The foot and mouth crisis is long past but Dave Hewitt says now is the time to reflect on its problems and have your say to help prevent a similar situation arising again.
It was coincidence that the latest foot and mouth revival scare followed immediately the Scottish Executive's publication of a consultation document on how best to tackle any future outbreak - but it did serve as a wake-up call re the prospect of another round of FMD problems sometime in the future.
The scare itself (relating to pigs on a farm at Congerstone in Leicestershire but with immediate links to a batch of farms in Yorkshire) has now, thank goodness, been confirmed as a false alarm - see www.defra.gov.uk/news/2002/020624b.htm
It's unrealistic to think that we have seen the last of FMD, however. The gap before the 2001 episode might have been 30 plus years but we live in an ever-faster, corner-cutting age and the next interval might well be considerably shorter. And just as the agricultural health bodies are already working on how best to deal with the next outbreak and what lessons have been learnt from the last one, so the hillgoing, tourism and access-interest parts of society must also make preparations. We would be stupid not to try and make things happen differently next time - and if we just sit back and let the same kind of administrative hash recur then we would only have ourselves to blame.
The Scottish Executive guidelines can be found at www.scotland.gov.uk/views/views.asp - although, as usual, these are released in the less-than-helpful Acrobat pdf format and will be hard (or plain impossible) for a lot of people to read. What's wrong with the information being posted up on the Exec website in one of the standard word-processing formats? The Plain English Campaign ought to have something to say about this - there is a clear parallel between gobbledegook and obscure formats, in that both make it harder for the general public to access information to which they are entitled. The DEFRA site - where the Leicestershire info can be found - much more sensibly whangs things up onscreen in good old-fashioned html text readable by everyone who can reach the site. end_software_rant
Anyway, the Executive's "draft contingency plan" includes, once you de-encrypt it, some encouraging thoughts and phrases which suggest that last year's no-access anarchy ought not happen again. Certainly there appears to be an intention to prevent the kind of vigilantism whereby anywhere and everywhere can be "closed" by an unholy alliance of landowners, smallholders, land-management agencies and a man with a dog who just happened to be passing and who has never liked walkers anyway, really.
Having said that, the cynic (or at least the sceptic) in me remains wary. The contingency plan has lots of nice words, positive words, well-intended words - but they need power and legislation behind them unless they're to be once again trampled by the weight and speed of events on the ground. Once any new FMD outbreak started, it would quickly acquire a momentum that even the best-intended guidelines would find hard to divert or dissipate.
Much of what appears in the plan appears uncannily similar to the later drafts of the Comeback Code in operation last year and from observation around the country - and from occasional behind-the-scenes discussions with civil servants in Edinburgh - it was clear that no matter how firm the instructions from on high, a considerable proportion of what was said in 2001 was simply ignored.
The most worrying thing - for me at least - was not that various anti-access landowners and farmers were ignoring the official access guidelines - that's what they were always likely to do, it's in the genes - but that they were being allowed to ignore them by the middlemen agencies - the local councils and the see-how-worthy-we-are landowning bodies such as the National Trust for Scotland, the John Muir Trust, the Woodland Trust and so on.
The councils were the most culpable and the extent to which several chose to look away when the Executive issued its advice raised considerable doubts about the extent to which the current version of Scottish democracy is actually working. Large-landowner councils such as Argyll and Bute, Stirling and Perth and Kinross appeared to try hard not to fulfil their legal obligations re opening up the hills, glens, paths and so on. If they were footballers, they'd have been booked - or even sent off - for timewasting.
There's little point in going over the specific gripes from last year, however; it's better to simply remember what the problems were and then try to ensure that the administrative framework is in place to prevent most if not all of them recurring next time round. Given this, it's vital that as many walkers, climbers etc as possible read the draft contingency plan, not least because it is a draft plan and people are being encouraged to pass comment. Input is required no later than Friday 13 September 2002, and should be sent to Jill Tait at the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department Agriculture Group, Pentland House, 47 Robb's Loan, Edinburgh EH14 1TY, or by phone on 0131-244 6553, by fax on 0131-244 6564, or by email to Gillian.tait@scotland.gsi.gov.uk
Given the difficulty of accessing the information via the Exec website, it's worth picking out the most relevant sections here. Much of the plan concerns, of course, matters directly involving animals and farms but there is a chunk about land access, headed "Annex C". The introduction to this speaks of "a presumption in favour of access to the Scottish countryside, with certain limited exceptions where a risk assessment shows, to the satisfaction of the local authority and Divisional Veterinary Manager (DVM) that a real risk exists."
The body of the plan includes various paragraphs worth quoting at length and appears in paragraphs 126-137: Sections of particular interest are marked in italics
"126. The only people and/or their modes of transport (eg bicycles) who risk spreading FMD are those who have direct contact with infected farms or farms about to become infected. Infected farms are put under statutory restrictions and access to them and from them is limited and strict biosecurity must be observed. Risks of disease being spread by those seeking recreational access to the countryside are very small, and can be eliminated by avoiding direct contact between people and/or vehicles/bicycles and livestock. There is no reason to close access to land in those areas outwith the Restricted Infected Area (or 'Blue Box') surrounding infected premises and outwith these restricted zones there should be a presumption in favour of access.
"127. However, landowners/farmers in close proximity to infected premises (but not within the restricted zone) or those who have good reason to believe they will be exposed to higher risks should have recourse to 'officially' close their land where there is a justifiable need. In these cases, the landowner/farmer must complete a risk assessment that demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the Local Authority Access Officer and the DVM that these closures are justified. The Local Authority can sanction the closure in these cases, which should be specific and time limited. The closures are notified to Scottish Ministers and will be published on the Scottish Executive website. The public can therefore assume that where there is no official closure then the situation is 'access as normal' (with the exception of farms under Statutory Form A or Form D restrictions).
"Responsibility. 128. Access policy in a disease situation will be the directed by the DSG [Disease Strategy Group], due to its importance to disease control and the need for veterinary input. [The] Environment Group (who normally take the policy lead in this area) will provide someone to manage access policy in an FMD emergency, reporting to the head of the Policy Unit. This person will liaise with SNH over establishing an Access Forum, under chairmanship of the Executive, bringing together key stakeholders. This Forum will discuss access policy and issues as they arise.
"129. Implementation of access policy on the ground will be the responsibility of the Local Authorities. They will have the power to sanction closures of land and should devise a generic official sign with their logo that will advise the public of closure of land. They should also carry on their website details of all closures in their area. All closures must be specific and time limited and notified to Scottish Ministers. Local authorities should give consideration to the establishment of local access forums where local issues can be discussed and authorities can ensure that a balanced and consistent approach is being taken.
"Legislation. 130. Upon confirmation of FMD, an Order should be made granting powers to Local Authorities to permit official closures of land where a risk assessment agreed by the Local Authority Access Officer and Divisional Veterinary Manager shows that it is justified. Experience showed that it would be helpful to add further conditions to these closures, firstly that they are time limited and subject to review, and secondly the condition that they are well publicised by the Local Authority and are Officially signposted.
"Communication. 131. Guidance on restrictions and the procedure to officially close land must be issued to farmers on risk associated with FMD and access, emphasising the presumption in favour of access and outlining the procedure for closure if deemed necessary (perhaps as part of FMD pack). In addition guidance must be issued to all major access bodies and stakeholders giving the same information. All stakeholders and tourism-related bodies should consider how best to disseminate the message within their organisations and to their customers.
"APPENDIX C(i). Information on Risk outwith Restricted Zones/Infected Areas. Origin of visitors:
132. There is no evidence that a walker or rambler has ever spread FMD. The only people who carry any real risk of spreading FMD are those from infected farms or farms that are about to become infected. People who pass close to infected farms on roads are unlikely to pick up the virus. Those who come to the non-infected area from an infected area should reduce any risk by changing into fresh, clean clothing and thoroughly cleaning and disinfecting their vehicles on leaving the infected area, including pressure washing of the underside, wheelarches, wheels and tyres. Farmers should ensure that all visitors adhere to the draft Biosecurity Code to ensure that disease is not brought on or taken off their farm or land.
"Animals on enclosed ground: 133. Any small risk that remains in a disease situation can be avoided by limiting direct contact between people/vehicles and livestock. Paths through enclosed ground holding animals at such densities that direct contact is likely, should be diverted, or a temporary fence erected.
"134. Access onto land that holds animals where the chance of direct contact is low, or onto land that might in the near future hold animals, poses significantly less risk. Mud or dung infected with the virus would have to be deposited by a walker and then ingested by an animal while the virus was still active. The likelihood of oral transmission to grazing animals is further reduced because there needs to be a high dose of infection by the oral route for ruminants (ie ingesting infected soil or dung). In the summer, the survival time of the virus in the environment declines markedly.
"Transmission to livestock on the open hill: 135. Livestock on the open hillside tend to shy away from human contact and so are less likely to come into contact with infected mud or dung. Strict adherence to the draft Biosecurity Code within the Infected Area should prevent disease leaving the area and its spread by visitors to the countryside.
"Transmission to deer on the open hill: 136. Deer in the open would tend to flee from walkers and do not become carriers of FMD (so if they became infected the disease would run its course and disappear). Deer do not generate significant aerosol infection and have no significance as a source of airborne spread: they offer a low risk to other species.
"137. Crofting Counties: Vehicles in crofting counties, passing through areas of open grazing, have a higher risk of coming into contact with livestock. However they pose very little risk of transmitting the virus unless they have come from an infected farm and have not followed the guidance in the draft Biosecurity."
The section ends with a draft of the "model risk assessment form", designed to provide an accurate assessment of whether an area needs to be closed or controlled. As I say, this looks good and would surely work well if it were allowed to work smoothly. But a second layer of planning does need to evolve, covering how to ensure that the guidelines are transmitted, acted upon and enforced - and what action will be taken against those individuals, agencies and councils who try to do things their own anti-democratic way.
But the draft plan is a start, and the ten weeks or so before the consultation period ends ought to allow a lot of sensible and productive comments to come in. And as if there hasn't already been enough proof of the potential difficulties ahead, it's worth noting that FMD Keep Out notices from last year are still being encountered from time to time. Whether they've been left up by accident or design is impossible to tell but the Gleneagles area recently sported some closure signs citing "FMD biosecurity", while south of the border Chris Crocker has reported (on the rhb yahoogroup) having found two signs in Northumbria last weekend. These included a National Trust sign beside a wall on top of the very pleasant Ros Hill, "informing walkers that because of the danger of infecting wildlife, on no account were they to cross the wall".
Basically, there's no end to the vigilance needed, from statutory agencies and from concerned individuals.
Dave Hewitt
27/6/2002
Cartoonist Chris Tyler asks me to add that he is "away setting fire to things at Glastonbury but will be back next week".
Dave can be contacted at Dave.Hewitt@dial.pipex.com
