Original:
July 2004
Latest amendments on
GLOBAL CRISIS OF PUBLIC PROFESSIONAL
VETERINARY MANPOWER – UNABLE TO CONTROL EFFECTIVELY ANIMAL POPULATION HEALTH/DISEASE AND
ANIMAL TRADE
V. Kouba
Formerly: Animal Health Officer (Research and
Education), Animal Health Officer (Veterinary Intelligence), Senior Officer
(Veterinary Services) and Chief, Animal Health Service, Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, FAO, Rome; Editor-in-Chief, FAO/WHO/OIE
Animal Health Yearbook; Vice-Director and Chief Epizootiologist, Czechoslovak and
Czech State Veterinary Service; Professor of Epizootiology, University of
Veterinary Sciences, Brno
Contents
1. Introduction
2. Material and methods
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusion and
recommendations
6. References
7. Annexes (tables)
1. Introduction
1.1 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.
1.2 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
1.3 Basic text on quantitative analysis of global
veterinary human resources was published by the author in Rev. sci. tech. Off. Int. Epiz. (10).
2. Materials
and methods
2.1 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).
2.2 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. Presented 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.
2.3 For more detailed analysis were selected data of the years 2000 and 2002. 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).
2.4 The results of this analysis have to be understood as the estimates 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 erroneous 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.
2.5 Many Chief Veterinary Officers, even of the 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 often significantly 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 methodology, 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.
2.6 For data processing was
employed EPIZOO, version 4.0, a software package developed for analysing information on animal population
health/disease and veterinary manpower (http://vaclavkouba.byl.cz/).
Data on the public veterinary services quality and impacts (including
social/economic aspects) on animal and human population health were not
available.
3. Results
3.1 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 (during this period
it increased several times) 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.
3.2 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.
3.3 Not all government veterinary officials are trained and able to work under harsh field conditions (clinical and epizootiological investigation, taking samples, identifying effective anti-epizootic measures on-the-spot, issuing certificates for export, inspection of private veterinarians and laboratories, inspection of production and processing sector, etc.) due to physical and health status, women limits, etc. Many (somewhere even the majority) of them are involved only in paper work – legislation, statistics and administration. Therefore, reported numeric data on these officials do not reflect real, i.e. lower ability of government service to fulfil their practical duties than it could seem according to OIE WAH. No any international organization has carried out any analyses of requiring working time for different activities of public veterinary officials to show that steadily increasing numbers of animal health tasks demanded by OIE, FAO, WHO, WTO/SPS, EU etc. (often extremely wordy, complicated and even confusing provisions) from Member Country governments, i.e. from Chief Veterinary Officers, are out of reality. Incomplete or formal fulfilment, paper fulfilment or no fulfilment at all are the consequences. The problem is that the CVOs can directly exercise their authority only over government veterinary service and not over private not always reliable and controllable veterinary service which plays, a decisive role in animal commodity trade control and field animal health/disease measures, for lack of field working public service staff. Veterinary epidemiology bureaucracy has been introduced by internationally “leading” institutions educating and training undergraduate students and postgraduate trainees converting biological science with very practical impacts in an administrative “science” based on data processing and modelling only without follow-up solving animal population health/disease of problems at grass root level. Unfortunately, these “paper veterinary epidemiologists” from major exporting countries dominate the OIE, FAO, EU, ISVEE, etc. and are professionally responsible for the WTO/SPS and the OIE Code conducing to irreparable globalization of animal infections.
More information in http://vaclavkouba.byl.cz/dictepid.htm
.
Following example is represented by the incredible bureaucracy within the
European Union making impossible government veterinarians to can dedicate time
to country animal population health protection, surveillance, active control
and eradication activities at the field level as well as to effective
inspection on the spot of the traded commodities. For example in the “Activity
Report 2005 – Animal Health, Animal Welfare and Zootechnics (SANCO/10600/2006)”
we can read: in this field “the EU has
more than 600 regulations, Directives and Decisions in force; Animal Health
Section met 18 times, accepted 116 draft proposals; Biological Safety and Control + Import Conditions met 15 times; 210 SANCO
staff missions; 119 Commission Decisions and Regulations”. The activities
of the EU in the field of Animal Health have produced “mountains” of papers
causing colossal confusions in understanding being multiplied by the mess of “practical”
application (very often formal – OK in papers) without effective inspection by
the government services. We are witnesses of
historical record of wasting time
and taxpayers money without improving animal health within EU territory what
should be logically the main task! On the contrary , the EU following
anti-sanitary WTO/SPS and OIE Code supports the export of animal infections
within and outside the EU and thus contributes actively to animal infection spreading
and globalization ! Similarly as the mentioned organizations, the EU is not interested at all in infection-free trade
! It has been created ideal breeding ground for cheating and corruption
mainly in connection with animal commodity profiting export of animal
commodities without regard to animal and human health in importing countries.
In 2007 the European Communities published 28 pages
document entitled “A new Animal Health
Strategy for the European Union (2007-2013) when “Prevention is better than
cure”. This is another bureaucratic document repeating generally known
“principles” without any animal health situation analysis to identify critical
problems, places and moments and
therefore it is without any concrete controllable tasks to protect population
health in EU. The EU will continue in the policy at practical field level “doing
nothing” (with exception of paper works and meetings) letting to spread
existing and imported infections through international trade in animals and
their products without any sanitary
guarantee, without any intra-EU border control and without any effective
national government services supervising the private sector (in particular the “accredited veterinarians” replacing
public veterinarians incl. issuing veterinary certificates). The document
doesn’t mention any objectives to be reached at 2013. It doesn’t know that the health protection requires also to
eliminate infection risks from existing outbreaks, i.e. to eradicate or significantly reduce them. The
document forgets that for the implementation of any animal health strategy must
be available necessary well trained and equipped staff in sufficient number
(not to have only public service generals and HQs without soldiers), facilities, material and financial resources, adequate
managerial conditions, demanding legislation, target-oriented training and
support by farmers, consumers, public and governments. Obviously, the EU
irresponsible “armchair” veterinary theoreticians have not any idea what to be
done to protect the health of European
animal populations and to stop mass spreading of infection diseases within the
EU. This document represents a guarantee that the actual “strategy” will continue
creating irreparable worsening of animal health situation due uncontrolled
spreading of the infections! Consciously
organized long distant spreading is an international crime! Europeanization
of animal health – yes, Europeanization of animal infection – no !
More comments on the OIE as the “World Organization
for Animal Infection Globalization” (?¨) and on the EU
animal health “activities” see also in the paragrah 2.10 of http://vaclavkouba.byl.cz/orgglobalization.htm .
3.4 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 %).
3.5 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.
3.6 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.
3.7 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 from major
exporting countries
*) 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.
3.8 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 Among the countries with the highest average of slaughtered farm animals (cattle, sheep and pigs) per government veterinary official belonged New Zealand (181,133), Australia (93,152), Bulgaria (74,951), USA (62,152), Netherlands (60,763), South Africa (60,391) and Denmark (42,283). More information see in Table VIII.
3.9 The global average volume of livestock production during the year 2000 per government veterinary official was as follows: 1,211 tonnes (t) of total meat, 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.
3.10 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
3.11 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
3.12 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; 2003 – 512), Austria (1984 – 587; 2003 - 238), Brasil (2001 –
15,260; 2003 – 2,867), Canada (1984 – 1,080; 2003 – 664), Czech and Slovak
Republic (1983 – 4,150; 2000 – 1,770), Greece (1984 – 1,150; 2000 -724),
Hungary (1995 – 2,392; 2000 - 1,552), Indonesia (1998 – 2,675; 2002 – 735), Jamaica
(1984 – 25; 2000 – 11), Kenya (1996 – 1,053; 2003 – 531), Kuwait (1992 – 96;
2000 – 1), Latvia (1995 - 458; 2000 – 305), Lithuania (1991 – 468; 2000 – 218),
Malawi (1984 – 33; 2000 – 9), Mexico (1996 – 9,029; 2003 – 5,374), Mongolia (1995
– 2838; 2002 – 10), 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; 2003 – 1,689), Senegal (1985 – 66; 2000 – 36),
Somalia (1990 – 273; 2000 – 121), Spain (2000 – 6,936; 2003 – 2,248), Tajikistan
(1996 – 1,233; 2000 – 697), Tanzania (1990 – 250; 2000 – 150), Turkey ( 1990 –
1,945; 2000 – 1,535), USA ( 1995 – 4,323; 2003 – 2,782), Uruguay (1990 – 488;
2000 – 299) and Vietnam (1998 – 2,554; 2000 – 1,031).
4. Discussion
4.1 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.
Example: Ozawa, Y., Chang, K,
Yoshida, K. and Michino, H. 2003: The present and future organization of
Veterinary Services in
4.2 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 (invisible spreading),
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 or totally unknown 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
- The exceptional case of
BSE in
– Author remembers the case in
May 1980 when for final editing of the FAO/WHO/OIE Animal Health Yearbook 1979 were
missing data from Lesotho; FAO sent a telex to Maseru, capital of the country,
asking for missing information; next day
arrived the answer that Lesotho had no any animal diseases of
international notification; that time there were only two national veterinarians (one was as refugee in
Botswana as district veterinarian in
4.3 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
certificates based on investigations by private veterinarians ? Having not
enough staff in government services, he resembles of a general having only his strong headquarters but without any army
and therefore he must rely on not always reliable, independent and properly
trained private service. Without effective supervision/inspection it 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.
4.4 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 the
owners of animals and animal product processing facilities; there is minimum or
no time for initiating and organizing effective territorial and national disease
surveillance (e.g. nationwide survey testing of specific diseases) 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,
human protection against zoonoses (incl. food hygiene) 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; slaughtered 37,588,000 heads of cattle, 98,106,000 pigs and 3,527,000 sheep;
- 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; slaughtered 8,649,000 heads of cattle, 5,014,000 pigs
and 33,565,000 sheep;
- 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; slaughtered 3,838,300
heads of cattle, 19,684,400 pigs
and 611,800 sheep;
- New Zealand with 224 government veterinary officials
reported 9,632,510 heads of cattle and
43,141,900 sheep and export of 750,977
t meat; slaughtered 3,304,369 heads of
cattle, 725,525 pigs and 30,747,702 sheep; according to the OIE WAHID
information system in 2006 “Animal
Health Public Veterinarians“ = 29
! How this extremely small group reported
in 2006 can be able to control animal infection situation and sanitary quality
of exported animal commodities of immense (record) quantity into all the
continents?
4.5 There is obviously a critical global 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. The situation becomes much more difficult
when particular disease penetrates among wild animals creating wildlife
reservoirs.
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. It is difficult to understand that only
2000 British veterinarians were involved in 2001 FMD eradication campaign when
the same year UK reported 928 government veterinarians and 11,323 private
veterinarians (total 14,730) ! One would expect the mobilization of all
veterinarians in this case of emergency of enormous, unknown in living history,
economic and international importance. Then is the question what for emergency
planning ? This case reconfirms that without strong government service cannot
be successful control of communicable diseases. To my surprise the
- “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
pregnant heifers from Denmark to Lany-Pozary university ranch in 1993 and 395 pregnant
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.
- New
Zealand managed to reduce bovine tuberculosis prevalence below 0.1 % in
1979; however in spite of all efforts the disease spread in wild animals - for
the first time reported in 1985 also in possums (Trichosurus vulpecula), in 1987 in farm deer (Cervus elaphus) and from 1991 up today also in ferrets (Mustela furo). In 2004 this disease was reported (WAH 2004, page 251) “occasionally in other wildlife species (pigs, cats, stoats, hedgehogs and
hares)”. These cases “ have been
identified in 17 discrete areas of
4.6 Private veterinary service cannot fully replace public veterinary
service and cannot be fully involved and reliable in demanding nation-wide
disease control programmes requiring full continuous active participation. Public and private services interests
and priorities are diametrically different !
Public veterinary service orientation is toward the protection of animal population health while private veterinary
service natural orientation is toward the treatment of sick animals, i.e. it
needs disease cases to have work and income - profit. Private service work for the
government represents only side temporary activity and secondary income, i.e.
minor interest. Due to the shortage of
public veterinary service staff, the private veterinarians and laboratories are
not subject to any effective control. In practice they are out of criminal
liability and prosecution in the cases of consciously exporting communicable
diseases thanks to their “certificates” not corresponding with the reality and
not guaranteeing the health. In spite of innumerable cases of animal
disease export conducing to the globalization of communicable diseases, there
is not known any case where disease exporting veterinarian was prosecuted.
These criminal acts are practically without punishment (thanks also to the
“new” WTO and OIE trade policy at the expense of importing country animal and
human health) and majority of animal diseases can be spread freely.
4.7 There are also some countries with major number of government veterinary officials, but due to lack of necessary material, facilities, budgetary and other support their activities are also limited. It depends a lot on the availability of supervisory power with respect to the private practice of veterinary medicine, to the owners of animals and animal product processing facilities as well as to traders and exporters/importers. Weak public services in many poor importing developing countries, having few government veterinary officials and lacking of almost “everything”, are unable to control local and imported animal communicable diseases.
Example: In
4.8 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, not controlling effectively animal diseases 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
4.9 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
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.
4.10 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.
4.11 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! The export of pathogens represents for
importing countries undesirable problems difficult to detect and solve, if the
solution is feasible at all.
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.’’
4.12 Numerically weak
public veterinary services cannot organize effective national animal health
programmes (e.g. eradication of diseases), 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 (gratis) “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. Chief Veterinary Officer not having sufficiently
strong support of the government or lacking professional authority and
experience sometimes succumbs to the pressure in favour of exporting country
and to the detriment of his home country health. The OIE instead of supporting
importing countries’ measures to protect animal and human health against the
introduction of diseases/pathogens from abroad consistently knock down these
countries. Their Chief Veterinary Officers have not any support in applying
correct and necessary protective sanitary measures and they must fight
themselves under contrary pressure from the WTO, OIE, exporting countries’
CVOs, foreign and local businessmen, local politicians, unilateral economic and
political arguments, etc., and on the other hand they are pressed by the
farmers and consumers requiring only healthy animals and pathogen-free food of
animal origin. Protection of the health is extremely difficult task when weak
government public health service must fight every day against a wall of
contrary interests. It can be compared to the fight of David against Goliath. The worse is that the OIE
as international organization established for assisting member countries governments
in protection animal health, i.e. to protect also government veterinary
services, is on the side of
the powerful, i.e. of Goliath
and not of David. The natural conflict of interests in this case means that any
CVO decision regarding population preventive actions is criticized by some who
feels as “damaged”. This is unfortunately the fate of government public animal
health services, in particular when lacking local and international support and
defence.
Example: One of the shames regarding the eradication
of very dangerous diseases is represented by the African swine fever introduced in Sardinia, Italy 30 years ago (1978).
Neither Italian government nor European
Union have not been able to eradicate
this plague threatening other European countries while many others, no so
rich ones with similar or more difficult conditions, successfully eradicated it
(
4.13 Chief Veterinary Officers very often lose in
conflicts of interests – on one side private sector profit interests
supported by strong quantifiable economic arguments and on the other side
public sector health protection interests supported by relatively weak not
always measurable arguments to convince decision-making persons outside of
public health services. Animal population health research to provide necessary
scientific arguments has great debt in this field. The difficulties to apply
necessary health protective measures are linked also with public service duties
complicating the “life” through dictating and controlling anti-epizootic
measures, prohibiting normal
operations to protect the others, i.e. requiring more sources
and/or conducing to undesirable losses. The demanding anti-epizootic measures are
not welcome by non-veterinary institutions and somewhere even by private
veterinarians when being controlled by government service. The worse is to give
up of anti-epizootic principles and to accommodate the demands of the powerful
institutions and thus saving good job and avoiding troubles (= easy life).
4.14 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 the spreading of communicable
diseases into importing countries through international trade ! In this case
public veterinary service of the exporting countries can minimize animal
population health programmes. Debilitation
instead of strengthening of public services in developing countries as the
consequence of the WB a IMF originated policy contributed also to the policy of
‘’facilitating international trade’’ at the expense of importing countries
sanitary situation.
4.15 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 very
probably 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 by “new
philosophy“: 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
4.16 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 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; Secretary General, OIE Foot
and Mouth Disease and Other Epizootics Commission and finally President, OIE Scientif
Commission for Animal Diseases.
4.17 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).
4.18 The World Bank (WB) and the International Monetary Fond (IMF) imposed mainly upon developing countries a privatization policy, 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 necessary 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.
Examples:
Significant reduction of public veterinary service was
carried out in Mongolia (livestock country with about 2 million cattle, 20
million sheep and goats and
0.3 million camels) where foreign “advisers” of the EU carried
out a project hypocritically entitled “Strengthening of Veterinary Services in
Mongolia” (World Animal Health in 1996, page 231): “The Epidemiology Unit and animal disease database was established
through the EU project ‘Strengthening of Veterinary Services in Mongolia’. The
Epi
This case demonstrates absolutely unreliable OIE World Animal Health data; the editorial
obviously does not carry out any logical control to avoid publishing
this kind of nonsense. Consistent
editorial control comparing all new with previous year data was always normal
in the former FAO/WHO/OIE Animal Health Yearbook which was abolished in 1996 after
40 years of its existence by Dr Y.
Cheneau (
*) See http://vaclavkouba.byl.cz/dictepid.htm.
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). Public veterinary services lost their
capacity to control effectively epizootiological situation, import of animals
and their products as well as inspect of private veterinarians and
laboratories. State diagnostic laboratories were minimized in number and
capacity. 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 in many schools significantly reduced
or eliminated as separate subject or converted into purely theoretical Veterinary
Epidemiology with very
limited number of teaching hours.
Very deterrent example represented
4.19 In some country the lack of veterinary manpower was solved through “importing” professional staff (foreign experts) with fixed-term contracts to help coping with local animal health programmes.
Example: The author, professionally responsible as FAO
UN Animal Health Officer (Research and Education) also for one FAO project in
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 (e.g. Uruguay) 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.
4.20 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.
4.21 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 very probably caused
by almost incontrollable and practically non-punishable 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.
Example: During the nineties USA authorities were
sending to Mexican Chief Veterinary Officer lists of individual cattle imported
from Mexico with positive tests on bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis carried
out in postimport quarantine indicating exact identification of animals and
full names of Mexican certifying accredited private veterinarians. In 1993
4.22 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 government 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.
4.23 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 of 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).
4.24 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. In 1990 WHO and FAO together with Italian institutions published a very useful document ’’Guiding principles for planning, organization and management of veterinary public health programmes’’ (14). The author having experience of anti-epizootic programmes, after becoming the Chief of FAO Animal Health Service (AGAH) in 1988, included as the main priority 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 the results of particular FAO Expert Consultation, 15-19 October 1990 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 and issued also in French and Spanish.
Unfortunately, the pressure from the World Bank, International Monetary Fond and some other international organizations (e.g. OIE) 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). Similar fate suffered also the majority of other countries. The privatization mania influenced also animal health programmes of the FAO.
4.25 The most critical
situation is in poor developing countries, mainly in Central and
Example: The author together with Dr
Alexander Wilson, Chief Veterinary Officer visited on
4.26 Serious problem has been the brain drain, i.e. when the best students of international
fellowships have been overpaid by developed countries offering them better
living and working conditions than in their poor home country. Fragile
infrastructure of public veterinary service in these countries was during 1990s
dismantled by unscrupulous privatization. The governments of the poor countries
have minimal number of veterinarians for controlling animal health and disease
situation, private veterinarians and for assuring protection against the introduction
of communicable diseases from abroad, mainly through import of animals and
animal products. This critical situation has offered to many countries the
chance for exporting different diseases in the poor countries being unable to
eradicate them.
Example: The author, after becoming FAO Animal
Health Officer (Research and Education) in 1978, started analysing veterinary
manpower situation in the world. In October 1979 he visited together with Prof.
Dr M Braend (
4.27 Public veterinary services are perhaps the only ones where
current management principles are not applied. For their tasks and activities,
majority of them can be planned and well defined, there is lack of corresponding staff and support. Therefore, their duties
can be fulfilled only very superficially. It is logical that with limited staff
can be done only limited work. Public veterinary service management is
unfortunately out of veterinary research and social/economic studies needed for
optimization of this service development and for providing supporting arguments.
4.28 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 or in the waste baskets as paper scraps without follow-up practical implementation.
4.29 The critical situation in veterinary manpower is stressed also by inadequate territorial distribution. The majority of veterinarians are concentrated in capital and major cities. Private service is giving priority to the treatment of individual sick animals, mainly pets, preferably belonging to rich owners. In the rural territories the density of veterinarians is significantly lower, i.e. disease surveillance of food producing animal populations is very limited (ad hoc) and the real situation in not sufficiently known. Veterinary workforce distribution remains a very serious problem. There are too many areas and territories underserved which plays negative role in disease surveillance and monitoring, causing late discovery of communicable disease new outbreaks, late application of necessary anti-epizootic measures, late reporting to the higher level veterinary authority, etc. The veterinary manpower maldistribution reflects in lacking or even in absence of necessary sanitary control of the trade in animals and their products. This is of particular importance in the exporting countries being unable to avoid export of non-healthy animals and non-pathogens-free products due to lack of government and private veterinarians in terms of number and distribution. The alleviation of this maldistribution represents a very complex and difficult task depending on many different factors.
Example: The author of this paper was during 21 May -
4.30 Qualitative analyses of global veterinary
resources are still waiting for being elaborated. In this context it must be
considered not only professional quality of actual veterinary manpower but also
the profiles of the new veterinarians being prepared in more than five hundred
veterinary faculties in the world. Unfortunately, there is a general tendency
to prefer lucrative curative medicine treating individual diseased animals mostly
pets, i.e. for private service and to reduce (somewhere up to almost zero) the
preparation (often only theoretically) for animal population preventive
medicine, communicable diseases’ control and eradication, i.e. for public
service employment.
The serious problem is also the availability of
food producing animals and their herds (populations) for practical training of
the students and in postgradual courses. Somewhere were problems also with the
avilability of other animal species (healthy or diseased). The lack of available animals conduce to the tendency of
teaching mainly theory (easier and cheaper).
Examples: At Al-Hofuf oasis in
Saudi Arabia in 1980 there were three veterinary institutions: Veterinary and Animal Production middle level
school for the Golf States (that time having only one donkey), new first veterinary
faculty and original municipal clinic while there were minimal animals for
practical training (it was necessary to borrow mutually ad hoc available cases); the local farmers, due to getting good
price for their place with its underground rich of petroleum, sold their
animals as well. In
It is preferable the veterinary faculties to have
their own school farms providing conditions for necessary practical training.
When the author started as
visiting professor at Veterinary Faculty, Havana University in 1967, located in
the centre of the city, there were for all departments’ teaching on food
producing animals’ health and disease only one lean cow; the problem was solved
after transferring
the faculty in 1968 to a great school farm outside of the capital with
thousands of animals of all important species. The alma mater of the author, University of Veterinary Sciences, Brno has for practical field
training from 1945 a school farm
in Nový Dvùr with 210 ha of agriculture land
and from 1970 also a school ranch Nový Jièín with about 7,000 ha of
agriculture land with corresponding
number of domestic animals, training facilities for the students - including
accommodation and catering - and with necessary number of employees (in 1993
their number reached 789).
4.31 The “new” policy of the
OIE and the FAO has been dedicating much more attention to strengthening
private services able to solve their problems themselves (supported also by World
Bank, International Monetary Fund, World Veterinary Association, rich banks,
pharmaceutical industry, etc.) instead to public veterinary institutions depending
only on government very limited budget. 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.
4.32 The consequences of minimization of public
veterinary services unable to control national and international trade in and
transfer of animal commodities are catastrophic due to mass spreading of animal
diseases by uncontrolled (or uncontrollable) private sector very often not
respecting country borders and national laws.
Example: In August 2007 it was
reported hog cholera in a pig farm in
5. Conclusion and
recommendations
5.1 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.
5.2 The
analysis reflects serious g l o b a l c r i s
i s of public veterinary services.
5.3 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. The number of government veterinary officials is the internal problem of each country. However, the exporting countries must strengthen public veterinary services to be able to guarantee the export of healthy animals and animal products free of pathogens avoiding international spreading of animal diseases.
5.4 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 or dictate (as it was before WTO/SPS).
(Full texts of two letters to
Dr Mike Moore (New Zealand), Director
General, World Trade Organization asking for and justifying the abolition of
the WTO/SPS see in http://vaclavkouba.byl.cz/warning.htm).
5.5 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).
5.6 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).
5.7 The use of private sector to fill the gap in public professional veterinary manpower is today enforced 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.
5.8 Public veterinary services manpower development (including qualification requirements), organization, structure, management, legislation, norms, economics, impact and effectiveness to be included among basic and applied research programmes.
5.9 Relevant
international organizations to analyse regularly
global public veterinary professional manpower situation in relation to
animal and human population health needs and to present to the 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 and usefulness).
6. 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 (http://vaclavkouba.byl.cz/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).
14.
WHO/FAO/ISS/IZSTe (1990). – Guiding principles for planning, organization and
management of veterinary public health programmes. Veterinary
Public Health Reports. WHO/FAO Collaborating Centre for Research and
Training in Veterinary Public Health, Instituto Superiore di Sanita,
Laboratorio di Parassitologia, Rome, Italy, 143 pp.
7.
Annexes
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 9,101 708 6,147 563 16,932 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 22,140 794 8,907 22,889 31,970 1,961 21,024 57,245
5,748 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
===========================================================================================================================
Table VIII
Average numbers of slaughtered cattle, sheep and pigs per one
government veterinary official in 2000
===========================================================================================================================
Species
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cattle 16,780 ? 447 162 1,222 106
3,337 1,539 367 17,059
Sheep 1,575 ? 2,102 9,797 841 339
25,214 781 ? 66,203
Pigs 43,797 ? 527 2,055 2,335 5 17,414 15,527 5,118 9,890
===========================================================================================================================
Argentina Canada Cuba Denmark France Indonesia Italy Netherlands N. Zealand
Poland S.Africa Zambia
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cattle 4,901 5,603 95 1,215 5,476 2,342
829 6,330 17,210 1,204 10,739 2,656
Sheep 2,354 893
116 133 8,226 11,120 1,395 2,141 160,144 65
42,451 4,406
Pigs 1,084 28,736 332 40,935 26,903 ? 2,420 52,293 3,779 13,816 7,202
2,396
===========================================================================================================================
Table
IX
Average
number of livestock units per veterinarian, government veterinary official and
private veterinarian in 2000
Country Total livestock units Livestock units Livestock units per Livestock units per
per veterinarian government veterinarian private veterinarian
===================================================================================
|
ALBANIA |
|
1228120 |
|
1216 |
|
2729 |
|
3509 |
|
ALGERIA |
|
5239000 |
|
1176 |
|
4440 |
|
1704 |
|
ANDORA |
|
1886 |
|
157 |
|
236 |
|
472 |
|
ARGENTINA |
|
39223000 |
|
3291 |
|
15503 |
|
6023 |
|
ARMENIA |
|
463455 |
|
710 |
|
1003 |
|
|
|
AUSTRALIA |
|
32002480 |
|
4232 |
|
63121 |
|
5143 |
|
AUSTRIA |
|
2583623 |
|
983 |
|
8909 |
|
1439 |
|
AZERBAIDZAN |
|
2340009 |
|
1646 |
|
8387 |
|
23168 |
|
BAHAMAS |
|
12822 |
|
675 |
|
4274 |
|
801 |
|
BAHRAIN |
|
12500 |
|
446 |
|
893 |
|
962 |
|
BARBADOS |
|
371386,05 |
|
24759 |
|
123795 |
|
30949 |
|
BELARUS |
|
4149720 |
|
768 |
|
2922 |
|
43226 |
|
BHUTAN |
|
296321 |
|
8979 |
|
19755 |
|
|
|
BOTSWANA |
|
1596989 |
|
24953 |
|
38951 |
|
145181 |
|
BRAZIL |
|
134771247 |
|
3299 |
|
9020 |
|
5629 |
|
BULGARIA |
|
1507044 |
|
873 |
|
16561 |
|
1058 |
|
CAMEROON |
|
5765000 |
|
16471 |
|
28540 |
|
140610 |
|
CANADA |
|
15165573 |
|
1875 |
|
22140 |
|
2444 |
|
CHILE |
|
4637842 |
|
1795 |
|
11176 |
|
2401 |
|
COLOMBIA |
|
17360560 |
|
926 |
|
6784 |
|
3858 |
|
CONGO |
|
1433095 |
|
1470 |
|
2866 |
|
28662 |
|
COTED'IVOIR |
|
1550300 |
|
9173 |
|
18678 |
|
51677 |
|
CROATIA |
|
1035020 |
|
452 |
|
1283 |
|
802 |
|
CUBA |
|
4272022 |
|
649 |
|
794 |
|
|
|
CYPRUS |
|
419611 |
|
2725 |
|
9122 |
|
5245 |
|
CZECH REP. |
|
2366751 |
|
545 |
|
2545 |
|
1082 |
|
DENMARK |
|
4560535 |
|
1548 |
|
8907 |
|
3823 |
|
DOMIN.REP. |
|
1855041 |
|
1447 |
|
6770 |
|
1922 |
|
ECUADOR |
|
6724881 |
|
20195 |
|
92122 |
|
44833 |
|
EGYPT |
|
7881310 |
|
326 |
|
563 |
|
2463 |
|
EL SALVADOR |
|
83398952 |
|
375671 |
|
1323793 |
|
608751 |
|
ERITREA |
|
1345189 |
|
58486 |
|
74733 |
|
1345189 |
|
ESTONIA |
|
274686 |
|
344 |
|
1296 |
|
535 |
|
FINLAND |
|
1258194 |
|
839 |
|
2526 |
|
4059 |
|
MACEDONIA |
|
486386 |
|
1402 |
|
7974 |
|
2482 |
|
FRANCE |
|
22789400 |
|
2234 |
|
22789 |
|
2849 |
|
GEORGIA |
|
1119325 |
|
565 |
|
9649 |
|
|
|
GERMANY |
|
18420349 |
|
880 |
|
6614 |
|
1798 |
|
GHANA |
|
1794796 |
|
8271 |
|
10747 |
|
138061 |
|
GREECE |
|
2118860 |
|
715 |
|
2927 |
|
1341 |
|
GUAM |
|
2565 |
|
214 |
|
1283 |
|
513 |
|
GUATEMALA |
|
3060310 |
|
4500 |
|
24482 |
|
5829 |
|
GUINEA |
|
1872278 |
|
5158 |
|
6569 |
|
39836 |
|
HONDURAS |
|
120570957 |
|
1159336 |
|
3653665 |
|
1883921 |
|
HUNGARY |
|
2341600 |
|
594 |
|
1509 |
|
3057 |
|
ICELAND |
|
165029 |
|
2089 |
|
4854 |
|
6347 |
|
INDIA |
|
284846490 |
|
7591 |
|
9101 |
|
94164 |
|
INDONESIA |
|
23146250 |
|
6613 |
|
31970 |
|
10637 |
|
IRAN |
|
22801300 |
|
6293 |
|
26329 |
|
10832 |
|
IRLAND |
|
6484679 |
|
2941 |
|
17669 |
|
3691 |
|
ISRAEL |
|
529682 |
|
367 |
|
2102 |
|
1390 |
|
ITALY |
|
10473560 |
|
578 |
|
1961 |
|
1022 |
|
JAMAICA |
|
612020 |
|
9871 |
|
55638 |
|
12240 |
|
JAPAN |
|
5689712 |
|
192 |
|
708 |
|
346 |
|
JORDAN |
|
1324584 |
|
1623 |
|
12986 |
|
4076 |
|
KAZAKHSTAN |
|
5536375 |
|
993 |
|
3504 |
|
3728 |
|
KENYA |
|
11787480 |
|
9790 |
|
18890 |
|
20323 |
|
KOREA |
|
4845449 |
|
429 |
|
6019 |
|
1201 |
|
KUWAIT |
|
508150 |
|
36296 |
|
508150 |
|
39088 |
|
KYRGYSTAN |
|
1452593 |
|
541 |
|
1122 |
|
1494 |
|
LATVIA |
|
410511 |
|
321 |
|
1346 |
|
472 |
|
LEBANON |
|
742740 |
|
7074 |
|
18569 |
|
12379 |
|
LIBYA |
|
1436900 |
|
3752 |
|
5527 |
|
33416 |
|
LITHUANIA |
|
998870 |
|
543 |
|
4582 |
|
798 |
|
LUXEMBURG |
|
168292 |
|
1391 |
|
15299 |
|
1634 |
|
MADAGASCAR |
5687986 |
|
14622 |
|
60510 |
|
29169 |
|
|
MALAWI |
|
894312 |
|
42586 |
|
99368 |
|
894312 |
|
MALAYSIA |
|
688993 |
|
8301 |
|
22966 |
|
16023 |
|
MAURITIUS |
|
51300 |
|
1069 |
|
2332 |
|
2443 |
|
MEXICO |
|
33035481 |
|
1168 |
|
6147 |
|
1947 |
|
MOLDAVIA |
|
717466 |
|
490 |
|
590 |
|
6029 |
|
MONGOLIA |
|
4564920 |
|
5500 |
|
228246 |
|
6521 |
|
MOROCCO |
|
5628100 |
|
5696 |
|
14811 |
|
17698 |
|
MOZAMBIQUE |
|
519053 |
|
3484 |
|
6570 |
|
51905 |
|
MYAMAR |
|
11772534 |
|
3708 |
|
14445 |
|
6921 |
|
NAMIBIA |
|
2246797 |
|
36239 |
|
80243 |
|
97687 |
|
NETHERLANDS |
|
7463642 |
|
2153 |
|
21024 |
|
2970 |
|
N.CALEDONIA |
|
122100 |
|
2907 |
|
8140 |
|
6426 |
|
NEW ZEALAND |
10991126 |
|
5028 |
|
57245 |
|
10243 |
|
|
NICARAGUA |
|
2215501 |
|
13427 |
|
34085 |
|
26065 |
|
NORWAY |
|
1639868 |
|
812 |
|
5046 |
|
1959 |
|
PAKISTAN |
|
47767000 |
|
12459 |
|
18253 |
|
105446 |
|
PANAMA |
|
1105709 |
|
1843 |
|
4388 |
|
4050 |
|
PARAGUAY |
|
7405350 |
|
5623 |
|
22040 |
|
10343 |
|
PERU |
|
7860826 |
|
2320 |
|
21836 |
|
4296 |
|
PHILIPINES |
|
8627244 |
|
1797 |
|
7189 |
|
3921 |
|
POLAND |
|
9426424 |
|
961 |
|
5748 |
|
1520 |
|
PORTUGAL |
|
3937580 |
|
1875 |
|
7691 |
|
3938 |
|
QUATAR |
|
90645 |
|
2158 |
|
4120 |
|
5036 |
|
REUNION |
|
44140 |
|
849 |
|
11035 |
|
1003 |
|
ROMANIA |
|
4753250 |
|
624 |
|
2224 |
|
1068 |
|
SAO TOME |
|
9460 |
|
946 |
|
1577 |
|
9460 |
|
SEYCHELLES |
|
8650 |
|
1730 |
|
1730 |
|
|
|
SINGAPORE |
|
19148 |
|
193 |
|
638 |
|
467 |
|
SLOVAKIA |
|
1004929 |
|
497 |
|
1196 |
|
1047 |
|
SLOVENIA |
|
590956 |
|
616 |
|
1919 |
|
1684 |
|
SOMALIA |
|
6200000 |
|
16712 |
|
51240 |
|
37576 |
|
SOUTH AFRICA |
10722083 |
|
4469 |
|
42380 |
|
11504 |
|
|
SPAIN |
|
15458828 |
|
668 |
|
2229 |
|
1834 |
|
SUDAN |
|
41655860 |
|
9556 |
|
28728 |
|
28241 |
|
SWAZILAND |
|
501869 |
|
17924 |
|
29522 |
|
62734 |
|
SWEDEN |
|
2143921 |
|
886 |
|
4873 |
|
2281 |
|
SWITZERLAND |
|
1653755 |
|
889 |
|
11025 |
|
1272 |
|
SYRIA |
|
3267910 |
|
1106 |
|
3026 |
|
1816 |
|
TAIPEI |
|
3446886 |
|
829 |
|
4924 |
|
2410 |
|
TAJIKISTAN |
|
954465 |
|
424 |
|
1369 |
|
19885 |
|
TANZANIA |
|
13142500 |
|
30564 |
|
87617 |
|
87617 |
|
TOGO |
|
610627 |
|
6428 |
|
13569 |
|
13569 |
|
TRINIDAD |
|
72273 |
|
597 |
|
3804 |
|
831 |
|
TUNISIA |
|
1126393 |
|
1480 |
|
2146 |
|
5897 |
|
TURKEY |
|
12708650 |
|
2100 |
|
8279 |
|
5267 |
|
UGANDA |
|
34271355 |
|
59396 |
|
106433 |
|
428392 |
|
UKRAINE |
|
10632205 |
|
1017 |
|
1556 |
|
26448 |
|
UNIT.KINGDOM |
|
12343651 |
|
1017 |
|
16932 |
|
1187 |
|
USA |
|
105024130 |
|
1896 |
|
46886 |
|
2324 |
|
URUGUAY |
|
9180531 |
|
2598 |
|
30704 |
|
3112 |
|
VANUATU |
|
115470 |
|
19245 |
|
38490 |
|
57735 |
|
VENEZUELA |
|
11444123 |
|
1440 |
|
7383 |
|
2336 |
|
VIETNAM |
|
12637550 |
|
12258 |
|
12258 |
|
|
|
YUGOSLAVIA |
|
4215330 |
|
2842 |
|
8782 |
|
7806 |
|
ZAMBIA |
|
2199346 |
|
13920 |
|
22910 |
|
99970 |
|
ZIMBABWE |
|
43102250 |
|
119397 |
|
769683 |
|
633857 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|