(P.S amendment
on
ACTA
VET.
Book Review
Veterinary institutions in the developing world:
current status and future needs,
OIE Review scientific and technique, Vol. 23 (1) April
2004, ISSN 0253-1933, ISBN 92-9044-605-6
The monothematic
compendium on veterinary institutions in the developing world has 401 pages and
contains 28 papers edited by Dr C. de Haan, Senior
Adviser, Agriculture and Rural Development Department, World Bank in
The authors are persons having not direct responsibility for national animal population health and the majority are from developed countries (19 from 28). Several authors commenting critically the situation in developing countries due to exaggerated privatization are the same who share the responsibility for the previous policy dismantling fragile public veterinary institutions’ structure developed in the past. The leading international organization responsible for the extreme reduction of public veterinary institutions and their activities in developing world was World Bank applying privatization regardless of the health protection needs. Its officers are now giving the orientation to this Office International des Epizooties (OIE) publication. It reflects actual OIE policy of “serving” not only to World Trade Organization (WTO) but also to World Bank (WB).
This publication
documents continuing domination of experts from OIE-privileged countries. As an
example the paper „The emerging animal health delivery system in the People’s
Republic in
Particular
attention merits the bloc of international standards. Dr A. Thiermann (USA),
President, OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission in his paper
entitled „Adapting veterinary infrastructure to meet the challenges of
globalization and the requirements of the World Trade Organization Agreement on
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures“ (WTO/SPS) is stressing, without any proof, how the
implementation of this document is and will be „maximizing the benefit of globalization.“. This is the same trick
as WTO/SPS
promising preamble "Desiring to improve the human health,
animal health .. in all
Members;" while in the
whole document there is no one word of
the health improvement (perhaps expecting that “thousand times repeated lie
becomes the truth”). On the contrary, WTO/SPS was written only to facilitate
the export of non-healthy
animals and their products, i.e. disease export, through converting very useful
OIE Code recommendations for free decision-making into obligatory limits
reducing country protection. Importing country cannot ask to import “healthy
animals” or “pathogen-free animal products” (unknown terms in WTO/SPS) without
convincing scientific justification. What a nonsense !
The author doesn’t document any benefit for almost
defenceless importing developing countries after exaggerated privatization imposed
by some international financial organizations. Defending WTO/SPS is admitting spreading
of animal diseases through „unrestricted
trade“ (!?) which is contrary to original OIE constitution
and could be understood as international crime. The WTO/SPS has caused
incalculable numbers of newly affected animals and persons by “legally”
imported pathogens conducing to disease globalization = man-made irreparable
global ecological disaster. The author is uncritically repeating the provisions
of WTO/SPS without any practical recommendations beneficial to developing importing
countries. Similarly, Dr G.K. Bruckner in his paper entitled “Working towards compliance
with international standards” is uncritically defending WTO/SPS and OIE Code admitting export
of pathogens. Both authors do not respect complicated features, variability and
dynamics of the pathogens and diseases as biological phenomena.. They obviously forgot that an international
standard means 100 % quality, i.e. in our
case sanitary innocuousness, that fair free trade depends on the agreement
between participating countries without
any outside dictate or interference and that anti-epizootic activities and medical
ethics are based on the principle “Primum non nocere !”.
Only one paper refers
to basic international document „Guidelines for strengthening animal health
services in developing countries“, FAO, 1991 published in English, French and
Spanish and elaborated by the best experienced Chief Veterinary Officers of all
continents. This „oversight“ indicates “new” policy of OIE and FAO dedicating more attention to strengthening
private services (supported also by WB, IMF, WVA, banks, pharmaceutical
industry, etc.) instead to public veterinary institutions (depending only on
government limited budget). Significantly reduced public institutions in developing
countries are not able to monitor and effectively control disease situation,
supervise trade and private veterinary service
as well as to resist disease
import. The majority of the papers underestimate that this defence weakness is
favourable to the major exporting developed countries supported by WTO/SPS and
OIE Code giving priority to “facilitated export” instead to protection of
health in importing countries. The OIE did not present to member country
governments any risk analysis and warnings to avoid the dismantling of public
veterinary institutions having the key irreplaceable role in any anti-epizootic
activity (originally main task of the OIE) including trade control. The OIE did
not protest when the
World Bank was imposing unscrupulously on developing countries to minimize government
support and budget for public veterinary institutions and anti-epizootic programmes.
Dr T.W. Shillhorn van Veen (Netherlands),
World Bank, Washington in his paper on
veterinary services included “Eastern
Europe” = Hungary, Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia among
developing countries which is clear insult to the respective states. The paper
contains critics without any proof and forgetting that the main criteria of
veterinary services are their practical results. However, the author avoided
the comparison between the results in the mentioned countries and in so-called
“developed” ones. The paper is widely operating with so-called “veterinary
livestock units” (VLU) without any clear definition what they mean.
Among the papers
are two from
Common characteristic of many contributions, similarly as in all recent OIE publications, is almost a “duty” to refer to WTO/SPS, commend and propagate it not permitting any doubts, opposing opinion or even critics. The abbreviation “OIE” in all the texts and even in all the references is always defined non exactly (i.e. non scientifically in contrast to the Review name) as “World Organization for Animal Health” in spite of the “new” policy admitting and even supporting disease spreading through international trade and thus worsening global animal health. I do not know any scientific publication where the Editor distorts deliberately official name of inter-governmental organization into incorrect artificial term not respecting even original text sent by the authors. The self-declared (not officially cleared by the member country governments) new name cannot conceal the fact that OIE is not more consistent anti-epizootic defender of the health and serves only as an unfair confusion of the readers.
The Summary and Conclusions are also elaborated by Dr
C. de Haan (Word Bank officer during last three
decades) who shares the responsibility for
dismantling public veterinary services
in developing world as well as in “
The appreciation merit individual country case studies. The majority of the contributions dealing with para-professionals and auxiliaries contain many useful information on their involvement in veterinary practice in developing countries. The comparison and objective evaluation of practical results of different veterinary institution structures, their advantages and disadvantages, is missing. There are no any feasible recommendations based on proved experience how to develop veterinary institutions in developing countries in order to improve animal health, disease control and eradication, protection of human health, protection of country territory against the introduction of diseases through international trade, etc. However, the publication is very useful as an information source reflecting OIE departure from original consistent anti-epizootic policy and very critical reality of public veterinary institutions in developing world.
Prof.
MVDr Václav K o u b a, DrSc.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S. Amendment
The
international responsibility for absurd privatization of veterinary services,
i.e. dismantling functioning government services during the 1990s
rests with the
relevant intergovernmental organizations such as the OIE and the FAO. The irony
is that the same organizations and their officers call today for
strengthening government services in
order to able to cope with actual problems of animal population
health/diseases‘ control and animal trade.
Example: During XXV World Veterinary Congress in
Yokohama, Japan, 3-9 November 1995 the representatives of the OIE (J. Blancou,
DG OIE, A. Panin, member of OIE Code Commission for international trade and N.
Belev, adviser to DG OIE and President, OIE Regional Commission for Europe)
presented a paper entitles „Animal Health
Problems in the Countries of Eastern Europe during the transition to a market
economy and the creation of private sector. Possible solutions.“ These
„specialists„ previously supported the destruction of government services in
these countries without any replacement to facilitate trade at the detriment of
importing countries. Without any scientific and practical analyses they accepted
this antisanitary conversion conducing to stop disease eradication programmes,
the minimize preventive veterinary medicine and letting pathogens‘ spreading
through international trade, i.e. to worsen animal health situation. The
consequences are catastrophic. The above mentioned organization and its „specialists“
didn’t care about animal diseases spreading through trade. In particular Dr N.
Belev, as two decades being President, OIE Commission for Europe is the main
co-responsible for public veterinary services destruction in the Europe (the
most drastic privatization was carried
out in his home country being commended by World Bank and international
traders) and for letting the diseases to spread within the Europe. He has done
nothing for eradication of African swine fever in