to be strengthened (diagnosis of epizootiological health is much more demanding than the diagnosis of the disease, but absolutely necessary for effective animal population health programmes and for communicable disease-free trade).
The use of private sector to fill the gap in public professional veterinary manpower is today the necessity. Strict selection of persons for getting status of “accredited veterinarian” for carrying out some public service duties to be applied, i.e. only after intensive course ended by practical examinations. Full independence of accredited veterinarians and laboratories on exporting persons and agencies to be ensured.
Relevant international organizations to analyse regularly global public veterinary professional manpower
situation and to present to member country governments corresponding
suggestions for further development towards strong public services able to cope
with actual animal health problems. For this
purpose to carry out also studies to compare national veterinary services according
to achieved concrete results in prevention, control and eradication of animal
diseases (= main criterion of public veterinary service quality).
References
1. Caporale, V. (1994).
- Harmonization of activities of the veterinary services in
2. Food and Agriculture Organization/World
Health Organization/International Office of Epizootics (FAO/WHO/OIE)
(1956-1995). – FAO/WHO/OIE Animal health yearbook. FAO,
3. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (1991). – Guidelines for
strengthening animal health services in developing countries. FAO,
4. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2000). – FAO Quarterly Bulletin of Statistics,
Vol. 1, No. 2. FAO,
5. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2002). – FAO Statistical
Databases (FAOSTAT). FAO,
6.
7. Hodges,
J. (2001). – Editorial. Livestock Production Science. 69: 59.
8. Kouba V. (2003). - Globalization of
Communicable Diseases of Animals – A Crisis of Veterinary Medicine. Acta Vet.
9. Kouba V.
(2003). – Globalization of communicable diseases and international trade.
Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium for Veterinary
Epidemiology and Economics, Vina del Mare, Chile,
17-21 November 2003: 34-36 (www.cbox.cz/vaclavkouba/globdisease.htm).
10. Kouba V. (2003). – Quantitative analysis of global
veterinary human resources. Rev. sci. tech. Off. Int. Epiz., 2003, 22 (3),
899-908 (www.oie.int/eng/publicat/RT/2203/A_R22311.htm).
11. OIE
(International Office of Epizootics) (1996-2002). – World Animal Health
(yearbook). OIE, Paris.
12. OIE
(International Office of Epizootics (1997-2002. – International Animal Health
Code. OIE, Paris.
13. Rweyemamu M.M. and Astudillo
V.M. (2003). - Global perspectives for foot and mouth disease control .
Rev.sci.tech.Off.int.Epiz. 21 (3): 765-773.
(www.oie.int/eng/publicat/rt/A_rt21_3.htm).
Table I
Number of total government and private veterinarians in the world reported
during 1983-2002
==========================================================================================
Year Reports Reported number of veterinarians Missing major countries
Total Government Private
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1983 116 240404 65930
79026
China(C),
USSR(U)
1984 136 260711 96372
81581
C,U
1985 151 289969 100057
104679 C,U
1986 154 310441 110577 107957 C,U
1987 160 333424 118909 124426 C,U
1988 165 359501 125087
138481 C,U
1989 166 383933 130782
145317
C,U
1990 165 403924 120642
166545
C,U
1991 169 436701 132342
185615
C,U
1992 156 417463
128662
181908 C,Russia(R)
1993 135 552331 144888
228697 R,France
1994 110 520263 141317
215676 R
1995 132 565500 154126
229956 R
1996 140 524342 151529
206761 C,R
1997 152 527074 125173
219692 C,R
1998 145 530626 153995 226699
C,R
1999 128 490668 156344 212286 C,R,USA
2000 136 548660 149561
260923 C,R
2001 144 574824 133035
271494
C,R
2002 174 645727 196783
306135 R
=================================================================================
Table II
Numbers of veterinarians, as reported by the countries significantly
influencing the global values of the year 2002
==========================================================================================================================
Category
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Government
officials 2,607
43,900 31,425 8,039 5,374
15,000 768 2,398 6,846 507
Laboratories,
education 5,565 6,000 3,075 1,396 5,940
4,500 596
2,479 2,791 333
Private
practitioners 45,116 1,900 16,458 16,970 4,000 11,568
10,387 8,532 1,795
Others 1,538 1,475 3,750 3,500
8,654
5,690 2,127
500
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 54,826 49,900 37,875 29,643 28,284 27,000
21,586 20,954 20,296 7,562
========================================================================================================================
Note:
Former
Table III
Numbers of veterinarians, as reported by selected countries in the year 2000
===========================================================================================================================
Category
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Government
officials 2,530 685 5,382 512 1,000 724 5,340 355 192 1,640 253
Laboratories,
education 2,875 352 937 321 1,200 500 578 304 126 242 162
Private
practitioners 6,512 6,206 0 1,193 8,000 2,176 10,247 2,513 1,073 6,200 932
Others 846 268 921 ? 100 1,940 295 795 1,732 1,052
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 11,917 8,089 6,587 2,947 10,200 3,500 18,105 3,467 2,186 9,814 2,399
===========================================================================================================================
Table IV
Average numbers of cattle, sheep and pigs per one government veterinary
official in 2000
===========================================================================================================================
Species
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cattle 43,438 2,921 10,251 *)
571 5,675 490 *) 11,179 5,199 907 52,422
Sheep 3,089 6,795 **) 6,328 **) 2 1,189 300 **) 38,657 985 2,659 227,724
Pigs 26,696 10,420 677 1,220 2,921 4 8,180 9,255 3,472 5,179
===========================================================================================================================
Argentina Canada Cuba Denmark France Indonesia Italy
Netherlands N. Zealand Poland
S.Africa Zambia
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cattle 19,904 21,556 764 3,648 20,097 20,099 *) 1,345 11,465 43,872 3,715 40,942 27,302
Sheep 4,775 1,263
190 284 9,509 10,320 2,054 3,683 216,798 193 85,030 9,877 **)
Pigs 968 17,888 387 23,284
15,993 10,032 1,574 36,952 6,631 10,040 4,281 3,217
===========================================================================================================================
*) Including buffaloes; **) including
goats.
Table V
Average numbers of livestock units *) per one government veterinary official in 2000
===========================================================================================================================
USA China India Japan Mexico Egypt UK Germany Spain Australia
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number
of LU 46,886 5,329 9,257 708 6,147 563 15,798 6,614 2,229 63,121
===========================================================================================================================
Argentina Canada Cuba Denmark France Indonesia Italy Netherlands N. Zealand
Poland S.Africa Zambia
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
LU 15,503 22,140 701 8,907 22,889 31,970 1,961 21,024 57,244 5,741 42,380 22,910
===========================================================================================================================
*) Livestock
units – rates: cattle – 0.7, buffaloes –
1, horse – 1, sheep – 0.1, goat – 0.1, pig – 0.25 and chicken – 0.01.
Table VI
Average amount of produced meat and milk (in
MT) per one government veterinary official in 2000
===========================================================================================================================
USA China India Japan Mexico Egypt UK Germany Spain Australia
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meat total
*) 15,592 1,128 90 374 808 61 4,399 2,277 685 7,085
Milk total 34,600 2,225 1,057 1,788 274 19,836 10,213 941 22,057
===========================================================================================================================
Argentina Canada Cuba Denmark France Indonesia Italy Netherlands N. Zealand
Poland S.Africa Zambia
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Meat total
*) 1,595 5,639 47 3,898 5,120 2,434 2,277 7,930 6,776 1,696 5,400 823
Milk total 3,874 11,810 115 8,720 25,620 975 2,114 30,423 62,573 7,157 10,542 667
===========================================================================================================================
*) Meat total =
beef and veal, mutton and lamb, pig meat and chicken meat
Table VII
Average value in US$ of exported animals and selected animal products per one government veterinary
official in 2000
===========================================================================================================================
USA China India Japan Mexico Egypt UK Germany Spain Australia
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Animals 173,688 8,427 12 16 75,252 5 148,567 154,777 37,554 797,134
Meat total 3,369,462 28,627 10,376 2,209 44,446 124 1,235,647 758,460 176,796 5,786,006
Milk total 184,924 1,133 551 492 8,140 171 745,587 863,061 38,460 1,701,929
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 3,728,074 38,187 10,939 2,717 127,838 300 2,128,801 1,776,298 252,810 8,285,069
===========================================================================================================================
Argentina Canada Cuba Denmark France Indonesia Italy Netherlands N. Zealand
Poland S.Africa Zambia
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Animals 1,800 1,573,773 273,308 1,281,685 4,982 4,850 863,115 29,349 55,806 18,885
Meat total 312,168 3,821,330 45 6,476,711 3,360,102 102,866 185,838 10,344,361 8,961,854 187
200,343 2,073
Milk total 97,620 139,958 2 622,463 1,566,098 18,515 6,705 3,272,738 5,792,609 102,806 113,162 1,240
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 411,588 5,535,061 47 7,372,482 6,207,885 126,363 197,393 14,480,214 14,783.812 158,799 332,390 3,313
===========================================================================================================================