Page 1
ASSESSMENT OF FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE (FMD)
CONTROL POLICIES AND THEIR IMPLEMENTATION IN THE
PROPOSED FMD-FREE ZONE IN THAILAND
Naree Ketusing
Dissertation submitted to the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
of
Doctor of Philosophy
In
Biomedical and Veterinary Sciences
Valeria E. Ragan (Co-Chair)
Jennifer L. Hodgson (Co-Chair)
Karen M. Hult
Sith Premashthira
February 25, 2020
Blacksburg, VA, USA
Keywords: Foot and Mouth Disease; FMD-free zone; assessment; policy
design; implementation; Thailand
Copyright 2020 Naree Ketusing
Page 2
Assessment of Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) Control Policies and Their
Implementation in the Proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand
Naree Ketusing
ACADEMIC ABSTRACT
A proposed Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) free zone, in the eastern region of
Thailand, was evaluated by FMD experts with the World Organisation for Animal Health
(OIE) during 2012-2013. The zone, however, did not qualify for an FMD-free zone with
vaccination because it did not comply with the requirements in the OIE Terrestrial Code.
Then, the Department of Livestock Development (DLD) within the government of
Thailand revised laws and regulations related to the FMD control program in order to be
in compliance with the OIE’s requirements. The revised FMD control program has been
implemented since 2015. These revisions and implementations, however, have not been
evaluated.
The main objectives of this study were to determine whether the revised
regulations (since 2015) currently being implemented are fully in compliance with the
OIE’s requirements, and to verify whether the implementation of the current FMD
control program is sufficient to control FMD effectively.
First, this study developed an evaluation framework and assessment tools for use
in the evaluation of the FMD control policies and their implementation in the eastern
region of Thailand. The assessment tools include assessment matrices, three sets of
questionnaires, and interview questions. When applied, the assessment matrices identify
shortcomings of policy design, policy implementation, veterinary capacity, and
stakeholder engagement. Questionnaires and interview questions collect information that
examines the consistency of elements of the FMD control program against criteria in the
assessment matrix.
Then, the design of current FMD control policies was assessed by interviews of
DLD officers at national level who formulate policies related to FMD control program
Page 3
and by reviews of DLD existing written policies and documents. This study found that
the design of current FMD control system is appropriate and meets the OIE’s
requirements.
Next, the implementation of the current FMD control program in the eastern
region of Thailand was assessed. The assessment was conducted by (i) questionnaire
surveys with DLD officers at local level, private veterinarians, and farmers, (ii)
interviews with DLD officers at national and regional level and private veterinarians, and
(iii) field observations. The assessment found that the current implementation of the
FMD control program in the eastern region of Thailand needs further improvement in
order to meet the OIE’s requirements.
This study also proposes recommendations to the DLD in improving the FMD
control system in the eastern region of Thailand including surveillance system, reporting
system, vaccine strategy, animal movement control system, and response plans. For
example, there should be an increase of stakeholders’ awareness of disease reporting
requirements. Evidence of adequate vaccination coverage and population immunity
should be available and accessible. Allocation of staff at local level should be
reconsidered for more appropriate service deliveries. Communications between DLD and
stakeholders regarding the FMD control program need to be strengthened for more
effective message delivery. Lastly, this study strongly recommends that there should be
strong commitments and supported by the higher level of the Thai’s government.
Page 4
Assessment of Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) Control Policies and Their
Implementation in the Proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand
Naree Ketusing
GENERAL AUDIENCE ABSTRACT
Foot and Mouth Disease is a highly contagious and the most economically
important infectious viral disease of livestock. The disease exists in Thailand and
interrupts livestock trade through the loss of access to international markets. The
Department of Livestock Development (DLD) within the government of Thailand has
proposed to make the eastern region of Thailand an officially recognized FMD-free zone
with vaccination in order to advance market access and trade facilitation. In order to be
an official FMD-free zone, the proposed FMD-free zone (eastern region of Thailand)
needs to be evaluated by experts within the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE)
and must meet all requirements of the OIE standard for this certification.
Since 2015, there has not been an evaluation to determine the effectiveness and
appropriateness of the current FMD control program in the eastern region of Thailand.
This study aims to evaluate the design and implementation of the current FMD control
program in the eastern region of Thailand.
This study, first, developed an evaluation framework and assessment tools for use
in the evaluation of the FMD control policies and their implementation in the eastern
region of Thailand. Then, the design of the current FMD control policies and their
implementation were evaluated. The assessment found that the design of the current
FMD control system is appropriate and meets the OIE’s requirements. However, the
current implementation of the FMD control program needs further improvement.
This study also proposes recommendations to the DLD in order to enhance and
improve the FMD control system in the eastern region of Thailand to be recognized as an
FMD-free zone by the OIE.
Page 5
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to Dr. Valerie Ragan,
my dearest advisor, for her support, guidance, and encouragement throughout my PhD
life. Without her patience and understanding, I would not have been able to complete my
degree and this dissertation.
Thanks to my committee, Drs. Jennifer Hodgson, Karen Hult, and Sith
Premashthira for their valuable contributions and comments. Thanks to graduate students
at the Virginia Tech Writing Center, especially Prabin Lama and Atinut Inthajak, for
assisting and proofreading my writing. Thanks to my BMVS friends and officemates for
all fun and remarkable memories. All of you make me understand “everyone has their
own pace and time!!!” Also, thanks to all ladies of P.E.O. Chapters in Blacksburg and the
surrounding area for financial support, emotional support, and being like my second
family here.
This project was financially supported by the Royal Thai Government. With their
support, I have gained more knowledge and unforgettable experiences. I promise to bring
these experiences and skills back to Thailand for a better improvement of my country.
Last but not least, thanks to my beloved family in Thailand and my husband in
Arizona, Patrick Finnegan, for their unconditional love and endless support. My final
thanks is to my lovely and precious son, Sean Finnegan, for making my life more
meaningful and being a good sleeper while mommy wrote this dissertation and made all
conference calls—Love you always!!!
Page 6
vi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ANSES The French Agency for Food, Environmental, and Occupational Health
Safety
ATSDR The Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry, United States
Department of Health and Human Services
BDCVS Bureau of Disease Control and Veterinary Services
BVB Bureau of Veterinary Biologics
CDC The Center for Disease Control and Prevention
CIFA Community Initiatives Facilitation and Assistance
DHHU Dairy Herd Health Unit
DLD The Department of Livestock Development
DVIQ Division of Veterinary Inspection and Quarantine
ELISA Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay
FAO The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization
FDA-Thai The Food and Drug Administration, Thailand
FMD Foot and Mouth Disease
NSP Non-structural protein
OIE The World Organisation for Animal Health (Office International des
Epizooties)
PCP-FMD Progressive control pathway for FMD
PVS Performance Veterinary Services
RRL The Regional Reference Laboratory for FMD in South East Asia
RT-PCR Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction
SEACFMD the South-East Asia and China FMD Campaign
SPS Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
USAID The United States Agency for International Development
Page 7
vii
VBARC The Veterinary Biologic Assay and Research Center
WAHIS World Animal Health Information System
WHO The World Health Organization
WTO World Trade Organization
Page 8
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACADEMIC ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................ ii
GENERAL AUDIENCE ABSTRACT ........................................................................................ iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... v
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... xi
LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................................. xiv
Chapter 1 : Introduction to the Assessment of Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) Control
Policies and Their Implementation in the Proposed FMD-Free Zone in
Thailand ................................................................................................................ 1
General context .......................................................................................................................... 1
Objectives of this study ............................................................................................................. 2
Rationale for this study ............................................................................................................. 2
Impact of this study ................................................................................................................... 2
Literature review ....................................................................................................................... 3
Foot and Mouth Disease .......................................................................................................... 3
Foot and Mouth Disease Status in Thailand ............................................................................ 6
Program Assessment ............................................................................................................... 7
References ................................................................................................................................ 12
Figures ...................................................................................................................................... 23
Chapter 2 Development of an Evaluation Framework and Assessment Tools to Assess the
Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) Control Policies and Their Implementation
in the Proposed FMD-Free Zone in Thailand .................................................. 27
Abstract .................................................................................................................................... 27
Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 28
Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 29
Results....................................................................................................................................... 29
Essential elements of a successful FMD control program .................................................... 29
Stakeholder Identification ..................................................................................................... 31
Identification of relevant DLD regulations and other documents ......................................... 32
Conditions for development of an assessment system ........................................................... 34
Evaluation Framework .......................................................................................................... 34
Page 9
ix
Assessment tools .................................................................................................................... 36
Discussion and Conclusion...................................................................................................... 37
Acknowledgement ................................................................................................................... 39
References ................................................................................................................................ 40
Tables ........................................................................................................................................ 44
Figures ...................................................................................................................................... 48
Chapter 3 An Assessment of the Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) Control Program in the
Proposed FMD-Free Zone in Thailand Part I: Policy Design ........................ 53
Abstract .................................................................................................................................... 53
Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 55
Interviews of DLD national officers ...................................................................................... 55
Reviews of DLD existing written policy and documents ....................................................... 55
Data analysis ......................................................................................................................... 56
Results....................................................................................................................................... 56
Surveillance system ............................................................................................................... 56
Vaccination program ............................................................................................................. 58
Animal movement control system .......................................................................................... 60
Response plans ...................................................................................................................... 62
Discussion and Conclusion...................................................................................................... 64
Acknowledgement ................................................................................................................... 67
References ................................................................................................................................ 67
Tables ........................................................................................................................................ 70
Figures ...................................................................................................................................... 72
Chapter 4 An Assessment of Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) Control Program in the
Proposed FMD-Free Zone in Thailand Part II: Implementation and
Engagement of Stakeholders ............................................................................. 73
Abstract .................................................................................................................................... 73
Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 74
Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 74
Questionnaire Surveys ........................................................................................................... 75
Interviews .............................................................................................................................. 75
Field Data Collection ............................................................................................................ 76
Scope of the assessment ......................................................................................................... 77
Data analysis ......................................................................................................................... 77
Results....................................................................................................................................... 77
Page 10
x
Surveillance system ............................................................................................................... 78
Reporting system ................................................................................................................... 80
Vaccination program ............................................................................................................. 82
Animal movement control system .......................................................................................... 87
Response plans ...................................................................................................................... 89
Engagement of stakeholders .................................................................................................. 92
Discussion and Conclusion...................................................................................................... 94
References .............................................................................................................................. 101
Tables ...................................................................................................................................... 104
Figures .................................................................................................................................... 119
Chapter 5 Conclusions and Recommendations to Thailand to Improve the Current FMD
Control Program in the Proposed FMD-Free Zone ...................................... 122
Tables ...................................................................................................................................... 126
APPENDICES ....................................................................................................................... 129
Page 11
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Summary of the OIE’s requirements for a region to be qualified as an FMD-
free zone with vaccination and the assessment matrix criteria to identify shortcomings of
policy design ..................................................................................................................... 44
Table 2-2 Summary of the OIE’s requirements for a region to be qualified as an FMD-
free zone with vaccination and the assessment matrix criteria to identify shortcomings of
implementation of FMD control program* ....................................................................... 45
Table 2-3 The OIE’s recommendations regarding the quality of Veterinary Services and
the criteria to identify inappropriate of veterinary capacity and engagement of
stakeholders....................................................................................................................... 47
Table 3-1 Details and number of interviewees of this study ............................................ 70
Table 3-2 Summary of the OIE’s requirements for a region to be qualified as an FMD-
free zone with vaccination and the assessment matrix criteria to identify shortcomings of
policy design ..................................................................................................................... 71
Table 4-1 Summary of the OIE’s requirements for a region to be qualified as an FMD-
free zone with vaccination and the assessment matrix criteria to identify shortcomings of
implementation of current FMD control program* and engagement of stakeholders ..... 104
Table 4-2 The number of questionnaire distributors, questionnaires returned, responses
used for analysis, and target population in the proposed FMD-free zone ...................... 106
Table 4-3 The survey participants’ responses regarding the current implementation of
surveillance system in the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand .................................. 107
Table 4-4 The survey participants’ responses regarding the current implementation of
reporting system in the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand since the last protocol
update in 2015 ................................................................................................................. 108
Table 4-5 The survey participants’ responses regarding the current implementation of
vaccination program in the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand ................................. 109
Table 4-6 The survey participants’ responses regarding the current implementation of
animal movement control system in the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand since the
last protocol update in 2015 ............................................................................................ 111
Table 4-7 The survey participants’ responses regarding the communication of the
response plan and the training of preparedness and response plans ............................... 113
Table 4-8 The survey participants’ responses regarding their activities when suspected
case is reported ................................................................................................................ 114
Page 12
xii
Table 4-9 The survey participants’ responses regarding their activities when a positive
case is found .................................................................................................................... 116
Table 4-10 Survey participants’ responses regarding the slaughtering of FMD infected
and exposed animals ....................................................................................................... 118
Table 5-1 Recommendations for the DLD to improve the current FMD control
implementation ............................................................................................................... 126
Page 13
xiii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Foot and Mouth Disease Distribution Map, Jan-Jul 2017 ............................... 23
Figure 1.2 FMD incidences in Thailand from 2005-2017 ................................................ 24
Figure 1.3 FMD seroprevalence in beef cattle in Thailand from 2008-2014* ................. 25
Figure 1.4 FMD seroprevalence in beef cattle in Thailand in 2014 by livestock regions 26
Figure 2.1 Stages in the Progressive Control Pathway for FMD ...................................... 48
Figure 2.2 Essential elements for success of FMD control program ................................ 49
Figure 2.3 Stakeholder identification map representing Thai stakeholders with interest in
or influence on FMD control program in Thailand. ......................................................... 50
Figure 2.4 Evaluation framework for the assessment of FMD control policy and its
implementation in the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand. .......................................... 51
Figure 2.5 Data collection plan for assessment process ................................................... 52
Figure 3.1 The DLD disease reporting network and laboratory coordination .................. 72
Figure 4.1 Questionnaire distribution process ................................................................ 119
Figure 4.2 Steps of getting an animal movement permit ................................................ 120
Figure 4.3 Inappropriate vehicles for animal transportation found during field
observation. ..................................................................................................................... 121
Page 14
xiv
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1. Geography of Thailand and the proposed FMD-free zone .....................130
APPENDIX 2. Process of the official recognition of disease status by the World
Organization for Animal Health (OIE) ...................................................133
APPENDIX 3. Assessment matrix to identify shortcoming of policy design .................140
APPENDIX 4. Assessment matrix to identify shortcoming of implementation .............144
APPENDIX 5. Questionnaires for farmers ......................................................................163
APPENDIX 6. Questionnaires for private veterinarians ................................................169
APPENDIX 7. Questionnaires for local officers .............................................................176
APPENDIX 8. Interview questions for private veterinarians ..........................................185
APPENDIX 9. Interview questions and document lists for DLD officers at national
level ..........................................................................................................186
APPENDIX 10. Interview questions and document lists for DLD officers at regional
level ..........................................................................................................190
APPENDIX 11. Details of research participants using in data analysis ..........................192
APPENDIX 12. Animal Epidemics Act B.E. 2558 (2015) (Thai language) ...................193
APPENDIX 13. Animal Movement Control Regulation B.E. 2558 (2015) (Thai
language) ..................................................................................................219
APPENDIX 14. Sample size calculation to demonstrate freedom of disease ................227
APPENDIX 15. Distribution map of DLD veterinary officers at local level in the
proposed FMD-free zone .........................................................................230
APPENDIX 16. Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval letter .................................231
APPENDIX 17. Assessment report prepared for the Department of Livestock
Development ............................................................................................234
Page 15
1
Chapter 1 : Introduction to the Assessment of Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) Control
Policies and Their Implementation in the Proposed FMD-Free Zone in Thailand
General context
The agriculture sector is fundamental to the development of Thailand, and it is mainly
composed of smallholders (small independent producers) [1] . Thailand covers approximately
514,000 square kilometers and has a population of 67 million [2,3]. Forty-one percent of its total
area is used for agricultural activities [3]. In 2016, the agriculture sector contributes nine percent
to Thailand’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) [4]. Within the agriculture sector, crop production
accounts for 60% of total agricultural production, followed by fishery (14%), and livestock
production (9%) [4]. Even though the agriculture sector contributes only nine percent to
Thailand’s GDP, it is still essential for Thai people livelihood because a majority of the
population earn their living from agriculture, and there are multiple industries related to the
byproducts of livestock production such as the food and garment industries [3].
The Royal Thai government has been attempting to enhance agricultural productivity to
raise the income of the Thai people and improve their living standards. To date, the Department
of Livestock Development (DLD), the national veterinary authority of Thailand, has been
promoting livestock farming as a sustainable occupation and encouraging farmers to improve the
quantity and quality of livestock. In spite of the DLD’s attempts, livestock production in
Thailand still confronts multiple challenges, such as Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD).
Foot and Mouth Disease is one of the most important infectious livestock diseases
because it causes significant economic losses [5–8]. While the disease remains endemic mainly
in developing countries, it has been successfully controlled and eradicated in wealthy countries
such as Canada, United States of America, and United Kingdom [9–11]. Global distribution of
FMD can be monitored via the World Animal Health Information Database (WAHIS Interface)
[12]. Figure 1.1 demonstrates the global distribution of FMD as of July 2017.
The impact of FMD can caused by production losses and also the costs of controlling the
disease i.e. slaughtering of infected and exposed animals [13–15]. In addition, the endemicity of
FMD can interrupt livestock trade through the loss of access to international markets [15,16]. To
advance market access and trade facilitation, the DLD has proposed to make the eastern region
of Thailand an officially recognized FMD-free zone with vaccination1. In order to be an official
1 See APPENDIX 1. Geography of Thailand and the proposed FMD-free zone
Page 16
2
FMD-free zone, the proposed FMD-free zone needs to be evaluated by experts within the World
Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) and must meet all requirements of the OIE standard for
this certification2.
Objectives of this study
This study aims to determine whether the design and implementation of the current FMD
control program in the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand follows international requirements
for establishing an FMD-free zone with vaccination. In addition, the study proposes
recommendations to the DLD to improve the FMD control system in the proposed FMD-free
zone.
Rationale for this study
In 2012, Thailand requested the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) experts to
evaluate the FMD status of the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand [17]. The report from this
study revealed that the proposed FMD-free zone could not be recognized as such as the zone was
not in full compliance with OIE requirements [17]. In addition, there was insufficient evidence to
prove FMD-free status within the proposed FMD-free zone [17]. As a result of this evaluation,
the DLD revised the FMD control regulations to be in compliance with the recommendations of
the OIE experts and implemented a revised FMD control program in the proposed zone. The
DLD plans to reapply official OIE recognition as FMD-free for this zone.
It is important to ensure that the revised regulations currently being implemented are
fully in compliance with the OIE requirements. In addition, it is also crucial to make sure that the
implementation of the current FMD control program is sufficient to control FMD effectively. An
assessment of the zone with the current FMD control system has not been conducted. Thus, the
purpose of this study is to assess the current FMD control system in the proposed FMD-free zone
to ensure that the current FMD control policy and its implementation meet the OIE requirements.
Impact of this study
One outcome of this study is recommendations that will help Thailand officially be
recognized as an FMD-free country. This certification will have a significant economic impact
on the country by contributing to the expansion of livestock trading opportunities, eradicating
food insecurity, and making agriculture (livestock sector) more productive and sustainable.
2 See APPENDIX 2. the official recognition of disease status process
Page 17
3
Literature review
Foot and Mouth Disease
Foot and mouth disease (FMD) is the most economically devastating viral disease of
livestock [18–20]. It is difficult to control and eradicate because the FMD virus replicates rapidly
and is highly contagious among susceptible animals [20–22]. The disease can affect multiple
species especially cloven hoofed animals such as pig, cattle, sheep, and goat [23]. Several
species of deer and buffalo are considered as FMD susceptible species and may be a source of
outbreaks in domestic livestock [23–25].
The FMD caused by a virus within the the Picornaviridae family and the Aphtovirus
genus [26]. The virus is a non-enveloped, single strand RNA with an icosahedral capsid, and
unstable below pH 6.8 [26,27]. The FMD virus is identified into seven serotypes (A, C, O, Asia
1, South African Territories (SAT) 1, SAT 2, and SAT 3) [26–28]. It has very high mutation
rates and resulting antigenic diversity; therefore different subtypes are identified within the same
serotype [29,30]. As a consequence of genetic variation, lack of cross-protection from natural
infection and vaccination is usually seen [30,31].
Foot and mouth disease is characterized by the formation of vesicles on the coronary
band of hooves and around the mouth, tongue, and palate of affected livestock [21,32,33]. These
symptoms are usually preceded by fever [33,34]. While lesions on foot are the most noticeable
and common clinical signs in pigs, mouth lesions and drooling are typical noticeable in cattle
[35,36]. In sheep and goats, the signs are less obvious and sometimes confused with other
conditions [37,38].
a. Transmission and Spread of Disease
Foot and mouth disease virus is excreted in secretions (e.g. saliva, milk, semen, urine and
feces) and mostly spread via direct contact [39–41]. The virus usually transfers from infected
animals to susceptible animals via abrasions or directly through the mucosa [33,42]. In some
cases, the virus is spread to susceptible animals from infected animals via aerosol transmission
[42–44]. Ruminants are commonly infected via the respiratory route, whereas pigs are infected
through direct contact or eating virus contaminated food [45–47]. In addition, cattle are more
susceptible to aerosol infection than sheep, while pigs are more resistant to aerosol infection
[42,48]. However, pigs excrete more aerosol virus than cattle and sheep [33,42,44,48–50]. Long
distance airborne transmission of the virus is uncommon, but it is possible with the following
Page 18
4
factors: a susceptible species, a high dose of virus, and appropriate geographical and atmospheric
conditions [32,51].
Several studies show a different range of the incubation period depending on the strains
and dose of virus, route of infection, and species of animals [47,52]. It normally ranges from 2-
14 days [47,52]. For example, the incubation period of airborne spread or indirect contact
between farms ranges from 4-14 days, and direct contact between farms ranges from 2-14 days
[47,52]. The incubation period from pig-to-pig ranges from 1-3 days, 2-6 days, or 4-9 days while
cattle-to-cattle ranges 3-4 days or 3-6 days [50,53]. In sheep, the incubation period ranges from
3-8 days or 6-13 days [42]. The diverse incubation periods are thought to be due to variations in
experimental design [47,50,54].
Foot and Mouth Disease infection in human is rare and unrelated to the Hand, Foot, and
Mouth disease caused by a Coxsackie virus [55,56].The infection of FMD in humans may occur
with insignificant consequences and is mainly related with drinking of unpasteurized milk from
infected animals or close contact with infected animals [55–58]. Human-to-human transmission
has not been reported [59].
b. Diagnosis of Foot and Mouth Disease
Rapid and accurate diagnosis of FMD is an essential element for FMD control and
eradication [21]. Definitive diagnosis must be performed in a laboratory because clinical signs of
FMD are undifferentiated from other diseases which have similar lesions, such as vesicular
stomatitis and vesicular exanthema [28]. In addition, FMD clinical signs may not be noticeable
in sheep and goats because the animals are more tolerant to the virus and develop very few
lesions [38,60]. Mild FMD lesions in sheep and goats can cause serious outbreaks such as the
outbreak in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2001 [61,62]. At the end of this outbreak, the cost was
estimated to include approximately 14 billion dollars and the loss of 10 million animals [14,62].
Diagnostics of FMD have improved over time so as to increase sensitivity and specificity
of diagnosis methods. More recent developments have been aimed at not only increasing
sensitivity, but also distinguishing vaccinated animals from infected animals.
Virus isolation and Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) are used for FMD
diagnosis by detection of virus antigen [63]. Virus isolation requires a laboratory facility with the
highest containment level [63], which is expensive to maintain. Furthermore, virus isolation is
more time consuming than other diagnostic assays, where virus isolation can take up to 4-6 days
for test completion, while ELISAs can be completed within 3-4 hours [64]. However, in some
Page 19
5
cases with a high index of suspicion, when the ELISA gives a negative result tested samples
must be confirmed by cell culture inoculation, which can take an additional 4 days [21].
In order to shorten the time to diagnosis, a Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain
Reaction (RT-PCR) method has been developed. This method, RT-PCR, is used for rapid
detection, typing FMD serotype, and detection of asymptomatic infected animals [65,66].
Although the RT-PCR method is not greater in sensitivity than virus isolation and ELISA, it is
better for rapid detection [67]. The results of an RT-PCR assay can be obtained within 2 hours
[21].
For purposes of national and international trade, diagnostic tests must be able to identify
vaccinated animals out of infected animals. To this end, ELISA currently is used for detection of
antibodies against non-structural proteins (NSP) of the virus as these antibodies are found in
infected animals but not in vaccinated animals [68].
c. Control of Foot and Mouth Disease
Control of FMD is very difficult because the virus replicates rapidly and can affect a
wide range of hosts [23,31,33]. To control FMD, strict biosecurity measures are required [69,70].
Vaccination and/or slaughter may be applied to control FMD outbreaks depending on the
approach of the country involved [71–75]. Animal movement restriction is also an essential
measure when vaccination and/or slaughter are applied for control of FMD outbreaks where L.J.
Gleeson argued that “the use of vaccines in outbreak control is not effective when movements of
livestock from the infected area cannot be effectively controlled” [10].
Biosecurity measures alleviate the risk of FMD infections by reducing the likelihood of
introduction and spreading of the disease [76,77]. Furthermore, implementation of strict
biosecurity measures, without using other control measures, can reduce the number of FMD
outbreaks [22,76]. Examples of biosecurity measures include limiting non-essential traffic on
farms and limiting access of visitors, cleaning and disinfecting footwear before entering animal
areas, requiring haulers of livestock and feed to clean and disinfect their vehicles, identifying
sources of livestock and feed, using separate equipment for healthy and sick animals, and
keeping all records (i.e. cleaning, disinfection, visitors, and sources of animals) [76,78,79].
Vaccination is commonly used as prophylactic protection against an FMD outbreak in
endemic countries [10,69,80–82]. However, vaccinated animals may not be accepted for trade by
disease-free countries. Therefore, FMD-free countries (e.g., USA, Netherland, UK, and Canada),
do not use prophylactic vaccination, rather they would consider the use vaccination during an
Page 20
6
epidemic, with or without depopulation, to combat an outbreak and contain the virus within the
infected area [71,83,84]. It should be noted that vaccination alone cannot reduce the number of
FMD outbreaks. Farm biosecurity, slaughter of infected and contacted susceptible animals,
disinfection of infected farms, and movement restrictions of animals and potential infected
animal products are also needed to prevent the spread of disease and thereby reduce the number
of FMD outbreaks [22,76].
Thailand initiated a vaccination program for controlling FMD in 1958 [85]. All vaccines
had been imported before the country established an FMD vaccine production facility in 1960
[85]. In 1965, the DLD launched the first FMD vaccine production. There were two type of
vaccines produced by DLD: monovalent (serotypes O, A, or Asia 1) and trivalent vaccine
(combination of O, A, and Asia 1) [86]. However, the number of vaccines produced were not
sufficient for all susceptible animals in Thailand. In 1991, therefore, only animals in two
livestock regions of Thailand3 were vaccinated by the DLD [85]. By 2018, the FMD vaccine
production facility increased the number of vaccines produced to where it is claimed that current
vaccine production supplies up to 80% of the vaccine demand of swine producers, which is 38
million doses, and 100% of the vaccine demand of ruminant producers, which is 10-12 million
doses (personal communication, 2018). However, this proportion of vaccines could be an
overestimate since the animal population in Thailand is extremely dynamic and the size of the
livestock population is possibly under reported. As a result, there may be a vaccine shortage
despite the increased production and Thailand still needs to import FMD vaccines, especially the
FMD vaccine for pigs.
Foot and Mouth Disease Status in Thailand
FMD is endemic in Thailand [85,87–89].The first reported case of FMD infection in
Thailand was in 1953, and involved serotype A [85]. Subsequently, serotypes Asia-1 and O were
confirmed in 1954 and 1975, respectively [85]. Currently, only two FMD serotypes (A and O)
are still circulating, while serotype Asia-1 last occurred in Thailand in 1997 [90].
FMD is a notifiable disease in Thailand [91]. The current Animal Epidemics Act of
Thailand states that a farmer must notify a local DLD veterinary officer of any FMD suspected
case to within 12 hours [91]. Failure to comply with this rule may result in penalties (e.g. fine
3 Thailand is divided into nine livestock regions. See APPENDIX 1. Geography of Thailand and
the proposed FMD-free zone
Page 21
7
and/or imprison). The DLD reports FMD outbreaks to the World Animal Health Information
System (WAHIS) every six months. From 2005 to 2017 there were 1,163 FMD outbreaks
reported in Thailand [92]. In 2017, 126 FMD outbreaks were reported, including 8.66% of FMD
serotype A, 48.03% of FMD serotype O, 23.62% of samples were not typed, and samples were
not collected in 19.69% of outbreaks [93]. The incidence of FMD outbreaks in Thailand from
2005-2017 can be seen in Figure 1.2.
In addition to responding to FMD outbreaks, the DLD monitors FMD status through a
national serological surveillance4 to estimate FMD prevalence in Thailand. The national
surveillance program is conducted biannually in beef cattle using the ELISA to detect non-
structural protein (NSP). Antibody detection of the NSP of the FMD virus, especially antibodies
to the polyproteins 3ABC, is the most reliable infection indicator as it can identify the infection
of any serotype regardless of vaccination status. Furthermore, it is an optimal method for
determining animal health status for international trade [63,94].
During 2008 to 2014, the overall FMD seroprevalence in beef cattle in Thailand ranged
from 8-20% (figure 1.3) [95]. In 2014, FMD seroprevalence in beef cattle ranged from 5% to
40% and varied by livestock regions (Figure 1.4) [95]. The seroprevalence indicated that FMD is
still endemic in Thailand. Establishment of an FMD-free zone could be difficult because the
disease is widespread. Major challenges of establishing an FMD-free zone in the endemic
country are to design and effectively implement as appropriate FMD control program.
Program Assessment
Assessment is a systematic process of collection information or evidence to improve a
program. It is an ongoing process of measuring a performance, work product, and learning skill.
The assessment aims to diagnose, reform, and revise programs, as well as provide feedback on
how performance can be improved effectively [96–98].
In the context of health systems, assessment and evaluation are often used
interchangeably. For example, the World Health Organization (WHO) defines assessment as “a
formal process of evaluation of a process or system, preferably quantitative, but sometimes
necessarily qualitative" and evaluation as “the systematic and objective assessment of the
relevance, adequacy, progress, efficiency, effectiveness and impact of a course of actions, in
4 This serological surveillance does not include animals in the proposed FMD-free zone. A specific serological
surveillance program has been designed for the zone. The surveillance program includes swine, beef cattle, dairy
cattle, buffaloes, sheep, and goat.
Page 22
8
relation to objectives and taking into account the resources and facilities that have been
deployed” [99]. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) defines evaluation as
“Evaluation is a systematic method for collecting, analyzing, and using data to examine the
effectiveness and efficiency of programs and, as importantly, to contribute to continuous
program improvement” [100]. The Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (ATSDR),
United States Department of Health and Human Services, defines definition of a public health
assessment as “The evaluation of data and information on the release of hazardous substances
into the environment in order to assess any [past], current, or future impact on public health,
develop health advisories or other recommendations, and identify studies or actions needed to
evaluate and mitigate or prevent human health effects” [101].
Even though, there is no definition of assessment and evaluation in the animal health
literature, there are some existing assessment and evaluation studies related to animal health
topics such as evaluation of surveillance programs and evaluation of Veterinary Services.
For example, the study of Isoda et al. (2012) developed a fault tree framework to evaluate
FMD control strategies and applied the framework to the outbreaks in the UK 2001 and 2007.
The study was done in order to assess the control measures in the UK outbreak of 2001 and
assess the refinement of control measures in the UK outbreak of 2007 [102]. Fault tree analysis
is a deductive failure analysis and widely used in system reliability, maintainability, and safety
analysis [103,104]. It is also used for understanding how a system can fail, identifying potential
causes of system failures, and identifying the best way to reduce risk [103]. Isoda et al. (2012)
identified failures both in the administrative and field levels, for instance, lack of administrative
knowledge of control activity led to delay in implementation of vaccination, insufficient training
personnel at the field level, and insufficient disposal sites. In addition, the study found enhanced
FMD control measures during the UK outbreak in 2007 helped to control the outbreak, including
immediate movement restriction, immediate and adequate vaccines distribution and
implementation, and increasing disease awareness [102].
Another example is a study that developed an assessment tool for surveillance systems on
zoonosis and animal disease called “OASIS” [105]. The OASIS was developed in 2011 by a
French research team from the French Agency for Food, Environmental, and Occupational
Health Safety (ANSES). The team aimed to develop an assessment tool for surveillance systems
in animal health and food safety in order to propose recommendations for improvement. The
OASIS tool combined a list of assessment criteria, a questionnaire, and used a scoring guide.
Page 23
9
Information was collected by questionnaires and used for scoring the assessment criteria. The
OASIS was tested by applying it to five surveillance systems in France, including “FMD, rabies
in bats, poultry disease network, antimicrobial resistance in pathogenic bacteria from animal
origin, and a laboratory network for Salmonella detection in the food chain” [105]. Although
OASIS still needs to be refined and further developed, the French research team reported that the
ANSES plans for using it to evaluate the surveillance systems for animal health and food safety
in France [105].
Assessment of animal health outcomes are not conducted only in higher-income countries
like France and the UK, but also in low-income countries like Ethiopia. In 2009, CARE-Ethiopia
and Community Initiatives Facilitation and Assistance (CIFA)-Ethiopia, non-governmental
organizations, in partnership and collaboration with United States Agency for International
Development (USAID), border district offices in Southern Ethiopia and Northern Kenya
performed an assessment of “Veterinary Service delivery, livestock disease reporting, and
surveillance and control measures across border areas [106].” The assessment aimed to identify
strengths and limitations of cross-border Veterinary Services, disease surveillance, and reporting
systems for further improvement of animal disease prevention and control between the Ethiopia
and Kenya border [106]. It was conducted by desk reviews, secondary data collection, focus
group discussion, interviews, and a validation workshop. Similarly, this study conducted
interviews with farmers, animal health workers in community, animal health assistants,
veterinary officers, and NGOs participating in Veterinary Services; however, the interviews were
limited only to Kenya. The assessment found weaknesses of Veterinary Services, including a
shortage of trained staff, poor veterinary infrastructure, poor veterinary capacity management,
logistical problems, and inadequate budgets. Government veterinary diagnosis laboratories
needed to be better equipped, and appropriate budgets needed to be available to improve
diagnoses at the field level. Furthermore, a disease surveillance and reporting system was needed
to be scaled up to the national level and an information network needed to be created between
the two countries [106].
Later in, 2015, researchers from the veterinary school of Addis Ababa University,
Ethiopia conducted a similar assessment of Veterinary Services in central Ethiopia [107]. The
assessment was performed by questionnaire survey, focus group discussion, key person
interviews, and documents review. People involved in Veterinary Services delivery, Veterinary
Services users, and government officers were interviewed. This assessment revealed that
Page 24
10
“activities of the public Veterinary Services were very limited because of budget constraints,
logistical problems, lack of basic veterinary equipment, shortage of trained personnel, and low
capacity of Veterinary Services [107].” However, the private veterinary sector was helpful by
facilitating livestock producers in accessing required services. Shortages of veterinary drugs
were also a constraint of public Veterinary Services delivery. This study found livestock
producers had to use expired drugs and were under dosing because of the expense of veterinary
services. This study recommended that the government set strict regulations to improve
definitive diagnoses and public and private Veterinary Services delivery as well as allocate
appropriate operational budgets and logistic facilities [107].
In general, assessments of animal health-related issues in lower-income countries are
more focused on the infrastructure of Veterinary Services rather than on specific disease control
programs, such as an FMD control program. On the other hand, in higher-income countries, there
are a number of studies related to an evaluation of FMD control programs. However, these
studies mostly used simulation models as a predictive tool to find the best control strategy or an
alternative strategy for future outbreaks, such as “evaluation of the control strategy for the FMD
outbreak in Japan using disease simulation [108]”, “evaluation of strategies to control a potential
outbreak of FMD in Sweden [72]” and “an evaluation of alternate control strategies for FMD in
Australia [109]”
In Thailand, the assessment and/or evaluation related to Veterinary Services were
conducted by an external organization, the OIE. The OIE evaluated Thailand’s Performance
Veterinary Services (PVS) in 2012 and assessed the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand in
2013. After the assessment of the proposed FMD-free zone, Thailand has improved its FMD
control system by revising FMD regulations and implementing the revised regulations in order to
be recognized as an official FMD-free zone with vaccination by the OIE. These ongoing FMD
control regulations and implementation have not been assessed. Thus, it is necessary to
determine how well the current FMD control program meets the OIE’s requirements.
In conclusion, FMD continues to be a problem for livestock industries worldwide,
including Thailand, resulting in significant economic losses. An assessment of the FMD control
policy and its implementation currently in place in Thailand aims to identify whether the policy
design and its implementation in the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand complies with the
provisions for the recognition of an FMD-free zone with vaccination. Additionally, this
Page 25
11
assessment will include recommendations to enhance the FMD control system in the proposed
FMD-free zone in Thailand.
Page 26
12
References
1. Chomchalow N. (1993). – Agricultural Development in Thailand. . In Systems approaches
for agricultural development (M.K. de Vries F.P., Teng P., ed), Springer, Dordrecht. pp
427–443doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-2842-1_26.
2. National Statistical Office (Thailand) (2017). – Demography Population and Housing
Branch. Available at: http://statbbi.nso.go.th/staticreport/page/sector/en/01.aspx (accessed
on 19 April 2018).
3. Singhapreecha C. (2014). – Economy and Agriculture in Thailand. FFTC Agric. Policy
Artic., , 1–5.
4. Office of Agricutural Economics (Thailand) (2016). – Agricultural Statistic. Available at:
http://www.oae.go.th/oae_report/stat_agri/form_search.php (accessed on 28 October
2017).
5. James A.D. & Rushton J. (2002). – The economics of foot and mouth disease. Rev. Sci.
Tech., 21 (3), 637–644. doi:10.20506/rst.21.3.1356.
6. Thompson D., Muriel P., Russell D., Osborne P., Bromley A., Rowland M., Creigh-Tyte
S. & Brown C. (2002). – Economic costs of the foot and mouth disease outbreak in the
United Kingdom in 2001. Rev Sci Tech, 21 (3), 675–687.
7. Kitching R.. (1999). – Foot-and-mouth disease: current world situation. Vaccine, 17 (13–
14), 1772–1774. doi:10.1016/S0264-410X(98)00442-3.
8. USDA-APHIS_VS (2013). – Foot-and-Mouth Disease: Factsheet. Available at:
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/animal_health/2013/fs_fmd_general.pdf.
9. Rweyemamu M.M. & Astudillo V.M. (2002). – Global perspective for foot and mouth
disease control. Rev. Sci. Tech., 21 (3), 765–773.
10. Gleeson L.J. (2002). – A review of the status of Foot-and-mouth disease in South-East
Asia and approaches to control and eradication of Foot-and-mouth disease in South-East
Asia. Rev. Sci. Tech., 21 (3), 465–475.
11. United States Department of Agriculture (2017). – Planning and Preparing for Foot-and-
Mouth Disease. (September). Available at:
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/emergency_management/downloads/fmd-
briefing.pdf (accessed on 13 August 2018).
12. World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) – World Animal Health Information
Database (WAHIS Interface). Available at:
Page 27
13
https://www.oie.int/wahis_2/public/wahid.php/Diseaseinformation/Diseasedistributionma
p (accessed on 24 April 2018).
13. Knight-Jones T.J.D. & Rushton J. (2013). – The economic impacts of foot and mouth
disease - What are they, how big are they and where do they occur? Prev. Vet. Med., 112
(3–4), 162–173. doi:10.1016/j.prevetmed.2013.07.013.
14. Haydon D.T., Kao R.R. & Kitching R.P. (2004). – The UK foot-and-mouth disease
outbreak - the aftermath. Nat. Rev. Microbiol., 2 (8), 675–681. doi:10.1038/nrmicro960.
15. Perry B.D., Kalpravidh W., Coleman P.G., Horst H.S., McDermott J.J., Randolph T.F. &
Gleeson L.J. (1999). – The economic impact of foot and mouth disease and its control in
South-East Asia: a preliminary assessment with special reference to Thailand. Rev. Sci.
Tech., 18 (2), 478–497.
16. Feng S., Patton M. & Davis J. (2017). – Market Impact of Foot-and-Mouth Disease
Control Strategies: A UK Case Study. Front. Vet. Sci., 4. doi:10.3389/fvets.2017.00129.
17. Clercq K. De, Kim Y.J. & Batho H. (2013). – Foot and Mouth Disease Expert Mission to
Thailand. Thailand.
18. Richard M. & Richard K. – Foot-and-Mouth Disease: A Brief Review of the Etiologic
AGent and the Disease Which It Causes. , 30–33. Available at:
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/153567600100600108 (accessed on 13
August 2018).
19. Jamal S.M. & Belsham G.J. (2013). – Foot-and-mouth disease: Past, present and future.
Vet. Res., 44 (1). doi:10.1186/1297-9716-44-116.
20. Neeta L. & Tilling T. (2011). – Antigenic variation of foot and mouth disease virus - an
overview. Vet. World, 4 (10), 475–479. doi:10.5455/vetworld.2011.475-479.
21. Grubman M.J. & Baxt B. (2004). – Foot-and-mouth disease. Clin. Microbiol. Rev., 17 (2),
465–93. doi:10.1128/CMR.17.2.465.
22. Kitching R.P. (2005). – Global epidemiology and prospects for control of foot-and-mouth
disease. Curr. Top. Microbiol. Immunol., 288, 133–148. doi:10.1007/3-540-27109-0_6.
23. Thomson G. (1994). – Infectious Diseases of Livestock with Special Reference to
Southern Africa. . In Foot-and-mouth disease. pp 825–952doi:10.1016/0167-
5877(96)85062-8.
24. Hedger R.S. (1972). – Foot-and-mouth disease and the African buffalo (Syncerus caffer).
J. Comp. Pathol., 82, 19–28.
Page 28
14
25. Gibbs E.P., Herniman K.A., Lawman M.J. & Sellers R.F. (1975). – Foot-and-mouth
disease in British deer: transmission of virus to cattle, sheep and deer. Vet. Rec., 96, 558–
563. doi:10.1136/vr.96.26.558.
26. Racaniello V.R. (2013). – Picornaviridae: The Viruses and Their Replication. . In Fields
Virology. pp 453–490doi:9781451105636.
27. Belsham G.J. (1993). – Distinctive features of foot-and-mouth disease virus, a member of
the picornavirus family; aspects of virus protein synthesis, protein processing and
structure. Prog. Biophys. Mol. Biol., 60 (3), 241–260. doi:10.1016/0079-6107(93)90016-
D.
28. Bachrach H.L. (1968). – Foot-And-Mouth Disease. Annu. Rev. Microbiol., 22 (1), 201–
244. doi:10.1146/annurev.mi.22.100168.001221.
29. Kitching R.P., Knowles N.J., Samuel a. R. & Donaldson a. I. (1989). – Development of
foot-and-mouth disease virus strain characterisation-A review. Trop. Anim. Health Prod.,
21 (3), 153–166. doi:10.1007/BF02250825.
30. Hernandez J., Martinez M.A., Rocha E., Domingo E. & Mateu M.G. (1992). – Generation
of a subtype-specific neutralization epitope in foot-and-mouth disease virus of a different
subtype. J. Gen. Virol., 73 (1), 213–216. doi:10.1099/0022-1317-73-1-213.
31. Alexandersen S., Zhang Z. & Donaldson A.I. (2002). – Aspects of the persistence of foot-
and-mouth disease virus in animals—the carrier problem. Microbes Infect., 4 (10), 1099–
1110. doi:10.1016/S1286-4579(02)01634-9.
32. Alexandersen S., Zhang Z., Donaldson A.. & Garland A.J.. (2003). – The Pathogenesis
and Diagnosis of Foot-and-Mouth Disease. J. Comp. Pathol., 129 (1), 1–36.
doi:10.1016/S0021-9975(03)00041-0.
33. Alexandersen S. & Mowat N. (2005). – Foot-and-mouth disease virus: host range and
pathogenesis. Curr. Top. Microbiol. Immunol., 288, 9–42. doi:10.1007/b138628.
34. The Center for Food Security and Public Health (2015). – Foot and Mouth Disease,
Pocket Guide: Cattle. (August 2015). doi:10.1177/146642401303400206.
35. Kitching R.P. & Alexandersen S. (2002). – Clinical variation in foot and mouth disease:
pigs. Rev. Sci. Tech., 21 (3), 513–518.
36. Kitching R.P. (2002). – Clinical variation in foot and mouth disease: cattle. Rev. Sci.
Tech., 21 (3), 499–504.
37. Ayers E., Cameron E., Kemp R., Leitch H., Mollison A., Muir I., Reid H., Smith D. &
Page 29
15
Sproat J. (2001). – Oral lesions in sheep and cattle in Dumfries and Galloway. Vet. Rec.,
148 (23), 720.
38. Kitching R.P. & Hughes G.J. (2002). – Clinical variation in foot and mouth disease: sheep
and goats. Rev. Sci. Tech., 21 (3), 505–512.
39. Leeuw P.W. de, Bekkum J.G. van & Tiessink J.W. (1978). – Excretion of foot-and-mouth
disease virus in oesophageal-pharyngeal fluid and milk of cattle after intranasal infection.
J. Hyg. (Lond)., 81 (3), 415–425. doi:10.1017/S0022172400025304.
40. Guérin B. (1995). – VIRAL EXCRETION IN BOAR SEMEN and POTENTIAL FOR
CONTAMINATION. Reprod. Domest. Anim., 31 (1), 217–223. doi:10.1111/j.1439-
0531.1995.tb00028.x.
41. Burrows R. (1968). – Excretion of foot-and-mouth disease virus prior to development of
lesions. Vet. Rec., 82 (13), 387–388.
42. Alexandersen S. & Donaldson a I. (2002). – Further studies to quantify the dose of
natural aerosols of foot-and-mouth disease virus for pigs. Epidemiol. Infect., 128 (2), 313–
323. doi:10.1016/S0034-5288(02)90037-8.
43. Donaldson A.I. (1987). – Foot-and-mouth disease: the principal features. Irish Vet J, 41,
325–327.
44. Donaldson A.I., Herniman K.A., Parker J. & Sellers R.F. (1970). – Further investigations
on the airborne excretion of foot-and-mouth disease virus. J. Hyg. (Lond)., 68 (4), 557–64.
doi:10.1017/S0022172400042480.
45. Knowles N., Samue l A., Davies P., Kitching R. & Donaldson A. (2001). – Outbreak of
foot-and-mouth disease virus serotype O in the UK caused by a pandemic strain. Vet. Rec.,
148 (9), 258–9.
46. Alexandersen S., Kitching R.P., Mansley L.M. & Donaldson a I. (2003). – Clinical and
laboratory investigations of five outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease during the 2001
epidemic in the United Kingdom. Vet. Rec., 152 (16), 489–496.
doi:10.1136/vr.152.16.489.
47. Sellers R.F. & Forman A.J. (1973). – The Hampshire epidemic of foot-and-mouth disease,
1967. J. Hyg. (Lond)., 71 (1), 15–34. Available at:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2130444&tool=pmcentrez&re
ndertype=abstract.
48. Alexandersen S., Brotherhood I. & Donaldson A.I. (2002). – Natural aerosol transmission
Page 30
16
of foot-and-mouth disease virus to pigs: minimal infectious dose for strain O-1 Lausanne.
Epidemiol. Infect., 128 (2), 301–312. doi:10.1017/s095026880100646x.
49. Sellers R. & Gloster J. (2008). – Foot-and-mouth disease: a review of intranasal infection
of cattle, sheep and pigs. Vet. J., 177 (2), 159–68. doi:10.1016/j.tvjl.2007.03.009.
50. Alexandersen S., Quan M., Murphy C., Knight J. & Zhang Z. (2003). – Studies of
quantitative parameters of virus excretion and transmission in pigs and cattle
experimentally infected with foot-and-mouth disease virus. J. Comp. Pathol., 129 (4),
268–282. doi:10.1016/S0021-9975(03)00045-8.
51. DONALDSON A.I. & ALEXANDERSEN S. (2002). – Predicting the spread of foot and
mouth disease by airborne virus. Rev. Sci. Tech. l’OIE, 21 (3), 569–575.
doi:10.20506/rst.21.3.1362.
52. Garland A.J.. & Donaldson A.I. (1990). – Foot-and-mouth disease. Surveillance, 17, 6–8.
53. Alexandersen S., Zhang Z., Reid S.M., Hutchings G.H. & Donaldson A.I. (2002). –
Quantities of infectious virus and viral RNA recovered from sheep and cattle
experimentally infected with foot-and-mouth disease virus O UK 2001. J. Gen. Virol., 83
(8), 1915–1923. doi:10.1099/0022-1317-83-8-1915.
54. Hugh-Jones M.E. & Tinline R.R. (1976). – Studies on the 1967–68 foot and mouth
disease epidemic: incubation period and herd serial interval. J. Hyg. (Lond)., 77 (2), 141.
doi:10.1017/S0022172400024566.
55. Prempeh H., Smith R. & Muller B. (2001). – Foot and mouth disease: the human
consequences. Br. Med. J., 322 (March), 565–566. doi:10.1136/bmj.322.7286.565.
56. Bauer K. (1997). – Foot- and-mouth disease as zoonosis. Arch. Virol. Suppl., 13, 95–7.
Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9413529.
57. Bauer K. (1997). – Foot-and-mouth disease as zoonosis. Arch. Virol., 13 (supp), 95–97.
58. Armstrong R., Davis J. & Hedger R. (1967). – Foot-And-Mouth Disease in Man. Br. Med.
J., 4 (5578), 529–530. doi:10.1136/bmj.2.1450.823-b.
59. European Center for Disease Prevention and Control (2012). – RAPID RISK
ASSESSMENT, Transmission of Foot and Mouth disease to humans visiting affected
areas. Stockholm. Available at: http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications/Publications/TER-
RRA-Transmission-of-foot-and-mouth-to-humans-visiting-affected-areas.pdf.
60. Geering W.A. (1967). – FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE IN SHEEP. Aust. Vet. J., 43
(11), 485–489. doi:10.1111/j.1751-0813.1967.tb04774.x.
Page 31
17
61. Gibbens J.C., Sharpe C.E., Wilesmith J.W., Mansley L.M., Michalopoulou E., Ryan J.B.
& Hudson M. (2001). – Descriptive epidemiology of the 2001 foot-and-mouth disease
epidemic in Great Britain: the first five months. Vet. Rec., 149, 729–743.
doi:10.1136/vr.149.24.729.
62. Davies G. (2002). – The foot and mouth disease (FMD) epidemic in the United Kingdom
2001. Comp. Immunol. Microbiol. Infect. Dis., 25 (5–6), 331–343. doi:10.1016/S0147-
9571(02)00030-9.
63. World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) (2012). – Foot and Mouth Disease. . In
Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals7th ed.. pp 145–
173Available at:
http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/fr/Health_standards/tahm/2.01.05_FMD.pdf.
64. Longjam N., Deb R., Sarmah A.K., Tayo T., Awachat V.B. & Saxena V.K. (2011). – A
Brief Review on Diagnosis of Foot-and-Mouth Disease of Livestock: Conventional to
Molecular Tools. Vet. Med. Int., 2011, 1–17. doi:10.4061/2011/905768.
65. Callens M. & Clercq K. De (1997). – Differentiation of the seven serotypes of foot-and-
mouth disease virus by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. J. Virol. Methods,
67 (1), 35–44. doi:10.1016/S0166-0934(97)00074-8.
66. Marquardt O., Straub O.C., Ahl R. & Haas B. (1995). – Detection of foot-and-mouth
disease virus in nasal swabs of asymptomatic cattle by RT-PCR within 24 hours. J. Virol.
Methods, 53 (2–3), 255–261. doi:10.1016/0166-0934(95)00015-M.
67. Reid S.M., Grierson S.S., Ferris N.P., Hutchings G.H. & Alexandersen S. (2003). –
Evaluation of automated RT-PCR to accelerate the laboratory diagnosis of foot-and-mouth
disease virus. J. Virol. Methods, 107 (2), 129–139. doi:10.1016/S0166-0934(02)00210-0.
68. Domingo E., Baranowski E., Escarmís C. & Sobrino F. (2002). – Foot-and-mouth disease
virus. Comp. Immunol. Microbiol. Infect. Dis., 25 (5–6), 297–308. doi:10.1016/S0147-
9571(02)00027-9.
69. Paton D.J., Sumption K.J. & Charleston B. (2009). – Options for control of foot-and-
mouth disease: knowledge, capability and policy. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol.
Sci., 364 (1530), 2657–67. doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0100.
70. Scudamore J.M. & Harris D.M. (2002). – Control of foot and mouth disease: lessons from
the experience of the outbreak in Great Britain in 2001. Rev. Sci. Tech., 21 (February
2001), 699–710.
Page 32
18
71. Bouma A., Elbers A.R.W., Dekker A., Koeijer A. De, Bartels C., Vellema P., Wal P. Van
Der, Rooij E.M.A. Van, Pluimers F.H. & Jong M.C.M. De (2003). – The foot-and-mouth
disease epidemic in The Netherlands in 2001. Prev. Vet. Med., 57 (3), 155–166.
doi:10.1016/S0167-5877(02)00217-9.
72. Dórea F.C., Nöremark M., Widgren S., Frössling J., Boklund A., Halasa T. & Ståhl K.
(2017). – Evaluation of strategies to control a potential outbreak of foot-and-mouth
disease in Sweden. Front. Vet. Sci., 4 (JUL). doi:10.3389/fvets.2017.00118.
73. Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) (2011). – Foot and Mouth
Disease Control Strategy for Great Britain. (November). Available at:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_d
ata/file/69456/fmd-control-strategy111128.pdf (accessed on 3 September 2016).
74. United States Department of Agriculture (2017). – Planning and Preparing for Foot-and-
Mouth Disease. (September).
75. United States Department of Agriculture (2014). – Foot-and-Mouth Disease Response
Plan: The Red Book. (September). Available at:
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/acah/downloads/documents/FMD_Response_Pl
an_November_2010_FINAL.pdf.
76. Pritchard G., Dennis I. & Waddilove J. (2005). – Biosecurity: Reducing disease risks to
pig breeding herds. In Pract., 27 (5), 230–237. doi:10.1136/inpract.27.5.230.
77. Lewerin S.S., Österberg J., Alenius S., Elvander M., Fellström C., Tråvén M., Wallgren
P., Waller K.P. & Jacobson M. (2015). – Risk assessment as a tool for improving external
biosecurity at farm level. BMC Vet. Res., 11 (1). doi:10.1186/s12917-015-0477-7.
78. Animal Health Australia (2013). – Farm Biosecurity for Livestock Producers. , 12.
Available at: http://www.farmbiosecurity.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Farm-
Biosecurity-for-Livestock-Producers.pdf (accessed on 22 May 2018).
79. Washington State Department of Agriculture (2017). – Biosecurity Measures for Farms.
Jun 1. Available at: https://agr.wa.gov/foodanimal/animalhealth/biosecuritymeasures.aspx
(accessed on 22 May 2018).
80. Abila R.C. (2011). – Foot and mouth disease and control strategies in Southeast Asia and
the Pacific - the current situation.
81. Edwards J.R. (2005). – Strategy for the control of foot-and-mouth disease in Southeast
Asia (SEAFMD). Dev. Biol. (Basel)., 119, 423–431. Available at:
Page 33
19
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-
20344372443&partnerID=40&md5=5f5e7113d49e029ad52e79dfb9005cff.
82. Shang Y., Lu Z., He J., Jin Y., Guo J., Ma W., Ma J., Liu Z. & Liu X. (2011). – Foot and
mouth disease and control strategies in the People’s Republic of China - the current
situation.
83. United States Department of Agriculture (2015). – Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD)
Response. Ready Reference Guide — Overview of FMD Vaccine Issues. (November), 1–
2. Available at:
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/emergency_management/downloads/fmd_plan
_rrg_vaccine.pdf (accessed on 22 May 2018).
84. Kahn S., Geale D.W., Kitching P.R., Bouffard A., Allard D.G. & Duncan J.R. (2002). –
Vaccination against foot-and-mouth disease: The implications for Canada. Can. Vet. J., 43
(5), 349–354.
85. Chaisrisongkram W. (1994). – An overview of Foot-And-Mouth Disease control in
Thailand. . In Proceeding of An International Workshop, September 6-9, 1993 (J.W.
Copland, L.J. Gleeson & C. Chamnanpood, eds), Lampang. pp 23–25
86. Smitinant P. & Jarutamara U. (1965). – The Production of Foot and Mouth Disease
Vaccine. . In The 4th Conference of Agriculture and Biology, Bangkok. p 518Available at:
http://agkb.lib.ku.ac.th/dld/search/search_val/a0045f4211d205fff5d5c77a7b35abcd.
87. Cleland P.C., Baldock F.C., Chamnanpood P. & Gleeson L.J. (1996). – Village level risk
factors for foot-and-mouth disease in Northern Thailand. Prev. Vet. Med., 26 (3–4), 253–
261. doi:10.1016/0167-5877(95)00552-8.
88. Chaosuancharoen T. – Experience on FMD Control in Thailand The Continual Attempts
and Foresight.
89. Gleeson L.J. (2002). – A review of the status of foot and mouth disease in South-East Asia
and approaches to control and eradication. Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 21 (3), 465–475.
doi:10.2460/ajvr.69.2.240.
90. Abila R. & Kalpravidh W. (2011). – FMD Current Status and Control Strategies in South
East and China. (March), 5–6.
91. The Royal Thai Government Gazette (2015). – Animal Epidemics Act B.E. 2558. 132, 22.
Available at: http://www.ratchakitcha.soc.go.th/DATA/PDF/2558/A/014/22.PDF.
92. World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) – World Animal Health Information
Page 34
20
Database (WAHIS Interface)-disease incidence. Available at:
https://www.oie.int/wahis_2/public/wahid.php/Diseaseinformation/statusdetail (accessed
on 28 May 2018).
93. Department of Livestock Development (2018). – Current FMD status in Thailand: Jan-
April 2018. Bangkok.
94. Mackay D. (1998). – Differentiating infection from vaccination in foot-and-mouth disease
using a panel of recombinant, non-structural proteins in ELISA. Vaccine, 16 (5), 446–459.
doi:10.1016/S0264-410X(97)00227-2.
95. Bureau of Disease Control and Veterinary Services (2015). – Report of FMD
Seroprevalence and Vaccine Titer in Beef Cattle , Fiscal year of 2014. Bangkok,
Thailand.
96. Parker P.E., Fleming P.D., Beyerlein S., Apple D. & Krumsieg K. (2001). –
Differentiating assessment from evaluation as continuous improvement tools. . In
Proceedings - Frontiers in Education Conference. p T3A/1-T3A/6Available at:
https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-
0035204836&partnerID=40&md5=102afd321868047898bcebf1e63de030.
97. Central Michigan University – “A Guide” For Developing a Program Assessment Plan.
Available at:
https://www.cmich.edu/office_provost/AcademicAffairs/CAA/Assessment/Documents/As
sessment Resources Documents/Guide For Developing Assessment Plan.pdf (accessed on
4 June 2018).
98. Barrette C. – Program Assessment : Purposes , Benefits , and Process Program
Assessment is like Google Maps. Available at:
https://wayne.edu/assessment/files/1_introduction_to_program_assessment.pdf (accessed
on 4 June 2018).
99. World Health Organisation (2012). – Health Systems Strengthening: Glossary. Who, , 1–
22. Available at: http://www.who.int/healthsystems/hss_glossary/en/index.html (accessed
on 5 June 2018).
100. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2012). – Improving the Use of
Program Evaluation for Maximum Health Impact: Guidelines and Recommendations.
(November), 2–5. Available at:
https://www.cdc.gov/eval/materials/finalcdcevaluationrecommendations_formatted_1204
Page 35
21
12.pdf (accessed on 6 June 2018).
101. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) (2005). – Chapter 2: Public
Health Assessment Overview. Public Heal. Assess. Guid. Man. Available at:
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/hac/phamanual/ch2.html#2.1 (accessed on 5 June 2018).
102. Isoda N., Kadohira M., Sekiguchi S. & Schuppers M. (2012). – Review: Evaluation of
Foot‐and‐Mouth Disease Control Using Fault Tree Analysis. Transbound. Emerg. Dis., 62
(3), 233–244. doi:10.1111/tbed.12116.
103. Simha Pilot (2002). – What is fault tree analysis? Qual. Prog., 35, 120. Available at:
http://0-
proquest.umi.com.library.simmons.edu/pqdweb?index=8&did=110696586&SrchMode=1
&sid=20&Fmt=4&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=125521
4260&clientId=19053.
104. Lee W.S., Grosh D.L., Tillman F.A. & Lie C.H. (1985). – Fault Tree Analysis, Methods,
and Applications - A Review. IEEE Trans. Reliab., R-34 (3), 194–203.
doi:10.1109/TR.1985.5222114.
105. Hendrikx P., Gay E., Chazel M., Moutou F., Danan C., Richomme C., Boue F., Souillard
R., Gauchard F. & Dufour B. (2011). – OASIS: An assessment tool of epidemiological
surveillance systems in animal health and food safety. Epidemiol. Infect., 139 (10), 1486–
1496. doi:10.1017/S0950268811000161.
106. Bayissa B. & Bereda A. (2009). – ASSESSMENT OF VETERINARY SERVICE
DELIVERY, LIVESTOCK DISEASE REPORTING, SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS AND
PREVENTION AND CONTROL MEASURES ACROSS ETHIOPIA/KENYA BORDER.
Available at:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:ASSESSMENT+OF+V
ETERINARY+SERVICE+DELIVERY+,+LIVESTOCK+DISEASE+REPORTING+,+S
URVEILLANCE+SYSTEMS+AND+PREVENTION+AND+CONTROL+MEASURES+
ACROSS+ETHIOPIA+/+KENYA+BORDER+ENHANCED+LIVELIHOODS+IN+SOU
THER.
107. Jibat T., Mengistu A. & Girmay K. (2015). – Assessment of veterinary services in central
Ethiopia: A case study in Ada’ a District of Oromia Region, Ethiopia. Ethiop. Vet. J., 19
(2), 1–9. doi:10.4314/evj.v19i2.9.
108. Wada M., Stevenson M., Cogger N. & Carpenter T. (2017). – Evaluation of the Control
Page 36
22
Strategy for the 2010 Foot-and-Mouth Disease Outbreak in Japan Using Disease
Simulation. Transbound. Emerg. Dis., 64 (3), 978–989. doi:10.1111/tbed.12467.
109. Garner M.G. & Lack M.B. (1995). – An evaluation of alternate control strategies for foot-
and-mouth disease in Australia: a regional approach. Prev. Vet. Med., 23 (1–2), 9–32.
doi:10.1016/0167-5877(94)00433-J.
Page 37
23
Figures
Figure 1.1 Foot and Mouth Disease Distribution Map, Jan-Jul 2017
Source: World Animal Health Information Database (WAHIS Interface)
Page 38
24
Figure 1.2 FMD incidences in Thailand from 2005-2017
Source: The Department of Livestock Development and WAHIS
Page 39
25
Figure 1.3 FMD seroprevalence in beef cattle in Thailand from 2008-2014*
Source: Bureau of Disease Control and Veterinary Services, DLD
*Data of 2011 was missing
Page 40
26
Figure 1.4 FMD seroprevalence in beef cattle in Thailand in 2014 by livestock regions
Source: Bureau of Disease Control and Veterinary Services, DLD
Page 41
27
Chapter 2 Development of an Evaluation Framework and Assessment Tools to Assess the
Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) Control Policies and Their Implementation in the
Proposed FMD-Free Zone in Thailand
Submitted for publication as:
N. Ketusing, S. Premashthira, J. Hodgson, K. Hult & V. Ragan. Development of an evaluation
framework and assessment tools to assess the Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) control policies
and their implementation in the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand. Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int.
Epiz.
Submission date: August 13, 2019
Abstract
This paper proposes an evaluation framework and assessment tools for use in the
evaluation of the current Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) control policies in Thailand and their
implementation in the proposed FMD-free zone. Currently, no framework or tools are available
to perform such an assessment to help determine whether the FMD control program in the
proposed zone is consistent with World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) requirements for
establishing an FMD-free zone with vaccination.
To develop the framework and assessment tools this study identified; (i) the essential
elements of successful FMD control programs; (ii) stakeholders who are affected by the FMD
control program; and (iii) relevant Department of Livestock Development (DLD) regulations and
documents. These regulations and documents were used as the foundation for development of the
framework and assessment tools.
The proposed framework includes the essential characteristics of policy design and
implementation that should be part of the FMD control program in Thailand. The assessment
tools include assessment matrices, three sets of questionnaires, and interview questions. When
applied, the assessment matrices identify shortcomings of policy design, policy implementation,
veterinary capacity, and stakeholder engagement. Questionnaires and interview questions collect
information that examines the consistency of elements of the FMD control program against
criteria in the assessment matrix. This framework and tools are currently being applied to assess
the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand.
Keywords: Foot and Mouth Disease; disease control; FMD-free zone; assessment; Thailand
Page 42
28
Introduction
Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) is a highly contagious transboundary animal disease [1–
4] . Organizations such as the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), the French Agency
for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety (ANSES), and the Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) recognize FMD as the greatest hindrance
to international trade in animals and animal products [2–5]. The disease is endemic in South
America, Sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, and more prevalent in developing countries, including
Thailand [6–8]. FMD serotype A was first detected in Thailand in 1953 [9]. Serotypes Asia-1
and O were confirmed in 1954 and 1975 respectively [9]. While serotypes A and O are still in
circulation, serotype Asia-1 has not been detected in Thailand since 1997 [10].
Efforts to control and eradicate FMD in Thailand started in 1991 under the Foot-and-
Mouth Disease Prevention and Eradication Project [9]. In 1997, Thailand collaborated with
neighboring countries to prevent, control, and eradicate FMD at the regional level under the
South-East Asia FMD Campaign (SEAFMD), which is now called the South-East Asia and
China FMD Campaign (SEACFMD) [11,12]. Currently, Thailand is in stage three of the
progressive control pathway for FMD (PCP-FMD), a joint FAO/OIE tool for classifying country
progress in FMD risk management (Figure 2-1). Moving from stage three to stage four requires
strong evidence that the FMD virus is not circulating in domestic animals in a country or zone
[13].
To proceed to stage four of PCP-FMD, the Department of Livestock Development (DLD)
has proposed to make the eastern region of Thailand a FMD-free zone with vaccination [14,15].
In order to achieve this goal, the DLD has been improving the FMD control system in Thailand
by revising FMD control policies and implementing an amended FMD control program to allow
OIE to officially recognize the proposed FMD-free zone.
To help ensure that current FMD control policies and their implementation in the
proposed FMD-free zone meet OIE requirements, assessment of the current FMD control system
plays a crucial role. Currently, no framework or tools are available to assess the FMD control
system in Thailand. For such assessment to be effective, it is important to develop an appropriate
and applicable evaluation framework and tools that can provide accurate and transparent results.
This paper reports on the development of a framework and assessment tools to evaluate
the FMD control policies in Thailand and their implementation in the proposed FMD-free zone.
Page 43
29
The expected outputs from this assessment could support the detection of disparities between the
current FMD control policies and their implementation, as well as assist the DLD in improving
the FMD control system.
Methodology
Frieden (2014) addressed six key areas for effective public health program
implementation including innovation, technical package, management, partnership,
communication, and political commitment. However, the factors that influence the effectiveness
of animal control program have not been addressed. In order to develop an evaluation framework
and assessment tools, this study first identified the essential elements of successful FMD control
programs through a literature review. The initial literature search was conducted on Google
Scholar, Wiley Online Library, and PubMed Central. Key words included: factors, effective,
successful, program implementation, policy implementation, disease control program, and health
program in different combinations. Information related to animal disease control program and
effective services delivery drawn from fact sheets and bulletins published by organizations
focusing on animal disease management such as OIE were also included.
The second step in this study involved identification of stakeholders who had an interest
in, and/or an influence on, FMD control programs in Thailand. Potential stakeholders were
identified based on professional networks and experience. A list of potential stakeholders was
reviewed and discussed with DLD officers and private veterinarians. In order to illustrate who
key stakeholders of FMD control system in Thailand were, the study also developed a
stakeholder identification map in order to define key stakeholders of the FMD control program in
Thailand.
Lastly, the relevant DLD regulations and other documents related to the FMD control
program were identified through a literature search and discussion with DLD officers. These
regulations and documents were used as the foundation for the development of the framework
and assessment tools.
Results
Essential elements of a successful FMD control program
A successful FMD control program is one that is carried out as intended to achieve
desired outcomes. Reviews of existing literature and field experiences led to the conclusion that
Page 44
30
FMD control programs can be successful and sustained if organization and coalitions effectively
address the following elements;
i. Policy design. Smart (2016) claimed that policy design is an essential component of the
policy process and noting that “unclear mandates often results in a mismatch between legislative
intent and bureaucratic behavior” [17] (p.156). Public problems, whether straightforward or
complicated, should be defined and analyzed before policies addressing them are made [18].
Policy content should clearly frame the underlying public problems, goals, objectives, and
identify appropriate solutions [18,19]. Desirable policy should contain unambiguous directives,
clearly structured the implementation processes, and assign an existing agency for
implementation [20].
ii. Veterinary Services. Adequate, knowledgeable, and well-trained staff are needed for
effective services delivery. Veterinary Services play an important role for prevention and control
of animal diseases [21]. According to OIE (2015), “the effectiveness of animal disease
prevention and control policies depends on the good governance and quality of Veterinary
Services” [22] (p.1).
iii. Engagement of stakeholders. Successful policy processes require participation from
stakeholders [19]. Veronesi and Keasey (2009) argue that the quality of national health services
are improved with stakeholder participation [23].
iv. Availability of resources. Sufficient financial resources, staffing, and equipment are
needed for effective policy implementation [20]. Financial resources should be sufficient to hire
staff, develop alternative technologies, and conduct technical analyses involved in the
development of regulations and alternatives, services delivery, and monitoring of target group
compliance [20].
v. Policy or program implementation. Implementation is a “set of activities directed
toward putting a program into effect”[18] (p.99). Successful implementation depends on program
details to ensure that policy goals and objectives are met [18]. Policy should be implemented
completely and as planned.
vi. Policy or program evaluation. Evaluation refers to the process of detecting how the
policy or program was implemented and whether the policy or program is working appropriately
[18,24,25]. Policy implementation can be enhanced by ongoing evaluation by internal and
external authorities [26]. Evaluation should be accurate, transparent, applicable, and consistent in
order to enable policy to be improved [24,25]. Using evaluation feedback and information on
Page 45
31
how implementation is progressing allow policymakers and implementers to better revise and
correct actions [19].
vii. Political commitment. Overcoming program constraints and accomplishing program
objectives can be difficult without active political support [20]. Political commitment helps to
catalyze and sustain successful program implementation [27]. Alternatively, lack of
governmental commitment results in less successful policy implementation [28]. Political
commitment should come from various levels, especially higher government officials such as the
Minister of Agriculture and the Prime Minister, in order to raise awareness and support effective
implementation.
The essential elements of a successful FMD control program are illustrated in Figure 2-2.
Stakeholder Identification
Stakeholders are the people, groups, or organizations that can be affected by policy
outputs, decisions, and operations [29,30]. This study listed potential stakeholders, then reviewed
and discussed with DLD officers and private veterinarians. A comprehensive stakeholder
identification map was developed and are illustrated in Figure 2-3. Further exploration of
stakeholder involvement in FMD policy compliance in Thailand in this study focused on three
major stakeholders: i) the DLD officers, ii) private veterinarians, and iii) livestock producers
(farmers).
i. DLD officers
DLD officers in Thailand can serve at both national and local levels.
National level: includes officers who design and work on FMD control programs such
as those in the disease control unit (Bureau of Disease Control and Veterinary Services), the
vaccine unit (Bureau of Veterinary Biologics, Veterinary Biologic Assay and Research Center,
and the Regional Reference Laboratory for FMD in South East Asia), and the animal movement
control unit (Division of Veterinary Inspection and Quarantine).
Local level: includes officers at provincial and district levels who are in charge of the
animal health control programs. This group includes officers of provincial livestock offices,
district livestock offices, animal quarantine stations, and dairy herd health units.
ii. Private veterinarians
This study focused on private veterinarians who work in the proposed FMD-free zone
and whose work is related to the zone. These private veterinarians in Thailand are classified into
Page 46
32
three groups: (a) veterinarians who are contracted to, or work for company owned farms, (b)
veterinarians who work as consultants for farms and pharmaceutical companies, and (c)
veterinarians who work in technical sales and sales support.
This study included most types of private veterinarians in Thailand. It is uncommon in
Thailand for private veterinarians to run their own veterinary clinics or hospitals for livestock.
Most livestock farmers contact the DLD veterinary officers if their livestock have any health
issues. In addition, these official veterinarians provide free or low cost farm visits and treatment.
It is more expensive for farmers to call private veterinarians to visit their farms and treat their
livestock.
iii. Livestock producers (farmers)
Livestock producers are divided into backyard and agribusiness farms. In this study, the
definitions of these farms in the proposed FMD-free zone were:
a. A backyard farm was a farm with fewer than 50 head of livestock, including beef
cattle, dairy cattle, buffalo, swine, sheep, or goat.
b. An agribusiness farm was a farm with more than 50 head of livestock. Most of the
agribusiness farms in the proposed FMD-free zone are swine producers.
Identification of relevant DLD regulations and other documents
Three sources served as the basis for developing the framework and assessment tools: a)
the OIE terrestrial animal health code; b) the DLD regulations related to FMD; and c) other
official documents related to the Thailand FMD control program.
a) OIE terrestrial animal health code
The OIE terrestrial code is an international standard designed to improve animal health
and welfare and to provide guidance for international trade [31]. World Trade Organization
(WTO) members commonly use the OIE terrestrial code as the principal international trade
reference, and the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
(the SPS Agreement) recognizes the OIE as the relevant standard-setting body for sanitary
measures relating to animal health and zoonoses [31–33].
The primary chapters of the terrestrial code used for setting the assessment criteria for
this study were:
Chapter 1.4 Animal health surveillance [34];
Chapter 1.6 Procedures for self-declaration and for official recognition by the OIE [35];
Page 47
33
Chapter 3.2 Evaluation of Veterinary Service [36];
Chapter 4.3 Zoning and compartmentalization [37]; and
Chapter 8.8 Infection with foot and mouth disease virus [38] .
b) DLD regulations
The DLD revised its regulations in 2013 to improve Thailand’s FMD control system and
to comply with the OIE’s requirements. This study relied on legislation and regulation enacted,
written, and revised after 2013. Requirements for OIE recognition as an FMD free zone with
vaccination are specified in the OIE terrestrial animal health code, chapter 8.8 article 8.8.3
(http://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_fmd.htm).
The core laws related to the FMD control program are:
Animal Epidemics Act B.E. 2558 (2015) [39]
Control of Animal Slaughter for the Distribution of Meat Act B.E. 2559 (2016) [40]
DLD Regulation on Animal Movement Control B.E. 2558 (2015) [41]
The Animal Epidemics Act and the DLD Regulation on Animal Movement Control
authorize veterinary officers to isolate and quarantine animals for examination, testing,
vaccination, and depopulation when outbreaks occur. Livestock holders are compensated for
destroyed animals at 75% of market value. Veterinary officers also have authority to control,
regulate, permit, and prohibit animal movement. In order to transport animals to slaughter
houses, veterinary officers need to inspect animals in accordance with the Control of Animal
Slaughter for the Distribution of Meat Act, which mandates that animals must be in good
condition, fit to travel, and show no clinical signs of disease.
c) Documents related to the Thailand FMD control program
This study also included review of documents published by DLD and OIE that contained
information regarding the FMD control program and Veterinary Services in Thailand. The
following documents were reviewed and used for development of the framework and assessment
tools;
National FMD Strategic Plan of Thailand [14]
Dossier for OIE Official Recognition of Foot and Mouth Disease Free Zone with
Vaccination in the Eastern Region of Thailand [15]
Report of OIE FMD Expert Mission to Thailand [42]
Thailand National FMD plan for OIE Endorsement [43]
OIE Performance Veterinarian Services (PVS) Evaluation Report (Thailand) [44]
Page 48
34
PVS Gap Analysis Mission Report (Thailand) [45]
Conditions for development of an assessment system
Based on a review of the documents described above and that were related to the FMD
control program in Thailand it was found;
(i) the existing testing and diagnosis system were adequate and rapid, met
international standards, and confirmed by the OIE PVS evaluation; and
(ii) the existing reporting system was appropriately designed and included networks
of farmers, livestock assistants, villagers, and officers at the field level.
Therefore, the development of a framework and assessment tools was conducted
assuming these two conditions were satisfied.
Evaluation Framework
Figure 2-4 presents the evaluation framework developed to assess FMD control policies
and their implementation in the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand. The framework identifies
several essential characteristics of policy design and implementation that should be included in
the FMD control program in Thailand. The framework is divided into two parts: Veterinary
Services and Stakeholders. For Veterinary Services, six components related to FMD control
activities in Thailand need to be assessed, including the surveillance system, reporting system,
vaccine strategy, animal movement controls, response plans, and veterinary capacity. For
stakeholders, the assessment focuses on one component; their engagement.
The first component under Veterinary Services is the surveillance system. An appropriate
surveillance system should include passive and active collection of relevant data with appropriate
sampling designs. The reference population of the sampling design should include all FMD-
susceptible farm animals in the proposed FMD-free zone. Sample size should be sufficient to
demonstrate the absence of FMD infection. Appropriate implementation of surveillance should
include regular farm visits and animal observation by veterinary services officers. Officer
networks at the field level should exist and be appropriate to collect and submit samples to
laboratories. Sample quality and reliability also should be determined. Veterinary Services
should regularly communicate the findings of surveillance programs to stakeholders and evaluate
the surveillance programs.
Page 49
35
The second component is the reporting system. As mentioned earlier, the design of the
reporting system was assumed to be appropriate. Therefore, this second component evaluates
only the implementation of the reporting system. Appropriate implementation should include
unambiguous communication of the reporting protocol to stakeholders. It is important for
officers to act in accordance with the reporting protocol. Veterinary Services needs both to have
an appropriate reporting analysis mechanism and to routinely analyze disease reports. Officers’
and stakeholders’ compliance with the reporting protocol should be monitored routinely.
The third component under Veterinary Services is the vaccine strategy. An appropriate
policy design for this strategy should clearly specify the criteria for making vaccine-strain
decisions and who is responsible for, and has authority over, such decisions. In addition, routine
vaccination program decisions should be based on scientific studies. Appropriate implementation
of a vaccine strategy should include unambiguous communication of the strategy to stakeholders
and regular updating of the vaccine strategy based on evaluation of circulation strains of FMD.
Vaccination programs and vaccine production need to be evaluated regularly to monitor vaccine
coverage including host species, efficiency, efficacy, immunity protective levels, stability, purity,
and duration of immunity.
The fourth Veterinary Services component is animal movement control. Appropriate
movement regulations need to cover all susceptible animals and products. There also should be
appropriate and suitable requirements to detect and to prevent the spread of FMD prior to animal
movement. For example, regulations should specify that animals must be tested and have FMD
negative results, and that animals must be vaccinated against FMD before transportation.
Appropriate implementation of animal movement control should include unambiguous
communication of the movement protocol to stakeholders. The animal identification system
should be appropriate to identify the animal’s farm of origin. Compliance with animal movement
control needs to be monitored routinely.
The fifth component is the response plan. An appropriate plan should specify procedures
(responses and follow up plans) to be conducted after an outbreak is detected and specify who
should take responsibility. The plan should also include a compensation scheme and specify
appropriate compensation criteria. Appropriate implementation should include unambiguous
communication of the response plan to stakeholders. Officers need to act in accordance with the
response plan, and compliance with the plan should be routinely monitored.
Page 50
36
In addition to these requirements, accomplishment of the goals of an FMD control
program will depend upon appropriate veterinary capacity. Appropriate veterinary capacity
includes: (i) sufficient number of qualified personnel to deliver services at the field level; (ii) the
ability of DLD officers to detect, prevent, control, and report disease; (iii) existing continuing
education programs to support the growth and development of all veterinary professionals; (iv)
appropriate tools and equipment for DLD officers to deliver services; and (v) routine assessment
of the performance of Veterinary Services.
Stakeholder engagement is crucial to success of the FMD control program. In this
context, “stakeholders” refer to private veterinarians and livestock producers or farmers. Private
veterinarians should have sufficient knowledge to detect, prevent, and control disease. Farmers at
minimum, should recognize the disease, report suspected cases to officers, and be able to set up
farm biosecurity protocols such as restricting visitors, having a visitor log book, and having a
boot disinfection station. Private veterinarians and farmers should receive continuous trainings
about the FMD control program, disease detection, and prevention. They should be able to
understand the objectives of the FMD control program and their roles and responsibilities. They
should recognize and implement FMD control activities, following FMD control guidelines and
DLD policies on FMD control program.
Assessment tools
In order to evaluate current FMD regulations and their implementation a number of
assessment tools were developed in this study and included assessment matrices, questionnaires,
and interview questions. Three sets of questionnaires and interviews questions were developed
and will be used to collect data and verify information for input into assessment matrices. The
assessment matrices (APPENDICES 3 and 4) will be used to detect potential shortcomings of
current policy design, implementation, veterinary capacity, and stakeholder engagement in
Thailand’s FMD control program. Tables 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3 show the assessment matrix criteria
and the OIE’s requirements. Each table is divided into sections according to FMD control
activities (e.g. the surveillance system, the reporting system, and vaccine strategy).
The design of the questionnaires (APPENDICES 5,6, and 7) included specific questions
for three different target groups: local DLD officers (such as provincial and district officers),
private veterinarians, and livestock producers. The questionnaires for all groups have both open-
ended and close-ended questions, including multiple choice, rating scales (Likert-like scales),
Page 51
37
and short answer questions. The questionnaires are self-reporting and focus on the practices of
individuals in the target groups to control FMD over the past three years. For example,
participants will report how often they disinfected vehicles for animal transportation. The
questionnaires also focus on getting feedback from stakeholders about the services DLD officers
provided.
Interviews were designed to obtain more in-depth information to better understand the
FMD control system in Thailand and to further investigate specific details that questionnaires
cannot provide. Interview questions (APPENDICES 6, 7, and 8) address the surveillance system,
reporting system, vaccination strategies, response plan, control of animal movement, and overall
Veterinary Services. The questions are designed for each stakeholder group, with specific
questions for subgroups such as DLD provincial officers, DLD district officers, officers of
animal movement control units, and officers of Dairy Herd Health Units (DHHU, these officers
are specifically assigned to work and collaborate with dairy farmers and cooperatives).
Questionnaires and interview questions are designed for collecting data at different
levels. Questionnaire surveys will be administered with DLD local officers such as provincial
and district officers, DHHU staff, animal quarantine station staff, private veterinarians, and
farmers. Interviews will be conducted with DLD national officers, DLD regional officers, and
private veterinarians to get more in depth information.
Discussion and Conclusion
The framework and assessment instruments this paper proposed are the first of their kind
in Thailand. Other evaluation frameworks such as SuRveillnace EVALuation (SERVAL) and
OASIS (acronym for the French translation of “analysis tool for surveillance system” ) have been
developed, tested, and used in other countries [46,47]. Great Britain developed SERVAL to
evaluate animal health surveillance with the inclusion of socio-economic criteria [46]. Not only
was SERVAL primarily used in the UK, but it was also applicable to European Union (EU)
countries and worldwide [46]. The French Agency for Food, Environmental, and Occupational
Health Safety (ANSES) developed OASIS to evaluate surveillance systems for zoonoses and
animal disease in France [47]. Although SERVAL includes economic criteria, OASIS does not
yet include a cost-benefit analysis [47]. Applications of SERVAL and OASIS sought to evaluate
difference disease surveillance systems. OASIS was tested in “FMD, rabies in bats, poultry
disease network, antimicrobial resistance in pathogenic bacteria from animal origin, and
laboratory network for salmonella detection in the food chain” [47] (p.1488), and SERVAL was
Page 52
38
developed and tested for Brucella melitensis in sheep and goats, tuberculosis in cattle, and
classical swine fever in pigs [46]. In addition, SERVAL was designed to overcome several
drawbacks of OASIS, including the difficulty in interpreting its outputs and the inflexibility of
several restriction assumptions. Both, however, they required similar information to evaluate
surveillance systems, including scope and objective of surveillance, operational organization,
surveillance procedures, sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic techniques, data management,
interpretation and communication of surveillance data, and evaluation and correction of
surveillance system [46,47]. Compared to the framework this study proposed, these existing
frameworks latter were developed for evaluating surveillance systems, but do not include other
activities related to disease control, which is an essential component for evaluation of FMD
programs.
Nonetheless, the proposed framework and assessment tools have several limitations. For
example, Thai government agencies other than the DLD may play roles in the FMD control
system, such as the Expressway Authority (Ministry of Transport) and the Department of
National Parks, Wildlife, and Plant Conservation (Ministry of Natural Resources and
Environment). If assessment instruments focus on a single organization, they may miss the larger
picture and extensive findings and produce misleading results. Moreover, the proposed
framework was not designed to assess either the diagnosis system or the design of the reporting
system. Again, it may overlook some important features when assessing the FMD control
system.
In order to validate the proposed framework and assessment tools, both are currently
being applied to the FMD control system in the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand. The
diagram of the data collection plan is illustrated in Figure 2-5. The diagram shows where surveys
and interviews are conducted during the assessment process. It is expected that the results of the
assessment will indicate not only whether the FMD control system in Thailand meets OIE
requirements for official recognition of FMD-free status, but also whether implementation of the
FMD control program is sufficient to control FMD. Results of the assessment will be used to
make recommendations for Thailand to improve its FMD control system. An expectation from
this study is that the DLD and other Thai Animal Health policymakers will use the outputs of
these assessments to take action to improve the FMD control programs and will circulate the
assessment report to affected stakeholders.
Page 53
39
As stated, this study developed the first evaluation framework and tools to determine
whether the current FMD control system in the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand is
functioning well and meets the OIE’s requirements for an official recognition of FMD-free zone.
This paper can be used as a model for Southeast Asia (SEA) countries that are affected by FMD
to develop an internal evaluation in order for SEA countries to accomplish the current
SEACFMD roadmap. As one of the goals of this roadmap is to support SEA member countries
to achieve and maintain FMD-free status with vaccination by 2020 and strengthen Veterinary
Services in this region [48]. This paper can be beneficial and motivate SEA member countries to
follow the SEACFMD roadmap.
Acknowledgement
This study was part of a PhD degree being undertaken by the first author at Virginia-
Maryland College of Veterinary Medicine, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, USA. This project was
also supported financially by the Royal Thai Government Scholarship. The authors are most
grateful to Prof. Dr. Mo D. Salman, Animal Population Health Institute, Department of Clinical
Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University,
Fort Collins, CO, for his valuable comments and feedback regarding the framework and
assessment matrixes.
Page 54
40
References
1. The Center for Food Security and Public Health (2015). – Foot and Mouth Disease.
(March), 1–9. Available at:
http://www.cfsph.iastate.edu/Factsheets/pdfs/foot_and_mouth_disease.pdf.
2. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations – The European Commission for
the control of Foot-and-Mouth disease (EuFMD). Available at:
http://www.fao.org/eufmd/global-situation/about-the-disease/en/ (accessed on 2 February
2018).
3. World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) (2018). – Foot & Mouth disease (FMD).
Available at: http://www.oie.int/animal-health-in-the-world/animal-diseases/foot-and-
mouth-disease/ (accessed on 2 February 2019).
4. French Agency for Food E. and O.H.& S. (2019). – Foot and mouth disease: A long-
known disease that remains a serious threat to animal health. Available at:
https://www.anses.fr/en/content/foot-and-mouth-disease (accessed on 2 February 2019).
5. Pal M. (2018). – Foot and Mouth Disease : A Highly Infectious Viral Zoonosis of Global
Importance. J. Appl. Microbiol. Biochem., 2 (3), 1–2. doi:10.21767/2576-1412.100028.
6. Pattnaik B., Subramaniam S., Sanyal A., Mohapatra J.K., Dash B.B., Ranjan R. & Rout
M. (2012). – Foot-and-mouth Disease: Global Status and Future Road Map for Control
and Prevention in India. Agric. Res., 1 (2), 132–147. doi:10.1007/s40003-012-0012-z.
7. Rweyemamu M., Roeder P., MacKay D., Sumption K., Brownlie J., Leforban Y.,
Valarcher J.F., Knowles N.J. & Saraiva V. (2008). – Epidemiological patterns of foot-and-
mouth disease worldwide. Transbound. Emerg. Dis., 55 (February 2006), 57–72.
doi:10.1111/j.1865-1682.2007.01013.x.
8. Gleeson L.J. (2002). – A review of the status of Foot-and-mouth disease in South-East
Asia and approaches to control and eradication of Foot-and-mouth disease in South-East
Asia. Rev. Sci. Tech., 21 (3), 465–475.
9. Chaisrisongkram W. (1994). – An overview of Foot-And-Mouth Disease control in
Thailand. . In Proceeding of An International Workshop, September 6-9, 1993 (J.W.
Copland, L.J. Gleeson & C. Chamnanpood, eds), Lampang. pp 23–25
10. Windsor P.A., Windsor P.A., Freeman P.G., Abila R. & Benigno C. (2011). –
Foot‐and‐Mouth Disease Control and Eradication in the Bicol Surveillance Buffer Zone of
the Philippines. Transbound. Emerg. Dis., 58 (5), 421–433. doi:10.1111/j.1865-
1682.2011.01225.x.
11. Abila R. & Kalpravidh W. (2011). – FMD Current Status and Control Strategies in South
East and China. (March), 5–6.
12. World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) (2011). – SEACFMD 2020, A Roadmap to
Prevent, Control and Eradicate Foot and Mouth Disease (by 2020) in South-East Asia and
Page 55
41
China. (September). Available at: http://www.rr-
asia.oie.int/fileadmin/SRR_Activities/SEACFMD_2020_for_print_5_June_2012.pdf
(accessed on 9 July 2015).
13. FAO/OIE (2011). – The Progressive Control Pathway for FMD control (PCP-FMD)
Principles, Stage Descriptions and Standards. Available at:
http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/commissions/docs/pcp/pcp-26012011.pdf.
14. Department of Livestock Development (2012). – National FMD strategic plan of
Thailand. 2nd ed., Bangkok, Thailand. doi:10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2.
15. Department of Livestock Development (2012). – Dossier for OIE Official Recognition of
Foot and Mouth Disease Free Zone with Vaccination in the Eastern Region of Thailand.
Bangkok, Thailand.
16. Frieden T.R. (2014). – Six Components Necessary for Effective Public Health Program
Implementation. Am. J. Public Health, 10 (1), 17–22. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2013.301608.
17. Smart P. (2016). – Policy Design. . In Health Policy And Politics: A Nurse’s Guide5th ed.
(J.A. Mistead, ed), Jones & Bartlett Learning. pp 151–169
18. Kraft M.E. & Scott R. Furlong (2013). – Public policy: Politics, analysis, and
alternatives. 4th ed., CQ press.
19. Mthethwa R.M. (2012). – Critical dimensions for policy implementation. African J. Public
Aff., 5 (2), 36–47.
20. Sabatier P. & Mazmanian D. (1979). – The Conditions of Effective Implementation: A
Guide to Accomplishing Policy Objectives. Policy Anal. doi:10.2307/42783358.
21. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2013). – Global strategies for animal
disease control. Available at:
http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Publications_%26_Documentation/docs/pdf/bulle
tin/Bull_2013-3-ENG.pdf.
22. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2015). – Animal diseases prevention and
control. Available at:
http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Media_Center/docs/pdf/Fact_sheets/P-C_EN.pdf
(accessed on 4 February 2019).
23. Veronesi G. & Keasey K. (2009). – Policy implementation and stakeholder involvement
within the National Health Service. Prim. Care, August, 2–26.
24. HM Treasury (2011). – The Magenta Book: Guidance for evaluation.
25. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2012). – Brief 1 : Overview of Policy
Evaluation. (2011), 4–7. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/injury/pdfs/policy/Brief 4-
a.pdf (accessed on 15 May 2017).
26. Khan A.R. (2016). – Policy Implementation: Some Aspects and Issues. J. Community
Page 56
42
Posit. Pract., XVI (3), 3–12. doi:10.2307/975319.
27. Bhuyan A. (2005). – Commitment for Action: Assessing leadership for confronting the
HIV/AIDS Epidemic-lessons learned from pilot studies in Bangladesh,India,Nepal and
vietnam. USAID Publ., (June). Available at:
http://www.policyproject.com/pubs/PoliticalCommitment/PC_Synthesis.pdf (accessed on
30 September 2018).
28. Quah J.S.T. (1987). – Public bureaucracy and policy implementation in Asia: An
introduction. Asian J. Soc. Sci., 15 (1), 7–16. doi:10.1163/080382487X00118.
29. Bryson J.M. (2004). – What to do when Stakeholders matter - Stakeholder Identification
and Analysis Techniques. Public Manag. Rev., 6 (1), 21–53.
doi:10.1080/14719030410001675722.
30. Freeman R.E. (1984). – Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach.
doi:10.2139/ssrn.263511.
31. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2016). – Terrestrial Animal Health Code.
Available at: http://www.oie.int/en/international-standard-setting/terrestrial-code/access-
online/.
32. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (1998). – AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION ( WTO ) AND THE OFFICE INTERNATIONAL
DES EPIZOOTIES ( OIE ). World Organ. Anim. Heal. Available at:
http://www.oie.int/en/about-us/key-texts/cooperation-agreements/agreement-with-the-
world-trade-organization-wto/ (accessed on 19 April 2018).
33. World Trade Organisation (WTO) – The WTO and the World Organization for Animal
Health (OIE). Available at: https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/coher_e/wto_oie_e.htm
(accessed on 19 April 2018).
34. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2018). – Animal Health Surveillance. , 1–
10. Available at:
http://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_surveillance_general.htm
(accessed on 31 May 2018).
35. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2018). – Procedures for self declaration and
for official recognition by the OIE. Available at:
http://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_selfdeclaration.htm
(accessed on 31 May 2018).
36. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2018). – Evaluation of Veterinary Services.
Available at:
http://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_eval_vet_serv.htm
(accessed on 31 May 2018).
37. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2018). – Zoning and compartmentalization.
Available at:
Page 57
43
http://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_zoning_compartment.htm
(accessed on 31 May 2018).
38. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2018). – Infection with Foot and Mouth
Disease. Terr. Anim. Heal. Code. Available at:
http://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_fmd.htm (accessed on 9
April 2019).
39. The Royal Thai Government Gazette (2015). – Animal Epidemics Act B.E. 2558. 132, 22.
Available at: http://www.ratchakitcha.soc.go.th/DATA/PDF/2558/A/014/22.PDF.
40. The Royal Thai Government Gazette (2016). – Control of Animal Slaughter for the
Distribution of Meat Act B.E. 2559. , 133, 22. Available at:
http://www.ratchakitcha.soc.go.th/DATA/PDF/2559/A/085/9.PDF.
41. Department of Livestock Development (2015). – Animal Movement Control Regulation.
R. Thai Gov. Gaz., 132, 186ง. Available at:
http://dcontrol.dld.go.th/dcontrol/images/RUMINANT/DLD/9.PDF.
42. Clercq K. De, Kim Y.J. & Batho H. (2013). – Foot and Mouth Disease Expert Mission to
Thailand. Thailand.
43. Department of Livestock Development (2015). – Thailand National FMD Plan for OIE
Endorsement 2015: Application for OIE Validation of the Official Foot and Mouth
Disease Control Programme. Bangkok, Thailand.
44. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2012). – PVS Evaluation Report
(Thailand).
45. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2014). – PVS GAP Analysis Mission Report
(Thailand).
46. Drewe J.A., Hoinville L.J., Cook A.J.C., Floyd T., Gunn G. & Stärk K.D.C. (2015). –
SERVAL: A New Framework for the Evaluation of Animal Health Surveillance.
Transbound. Emerg. Dis., 62 (1), 33–45. doi:10.1111/tbed.12063.
47. Hendrikx P., Gay E., Chazel M., Moutou F., Danan C., Richomme C., Boue F., Souillard
R., Gauchard F. & Dufour B. (2011). – OASIS: An assessment tool of epidemiological
surveillance systems in animal health and food safety. Epidemiol. Infect., 139 (10), 1486–
1496. doi:10.1017/S0950268811000161.
48. World Organisation for Animal Health (2016). – SEACFMD Roadmap: A strategic
framework to control, prevent and eradicate foot and mouth disease in South-East Asia
and China. 3rd ed.Available at: http://www.rr-
asia.oie.int/fileadmin/SRR_Activities/documents/SEACFMD_Roadmap_merged_resized.
pdf (accessed on 18 April 2019).
Page 58
44
Tables
Table 2-1 Summary of the OIE’s requirements for a region to be qualified as an FMD-free zone with vaccination and the
assessment matrix criteria to identify shortcomings of policy design
Sections OIE’s Requirements * Assessment Matrix Criteria to Identify Shortcomings of Policy Design
1. Surveillance
system
- Veterinary Authority should be responsible for the
surveillance system.
- A surveillance system should provide an early warning
system to report FMD suspected cases.
- Surveillance for FMD and FMDV transmission is in
operation and in the form of a continuing program.
- Surveillance program to demonstrate no evidence of FMDV
infection and transmission should be carefully designed and
implemented to avoid producing results that are insufficient
to be accepted by the OIE or trading partners.
- Sampling design should incorporate an epidemiologically
appropriate design prevalence.
- Sample size should be adequate to detect the presence of
FMD infection and transmission.
1.1 Surveillance plan does not include passive surveillance.
1.2 Surveillance plan does not include active surveillance.
1.3 Surveillance program is not conducted annually.
1.4 The surveillance plan does not cover all susceptible species and/or all
levels of animal units such as the industrial level, small scale farmers,
and government facilities.
1.5 Sample size and sampling strategy are not appropriate. ** **Inappropriate underlying assumptions for sample size calculation:
1.5.1 Sample size is not calculated to demonstrate the absence of
FMD infection.
1.5.2 Sample size is not calculated with at least 90% confidence
(acceptable level) with sensitivity and specificity of the test at
least 90%.
2. Vaccine strategy - Routine vaccination has been carried out for the purposes of
the prevention of FMD and carried out following appropriate
vaccine strain selection.
- Vaccination has been carried out to achieve adequate
vaccination coverage and population immunity.
2.1 Policy does not specify who has authority to make decisions on
vaccine strains needed.
2.2 Policy does not specify how vaccine strains are determined.
2.3 Not all susceptible species are included in the overall vaccine plan.
3. Animal
movement
control system
- The control of the movement of susceptible animals and
their products into the proposed FMD-free zone has been
properly implemented and supervised.
3.1 Animals (susceptible species) and/or animal products are not covered
under movement regulations.
3.2 Requirements (before movement is allowed) are not adequate to detect
infection and prevent disease spread.
3.3 There are no regulations or requirements regarding the registration and
sanitization of vehicles for livestock transportation.
4. Response plan - All herds or flocks with at least one laboratory confirmed
reactor should be investigated.
- The investigation should include reactor animals, susceptible
animals of the same unit, and susceptible animals that have
been in contact with reactor animals.
- Seropositive animals should be retested using repeat and
confirmatory test with high diagnostic specificity.
- The animals sampled should remain in the establishment
pending test results and should be clearly identified and
accessible.
4.1 There are no appropriate follow up plans when a serological test (NSP)
is positive. The follow up plan does not include: trace-back to origin,
investigation, further serological tests (confirmation), quarantine (herds
or animals), quarantine release plan (what is criteria to release
quarantine), and/or requirement to remove animals (slaughter or
stamping out).
4.2 Compensation is not included in the response plans.
*Adapted from the Terrestrial Code chapter 8.8 “Infection with Foot and Mouth Disease Virus.”
Complete requirements can be accessed at http://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_fmd.htm#article_fmd.40
Page 59
45
Table 2-2 Summary of the OIE’s requirements for a region to be qualified as an FMD-free zone with vaccination and the assessment matrix
criteria to identify shortcomings of implementation of FMD control program*
Sections OIE’s Requirements ** Assessment Matrix Criteria to Identify Shortcomings of Implementation
1. Surveillance
system
- An early detection of FMD has been implemented.
- Surveillance for FMD and FMDV transmission is in
operation and in the form of a continuing program.
- Surveillance program to demonstrate no evidence of FMDV
infection and transmission should be implemented.
- Surveillance system should provide an early warning system
to report suspected cases.
1.1 Officers do not regularly visit farms and observe animals.
1.2 Farmers do not regularly observe abnormalities of their animals.
1.3 Officers do not routinely conduct active serological surveillance.
1.4 There is a lack of communication of findings of the surveillance program and
laboratory results.
1.5 The surveillance program is not evaluated.
2. Reporting
system
- A member country should have a record of regular and
prompt animal disease reporting.
- Farmers, workers who have day-to-day contact with
livestock, veterinary paraprofessionals, veterinarians, and
diagnosticians should report promptly any suspicion of
FMD.
2.1 There is a lack of communication of reporting protocols.
2.2 Reporting protocol is not uniformly implemented at all levels.
2.3 There is no disease report analysis at the local or national level.
2.4 No one is using the disease report analysis for prevention and control of FMD.
2.5 Compliance with reporting protocol is not monitored.
3. Vaccine
strategy
- Routine vaccination has been carried out for the purposes of
the prevention of FMD and carried out following
appropriate vaccine strain selection.
- Vaccination has been carried out to achieve adequate
vaccination coverage and population immunity.
- Serological surveillance to estimate population immunity
and/or efficiency of the vaccination program should be
conducted at 1-2 months after vaccination.
- The vaccine used complies with the standards described in
the Terrestrial Manual such as quality control, purity, and
safety of vaccines.
3.1 There is a lack of communication on vaccine strategy (e.g., type of vaccine &
adjuvant, included species, vaccine strain, and vaccine interval)
3.2 All animal species covered by the policy are not vaccinated.
3.3 There is a lack of vaccination record keeping and other information related to
vaccination campaign.
3.4 There is a lack of appropriate sero-monitoring program for post vaccination
evaluation.
3.5 There is a lack of vaccine matching monitoring and communication of vaccine
matching tests.
3.6 There is a lack of quality control and/or records on efficacy of vaccine production
4. Animal
movement
control
- The control of the movement of susceptible animals and
their products into the proposed FMD-free zone has been
properly implemented and supervised.
4.1 There is a lack of communication of movement control protocols.
4.2 Animal identification cannot differentiate between animals originating from inside
or outside of the proposed FMD-free zone.
4.3 DLD officers issue movement permits without animal inspection.
4.4 Animals and/or animal products are not transported in appropriate vehicles.
4.5 Animal checkpoints are not sufficient and are not located in appropriate areas to
screen animal transportation.
4.6 Veterinary officers and support staffs do not appropriately conduct animal
inspection at checkpoints.
4.7 Compliance with movement control regulations is not monitored.
5. Response
plan
- All herds or flocks with at least one laboratory confirmed
reactor should be investigated.
- The investigation should include reactor animals,
susceptible animals of the same unit, and susceptible
animals that have been in contact with reactor animals.
5.1 There is a lack of communication of response plans.
5.2 Officers do not respond or provide inadequate response when FMD suspected
cases are reported e.g. no tracing back, no re-investigation, and no confirmation of
serological test.
5.3 Record of positive herds and/or animals is not appropriate to trace back to the
Page 60
46
Sections OIE’s Requirements ** Assessment Matrix Criteria to Identify Shortcomings of Implementation
- Seropositive animals should be retested using repeat and
confirmatory test with high diagnostic specificity.
- The animals sampled should remain in the establishment
pending test results and should be clearly identified and
accessible.
origin.
5.4 There is no quarantine when positive animals are found.
5.5 Infected carcasses, byproducts, and material (fodder, waste manure, and bedding)
are not adequately disposed.
5.6 Emergency vaccine is not sufficient for affected animals.
5.7 Compensation is not sufficient when infected animals are slaughtered during
outbreak.
5.8 Local officers and farmers inappropriately restock new animals. * These criteria will be used to evaluate DLD’s FMD control program. The study assumed that the testing-diagnosis system is adequate, provides rapid diagnoses, meets international
standards, and confirmed by the performance veterinarian services (PVS) evaluation by OIE. Thus, testing and diagnosis system is not included in the assessment system.
**Adapted from the Terrestrial Code chapter 8.8 “Infection with Foot and Mouth Disease Virus.”
Complete requirements can be accessed at http://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_fmd.htm#article_fmd.40
Page 61
47
Table 2-3 The OIE’s recommendations regarding the quality of Veterinary Services and the criteria to identify inappropriate of veterinary
capacity and engagement of stakeholders
Sections The OIE’s recommendations * Assessment Matrix Criteria to Identify Inappropriate of Veterinary Capacity
and Engagement of Stakeholders
1. Veterinary
capacity
- The personnel of Veterinary Services should have
relevant qualifications, scientific expertise, and
experience to give them the competence to make sound
professional judgements.
- The Veterinary Services should be able to demonstrate
sufficient financial resources, and effective organization
that they are able to anticipate the requirements for the
establishment and application of animal health and
animal welfare measures.
- Adequate coverage of animal populations should be
demonstrated.
- Job descriptions of each position within the Veterinary
Services should be described.
- Job descriptions should include the requirements for
education, training, technical knowledge, and
experience.
- The Veterinary Services should undertake periodical
self-evaluation especially by documenting
achievements against goals and demonstrating the
efficiency of their organizational components and
resource adequacy.
- Responsible authorities should ensure that adequate
resources are made available to implement effectively
the above activities.
1.1 Veterinarians or qualified personnel do not exist or function at the field level.
1.2 Local officers are not available when farmers or private vets need a service.
1.3 Job descriptions of veterinarians and support staff are not defined.
1.4 Job descriptions are not appropriate for veterinarians and support staff to deliver
services. (Veterinarians and support staff are overwhelmed by their workloads.)
1.5 Small scale farmers have limited access to reliable and qualified Veterinary
Services.
1.6 Training programs:
1.6.1 Training programs are not provided for veterinary and support staff to
improve their performance and update knowledge.
1.6.2 The training programs are not conducted routinely.
1.6.3 The training programs are not standardized and certified by the veterinary
council.
1.7 Veterinary Services at each level do not have sufficient knowledge to detect
diseases.
1.8 Veterinary Services (at the local level) do not have sufficient tools/equipment to
deliver services for FMD control.
1.9 There is no routine assessment of Veterinary Services performance on the
following topics:
1.9.1 Knowledge about FMD and its control
1.9.2 Service delivery
1.9.3 Reliability and validity of diagnosis
1.9.4 Transparency
2. Engagement of
stakeholders
There are no OIE’s recommendations regarding
engagement of stakeholders
2.1 Farmers do not have sufficient knowledge to detect or recognize disease.
2.2 Farmers and private veterinarians do not have similar understandings of the
objectives of the FMD control program or of the importance of FMD
surveillance, early reporting, and movement control
2.3 Farmers and private veterinarians do not practice in accordance with DLD FMD
control program. *Adapted from the Terrestrial Code chapter 3.1“Veterinary Services”. Available accessed at http://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_vet_serv.htm
Page 62
48
Figures
Figure 2.1 Stages in the Progressive Control Pathway for FMD
Source: FAO/OIE PCP-FMD
Page 63
49
Figure 2.2 Essential elements for success of FMD control program
Page 64
50
Figure 2.3 Stakeholder identification map representing Thai stakeholders with interest in or influence on FMD control program in Thailand.
Page 65
51
Figure 2.4 Evaluation framework for the assessment of FMD control policy and its implementation in the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand.
*Conditions:
(1) Reporting system
is appropriate design.
(2) Testing and
diagnosis system is
adequate and rapid to
diagnose FMD.
Policy design
Implementation
Implementation
Policy design
Implementation
Policy design
Implementation
Policy design
Implementation
Page 66
52
10-Animal quarantine
stations
62-District
livestock offices
*Abbreviations
BVB = Bureau of Veterinary Biologics
RRL = Regional Reference Laboratory for FMD in South East Asia
VBARC = Veterinary Biologics Assay and Research Center
BDCVS = Bureau of Disease Control and Veterinary Service
DVIQ = Division of Veterinary Inspection and Quarantine
Re
gio
nal
leve
l
Regional livestock office no. 2 (Eastern Region)
DVIQ = Division of Veterinary Inspection and Quarantine
Figure 2.5 Data collection plan for assessment process
Page 67
53
Chapter 3 An Assessment of the Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) Control Program in the
Proposed FMD-Free Zone in Thailand Part I: Policy Design
Abstract
A proposed Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) - free zone in the eastern region of Thailand
was evaluated by FMD experts with the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) during
2012-2013. The zone, however, did not qualify for an FMD-free zone with vaccination
designation because it did not comply with the requirements in the OIE Terrestrial Code.
Thailand revised its FMD control regulations to be in compliance with recommendations of the
OIE review team and since 2013, has implemented a revised FMD control program in the
proposed FMD-free zone. These revisions and implementation, however, have not been
evaluated. This study was conducted to determine whether the design of the current FMD control
system in the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand follows the OIE’s requirements for
establishing an FMD-free zone with vaccination.
This assessment was conducted by interviews of Thailand’s Department of Livestock
Development (DLD) national officers who formulate policies related to FMD control program
and by reviews of DLD existing written policies and documents. An assessment matrix,
developed to be used to detect potential shortcomings of current policy design, was then used in
order to determine how well the current FMD control program meets the OIE’s requirements.
The assessment evaluated the surveillance system, vaccine strategy, animal movement control
system, and response plans.
This assessment found that the design of current FMD control system is appropriate and
meets the OIE’s requirements. A second phase of the assessment is being conducted to determine
whether the implementation of the current FMD control program in the proposed FMD-free zone
in Thailand follows the requirements to establish an FMD-free zone.
Keywords: Foot and Mouth Disease; FMD-free zone; assessment; policy design; Thailand
Page 68
54
Introduction
Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) is one of the most economically important infectious
diseases of livestock [1–4]. The impact of FMD not only includes direct losses and reduced
production but also includes indirect losses, trade restrictions, and the costs of FMD control [5].
An outbreak of FMD in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2001 caused a loss of approximately £3.1
billion [2]. The losses to FMD in India were estimated in 1994 at US$ 446.11 million due to
animal death and treatment cost [6]. Australia, an FMD-free country, estimated in 2001 that if
there were to be an FMD outbreak, the export revenues would drop by AUD$5.8 billion [7]. In
Thailand, during 2014-2016, approximately US$ 10-11 million (1 USD ~ 35 Thai Baht) were
spent annually in a national FMD control program with additional costs related to establishing
the proposed FMD-free zone of US$ 1.2-1.5 million [8].
The first record of FMD in Thailand was in 1953 [9,10]. Thailand started disease control
measures, using vaccination, in 1958 [10]. Efforts to establish a formal FMD control program
were initiated in 1991, including control of animal movements, stamping out, and vaccination
programs [10,11]. In the past three decades, a number of policies, laws, and regulation have been
formulated and adopted in order to improve the FMD control system in Thailand. However, the
control of FMD still remains a challenge. Outbreaks of FMD have occurred sporadically and
have been reported throughout the country, except for the eastern region of Thailand [12].
In 2012, the Department of Livestock Development (DLD) proposed to the World
Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) that the eastern region of Thailand become officially
recognized as an FMD-free zone with vaccination [13]. In 2013, a mission by the OIE was
carried out to evaluate the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand [13]. The report from OIE-FMD
experts found that the proposed FMD-free zone was not in full compliance with the OIE’s
requirements [13]. Based on the evaluation by the OIE-FMD experts, the DLD revised the FMD
control regulations in order to be in compliance with the recommendations of the OIE. Following
the experts’ suggestions, a revised FMD control program in the proposed FMD-free zone has
been implemented. These revisions have not been evaluated to determine whether the current
FMD control program follows the OIE’s requirements for establishing an FMD-free zone in
Thailand.
A study was conducted to assess the design of the current FMD control program in the
proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand. The study aims to determine whether the design of the
current FMD control system follows the OIE’s requirements for establishing an FMD-free zone
Page 69
55
with vaccination. Findings of the assessment will be beneficial for DLD in further improving the
FMD control program in Thailand.
Methodology
This policy design study was conducted by (i) interviews of DLD national officers who
formulate policies related to the FMD control program and (ii) reviews of DLD existing written
policies and documents. The policies in this study referred to laws, regulations, and
proclamations related to the FMD control program in the proposed FMD-free zone that were
enacted or written during 2013-2016. This timeframe was significant because DLD revised some
regulations in 2013 to improve Thailand’s FMD control system and to meet the OIE’s
requirements.
Interviews of DLD national officers
A purposive sampling method was conducted to recruit participants for the interviews.
Interviews were conducted with DLD national officers who formulate FMD control policies and
had experience with policy implementation. Interview questions were developed to assess the
surveillance system, reporting system, vaccination program, control of animal movement, and
response plans. The questions were designed for each group of officers. For example, DLD
national officers who work in the animal movement control unit were asked about DLD
regulation of animal movement control. Questions regarding surveillance were asked of DLD
national officers who work in the disease control unit. Interview questions for DLD national
officers are attached in APPENDIX 9.
A total of nine DLD officers (out of 14) who had experience with or formulated FMD
control policy were interviewed. Details and number of interviewees of this study shows in Table I.
Reviews of DLD existing written policy and documents
Laws, regulations, and related documents used in this study included: Animal Epidemics
Act B.E.2558 (2015), DLD Regulation on Animal Movement Control B.E. 2558 (2015), FMD
surveillance plan of the proposed FMD-free zone 2016, DLD proclamation regarding vaccination
program, FMD vaccination program in the proposed FMD-free zone 2016, National FMD
Strategic Plan of Thailand, and Thailand’s official FMD control program (endorsement by the
OIE in 2016).
Page 70
56
Data analysis
This is a qualitative study using the assessment matrix as an analytical tool. An
assessment matrix of FMD policy design was applied to determine how well the current FMD
control program meets the OIE’s requirements. Using this matrix, existing policy and documents
related to FMD control program were reviewed, then the policy and document contents were
comparatively analyzed against the assessment matrix criteria based on the OIE’s requirements.
The matrix has detailed criteria to evaluate the data collected from the policy reviews and
interviews in order to determine any shortcomings of the current policy design. Table II
summarizes the OIE’s requirements for an official recognition of FMD-free zone and the criteria
in the assessment matrix to identify shortcomings of policy design.
Results
Surveillance system
A review of the FMD surveillance plan for the proposed FMD-free zone 2016 and
Animal Epidemics Act B.E. 2558 (2015) found that both active and passive surveillance are
included in the surveillance system. The DLD passive surveillance system relies on reports of
disease and suspected cases from field level. Disease reporting network and laboratory
coordination are established in order to enhance disease control system. The disease reporting
and laboratory coordination diagram is illustrated in figure 1. The disease reporting network
includes DLD officers, laboratory workers, private veterinarians, farmers, head of villagers,
villagers, and livestock volunteers also known as community-based animal health workers (any
persons who live in the same village as livestock farmers or are from neighboring area or can be
farmers themselves. They assist DLD officers by providing basic services related to animal
health control system such as vaccination, animal health observation, and giving husbandry
advice. Livestock volunteers play an important role in providing animal health services in most
part of Thailand). The Animal Epidemics Act (APPENDIX 12, Thai version) clearly states that
farmers and private veterinarians must notify DLD officers within 12 hours of any notifiable
diseases including FMD. Any violator is subject to fines or imprisonment.
These findings indicate that the design of DLD surveillance system is appropriate and
meets the OIE’s requirements which state that “a surveillance system should be the responsibility
of the Veterinary Authority” [14] (Article 8.8.40, bullet 1). The OIE also requires that “a
surveillance system should provide an early warning system to report suspected cases throughout
Page 71
57
the entire production and a procedure should be in place for the rapid collection and transport of
samples to a laboratory for FMD diagnosis” [14] (Article 8.8.40, bullet 1). Although the policy
design includes a disease reporting network and laboratory coordination, this evaluation did not
assess the implementation of the DLD surveillance system and therefore did not evaluate if it
would provide an early warning system, rapid collection, or transport of sample
Active serological surveillance is conducted in the proposed FMD-free zone. The
surveillance plan specifies that serological surveillance is conducted biannually. The sampling
plan includes beef, dairy, swine, sheep, and goats which are raised in backyard operations,
commercial farms, and DLD facilities in the proposed FMD-free zone. These findings indicated
that the surveillance plan covers all susceptible species and all levels of animal units. The
surveillance plan also is conducted continuously which is in compliance with the OIE’s
requirements.
This study used “Epitools epidemiological calculators” (http://epitools.ausvet.com.au/
content.php?page=FreedomSS) to calculate sample size for demonstration of freedom (detection
of disease) in a finite population with 95% confidence level, 98% test sensitivity, and 2%
prevalence. A full report of sample size calculation is shown in APPENDIX 13. The calculation
result showed that required sample size was 152 herds in total, including all species. In 2016,
DLD collected blood samples from 1,185 herds out of a total of 17,702 herds based on their
calculation to demonstrate the absence of FMD infection with 95% confidence and 98.2%
sensitivity of the test for each targeted species. The samples included 233 beef herds, 249 dairy
herds, 73 buffalo herds, 118 sheep and goat herds, 275 commercial swine herds, and 237
backyard swine herds. A maximum of thirty samples were collected from each herd. Routinely,
if the herd size is less than 30 head, all animals are sampled. A total of 35,550 blood samples
were collected by active serological surveillance in 2016. The sample sizes collected by DLD
exceeded the minimum sample sizes calculated by this study. This indicates that DLD has an
appropriate sample plan and adequate sample sizes to detect the disease in accordance with the
OIE’s requirements which state that the surveillance strategies employed to “substantiate
freedom from FMD infection or transmission” should be based on “randomized or targeted”
sampling at an acceptable “level of statistical confidences” [14] (Article 8.8.40 bullet 4).
One of the OIE’s requirements is that “if an increased likelihood of infection in particular
localities or species can be identified, targeted sampling may be appropriate” [14] (Article 8.8.40
bullet 4). A national DLD officer revealed that “the risk is higher in backyard swine farms than
Page 72
58
in commercial swine farms. Sampling plans for backyard swine and commercial swine farms
were separately calculated” (personal communication, January 27, 2018)
The surveillance plan further states that if any sample is tested positive, DLD laboratory
officers must inform DLD regional and local officers in order to quarantine infected herds,
monitor the health status of other animals from the same herds where infected animals are found,
and report the management plan for infected herds to the DLD at the national level.
Additionally, in 2015, DLD resubmitted Thailand’s official FMD control program to the
OIE (personal communication, January 27, 2018). In 2016, the OIE officially endorsed the
official FMD control program which included the surveillance plan. A national DLD officer
implied that by the OIE endorsement of the official FMD control program in 2016, the
surveillance plan was approved and met the OIE’s requirements.
In summary, this study found the existing surveillance system has been appropriately
designed and meets the OIE’s requirements which are 1) the surveillance is in the form of a
continuing program, 2) the sampling strategy is designed with appropriate prevalence and
acceptable level of statistical confidence, and 3) the sample sizes are adequate to detect the
presence of FMD infection or transmission.
Vaccination program
The DLD proclamation regarding the FMD vaccination program provides for the creation
of a committee which has authority to make decisions on which vaccine strain is needed. The
committee consists of DLD officers from Bureau of Disease Control and Veterinary Services
(BDCVS), Bureau of Veterinary Biologics (BVB), and Regional Reference Laboratory for Foot
and Mouth Disease in South East Asia (RRL). The only time the committee meets is when there
is uncontrolled FMD outbreak (an outbreak which cannot be controlled by existing control
measurements). The RRL identifies strains of virus from all samples submitted by local DLD
officers, farmers, and private veterinarians. When virus strains from field samples do not match
with the vaccine strain in use, RRL notifies BDCVS, and the committee is called for a meeting to
consider alternative vaccine strains. Once the alternative virus strain is selected, the RRL
transfers virus seeds for vaccine production to the BVB. The BVB is responsible for producing
vaccines and testing (pre-marketing quality control) before distributing vaccines to the field.
Vaccine testing includes sterility, purity, safety, and potency testing. After vaccine distribution,
Page 73
59
the vaccines are randomly sampled for post-marketing quality control conducted by the
Veterinary Biologics Assay and Research Center (VBAC).
The decision regarding which vaccine strain to develop is based on the antigenic
relationship to field isolation strains which is expressed as ‘r’ value. The RRL follows the OIE
guideline to obtain the ‘r’ value [15]. The ‘r’ value is interpreted as follows [16]:
‘r’ value < 0.2 indicates that field isolations and current vaccine strains were distantly
related. The vaccine is unlikely to protect against the field isolation.
‘r’ value = 0.2 - 0.39 indicates that field isolations were antigenically related to current
vaccine strains. The vaccine strain might be suitable for use if no closer match can be found.
‘r’ value = 0.4 – 1.0 indicated that field isolations and current vaccine strains were
closely related. The vaccine contains the virus strain that is likely to confer protection.
The national FMD vaccination program calls for dairy cattle to be vaccinated every four
months; beef cattle, sheep, and goats to be vaccinated every six months. Animals are vaccinated
by DLD officers and/or livestock volunteers (community-based animal health workers). All
vaccines used in dairy, beef, sheep, and goats are produced and provided by DLD at no cost to
farmers. The national FMD vaccination program does not provide routine vaccination services to
swine; however, DLD recommends that farmers vaccinate fattening and breeder pigs at 8 and 12
weeks and breeding pigs every 4-6 months. DLD does not provide free vaccination services to
swine producers because: 1) the majority of swine producers are commercial farms so they can
support themselves and 2) the DLD-FMD vaccine production plant has limited production
capacity. Practices of FMD vaccination in swine vary by type of farm and production (i.e.
breeders, piglets, and fattening). For example, one farm may conduct FMD vaccination in
breeders every 3, 6, 9, and 12 months, while another farm may conduct FMD vaccination in
breeders during late pregnancy. The variation in practice of FMD vaccination depends on the
incidence of FMD outbreaks in the area of the location of the farm. If the farm is located in an
area that has regular outbreaks, private veterinarians and/or farmers will vaccinate their animals
more frequently. The vaccines used in swine are produced and provided by DLD (80%) at a low
cost to swine farmers, the rest are imported vaccines.
Vaccination against FMD is one of the requirements for farmers to obtain an animal
movement permit. In order to get a movement permit from DLD officers, farmers must present a
certificate of FMD vaccination which is signed by a DLD accredited veterinarian (a private
veterinarian who is authorized by the DLD to perform certain duties and functions in support of
Page 74
60
the national animal health program. Private veterinarians must hold a license for practicing
veterinary medicine which is provided by the Veterinary Council (Board of Veterinary). Private
veterinarians must attend, complete a training program, and pass the exam for accredited
veterinarians. In Thailand, private veterinarians who want to work for commercial or
agribusiness farms are required to be accredited).
All the above findings indicate that the vaccine strategy has been appropriately designed.
To be specific, the policies regarding vaccination program specify that 1) the vaccination
program includes all susceptible species and 2) the designated committee has authority to make
decisions on vaccine strains needed and to specify how vaccine strains are determined. In terms
of the design of a vaccination program, the findings suggest that the design meets the OIE’s
requirements, which states that 1) “compulsory systematic vaccination in the target population”
should be “carried out to achieve adequate vaccination coverage and population immunity” and
2) vaccination should be “carried out following appropriate vaccine strain selection” [14].
Animal movement control system
The DLD regulation on animal movement control B.E. 2558 (2015) covers not only
susceptible animals such as swine, cattle, and small ruminants but also semen, embryos, and
animal products derived from susceptible animals such as milk, skins, hides, and wools. The
regulation also covers processed food, cooked, and semi-cooked food that are made from
susceptible animals such as sausage, salami, and canned meat.
Animal movement between provinces requires a movement permit from DLD officers.
The regulation states that DLD officers must inspect and observe animal health status before and
during loading of animals. Before loading animals on vehicles and after loading animals off
vehicles, farmers with a movement permit must clean and disinfect vehicles and equipment that
were used for animal transportation. The expiration date of movement permits (usually within 48
hours), vehicle license number, and route of transportation are specified in the animal movement
permit.
The regulation specifies different requirements for different movement purposes. There
are different requirements for transport of the following; semen, meat products, wool and hair,
bristles, hide and skin, animals intended for slaughtering, and animals not intended for
slaughtering. Private veterinarians accredited by DLD and veterinary officers must certify
Page 75
61
compliance with relevant requirements. The regulation includes the major essential requirements
in accordance with the OIE Terrestrial Code [14]. For example;
i. Animals show no clinical signs of FMD on the day of shipment.
ii. Animals were kept in the establishment of origin for 90 days or since birth if younger
than 90 days.
iii. FMD has not occurred within the establishment of origin for 90 days and within a 10
km radius of the establishment for 30 days.
iv. Animals are isolated in an establishment for the 30 days prior to shipment.
v. Animals in isolation are subject to diagnostics for evidence of FMDV with negative
results on samples collected at least 28 days after the beginning of isolation period.
vi. Animals are not exposed to any sources of FMDV during their transportation from
the establishment final destination.
vii. Semen is collected from donor males intended to be used for artificial insemination
with negative results to FMD infection.
viii. Meat products must be deboned, defatted, kept at a temperature 2-4C to maintain pH
<6, and have been processed with heat treatment to ensure the destruction of FMDV.
ix. Hide and skin must be treated with 2% sodium carbonate (Na2CO3) for at least 28
days.
Additionally, DLD includes a requirement specifying that animals must be FMD
vaccinated at least 30 days but no later than 120 days before the movement is allowed with the
exception of piglets aged <8 weeks, and calves, buffalo, sheep, and goats aged <4 months.
The DLD regulation also specifies that animals should be transported in a vehicle which
is cleaned and disinfected under the supervision of the veterinary authority. However, the
regulation and animal movement permit do not mention whether the vehicles must have
sufficient bedding to absorb urine and droppings during animal transportation, or whether the
vehicles must have a flooring surface that minimizes the leakage of urine or feces. The DLD
regulation on animal movement control B.E. 2558 (2015) (Thai version) is included in
APPENDIX 13.
In conclusion, the study found that 1) the regulation covers all susceptible and animal
products under the control of animal movement, 2) the requirements (before movement is
allowed) are adequate to prevent disease spread in accordance with the OIE Terrestrial Code,
Page 76
62
and 3) there is a requirement specifying that the vehicles for livestock transportation must be
cleaned and disinfected. From these findings, it could be implied that animal movement control
regulation has been appropriately designed and meets the OIE’s requirements.
Response plans
A review of Thailand’s official FMD control program (endorsement by the OIE in 2016)
found that the current response plans for FMD outbreak includes following the procedures [8];
Quarantine of the infected premises and surrounding risk area. When FMD
infected cases are found, DLD declares the outbreak and risk area and issues an
official proclamation regarding the quarantine of animals. The risk area is
identified as the area within a 5 kilometer radius surrounding an infected
premises. If the infected premises is located in an area which has a high density of
susceptible animals, the risk area can be expanded. For example, the risk area can
be a village in a sub-district, a whole district, or 2-3 districts in one province
(administrative level in Thailand: village < sub-district < district < province).
During the quarantine period, DLD officers intensely conduct a disease
investigation to find more suspected cases, vaccinate susceptible animals, control
animal movement, and clean and disinfect farms with suspected cases. The
quarantine proclamation expires 30 days after the last suspected case has been
reported. and the quarantine is lifted.,
Control of movement of animals in the infected area and/or within a 5 kilometer
radius,
Outbreak investigation and tracing back to identify the source of origin,
Disinfection of livestock pens, vehicles, farm equipment and material in the
infected premises,
Disposal of carcasses, their products and infected materials such as bedding and
feedstuff,
Ring vaccination in a 5 kilometer radius excluding the infected and in-contact
herds (in-contact herds are the herds that are contacted with infected herds but
they do not show clinical signs of FMD. No vaccination in infected and in-contact
herds because infected herds are subject to quarantine and treatment pending on-
Page 77
63
site stamping out. In-contact herds are quarantined and slaughtered at the nearest
slaughter house),
Active surveillance for clinical signs during the outbreak,
Biosecurity enhancement,
Public awareness for farmers and stakeholders,
Cooperation at the national level with all authorities that may be involved in the
FMD control program,
International communication immediately with OIE and trading partners,
Stamping out (animals that are infected with FMD and showed FMD clinical sign
are disposed of on-site. No one gets benefit from these animal carcasses)
Modified stamping out or slaughtering for consumption (animals that are in
contacted with FMD infected animals and no show of FMD clinical sign are
slaughtered at the nearest slaughterhouse under supervision of DLD officers.
Livestock producers still get benefit from animal carcasses of modified stamping
out i.e. selling meat products that pass meat inspection. The meat products of
FMD susceptible animals must be processed to ensure the destruction of FMDV
in accordance with the OIE Terrestrial Manual such as debone, defat, and heat
treatment with a core temperature at least 70C for a minimum of 30 mins, or treat
with salt (NaCl) and completely dried [14].), and
Compensation at 75% of the local market price for the case of stamping out (on-
site disposal).
Within a month, if there is no new outbreak and all response procedures are fully
implemented, it is then considered that the outbreak has been successfully
controlled. Quarantines are then released.
The above response plan procedures meet the OIE’s requirements for response.
According to the Animal Epidemics Act B.E. 2558 (2015), DLD will compensate farmers
if they notify a local DLD officers of an FMD suspected case within 12 hours after clinical signs
have been noticed, and their FMD infected and exposed animals are stamped out or disposed of
on site. However, if farmers fail to notify DLD officers of FMD suspected case within 12 hours,
they will not receive compensation. If exposed FMD animals are slaughtered for consumption
(modified stamping out), farmers will not be compensated [17]. (Farmers have to inform a local
Page 78
64
DLD officer, even if they have noticed a suspected case during weekends. Some farmers report a
suspected case to a livestock volunteer, then the livestock volunteer will notify the local DLD
officer. Local DLD officers and livestock volunteers build a network to work together in order to
respond to the disease promptly. Local DLD officers determine whether farmers have notified an
FMD suspected case within 12 hours by clinical signs and number of animals showing clinical
signs. Since FMDV replicates and spreads rapidly, clinical signs can be easily seen. Local DLD
officers use their own experience to decide whether farmers have failed to notify of disease
within 12 hours.)
The Thailand’s official FMD control program also indicates the response plans if the
annual serological surveillance finds positive animals. The response plans state that “if non
structure protein (NSP) seropositive animals are found, all the NSP seropositive animals are
subject to be slaughtered. All susceptible animals in the same herds are retested for the NSP.
Clinical observation must be intensively and continuously conducted in the risk area.” The above
response plan is a revised version which adheres to a recommendation stated in the report of the
OIE-FMD Expert Mission to Thailand in 2013 [13].
Findings indicate that the current DLD response plans have been appropriately designed
and meet the OIE’s requirements. They include appropriate follow up plans, investigation, and
further serological tests when a positive serological test is found. Though the Terrestrial code
does not mention compensation, DLD utilizes a compensation scheme to subsidize farmers.
Discussion and Conclusion
This study evaluates the design of the FMD control program in the proposed FMD-free
zone in Thailand and validates the framework for the assessment of FMD control policy and
assessment tools which were developed from a previous study. This paper is the first assessment
of policy design of Thailand’s existing FMD control program after its revision in 2013. The
criteria to evaluate policy design in the assessment matrix are based on the OIE’s requirements
and FMD control practices in Thailand. This framework and assessment matrix should be
applicable for the evaluation of the FMD control program in other parts of Thailand and other
FMD threatened countries. The framework, however, may need to be modified for each
country’s situation. For example, this study did not evaluate the testing and diagnosis system
because the OIE Performance Veterinary Service (PVS) evaluations found the DLD’s existing
testing and diagnostic system is adequate for diagnosis and meets international standards. Other
Page 79
65
countries may need to also evaluate this component. Since this study did not evaluate testing and
diagnosis system, this limitation may result in overlooking some important features when
assessing the FMD control system.
Findings of this study are that the current FMD control system in the proposed FMD-free
zone is appropriately designed and meets the OIE’s requirements. First, the surveillance system
includes active and passive surveillance in the surveillance plan, and the surveillance plan covers
all susceptible species and all levels of animal units. The sample size calculated by DLD
exceeded the minimum sample size needed to demonstrate freedom of disease. Sample size
calculation by DLD were designed for each targeted species. That is, DLD calculated sample
sizes for (1) dairy cattle herds, (2) beef and buffalo herds, (3) sheep and goat herds, (4) swine
herds raised in non DLD-accredited farms5, and (5) swine herds raised in DLD-accredited farms,
while this study calculated sample sizes using a total number of herds of all susceptible animals.
Second, the vaccination strategy clearly indicates the criteria for selection of vaccine
strain and who has authority to make vaccine strain decisions. In addition, the vaccination
program includes all susceptible species in the program. Although the vaccination strategy meets
the criteria of appropriate policy design and the OIE’s requirements, it could be strengthened by
clearly specifying a time for routine meetings of committee with authority to make decisions on
vaccine strains. For example, the committee should meet every 6 months to be informed and
updated on the current FMD situation in order to be able to make decisions promptly. The
committee should not wait until there is an outbreak that is not being controlled by current
vaccines because the FMD virus rapidly replicates and easily spreads.
Vaccines produced by DLD are under DLD quality control and are tested for matching
with field strains. However, DLD is not able to conduct vaccine matching of imported vaccines
and does not have information regarding quality and number of imported FMD vaccines.
Currently, all imported animal drugs and veterinary biologic products including FMD vaccines
are under the authority of the Food and Drug Administration Thailand (FDA-Thai), Ministry of
Public Health. In order to obtain a permit for distribution and sale of FMD imported vaccine,
persons wishing to import vaccines need to submit applications with supporting documents such
5 A DLD accredited farm is a farm certified by DLD to have proper farm biosecurity. In order to promote livestock
industry, DLD encourages farmers, especially backyard farmers, to promote their farms’ biosecurity. To be a DLD-
accredited farm, farmers must follow DLD’s basic requirements of biosecurity measures such as having a separate
area for workers, visitors, and animals, having a disinfection and sanitization station for cleaning boots, having
fences to exclude other animals.
Page 80
66
as product characteristics, Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) certification of manufactures,
manufacturing process, quality control process, and validation and/or evaluation process to FDA-
Thai. Then, FDA-Thai will approve and issue a permit based on the submitted documents. It is
recommended that DLD have authority over the FMD imported vaccines as well. For example,
in the United States, the United States Department of Agriculture-Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (USDA-APHIS) has authority to regulate veterinary biologics to ensure that
the veterinary biologics are safe, potent, and effective [18]. Another suggestion for better FMD
vaccine management is to provide the DLD authority to test and control FMD vaccines after
importation and prior to distribution at the field level. This may help DLD have more
information regarding quality and virus strains used in FMD imported vaccines.
Third, the existing animal movement control system in Thailand is appropriately
designed in accordance with the OIE Terrestrial Code. However, this study found ways to
improve the control of animal movement which would better prevent the potential spread of
FMD. That is, the regulation should specify that vehicles need sufficient bedding to absorb urine
and minimize the leakage of urine and feces. In addition, all vehicles used for animal
transportation should be inspected and approved by DLD in order to ensure the vehicles are
suitable for animal transportation and are not a source of disease spread. There is evidence
proving that an FMD virus can be found and excreted in urine and feces [19,20]. In Thailand,
vehicles used for animal transportation in the FMD contaminated zone are sometimes used in
FMD-free zone. Though the vehicles are cleaned and disinfected after each use, the cleaning
process may not be properly controlled and monitored; virus contamination may exist.
Inappropriate vehicle control may lead to the contamination and spread of virus from the FMD
contaminated zone to an FMD-free zone. Without the appropriate requirements of the use of
vehicles for livestock transportation, vehicles could be a potential source of disease spread.
Fourth, the response plans indicate appropriate follow up plans and investigation and
contain a compensation scheme. The current response plans include the recommendation of OIE-
FMD experts regarding the follow-up of NSP seropositive animals and in-contact susceptible
animals. This study determined that the compensation scheme is acceptable to farmers as they
will be compensated at 75% of local market if they notify DLD officers of FMD suspected cases
within 12 hours. Some Southeast Asian countries, such as Cambodia [21] and Philippines
(Tapdasan, E., personal communication, 2018), do not have a policy for compensation. Vietnam
has a compensation scheme in place, and the compensation rate is 75% of market price (Dung,
Page 81
67
PT., personal communication, 2018). The compensation scheme of DLD potentially motivates
farmers to notify disease to DLD officers. However, DLD should clearly specify the criteria for
when the FMD infected animals will be destroyed by stamping out and when they will be
slaughtered for meat production. These criteria are important for stakeholders because the 75%
compensation will only be compensated in the case of stamping out but not in the case of
slaughtering. The criteria need to be clearly communicated to stakeholders to avoid confusion.
The results of this assessment will provide information that can assist the DLD in
improving the current FMD control system. In addition, to evaluating the policy design of the
FMD control program, implementation of the current FMD program should also be evaluated. A
second phase of this study is being conducted to determine whether the implementation of the
current FMD control program in the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand meets the
requirements to establish an FMD-free zone with vaccination.
Acknowledgement
This study was part of a PhD degree being undertaken by the first author at the Virginia-
Maryland College of Veterinary Medicine, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, USA. This project was
also supported financially by the Royal Thai Government Scholarship. The authors especially
thank the DLD veterinary officers who contributed their time to provide valuable information
and participate in this project.
References
1. James A.D. & Rushton J. (2002). – The economics of foot and mouth disease. Rev. Sci.
Tech., 21 (3), 637–644. doi:10.20506/rst.21.3.1356.
2. Thompson D., Muriel P., Russell D., Osborne P., Bromley A., Rowland M., Creigh-Tyte
S. & Brown C. (2002). – Economic costs of the foot and mouth disease outbreak in the
United Kingdom in 2001. Rev Sci Tech, 21 (3), 675–687.
3. Kitching R.. (1999). – Foot-and-mouth disease: current world situation. Vaccine, 17 (13–
14), 1772–1774. doi:10.1016/S0264-410X(98)00442-3.
4. USDA-APHIS_VS (2013). – Foot-and-Mouth Disease: Factsheet. Available at:
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/animal_health/2013/fs_fmd_general.pdf.
5. Knight-Jones T.J.D. & Rushton J. (2013). – The economic impacts of foot and mouth
disease - What are they, how big are they and where do they occur? Prev. Vet. Med., 112
(3–4), 162–173. doi:10.1016/j.prevetmed.2013.07.013.
Page 82
68
6. Saxena R. (1994). – Economic value of milk loss caused by Foot and Mouth Diseases
(FMD) in India. Institute of Rural Management, Anand.
7. GARNER M.G., FISHER B.S. & MURRAY J.G. (2002). – Economic aspects of foot and
mouth disease: perspectives of a free country, Australia. Rev. Sci. Tech. l’OIE, 21 (3),
625–635. doi:10.20506/rst.21.3.1357.
8. Department of Livestock Development (2015). – Thailand National FMD Plan for OIE
Endorsement 2015: Application for OIE Validation of the Official Foot and Mouth
Disease Control Programme. Bangkok, Thailand.
9. Kehren T. & Tisdell C. (1997). – An overview of the Occurence of FMD in Thailand and
Policies for its Control. Brisbane. Available at:
http://ageconsearch.tind.io//bitstream/164590/2/WP39.pdf.
10. Chaisrisongkram W. (1994). – An overview of Foot-And-Mouth Disease control in
Thailand. . In Proceeding of An International Workshop, September 6-9, 1993 (J.W.
Copland, L.J. Gleeson & C. Chamnanpood, eds), Lampang. pp 23–25
11. Hanyanum W., Awaiyawanon K., Wongdee R. & Musikul P. (1994). – Diagnosis and
Epidemiology of Foot-and-Mouth Disease in Southeast Asia. . In Proceedings of an
International Workshop Held at Lampang, September 6-9, 1993, ACIAR Proceedings
(J.W. Coplan, L.J. Gleeson & C. Chamnanpood, eds), Canberra. pp 191–196
12. OIE SUB-REGIONAL REPRESENTATION FOR SOUTH-EAST ASIA (SRR-SEA)
(2015). – Report of the 21st Meeting of the OIE Sub- Commission for Foot and Mouth
Disease Control in South-East Asia and China. Manila. Available at: http://www.rr-
asia.oie.int/fileadmin/SRR_Activities/documents/21meeting-report.pdf.
13. Clercq K. De, Kim Y.J. & Batho H. (2013). – Foot and Mouth Disease Expert Mission to
Thailand. Thailand.
14. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2018). – Infection with Foot and Mouth
Disease. Terr. Anim. Heal. Code. Available at:
http://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_fmd.htm (accessed on 9
April 2019).
15. World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) (2012). – Foot and Mouth Disease. . In
Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals7th ed.. pp 145–
173Available at:
http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/fr/Health_standards/tahm/2.01.05_FMD.pdf.
16. Ferris N.P. & Donaldson A.I. (1992). – The World Reference Laboratory for Foot and
Mouth Disease: a review of thirty-three years of activity (1958-1991). Rev. Sci. Tech.
doi:10.20506/rst.11.3.626.
17. The Royal Thai Government Gazette (2015). – Animal Epidemics Act B.E. 2558. 132, 22.
Available at: http://www.ratchakitcha.soc.go.th/DATA/PDF/2558/A/014/22.PDF.
Page 83
69
18. USDA-APHIS (2017). – Veterinary Biologics. Available at:
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalhealth/veterinary-biologics (accessed
on 21 February 2019).
19. Grubman M.J. & Baxt B. (2004). – Foot-and-mouth disease. Clin. Microbiol. Rev., 17 (2),
465–93. doi:10.1128/CMR.17.2.465.
20. Alexandersen S., Zhang Z., Donaldson A.. & Garland A.J.. (2003). – The Pathogenesis
and Diagnosis of Foot-and-Mouth Disease. J. Comp. Pathol., 129 (1), 1–36.
doi:10.1016/S0021-9975(03)00041-0.
21. ASEAN (2010). – Prevention, control and eradication of avian influenza in ASEAN:
strategies and success stories. Jakarta, Indonesia. Available at:
https://asean.org/?static_post=hpai-in-asean-strategies-and-success-stories-2.
Page 84
70
Tables
Table 3-1 Details and number of interviewees of this study
National DLD officers* Number of interviewees Number of key persons who are
involved in FMD control policy
making
Disease control unit (BDCVS) 3 5
Vaccine unit (RRL, BVB, VBAC) 5 6
Animal movement control unit
(AQIS)
1 3
Total 9 14 *excluding Director General (n=1) and Deputy Director General (n=1) who is in charge of the animal health unit.
Page 85
71
Table 3-2 Summary of the OIE’s requirements for a region to be qualified as an FMD-free zone with vaccination and the assessment matrix
criteria to identify shortcomings of policy design
Sections OIE’s Requirements * Assessment Matrix Criteria to Identify Shortcomings of Policy Design
1. Surveillance
system
- Veterinary Authority should be responsible for the
surveillance system.
- A surveillance system should provide an early warning
system to report FMD suspected cases.
- Surveillance for FMD and FMDV transmission is in
operation and in the form of a continuing program.
- Surveillance program to demonstrate no evidence of FMDV
infection and transmission should be carefully designed and
implemented to avoid producing results that are insufficient
to be accepted by the OIE or trading partners.
- Sampling design should incorporate an epidemiologically
appropriate design prevalence.
- Sample size should be adequate to detect the presence of
FMD infection and transmission.
1.1 Passive surveillance is not included in the surveillance plan.
1.2 Active surveillance is not included in the surveillance plan.
1.3 Surveillance program is not conducted annually.
1.4 The surveillance plan does not cover all susceptible species and/or all
levels of animal units such as the industrial level, small scale farmers,
and government facilities.
1.5 Sample size and sampling strategy are not appropriate. ** **Inappropriate underlying assumptions for sample size calculation:
1.5.1 Sample size is not calculated to demonstrate the absence of
FMD infection.
1.5.2 Sample size is not calculated with at least 90% confidence
(acceptable level) with sensitivity and specificity of the test at
least 90%.
2. Vaccine strategy - Routine vaccination has been carried out for the purposes of
the prevention of FMD and carried out following appropriate
vaccine strain selection.
- Vaccination has been carried out to achieve adequate
vaccination coverage and population immunity.
2.1 Policy does not specify who has authority to make decisions on
vaccine strains needed.
2.2 Policy does not specify how vaccine strains are determined.
2.3 Not all susceptible species are included in the overall vaccine plan.
3. Animal
movement
control system
- The control of the movement of susceptible animals and
their products into the proposed FMD-free zone has been
properly implemented and supervised.
3.1 Animals (susceptible species) and/or animal products are not covered
under movement regulations.
3.2 Requirements (before movement is allowed) are not adequate to detect
infection and prevent disease spread.
3.3 There are no regulations or requirements regarding the registration and
sanitization of vehicles for livestock transportation.
4. Response plan - All herds or flocks with at least one laboratory confirmed
reactor should be investigated.
- The investigation should include reactor animals, susceptible
animals of the same unit, and susceptible animals that have
been in contact with reactor animals.
- Seropositive animals should be retested using repeat and
confirmatory test with high diagnostic specificity.
- The animals sampled should remain in the establishment
pending test results and should be clearly identified and
accessible.
4.1 There are no appropriate follow up plans when a serological test (NSP)
is positive. The follow up plan does not include: trace-back to origin,
investigation, further serological tests (confirmation), quarantines
(herds or animals), quarantine release plans (what is criteria to release
quarantine), and/or requirements to remove animals (slaughter or
stamping out).
4.2 Compensation is not included in the response plans.
*Adapted from the Terrestrial Code chapter 8.8 “Infection with Foot and Mouth Disease Virus.”
Complete requirements can be accessed at http://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_fmd.htm#article_fmd.40
Page 86
72
Figures
Figure 3.1 The DLD disease reporting network and laboratory coordination
Page 87
73
Chapter 4 An Assessment of Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) Control Program in the
Proposed FMD-Free Zone in Thailand Part II: Implementation and Engagement of
Stakeholders
Abstract
In 2015, the Department of Livestock Development (DLD) within the government of
Thailand revised laws and regulations related to the Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) control
system in order to be in compliance with the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE)’s
requirements. Since the implementation of the revised FMD control program, there has not been
an evaluation to determine the effectiveness and appropriateness of the program. This is the
evaluation of the implementation of the current FMD control program in the proposed FMD-free
zone in Thailand after the program revision in 2015.
The study was conducted by (i) questionnaire surveys with local DLD officers, private
veterinarians, and farmers, (ii) interviews with national and regional DLD officers and private
veterinarians, and (iii) field observations. The study used an assessment matrix, which was
developed to be used to detect potential shortcomings of the implementation and stakeholders’
engagement, as an analytical tool to determine how well the implementation of the program,
including stakeholders’ engagement, meets the OIE’s requirements. This assessment did not
evaluate the FMD testing and diagnostic systems.
This assessment found that the current implementation of the FMD control program in
the proposed FMD-free zone needs further improvement in order to meet the OIE’s
requirements. The surveillance system should be transparently evaluated to ensure that there is
no evidence of infection with FMD virus and transmission and to ensure it meets OIE FMD
surveillance standards. There should be an increase of stakeholders’ awareness of disease
reporting requirements. Evidence of adequate vaccination coverage and population immunity
should be available and accessible. Allocation of staff at local level should be reconsidered for
more appropriate service deliveries. Communications between DLD and stakeholders regarding
the FMD control program need to be strengthened for more effective message delivery. Findings
of this assessment can assist DLD to further improve the current FMD control system.
Keywords: Foot and Mouth Disease; FMD-free zone; assessment; implementation; Thailand
Page 88
74
Introduction
Foot and Mouth Disease is a highly contagious and the most economically important
infectious disease of livestock. [1–3]. The disease is endemic in South America, Sub-Saharan
Africa, Asia, and more prominent in developing countries, including Thailand. Thailand has been
a member of the South-East Asia and China FMD Campaign (SEACFMD) since 1997 in order to
prevent, control, and eradicate FMD at the regional level [8,9]. This campaign is a formal
program of the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) South-East Asia sub-regional, to
prevent and control transboundary animal diseases and to strengthen Veterinary Services in the
region [9,10]. In 2012, the Department of Livestock Development (DLD) proposed that the
eastern region of Thailand, shows in APPENDIX 1, become officially recognized as an FMD-
free zone with vaccination [11]. However, the proposed FMD-free zone was not in full
compliance with the OIE’s requirements [12]. Then in 2015, the DLD revised laws and
regulations related to FMD control and implemented revisions of the FMD control system in
order to be in compliance with the OIE’s requirements for a recognition of FMD-free zone.
However, since the implementation of the revised FMD control program in 2015,
Thailand has not been evaluated to determine whether its implementation meets the OIE’s
requirements for official recognition of FMD-free zone. This paper describes the first assessment
of implementation of the current FMD control program. An assessment of the current FMD
control program in the proposed FMD-free zone was conducted in two parts; (i) policy design
and (ii) implementation and engagement of stakeholders. This paper focuses on an assessment of
implementation of FMD control program in the proposed FMD-free zone, including the
engagement of stakeholders. The study aims to determine whether the current implementation of
current FMD control system in the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand is consistent with
international requirements for establishing an FMD-free zone with vaccination. Findings of the
assessment can be used to make recommendations for improvement of the FMD control program
in Thailand.
Methodology
This study collected data by conducting (i) questionnaire surveys with local DLD
officers, private veterinarians, and farmers, (ii) interviews with national and regional DLD
officers and private veterinarians, and (iii) field observations to evaluate the current
implementation of FMD control program and engagement of stakeholders. More details
Page 89
75
regarding questionnaire surveys, interviews, and field observation are explained below. Study
site and samples, assessment’s condition, and data analysis are also explained in this section.
Questionnaire Surveys
An online survey tool, Qualtrics, was used to develop questionnaires and collect the data.
Questionnaires were designed for each specific group, including DLD local officers, private
veterinarians, and farmers. Each questionnaire was divided into sections such as surveillance and
reporting, prevention, vaccination program, animal movement control, and communication
among stakeholders. Participants self-reported on the questionnaires which focused on the
practices of stakeholders related to the control of FMD within the past three years. At the end of
the questionnaire, participants were asked if they were willing to participate in individual
interviews. Of those, only private veterinarians agreed to follow-up interviews. The
questionnaires used in this study are presented in APPENDIX 5, 6, and 7.
Multistage distribution and snowball technique were used to deliver questionnaires to
potential participants through focal persons. Each set of questionnaires generated reusable survey
links and Quick Response (QR) codes or barcodes. Focal persons of each stakeholder group were
informed of the scope of this study. The focal persons were individuals who (i) are members of
the target groups, (ii) have connections with other participants, and (iii) are willing to participate
in this study. The focal persons were asked if they were interested in participating and recruiting
potential participants to this study. The focal persons also responded to the questionnaires. They
then forwarded the links and QR codes to potential participants using social communication tools
such as Line, What’s app, Snapchat, and Facebook. Potential participants were able to further
distribute the links and QR codes to other potential participants. Figure 4.1 shows the
questionnaire distribution process. The questionnaire links and QR codes were also posted in a
magazine and on webpages related to livestock and agriculture business. For those cases when
potential participants, such as a farmer group, did not have internet access, the questionnaire was
administered on a face-to-face basis.
Interviews
Interviews were conducted to get in-depth information regarding the implementation of
the FMD control system in the proposed FMD-free zone. A purposive sampling method was
used to recruit participants for the interviews. Two types of participants were included for the
Page 90
76
interviews: (1) participants who agreed to participate in the individual interview while
responding to the questionnaires, and (2) participants who were officers at the national and
regional levels that have experience with FMD control policy and its implementation. Lists of
interview questions are attached in APPENDIX 8, 9 and 10.
A total of 16 participants were interviewed including 9 DLD officers at national level, 2
DLD officers at regional levels, and 5 private veterinarians. Details of participants used in data
analysis are shown in APPENDIX 11.
Participants Selection
This study focused on DLD local officers, private veterinarians, and farmers who work in
and/or have duties related to the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand. Questionnaire links and
QR codes were distributed to 41 focal persons, including 16 DLD local officers, 15 private
veterinarians, and 10 farmers. Fourteen days after sharing the questionnaire links and QR codes,
the links and QR codes were re-sent as reminders to the focal persons. The questionnaire links
and QR codes allowed focal persons and potential participants to distribute and respond to the
questionnaires within four months, December of 2017 to March of 2018. The links and QR codes
were then made inactive.
A convenience method was used for selecting dairy and sheep farmers who did not have
internet access. Ten dairy farmers and a sheep farmer were visited at their farms to fill out
questionnaires. The dairy farmers were recruited in this study by a Dairy Herd Health Unit
officer (DHHU, who is specifically assigned by DLD to work and collaborate with dairy farmers
and dairy cooperatives), as a focal person, with professional connections with the farmers. The
sheep farmer was recruited by a provincial livestock officer, as a focal person, because the
officer needed to visit the farm for a farm registration.
Field Data Collection
Field visits were conducted during January – February 2018 to collect data related to
stakeholders’ activities such as farm biosecurity, vaccination, animal record keeping, visitor
record keeping, and cleaning and disinfection of the farms. Face-to-face questionnaires were also
conducted during field visits. When face-to-face questionnaires were conducted, if the
participants agreed, records of stakeholders’ activities were reviewed and compared with their
responses.
Page 91
77
Scope of the assessment
This study did not evaluate the testing and diagnosis system as DLD’s existing testing
and diagnosis system were adequate and rapid, met international standards, and confirmed by the
OIE Performance Veterinary Service (PVS) evaluation. Therefore, the assessment was conducted
assuming this condition was satisfied.
Data analysis
This is a qualitative study using an assessment matrix as an analytical tool. Descriptive
statistics were also performed to summarize the responses. The assessment matrix contained
detailed criteria to evaluate the data collected from questionnaire surveys and field observations
in order to determine shortcomings of implementation (APPENDIX 4). This study comparatively
analyzed participants’ responses and information collected during field observations against the
assessment matrix criteria. For example, if the provincial officers reported “never or 1-2 times
during the past three years” to the survey question “you received information regarding the FMD
surveillance findings in the proposed FMD-free zone from DLD national officers”, the matrix
indicated lack of adequate communication on the findings of FMD active surveillance.
According to this matrix analysis, the surveillance system has not been appropriately
implemented. Similarly, if farmers responded “never” to the survey question “you received an
updated reporting protocol from the officers,” the matrix system interpreted that there was a lack
of communication on the reporting protocol. This matrix interpretation indicated that there is an
inappropriate implementation of the reporting system. Table 4-1 summarizes the OIE’s
requirements for an official recognition of FMD-free zone and the criteria to determine
shortcomings for the FMD control program implementation and engagement of stakeholders.
Results
The Qualtrics survey showed that 197 participants accessed the links; however, only 110
responses were used for data analysis6, including responses from 34 DLD local officers, 32
private veterinarians, and 44 farmers. Eighty-seven participants were filtered out because they 1)
6 Not all of the data in the 110 responses were included in data analysis. Some of the responses were dropped
because there were invalid or inconsistent. For example, farmers were asked whether DLD officers collected blood
or tissue samples for FMD diagnosis and then farmers were asked if they were informed of laboratory results. If the
farmers reported that DLD officers always informed them of laboratory results but reported that the officers never
collected blood or tissue sample for FMD diagnosis, their responses were not used in the analysis.
Page 92
78
clicked the link but did not respond to any questions, 2) did not work related to the proposed
FMD-free zone, or 3) did not agree to participate in this study after they read the objective and
consent form of this study. Table 4-2 shows the numbers of distributors of questionnaires,
questionnaires returned, responses used for analysis, and target population in the proposed FMD-
free zone.
Surveillance system
This study found that the existing surveillance system is not effectively and appropriately
implemented. Findings include; a lack of communication of the findings of the FMD active
surveillance program between DLD officers and stakeholders, partial implementation of passive
surveillance, and lack of a transparent evaluation of the FMD surveillance program. Table 4-3
shows participants’ responses regarding the current implementation of surveillance system in the
proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand.
First, there was a lack of communication of the findings of the FMD active surveillance
program between DLD officers and stakeholders. Because DLD officers conduct FMD active
surveillance biannually, it can be expected that stakeholders receive information regarding the
findings of active surveillance 1-2 times a year. However, the majority of private veterinarians
(68.18%) and farmers (57.14%) in this study reported that they never received official reports of
FMD surveillance findings. On the other hand, the majority of provincial DLD officers (80%)
and district DLD officers (100%) reported that they officially received reports of FMD
surveillance findings from DLD national level at least 1-2 times/year. This indicates that reports
of FMD surveillance findings are shared among DLD national and local levels, but are not
shared to stakeholders.
Interviews with private veterinarians (4 out of 5) revealed that they were not informed of
the actual FMD status in their area. They received information regarding potential FMD
outbreaks in their area from farmers, livestock traders, and other private veterinarians. One of the
private veterinarians employed by a company farm stated that she “contacts private veterinarians
who are technical sale or sale suppliers” when she “would like to know FMD status. Local DLD
officers never provide any information regarding FMD status in [her] area.” One of the private
veterinarians stated that “the FMD status at provincial level relies on word of mouth from
farmers and livestock traders.” He claimed that “[he] contacts a national officer to find out actual
FMD status at national level.” Although the communication regarding the surveillance findings
Page 93
79
is not one of the OIE’s requirements, this study identifies a lack of this communication as a
shortcoming of the current surveillance system in the proposed FMD-free zone. Reports of FMD
surveillance should be available online or upon request to farmers and private veterinarians.
Secondly, the study found partial implementation of passive surveillance. Though a
majority of farmers (87.1%) and private veterinarians (97.73%) reported that they routinely
visited farms and observed animal health status (Table 4-3), farmers (54.55%, 6/11) and private
veterinarians (86.67%, 13/15) reported that they never notified DLD officers when an FMD
suspected case was found. More findings about disease notification will be discussed in the
section on the reporting system.
Farmers reported that they observed animal health status daily, while private
veterinarians reported that they visited their clients’ farms and observed animal health status
monthly. The majority of local DLD officers (93.75%) also reported that they routinely visited
farms and observed animal health status in their area of responsibility (Table 4-3). This study
found provincial officers visit farms less frequently (once in 2-3 months) than district officers
(once a month), officers of livestock production research center (once a week), and officers of
Dairy Herd Health Unit (DHHU) (every day). There are no rules or guidelines indicating how
often animal observations and farm visits should be. The more often officers and private
veterinarians visit farms and observe animal health status, the more rapidly disease can be
detected.
The above findings indicate that the current surveillance system is not able to provide an
early warning system to report suspected cases and does not fulfill the OIE’s requirements which
states that 1) “surveillance system” including clinical surveillance should be conducted “as a
continuing program” and “should provide an early warning system to report suspected cases
throughout the entire production” and 2) “farmers, workers, and veterinarians should report
promptly any suspicion of FMD” [16].
Third, the implementation of FMD surveillance program has been evaluated internally,
but those results are not publicly available. An interview with a national DLD officer revealed
that the surveillance program was last audited by the World Organization for Animal Health
(OIE) in 2013, and there has been no external audit since then. The national DLD officer claimed
that surveillance activities are monitored annually by BDCVS staff to ensure that surveillance is
implemented appropriately. Provincial and district DLD officers also reported that they follow
the surveillance sampling plan which is designed by the BDCVS. When the provincial and
Page 94
80
district DLD officers conducted serological surveillance, they keep records of farm owners,
locations, animal species, herd sizes, animal identification, animal health status, and vaccine
status. These records are submitted to the national and regional DLD officers as well.
Additionally, provincial and district DLD officers stated that if FMD surveillance find positive
results, they are able to trace back to the farms but might not be able to trace back to all animals
because animals might have lost their ear tags or farmers might have sold animals before they
receive laboratory results. However, this study is not able to access such reports of monitoring
and evaluation of DLD’s surveillance activities.
Though the Terrestrial Code does not discuss evaluations of surveillance systems, it
states that “programmes to demonstrate no evidence of infection with FMDV and transmission
should be carefully designed and implemented to avoid producing results that are insufficient to
be accepted by the OIE or trading partners, or being excessively costly and logistically
complicated” [16] (Article 8.8.40 bullet 2). Without transparent evaluation, there is no
affirmation whether the existing surveillance system will provide sufficient results that will be
accepted by the OIE.
Reporting system
This study found that the reporting system in the proposed FMD-free zone is not fully
implemented. Findings include; non-uniform implementation of the reporting protocol, lack of
access to FMD reports and analysis, and lack of monitoring of compliance with reporting
protocol. Table 4-4 shows the participants’ responses regarding current communication and
implementation of the reporting protocol.
The revised reporting protocol of 2015 requires private veterinarians and farmers to
report an FMD suspected case to DLD officers within 12 hours instead of within 24 hours. This
notification can be done by phone calls or personal communication. In addition, it requires local
DLD officers, after being informed of the suspected case and conducting a disease investigation,
to report the notification of FMD suspected case to national DLD officers within 24 hours
instead of within 48 hours. The notification from local DLD officers to national DLD officers
needs to be done through an intranet system called “E-smart Surveillance”.
Before new laws and regulations are enforced, national level DLD will meet the
stakeholders or hold town hall meetings to inform them about updated information of new
regulations. Additionally, official letters regarding updated information are sent to DLD local
Page 95
81
level and livestock associations. Updated regulations, protocols, and requirements are also posted
on DLD’s website. Local DLD officers usually inform farmers and private veterinarians of any
updated information and protocols through personal communication and town hall meetings.
This information can also be found on DLD local offices’ websites. Thus, it can be implied that
stakeholders should receive information regarding the reporting protocols that were updated in
2015 at least 1-2 times during the past 3 years through personal communication or meetings, and
they should always report any FMD suspected case to officers.
This study found that farmers (80%) and private veterinarians (68.18%) received
information regarding the updated disease reporting protocols at some time after 2015. Most
farmers (44.68%, 21/47) received information by personal communication, while private
veterinarians received information from different sources including personal communication
(25.93%, 7/27), stakeholders meeting (22.22%, 6/27), and official letters (22.22%, 6/27).
However, the majority of farmers (54.55%) and private veterinarians (86.67%) did not notify
DLD officers of FMD suspected cases (Table 4-4). Local DLD officers reported that they always
notified DLD national officers of a suspected case within 24 hours when they were informed of a
suspected case (Table 4-4).
Farmers and private veterinarians clarified that they do not want to report suspected cases
of FMD because they are concerned that DLD officers would restrict their animal movement
and/or condemn their animals without compensation. Animals can be overstocked as a result of
animal movement prohibitions. One of the farmers in this study believed that reporting of any
FMD suspected case would result in humiliation and trade restrictions. One of the private
veterinarians also claimed that he/she does not have authority over farm owners and is not able to
influence farm owners to report FMD suspected cases. However, DLD accredited private
veterinarians are required to report any notifiable disease to DLD officers. Moreover, another
private veterinarian mentioned that there are no actions taken by the DLD officers when they
notify of FMD suspected cases. These responses emphasize that the reporting protocol is not
uniformly implemented at all levels. Thus, the implementation of the reporting system does not
fully comply with the OIE’s requirements which states that “Farmers, workers who have day-to-
day contact with livestock, as well as veterinary paraprofessionals, veterinarians and
diagnosticians, should report promptly any suspicion of FMD” [16] (Article 8.8.41 bullet 1).
This study also found that reports of FMD situation are not available or easily accessible.
Reports of the FMD situation at the national level but not at the regional level are posted on the
Page 96
82
webpage of the Bureau of Disease Control and Veterinary Services (BDCVS). These reports of
FMD situation indicate locations and number of outbreaks, number of affected animals, species
of affected animals, and FMD serotypes. However, causes of outbreaks are not clarified and
included in the reports. The reports of the FMD situation on BDCVS webpage are not up-to-date
and the latest update was in September 2017. In addition, there are no reports of the FMD
situation or analysis of FMD outbreaks available on a regional webpage. Interviews with private
veterinarians (n=3) revealed that they do not know where they could find an official report of
FMD outbreaks so they are not able to use any information in the report to plan for prevention
and control of FMD in their client farms. In addition, they do not know whom they should
contact to get information on the actual FMD situation in their areas. If there is an FMD outbreak
in neighboring farms, they will usually be informed by farmers. Unavailability or inaccessibility
of official reports of analysis of FMD outbreaks can lead to inappropriate prevention and control
of FMD. Thus, this study also identifies inaccessibility of reports of analysis of FMD outbreaks
as a shortcoming of the current FMD control system even though the OIE’s requirements do not
state whether the reports should be available for public access.
The stakeholders’ compliance with the reporting protocol is not routinely monitored by
the DLD. There were no records of violations and penalties available when this study was
conducted at the field level. An interview with a national DLD officer revealed that DLD officers
will issue notices and suspend an accreditation of private veterinarians if the private veterinarians
fail to monitor antibiotics and drugs used in animals. However, DLD officers do not issue such
required notices or suspension of accreditation when there is a lack of disease notification. To
ensure the existing reporting system meets the OIE’s requirements which states that stakeholders
“should report promptly any suspicion of FMD” and “the Veterinary Authority should
implement programs to raise awareness among them” [16] (Article 8.8.41 bullet 1), a monitoring
of compliance with reporting protocols should be implemented.
Vaccination program
This study found the FMD vaccination program is not fully implemented. Results reveal
a lack of communication on vaccine strategy between DLD officers and private veterinarians, a
lack of communication regarding sero-monitoring of post vaccination evaluation, a lack of
communication of vaccination matching monitoring between DLD officers and private
veterinarians, and inappropriate vaccine quality control. Table 4-5 shows participants’ responses
Page 97
83
regarding the current implementation of vaccination program in the proposed FMD-free zone in
Thailand.
First, a lack of communication on vaccine strategy between DLD officers and private
veterinarians was found. Since FMD virus has a very high antigenic variation [17, 18], FMD
vaccines are needed to be monitored and updated regularly. This study suggested that
stakeholders should receive information regarding the vaccine strategy 1-2 times/year, which
could indicate what vaccine strain should be used, how often animals should be vaccinated, and
what species need an FMD vaccination. The communication on vaccine strategy could be done
by personal communication, stakeholders or town hall meeting, or official letters.
In fact, this study found whereas the majority of farmers (65.71%) received information
regarding updated vaccine strategy at least 1-2 times/year by personal communication, the
majority of private veterinarians (54.54%) did not receive an updated vaccine strategy (Table 4-
5). These findings aligned with reports from provincial and district officers which indicated they
provided information regarding vaccine strategy to farmers more than private veterinarians
(Table 4-5).
Despite the lack of communication between DLD officers and stakeholders, this study
found that all covered species are still vaccinated to some degree. In Thailand, FMD vaccination
program calls for most livestock to be vaccinated at least 1-2 times/year. The majority of farmers
(97.37%) reported that their animals had been FMD vaccinated at least 1-2 times/year and the
majority of private veterinarians (84.62%) reported that they always advised their clients to do
FMD vaccination at least 1-2 times/year (Table 4-5). Provincial and district officers also reported
that they conducted and monitored FMD vaccination in accordance with the national FMD
vaccination campaign (Table 4-5). In addition, most farmers, private veterinarians, and officers
reported that they kept FMD vaccination records (Table 4-5).
Though the vaccination has been routinely conducted, a lack of communication on
vaccine strategy including vaccine strain use may lead to improper vaccination implementation.
For example, farmers may routinely vaccinate their animals with FMD vaccine against the virus
serotype O but the field virus may be serotype A. In point of fact, there is no cross-protection
immunity from different serotypes of FMD virus [19,20]. Findings imply that the
implementation of vaccination does not meet the OIE’s requirements which states that
“vaccination has been carried out to achieve adequate vaccination coverage and population
immunity” [16] (Article 8.8.3 bullet 3c.).
Page 98
84
Second, there was a lack of communication regarding post vaccination sero-monitoring.
The BDCVS designs an evaluation of post vaccination by conducting a serological surveillance
after 1-2 months of FMD vaccination, and FMD vaccination is conducted routinely every 6
months (in most species except in dairy cattle which is more frequent). Thus, it can be expected
that DLD local officers conduct serological surveillance for post vaccination evaluation 1-2
times/year and that reports of post vaccination evaluation are regularly distributed to DLD local
officers and stakeholders especially private veterinarians.
This study found that provincial and district officers always conducted sero-surveillance
for post vaccination evaluation after they vaccinated animals (Table 4-5). The majority of them
(83.33%, 10 out of 12) reported that they conduct sero-surveillance within 1-3 months after
vaccination. However, not all provincial and district officers received reports of post vaccination
evaluation. Similarly, the majority of private veterinarians (72.73%) and farmers (55.88%)
claimed that they never receive reports of post vaccination evaluation from DLD officers (Table
4-5). These reports are only shared among DLD national officers and the committee who has
authority to make decisions on which vaccine strain is needed. As a result, this study cannot
evaluate whether DLD’s vaccination program provides adequate population immunity due to the
absence of such reports and the lack of evidence that proves vaccination coverage and population
immunity. Thus, it is unknown whether the implementation of the vaccination program meets the
OIE’s requirements.
Third, this study also found a lack of communication of vaccination matching monitoring
between DLD officers and private veterinarians. Interviews with officers of Regional Reference
Laboratory for Foot and Mouth Disease in South East Asia (RRL) (n=2) revealed that when there
is an FMD outbreak, local DLD officers will collect and submit samples to RRL. Officers of
RRL identify FMD subtypes and conduct vaccine matching tests each time all samples are
submitted from field level. When the antigenic relationship (‘r’ value) is below 0.2, they search
for a new virus seed and report that to BDCVS. The committee then call for a meeting to make a
decision on strain selection for vaccine production. Thus, it can be expected that local DLD
officers and stakeholders, especially private veterinarians, should be informed of the vaccine
matching monitoring at least 1-2 times during the past 3 years. In fact, this study found that
reports of vaccine matching monitoring are mostly shared among DLD officers but are not
shared to private veterinarians, as the sharing of the reports is not required by DLD. This study
suggests that communication with private veterinarians regarding the vaccine matching is
Page 99
85
important to ensure that they use vaccines with the proper vaccine strain. It needs to be
highlighted that private veterinarians and farmers in this study are not able to access to official
reports regarding the actual FMD status or strain in their area. In addition, FMD vaccines
distributed in Thailand can be either imported vaccines or DLD-produced vaccines. Currently,
DLD is not able to identify the antigenic relationship (r value) between imported vaccines and
FMD virus field strains7 because the imported vaccines are not under the supervision and
authority of DLD. On the other hand, DLD officers who work in vaccine units (n=4) confidently
claimed that DLD-produced vaccines are selected based on FMD virus field strain. Private
veterinarians may have limited ways of knowing whether vaccine used in their clients’ farms
matched with the virus field strains.
Private veterinarians (63.64%, 14/22) reported that they used FMD vaccines, either
imported or DLD-produced vaccines, without knowing whether the vaccine was selected based
on known FMD virus field strains in the area. Interviews with private veterinarians (n=5) also
revealed that they have never been informed of either post vaccination evaluation or vaccine
matching test of FMD vaccines used in Thailand. The vaccines used in their clients’ farms are
those that are currently available in the market. For example, if FMD vaccines type O produced
by DLD are not available or have been sold out, farmers have to buy imported FMD vaccine type
O to use in their farms. Though the private veterinarians have little information about vaccine
strain matching and protective level, they still use the vaccines and advise farmers to do FMD
vaccination, based on the belief that vaccinating animals is better than not taking any action at
all. These findings indicate that they are unsure if their clients’ animals have immunity against
the virus field strain. It can be implied that the current vaccination strategy is not appropriately
implemented and does not meet the OIE’s requirements because there is a lack of evidence to
prove that “vaccination has been carried out to achieve adequate vaccination coverage and
population immunity” [16] (Article 8.8.3 bullet 3c.).
Fourth, inappropriate vaccine quality control was also found. Interviews with officers of
BVB (n=2) revealed that DLD-produced vaccines are tested twice for quality control, during the
vaccine production process and before the vaccine distribution. The tests are for safety, potency,
and sterility of vaccines. Officers from BVB (n=2) claimed that testing protocols follow the
7 In order to identify antigenic relationship (r-value) between virus vaccine and virus filed strain, seed virus is
needed. Imported vaccines were produced by a commercial company that holds a copyright of the seed virus. Thus,
DLD did not have access to the seed of imported vaccines.
Page 100
86
OIE’s guideline8. They explained that safety and sterility tests are conducted in every vaccine
lot; however, potency tests are conducted 2 times/year. The potency test9 is not conducted in
every lot because there are insufficient animals that could be used in experiments and because of
limitations of laboratory facilities. Duration of immunity is not routinely tested. Vaccine shelf
life have also not been tested for the past 3 years. One of the BVB officers indicated that
“vaccine productions are shorthanded and the vaccines are distributed to the field level right after
production. Most farmers and local DLD officers immediately vaccinate animals within a week
of receiving the vaccine. Thus, farmers and local DLD officers never keep vaccines longer than 3
months.” However, an expired FMD vaccine was found during the field visits.
An interview with an officer of Veterinary Biologics Assay and Research Center (VBAC)
revealed that DLD-produced vaccines are also tested by VBAC for safety and sterility but the
test does not include potency testing10. Testing methods of VBAC are the same as those
conducted in BVB facilities. While there is post-marketing quality control11 of vaccines for
poultry diseases conducted by VBAC, there is no such quality control of FMD vaccines. The
VBAC officer revealed that there are no budget allocations for FMD vaccines post-marketing
quality control testing and there are limited laboratory facilities. Findings from this interview
were consistent with opinions of provincial and district officers. The majority of provincial and
district officers (41.67%, 5/12) reported that they did not know whether vaccines were tested for
stability and/or quality control after distribution and 33.33% (4/12) of them reported that
8 FMD Diagnostic manual by the OIE can be accessed at
http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Health_standards/tahm/3.01.08_FMD.pdf 9 Potency test of DLD FMD vaccine is examined on the final product. It is a testing standard of vaccine challenge
test. There are two tests; PD50 test (50% protective dose) and PGP test (protection against generalized foot
infection). Animals used in these tests are obtained from FMD-free DLD or commercial facilities, have not
previously been vaccinated against FMD, and are free from antibodies to FMDV.
In cattle, DLD uses PD50 test. Three groups of five cattle are vaccinated with different doses and two cattle are
unvaccinated for a control group. Three weeks after an FMD vaccination, cattle receive an intradermolingual
(intradermal of the tongue) live virus challenge. Cattle are observed for 8 days. Unvaccinated animals must develop
lesions on at least three feet. The PD50 of the vaccine is determined according to the OIE recommended method. The
vaccine should contain at least 3PD50 per dose for cattle.
In swine, DLD uses PGP test. A group of 16 FMD-seronegative swine are vaccinated with a full swine dose and
a control group of two unvaccinated swine. Four weeks after an FMD vaccination, swine receive an
intradermolingual live virus challenge. Swine are observed for 7-8 days. Unvaccinated swine must develop lesions
on at least three feet. This test suggests that 12 out of 16 swine must be protected. 10
Potency test needs animals/livestock to use in experiments, VBAC does not have laboratory facilities to keep
those animals and conduct the test. 11
Post-marketing quality control of vaccines is conducted to monitor and ensure the quality, safety, and stability of
the vaccines that are distributed to field level.
Page 101
87
vaccines had never been tested after distribution. Without conducting post-marketing
surveillance, it may be considered that the quality of DLD vaccines is unknown. Though the
officers claimed that the vaccine quality control is conducted in accordance with the OIE’s
Terrestrial Manual, there is a lack of evidence to prove that the quality of vaccines after
distribution was certified. Findings indicate that vaccine strategy is not appropriately
implemented and imply that the vaccine strategy does not meet the OIE’s requirements.
Animal movement control system
This study found partial implementation of an animal movement control system.
Findings included; lack of communication between officers and stakeholders regarding updated
protocols related to animal movement control, inadequate animal health inspection, and
inappropriate vehicles used in animal movement. Table 4-6 shows the participants’ responses
regarding the current implementation of animal movement control system.
The last time that the regulation for animal movement control was updated was in 2015.
Although there are no changes of steps for farmers or livestock producers to get an animal
movement permit, additional requirements are added. The steps to get an animal movement
permit are illustrated in Figure 4.2. The amended DLD’s regulation of animal movement control
2015 includes some requirements in accordance with the OIE Terrestrial Manual [16]; for
example, animals must be kept at least 90 days or since birth if animals are younger than 3
months in the establishment of origin, FMD has not occurred within the establishment of origin,
and animals must be FMD vaccinated. It can be expected that the movement control protocols
that were updated in 2015 should be communicated among DLD officers and between officers
and stakeholders at least 1-2 times during the past 3 years through personal communication,
official letters, or stakeholder meetings.
In fact, the study found the protocol of animal movement control has been
communicated among DLD officers but not between officers and stakeholders since the last
update of the regulation for animal movement control in 2015 (Table 4-6). Officers reported that
they usually received information regarding animal movement control through official meetings
and official letters. Though there was a lack of communication regarding movement control
protocols, farmers and private veterinarians still obtained animal movement permits before
animals were allowed to be transported (Table 4-6).
Page 102
88
Animal inspections, however, were not fully conducted (Table 4-6). The inspections
should take place before DLD officers issue animal movement permits, during loading of
animals on vehicles, and while vehicles go through animal checkpoints. An interview with a
regional DLD officer revealed that provincial and district officers may not be able to visit all
farms and inspect animal health status due to insufficient DLD officers. Some officers request
farmers to bring animals (on vehicles) to stop by at their office to get inspected and receive an
animal movement permit at the same time. Some officers issue movement permit based on
paperwork provided by private veterinary inspection (DLD accredited veterinarians). Provincial
and district officers randomly inspect animal health status when there are any suspicious cases
(based on their personal judgments).
Though provincial and district DLD officers randomly conducted animal inspections,
DLD officers at quarantine station (100%) reported that they always inspected vehicles and
observed animal health status while the vehicles passed through their checkpoints/quarantine
stations (Table 4-6). An interview with a DLD officer of animal movement control unit revealed
that routes of animal transportation are denoted in animal movement permits. All vehicles must
stop at designated animal checkpoints to recount the number of animals, inspect animal health,
and disinfect the exterior of the vehicles. After these processes are done, DLD officers sign on
the permits and allow drivers to proceed to the next stops. If the vehicles miss a designated
animal checkpoint, the next checkpoint will reject movement permission and animals will be
quarantined until the proper documents are obtained.
The above findings can imply that the current implementation of animal movement
control does not meet the OIE’s requirements as there is a lack of evidence to prove that the
control of susceptible animals and their products has been properly implemented and supervised.
According to participants’ reports, they seem to strictly follow DLD’s requirements
regarding cleaning and disinfection of vehicles. The majority of farmers (~80%) reported that
they cleaned and disinfected vehicles before loading animals (Table 4-6). Provincial and district
DLD officers (72.73%) also reported that they usually monitored records of cleaning and
disinfection as well (Table 4-6). Although DLD’s regulation of animal movement control does
not state whether the vehicles must have sufficient bedding to absorb urine and dropping during
animal transportation, provincial and district DLD officers (75%) reported that they monitored
whether vehicles had sufficient bedding to minimize the leakage of urine and feces (Table 4-6).
However, during field observation, some vehicles did not have sufficient bedding for animal
Page 103
89
transportation. The leakage and dropping of water or urine along the road was seen (Figure 4.3).
Again, this finding indicates that the control of movement of animals is not properly
implemented and supervised by Veterinary Authority and did not meet the OIE’s requirements.
Response plans
The participants’ survey revealed that response plans are not fully implemented. The
study found ineffective communication between officers and private veterinarians, lack of
training on preparedness and response plans, inappropriate response when an FMD suspected
case was reported, inappropriate response when an FMD positive case was found, inappropriate
compensation, and inappropriate repopulation. Table 4-7 shows participants’ responses regarding
the communication of the response plan and the training of preparedness and response plans.
To increase awareness of FMD, it is expected that the response plan should be
communicated to stakeholders at least 1-2 times during past 3 years, and the training of response
plan should be conducted at least 1-2 times during past 3 years. This study found that the
response plan was not entirely communicated between DLD officers and stakeholders.
Participants’ responses showed that farmers received information regarding the response plan
from DLD officers more than private veterinarians (Table 4-7). Additionally, training of
preparedness and response plans was not delivered to the stakeholder level. It was regularly
performed at the officer level. The training was provided by DLD national level to provincial and
district officers at least 1-2 times/years (Table 4-7). Even though DLD officers provided a
training of preparedness and response plans to farmers and private veterinarians, the majority of
them still reported that they had never been trained (Table 4-7). It can be implied from the
findings that some farmers and private veterinarians in the proposed FMD-free zone may not
know DLD’s protocols for response when a suspected case or an outbreak occurs.
This study also found inadequate responses when an FMD suspected case was reported.
Table 4-8 shows participants’ responses regarding the response when a suspected case is found.
In accordance with the OIE’s requirements, immediate follow-up and investigation to
confirm or rule out from FMD infection are required after suspected cases are reported [16].
Samples should be submitted for diagnosis, unless the suspected cases can be excluded by
epidemiological and clinical investigation [16]. The sampled animals should be kept in the
establishment pending test results [16]. According to the DLD officers' responses, the majority of
Page 104
90
provincial and district officers followed DLD’s response plans and OIE’s requirements by
conducting disease investigation (100%), collecting and submitting samples (83.33%) for FMD
diagnosis, communication with stakeholders of laboratory results (67.67%), and quarantine of
suspected animals (100%) (Table 4-8). However, the responses from private veterinarians and
farmers who participated in this study revealed that DLD officers were not able to provide
services to all of them (Table 4-8). Only 60% of farmers reported that DLD officers conducted
disease investigations and collected and submitted samples for FMD diagnosis (Table 4-8).
Although all private veterinarians who participated in this study reported that DLD officers
conducted disease investigation, only half of them reported that DLD officers collected and
submitted samples for FMD diagnosis (Table 4-8). Additionally, only half of private
veterinarians and farmers reported that DLD officers quarantined suspected animals and herds. It
can be implied from findings that not all suspected cases are investigated to confirm or rule out
of FMD infection or quarantined. This indicates that the follow up when suspected cases are
found does not fully meet with the OIE’s requirements.
However, this study found DLD officers, private veterinarians, and farmers appropriately
followed the DLD’s response plans when a positive case was found. They did quarantine
infected animals and herds and disinfect and dispose of infected carcasses, bedding, and
materials. Although these measures are not specified in the OIE’s requirements, they are
indicated in Thailand’s official FMD control program which was endorsed by OIE in 2018 [21].
Table 4-9 shows participants’ responses regarding their activities when a positive case is found.
As part of the response plans, ring vaccination is conducted to control FMD outbreaks,
and DLD is required to provide emergency vaccines. Emergency vaccines provided by DLD are
provided at no cost for ruminants and at low cost are provided for swine. Though the majority of
provincial and district officers (80%) reported that they vaccinated all susceptible animals
surrounding the index (infected) case in a 5 kilometer radius, vaccines were not sufficiently
available for all susceptible animals (Table 4-9). Most private veterinarians (71.42%) and
farmers (70%) reported that DLD subsidized emergency vaccines to control FMD outbreak in
their farms (Table 4-9). Farmers (n=6) reported that DLD provided FMD vaccines at no cost to
cover 70% of their animals and at low cost to cover 30% of their animals. However, private
veterinarians (n=6) reported that DLD provided FMD vaccines at no cost for only 6% and
provided low-cost vaccines for only 60% of their clients’ animals. All these private veterinarians
work on swine farms. On the other hand, provincial and district officers reported that vaccines at
Page 105
91
no cost provided by DLD covered 70% of susceptible animals in their responsible area and
vaccines at low cost covered 40% of the animals. Farmers and private veterinarians’ responses
indicated that not all susceptible animals were vaccinated. This indicates that the implementation
of vaccination does not meet the OIE’s requirements because there is no evidence to prove that
adequate vaccine coverage of the target population have been achieved.
Although stamping out (on-site mass culling) and modified stamping out (slaughtering at
the nearest slaughterhouse) of infected and exposed animals is specified in the DLD’s response
plan, this study found that most FMD infected and exposed animals were not slaughtered by
either method. Table 4-10 shows participants’ responses regarding the slaughtering of FMD
infected and exposed animals.
Among private veterinarians (n=2) who reported there was slaughtering of FMD infected
and exposed animals, they reported that their clients never received compensation from DLD
officers. However, a DLD district officer (n=1) who reported the slaughtering of FMD infected
animals also reported that farmers in their area occasionally received compensation. The officer
claimed that those farmers who received compensation were satisfied with rate of 75% of local
market price.
Some private veterinarians (25%) and farmers (33.33%) with animals showing clinical
signs but not definitively diagnosed as having FMD reported they were not sure if those
potentially infected and exposed animals were slaughtered. This can happen because farmers
might have sold those animals to livestock traders. Private veterinarians may not be at the farm
when farmers sold their animals. “Not sure” responses of officers indicate that DLD officers are
not supervising and monitoring if infected and exposed animals are slaughtered. These findings
suggest that DLD officers do not properly implement the response plans in accordance with
Thailand’s official FMD control program. Although the OIE does not require stamping-out when
there is an outbreak in a free zone with vaccination, the OIE does require evidence of no FMDV
transmission and circulation for at least 12 months [16]. This study indicates that it is difficult to
eradicate the virus circulation if infected and exposed animals are still kept in the herd, and
vaccines are not available to cover all susceptible animals.
Private veterinarians (n=3) revealed that most of their clients usually separate FMD
infected animals in different pens and treat (supportive treatment) those animals until they
recovered. Then their clients might sell those animals to local livestock traders (at cheaper
prices) or local slaughterhouses. One private veterinarian claimed that he/she used to stamp out
Page 106
92
infected animals in his/her client farm (5-7 years ago). His/her client did not receive any
compensation because the client preferred not to notify DLD officers. However, when the client
learned that neighboring farms never slaughtered infected animals and were still able to sell
those animals, the client then treated infected animals as usual until animals recovered before
selling them. The private veterinarians also mentioned that their clients believed that stamping
out was more economically devastating than treating infected animals. Thus, their clients decided
to keep infected animals on their farms. These findings support the belief that the virus may exist
and circulate in the environment, even though no FMD clinical signs are noticed.
According to a district officer, before farmers introduce new animals to their herds,
he/she advised and monitored farmers to clean and disinfect livestock pens. The district officer
reviewed the documentation of imported animals to ensure they originated from FMD-negative
herds. However, the district officer reported that he/she did not require FMD-negative laboratory
results of all newly introduced animals. On the other hand, private veterinarians (n=5) working
for company farms revealed that the companies require FMD-negative laboratory results for their
imported animals. However, not all of their clients (especially backyard farmers) require a FMD-
negative test. Since cost of laboratory testing is paid out of farmers (purchasers) pocket, some
backyard farmers are unable to pay for laboratory costs. Findings indicate that the introduction or
importation of susceptible animals into the proposed FMD-free zone does not follow the DLD
regulation and does not meet the OIE’s requirements.
Engagement of stakeholders
This study found that stakeholders (farmers and private veterinarians) in the proposed-
FMD free zone usually practice FMD control activities in accordance with the current FMD
control program. Farmers and private veterinarians visit farms and observe animal health status
regularly. They also routinely conduct FMD vaccination for their animals. Although private
veterinarians are not able to identify vaccine quality or are unsure of vaccine strain matching,
they still recommend farmers conduct vaccination. Private veterinarians and farmers usually
receive a movement permit before they transport their animals. Farmers also clean and disinfect
vehicles that used for animal transportation. When DLD officers quarantine animals if there is an
outbreak, farmers also follow the instructions of the quarantine protocols. Private veterinarians
also monitor and advise farmers to follow the DLD officers’ instructions of the protocols.
Page 107
93
During field visits, the study found that farmers conducted the biosecurity measurements
in accordance with the DLD officers’ recommendations. Farmers did not allow visitors and
livestock traders to enter their farms. They had a designated area for visitors, and livestock
traders. Livestock traders were not allowed to enter to farms. Among those visited farmers
(n=11), they kept records of visitors such as names of visitors, date of the visits, and reason for
visiting. Farmers also kept their animal records such as names of animals, ear-tag IDs,
vaccination records, date of when those animals were introduced to the farms, treatments done
when animals were sick.
The study also found good collaboration between local DLD officers (provincial DLD
officers and DHHU staff) and farmers, especially ruminant and small ruminant farmers. Farmers
always welcome officers to visit their farms. In addition, dairy farmers and small ruminant
farmers agreed to participate in this study. However, the study did not receive good collaboration
from swine farmers, who generally do not interact much with the DLD. This study tried to reach
out to swine farmers but did not get any responses from them. Thus, the study was not able to
collect data from swine farmers.
Even though farmers and private veterinarians participate well and collaborate with DLD
officers in many activities regarding the FMD surveillance program, vaccination program, and
control of animal movement, they are not fully engaged in the FMD control program, especially
in the reporting system. That is, farmers and private veterinarians fail to notify DLD officers of
an FMD suspected case within 12 hours. The survey responses of farmers and private
veterinarians revealed that 86.57% (13/15) of private veterinarians and 54.55% (6/11) of farmers
do not notify DLD officers within 12 hours when they found FMD suspected cases. Findings
imply that stakeholders do not understand the importance of early reporting.
This study is not able to identify whether farmers in this study had sufficient knowledge
to detect the disease because the questionnaire was not developed in order to identify the disease
knowledge of farmers. However, based on the questions concerning farmers’ experiences and
their familiarity with the disease, farmers’ knowledge regarding FMD can be implied. Farmers
who had experiences with farming > 10 years are the majority of this study (34.09%, 15/44).
Participating farmers (n=44) reported they are familiar with FMD or know what FMD is. These
findings suggest that farmers know what FMD suspected case look like but they do not want to
report to DLD officers. As a result, FMD suspected cases are underreported in the proposed
FMD-free zone, and DLD officers and stakeholders are unaware of actual FMD status.
Page 108
94
Discussion and Conclusion
This paper is the first evaluation of the implementation of the current FMD control
program in the proposed FMD-free zone after the revisions of Thai’s FMD control system in
2013. It is a multi-stakeholder study including DLD officers, private veterinarians, and farmers.
Thirty percent (30%) of DLD officers and private veterinarians who work in or have duties
related to the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand responded to the study’s questionnaires.
However, less than 1% (44/17702) of farmers in the same zone responded to the questionnaires.
The lower number of questionnaire responses can lead to inaccurate interpretation of this
segment of the targeted population. For example, local DLD officers reported they always
communicate with stakeholders regarding information of FMD control program, while private
veterinarians and farmers reported that they never receive the information from the officers. This
can be either because private veterinarians and farmers who participated in this study are not a
group of people with whom local DLD officers communicate or because the officers do not
actually provide private veterinarians and farmers with the information. This is one of the
limitations of this study. Future study needs more participants, especially farmers, for a more
accurate representation of the population in order to gain more accurate and diverse feedback.
Farmers’ responses are lower than other stakeholders because farmers have limited
internet access and some are illiterate. Online questionnaires may not work well for this type of
study. Though face-to-face questionnaires would have been more effective in the farmers’ group,
the travel time to study sites and budget was a limiting factor. Fenig and Levav (1993) and
Sturges and Hanrahan (2004) claimed that phone interviews are useful, successful, and cost-
efficient in qualitative research [22,23]. However, phone interviews may not work in Thailand
due to a large number of telemarketers. Potential interviewees may perceive the call as sales calls
and therefore refuse to answer the phone. In addition, farmers do not want to get involved with
the study unless they are introduced to the interviewer by local DLD officers or private
veterinarians who have a connection or know them personally.
When farmers’ responses are classified based on their farm species, there are 15
responses from dairy farmers but there is only one response from a goat farmer and one from a
buffalo farmer. Therefore, this study does not compare responses from farmers of different
animal species. This is another limitation of this study.
There are greater responses from swine private veterinarians than those who worked with
cattle and other species because private veterinarians who work in or are associated with the
Page 109
95
proposed FMD-free zone are mostly swine private veterinarians. A private veterinarian reported
that there are only five private veterinarians working with ruminants in the proposed FMD-free
zone (personal communication, Mar 24, 2018). Private veterinarians who work with cattle also
work with sheep, goat, and buffaloes (personal communication, Mar 24, 2018). For more
comprehensive results, future research would also need to identify and include those private
veterinarians in the interviews.
There is a possibility of participant selection bias as a result of the process of
questionnaire distribution. The questionnaire link was initially distributed to identified focal
persons, with a request to distribute further. The focal persons were selected with the criteria that
they; (i) are members of the target groups, (ii) have connections with other potential participants,
and (iii) are willing to participate in this study. They were identified based on personal
knowledge of those working in this field. The focal persons were asked to forward the
questionnaire link to other potential participants, who were selected using the same criteria as
above. However, it is recognized that this sample selection process could result in selection
bias due to a non-random sampling of the population. The focal persons and other potential
participants may have only distributed the questionnaire link to groups of people that they are
familiar with, and who share a similar perspective. Therefore, the study’s findings may have
been influenced by this bias and may not accurately represent feedback from the population as a
whole.
Findings of the assessment of the FMD surveillance system highlight some activities that
are not fully implemented. Lack of effective communication negatively impacts appropriate
surveillance implementation. Frieden (2014) stated that effective communication can convey
critical information and convince key stakeholders to support program implementation and lead
to program effectiveness [24]. Results show that farmers and private veterinarians do not receive
reports of FMD surveillance findings from DLD officers, which leads to the reason why farmers
and private veterinarians distrust and are not collaborative with DLD officers. Farmers and
private veterinarians are unaware of the actual FMD situation. In order to participate
appropriately in the FMD control program, this study suggests that farmers and private
veterinarians should be able to access findings of FMD surveillance, especially of their own
farms.
Regarding farm visits and animal health observation, DLD officers and private
veterinarians visit farms routinely but infrequently. Therefore, the officers and private
Page 110
96
veterinarians may miss an onset of the disease because the incubation period of FMD is short (2-
14 days) and because the virus replicates and spreads rapidly [17,25,26]. In order to control the
spread of the disease and respond to the outbreak quickly, rapid detection is needed [27–30].
Officers of Dairy Herd Health Unit visit farms more often than other officers because they are
specifically assigned to work with one species, dairy cattle, so they can work intensely and
closely with farmers. Officers of the DLD livestock production research center also need to
monitor animal estrus cycles for artificial insemination, so they visit farms more often than
provincial and district livestock DLD officers. Provincial and district DLD officers visit farms
less frequently than other groups because each provincial livestock office has only 1-3 officers,
and each district livestock office has only 1-2 officers who work in animal health. Those officers
are responsible for all animal health issues, including zoonotic diseases in multiple species [31].
This indicates that DLD local offices are understaffed. The distribution of DLD local officers in
the proposed FMD-free zone is shown in APPENDIX 15. Overwhelming workloads and
insufficient number of officers can be one of the reasons why they are not able to visit farms
frequently and deliver services appropriately.
Since officers are not able to visit farms frequently, disease notification is a crucial
activity in FMD control program. This study evaluates how well stakeholders follow the DLD’s
regulations regarding the required notification of FMD suspected cases within 12 hours in
accordance with the Animal Epidemics Act. Thus, “within 12 hours” was specified in the
questionnaire regarding the disease notification question. When private veterinarians and farmers
reported that they never notified DLD officers of FMD suspected cases within 12 hours, the
results do not reveal whether they never notified officers at all or they notified officers after the
12-hour timeframe. This is considered a limitation of this study.
Farmers seem to receive information regarding disease notification more frequently than
private veterinarians. It is possible that the local DLD officers have a better relationship and meet
more often with farmers than private veterinarians. Thus, the local officers have more
opportunities to inform farmers than to inform private veterinarians. Ineffective communication
between local DLD officers and private veterinarians results in a negligence of reporting of
possible FMD. Private veterinarians may not notify DLD officers of FMD suspected cases and
leave the notification to be the responsibility of farmers.
A shortcoming in the DLD accreditation program can be noticed from the statement of
private veterinarians who reported that they do not have authority and are not able to influence
Page 111
97
farm owners to notify DLD officers of FMD suspected cases. Because private veterinarians are
hired by farm owners, it is understandable why private veterinarians claimed that they were not
able to influence farmers, especially swine farm owners, to notify DLD officers of the disease.
Though private veterinarians who are eligible to work for private farms must be accredited by
DLD, in practice, however, it is found that private veterinarians fail to fully comply with
accredited protocols and DLD regulations on reporting requirements. Therefore, compliance with
regulations and with accredited program should be more closely monitored.
According to the DLD accreditation program, DLD (Bureau of Livestock Standards and
Certification, BLSC) provides training programs for private veterinarians [32]. The training
programs include laws and regulations, rule and responsibilities, disease notification, national
disease control program, animal movement control, sample collection for disease diagnosis, good
agricultural practice for livestock, animal welfare, antimicrobial use and residues in farms, etc.
(personal communication, 2018). At the end of the training, an examination is required (personal
communication, 2018). Private veterinarians must attend 80% of the training program and have a
score of 60% or better in order to be DLD accredited veterinarians (personal communication,
2018). Accreditation is renewable every two years without additional training (personal
communication, 2018). When errors or irregularities are found, DLD issues a verbal notice,
suspends, or revokes the accreditation (personal communication, 2018). However, there have
been no reports of issuing such notices or suspension of accreditation related to a lack of disease
notification. To strengthen DLD accreditation program and also disease reporting system,
monitoring of disease reporting compliance should be conducted.
Improving availability and accessibility of official reports of analysis of FMD outbreaks
at the regional level could also provide benefit to the DLD by improving the current FMD
control system and to promote stakeholder engagement. Private veterinarians can use the official
reports to design an appropriate FMD prevention and control plans for their clients. Farmers may
increase their awareness and strengthen their biosecurity and prevention and control of FMD in
their farms if they are aware of the FMD status in their regions.
Vaccination strategy is one of the critical components in recognition of the proposed
FMD-free zone in Thailand. However, the current vaccination strategy in the proposed FMD-free
zone still needs to be improved. Information regarding vaccine strategy is not thoroughly
communicated to stakeholders. This can lead to ineffective implementation of the vaccination
program. As mentioned, as local DLD officers may have a better relationship and meet with
Page 112
98
farmers more often than private veterinarians, farmers often receive information regarding FMD
control program through personal communication. Usually, DLD officers at the national level
call for stakeholder meetings when they want to inform private veterinarians of any information
regarding the FMD control program, including the vaccine strategy. The information is shared
with representatives of associations of veterinarians and livestock producers who attend the
meetings. However, the representatives may not thoroughly distribute information regarding the
FMD control program to all private veterinarians in the associations. Thus, not all private
veterinarians have the same understanding regarding the vaccine strategy.
Although this study found that private veterinarians and farmers both vaccinate animals
and cooperate well with DLD officers who also may conduct the vaccinations. It further suggests
that DLD should share data related to vaccination program, such as reports of post vaccination
evaluation and vaccine strain matching, to stakeholders. Because private veterinarians and
farmers are not able to access available evidence on the effectiveness of FMD vaccines, they are
doubtful whether the vaccines can protect their animals. This may result in non-collaboration of
stakeholders in the future. Making the data related to FMD control program available, accessible,
and transparent can enhance the engagement of stakeholders, and earn DLD more trust.
Vaccines should be available and sufficient to cover all susceptible species under normal
situations (not only during FMD outbreaks). With the growing demand for FMD vaccines, DLD
should evaluate capacity and availability of DLD’s vaccine production plant to meet the growing
needs. Though establishing a new vaccine plant may solve the immediate problem of the
shortage of FMD vaccines, it may not be the best sustainable solution in the long run. One of the
challenges DLD is facing is insufficient budgets; availability and sustainability of government
budgets to maintain and continue development of the plants is of concern.
In addition, the DLD should work closely with the Food and Drug Administration
Thailand (FDA-Thai), Ministry of Public Health, in managing of imported FMD vaccine.
Though the DLD does not have authority over the FMD imported vaccine, the DLD should be
able to test and control the vaccine after importation or prior to distribution at the field level. For
better FMD vaccine management, information of FMD imported vaccine such as virus strains
used and quality control should be shared among these two agencies.
Animal movement control is also an important element to prevent and control the spread
of FMD. Vehicles used for animal transportation should be cleaned, disinfected, and should not
be a source of virus transmission. Additionally, the DLD should encourage farmers and livestock
Page 113
99
traders to have appropriate bedding to prevent and stop leakage of urine and water. Local officers
should inspect all animals before they are transported in order to ensure that they are in good
conditions and do not show any clinical signs. In reality, however, because local DLD offices are
understaffed, they are not able to inspect all animals. The allocation of staff at the local level
should be reconsidered by DLD so as to improve the ability to more appropriately deliver
services.
Having sufficient staff at the local level can also improve the DLD’s disease responses.
Results of this study indicate that the current disease responses are not effectively implemented.
For example, farmers and private veterinarians reported that they do not receive any response
from DLD officers when they report suspected FMD, even though local DLD officers reported
that they always respond to disease notification. Understaffing of DLD at the local level could be
one of the limitations to the effective implementation of FMD control activities.
In summary, the current implementation of the FMD control program in the proposed
FMD-free zone needs further improvement in order to meet the OIE’s requirements. The
surveillance system should be transparently evaluated to ensure that the system is able to prove
there is no evidence of infection with FMDV transmission, as required by the OIE. The reporting
system should be closely monitored by DLD to ensure that stakeholders follow the OIE’s
requirements by reporting promptly any suspicion of FMD. There should also be an increase of
stakeholders’ awareness regarding the need for disease notification. Evidence demonstrating that
all FMD susceptible species in the proposed FMD-free zone achieve adequate vaccination
coverage and population immunity should be available and accessible. DLD staff at the local
level should be reallocated in order to strengthen their ability to immediately respond and
provide adequate follow-up when notified of FMD suspected cases and outbreaks.
Finally, communications between the DLD and stakeholders regarding the FMD control
program needs to be strengthened. Increasing regularity of stakeholder meetings can be one way
to improve communication among stakeholders. Webinar (web-based seminars) can be an option
for DLD to approach target audiences. It is particularly useful for delivering press conferences
and corporate events in order to reach a large audience [33]. Expanding information sharing and
distribution can be done by posting important information on the DLD’s webpage. Social
networks or social media such as Twitter, Facebook, and Line application can be used as a tool
for information distribution as well. Social media is also used to engage in important
conversations [34]. It is a cost effective way to communicate with and to reach a greater
Page 114
100
audience [34]. Additionally, the DLD may develop their own mobile application as a channel to
connect with stakeholders, especially private veterinarians. These options can help DLD
approach the target audience and allow information regarding the FMD control program to be
shared among stakeholders in order to enhance stakeholders’ understanding.
Page 115
101
References
1. James A.D. & Rushton J. (2002). – The economics of foot and mouth disease. Rev. Sci.
Tech., 21 (3), 637–644. doi:10.20506/rst.21.3.1356.
2. Thompson D., Muriel P., Russell D., Osborne P., Bromley A., Rowland M., Creigh-Tyte
S. & Brown C. (2002). – Economic costs of the foot and mouth disease outbreak in the
United Kingdom in 2001. Rev Sci Tech, 21 (3), 675–687.
3. World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) (2018). – Foot & Mouth disease (FMD).
Available at: http://www.oie.int/animal-health-in-the-world/animal-diseases/foot-and-
mouth-disease/ (accessed on 2 February 2019).
4. Pattnaik B., Subramaniam S., Sanyal A., Mohapatra J.K., Dash B.B., Ranjan R. & Rout
M. (2012). – Foot-and-mouth Disease: Global Status and Future Road Map for Control
and Prevention in India. Agric. Res., 1 (2), 132–147. doi:10.1007/s40003-012-0012-z.
5. Rweyemamu M., Roeder P., MacKay D., Sumption K., Brownlie J., Leforban Y.,
Valarcher J.F., Knowles N.J. & Saraiva V. (2008). – Epidemiological patterns of foot-and-
mouth disease worldwide. Transbound. Emerg. Dis., 55 (February 2006), 57–72.
doi:10.1111/j.1865-1682.2007.01013.x.
6. Gleeson L.J. (2002). – A review of the status of Foot-and-mouth disease in South-East
Asia and approaches to control and eradication of Foot-and-mouth disease in South-East
Asia. Rev. Sci. Tech., 21 (3), 465–475.
7. Chaisrisongkram W. (1994). – An overview of Foot-And-Mouth Disease control in
Thailand. . In Proceeding of An International Workshop, September 6-9, 1993 (J.W.
Copland, L.J. Gleeson & C. Chamnanpood, eds), Lampang. pp 23–25
8. Abila R. & Kalpravidh W. (2011). – FMD Current Status and Control Strategies in South
East and China. (March), 5–6.
9. World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) (2011). – SEACFMD 2020, A Roadmap to
Prevent, Control and Eradicate Foot and Mouth Disease (by 2020) in South-East Asia and
China. (September). Available at: http://www.rr-
asia.oie.int/fileadmin/SRR_Activities/SEACFMD_2020_for_print_5_June_2012.pdf
(accessed on 9 July 2015).
10. World Organisation for Animal Health (2016). – SEACFMD Roadmap: A strategic
framework to control, prevent and eradicate foot and mouth disease in South-East Asia
and China. 3rd ed.Available at: http://www.rr-
asia.oie.int/fileadmin/SRR_Activities/documents/SEACFMD_Roadmap_merged_resized.
pdf (accessed on 18 April 2019).
11. Department of Livestock Development (2012). – Dossier for OIE Official Recognition of
Foot and Mouth Disease Free Zone with Vaccination in the Eastern Region of Thailand.
Bangkok, Thailand.
Page 116
102
12. Clercq K. De, Kim Y.J. & Batho H. (2013). – Foot and Mouth Disease Expert Mission to
Thailand. Thailand.
13. FAO/OIE (2011). – The Progressive Control Pathway for FMD control (PCP-FMD)
Principles, Stage Descriptions and Standards. Available at:
http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/commissions/docs/pcp/pcp-26012011.pdf.
14. Department of Livestock Development (2012). – National FMD strategic plan of
Thailand. 2nd ed., Bangkok, Thailand. doi:10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2.
15. Department of Livestock Development (Information and Communication Technology
Center) (2016). – 2015 Census of farmers and livestock in Thailand. Available at:
http://ict.dld.go.th/th2/index.php/th/report/447-report-thailand-livestock/reportservey2558-
1/870-report-survey58-1 (accessed on 3 September 2018).
16. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2018). – Infection with Foot and Mouth
Disease. Terr. Anim. Heal. Code. Available at:
http://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_fmd.htm (accessed on 9
April 2019).
17. Grubman M.J. & Baxt B. (2004). – Foot-and-mouth disease. Clin. Microbiol. Rev., 17 (2),
465–93. doi:10.1128/CMR.17.2.465.
18. Mumford J. a (2007). – Vaccines and viral antigenic diversity. Rev. Sci. Tech., 26 (1), 69–
90.
19. Alexandersen S., Zhang Z. & Donaldson A.I. (2002). – Aspects of the persistence of foot-
and-mouth disease virus in animals—the carrier problem. Microbes Infect., 4 (10), 1099–
1110. doi:10.1016/S1286-4579(02)01634-9.
20. Hernandez J., Martinez M.A., Rocha E., Domingo E. & Mateu M.G. (1992). – Generation
of a subtype-specific neutralization epitope in foot-and-mouth disease virus of a different
subtype. J. Gen. Virol., 73 (1), 213–216. doi:10.1099/0022-1317-73-1-213.
21. Department of Livestock Development (2015). – Thailand National FMD Plan for OIE
Endorsement 2015: Application for OIE Validation of the Official Foot and Mouth
Disease Control Programme. Bangkok, Thailand.
22. Fenig S., Levav I., Kohn R. & Yelin N. (1993). – Telephone vs face-to-face interviewing
in a community psychiatric survey. Am. J. Public Health, 83 (6), 896–898.
doi:10.2105/AJPH.83.6.896.
23. Sturges J.E. & Hanrahan K.J. (2004). – Comparing Telephone and Face-to-Face
Qualitative Interviewing: A Research Note. Qual. Res., 4 (1), 107–118.
doi:10.1177/1468794104041110.
24. Frieden T.R. (2014). – Six Components Necessary for Effective Public Health Program
Implementation. Am. J. Public Health, 10 (1), 17–22. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2013.301608.
Page 117
103
25. World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) – Foot & Mouth Disease. Gen. Dis. Inf.
Sheets, , 1–6. Available at:
http://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Animal_Health_in_the_World/docs/pdf/FMD-
EN.pdf.
26. Mahy B.W.J. (2005). – Introduction and history of foot-and-mouth disease virus. Curr.
Top. Microbiol. Immunol., 288, 1–8. doi:10.1007/3-540-27109-0_1.
27. Scudamore J.M. & Harris D.M. (2002). – Control of foot and mouth disease: lessons from
the experience of the outbreak in Great Britain in 2001. Rev. Sci. Tech., 21 (February
2001), 699–710.
28. Isoda N., Kadohira M., Sekiguchi S. & Schuppers M. (2012). – Review: Evaluation of
Foot‐and‐Mouth Disease Control Using Fault Tree Analysis. Transbound. Emerg. Dis., 62
(3), 233–244. doi:10.1111/tbed.12116.
29. Paton D.J., Sumption K.J. & Charleston B. (2009). – Options for control of foot-and-
mouth disease: knowledge, capability and policy. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol.
Sci., 364 (1530), 2657–67. doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0100.
30. Goller K. V., Dill V., Madi M., Martin P., Stede Y. Van der, Vandenberge V., Haas B.,
Borm S. Van, Koenen F., Kasanga C.J., Ndusilo N., Beer M., Liu L., Mioulet V., Armson
B., King D.P. & Fowler V.L. (2018). – Rapid and simple detection of foot-and-mouth
disease virus: Evaluation of a cartridge-based molecular detection system for use in basic
laboratories. Transbound. Emerg. Dis., 65 (2), 578–584. doi:10.1111/tbed.12744.
31. Department of Livestock Development (Personnel Division) (2015). – DLD employee
statistics. Available at: http://person.dld.go.th/2557/statistics_person.php (accessed on 3
September 2018).
32. Department of Livestock Development (Bureau of Livestock Standards and Certification)
– Veterinary Accreditation Program. Available at:
http://certify.dld.go.th/certify/index.php/th/2016-05-01-14-47-42/2017-11-15-02-35-
10/717-2560 (accessed on 4 September 2018).
33. Christ P. (2005). – Internet Technologies and Trends Transforming Public Relations. J.
Website Promot., 1 (4), 39–60. doi:10.1300/J238v01n04.
34. DiStaso M.W., McCorkindale T. & Wright D.K. (2011). – How public relations
executives perceive and measure the impact of social media in their organizations. Public
Relat. Rev., 37 (3), 325–328. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.06.005.
Page 118
104
Tables
Table 4-1 Summary of the OIE’s requirements for a region to be qualified as an FMD-free zone with vaccination and the assessment matrix
criteria to identify shortcomings of implementation of current FMD control program* and engagement of stakeholders
Sections OIE’s Requirements ** Assessment Matrix Criteria to Identify Shortcomings of Implementation
1. Surveillance
system
- A surveillance system should provide an early warning
system to report FMD suspected cases.
- Surveillance for FMD and FMDV transmission is in
operation and in the form of a continuing program.
- Surveillance program to demonstrate no evidence of
FMDV infection and transmission should be implemented.
- Surveillance system should provide an early warning
system to report suspected cases.
1.1 Officers do not regularly visit farms and observe animals.
1.2 Farmers do not regularly observe abnormalities of their animals.
1.3 Officers do not routinely conduct active serological surveillance.
1.4 There is a lack of communication of findings of the surveillance program and
laboratory results.
1.5 The implementation of surveillance program is not evaluated.
2. Reporting
system
- A member country should have a record of regular and
prompt animal disease reporting.
- Farmers, workers who have day-to-day contact with
livestock, veterinary paraprofessionals, veterinarians, and
diagnosticians should report promptly any suspicion of
FMD.
2.1 There is a lack of communication of reporting protocols.
2.2 Reporting protocol is not uniformly implemented at all levels.
2.3 There is no disease report analysis at the local or national level.
2.4 No one is using the disease report analysis for prevention and control of FMD.
2.5 Compliance with reporting protocol is not monitored.
3. Vaccine
strategy
- Routine vaccination has been carried out for the purposes
of the prevention of FMD and carried out following
appropriate vaccine strain selection.
- Vaccination has been carried out to achieve adequate
vaccination coverage and population immunity.
- Serological surveillance to estimate population immunity
and/or efficiency of the vaccination program should be
conducted at 1-2 months after vaccination.
- The vaccine used complies with the standards described in
the Terrestrial Manual such as quality control, purity, and
safety of vaccines.
3.1 There is a lack of communication on vaccine strategy (e.g., type of vaccine &
adjuvant, included species, vaccine strain, and vaccine interval)
3.2 All animal species covered by the policy are not vaccinated.
3.3 There is a lack of vaccination record keeping and other information related to
vaccination campaign.
3.4 There is a lack of appropriate sero-monitoring program for post vaccination
evaluation.
3.5 There is a lack of vaccine matching monitoring and communication of vaccine
matching tests.
3.6 There is a lack of quality control and/or records on efficacy of vaccine production
4. Animal
movement
control
- The control of the movement of susceptible animals and
their products into the proposed FMD-free zone has been
properly implemented and supervised.
4.1 There is a lack of communication of movement control protocols.
4.2 Animal identification cannot differentiate between animals originating from
inside or outside of the proposed FMD-free zone.
4.3 DLD officers issue movement permits without animal inspection.
4.4 Animals and/or animal products are not transported in appropriate vehicles.
4.5 Animal checkpoints are not sufficient and are not located in appropriate areas to
Page 119
105
Sections OIE’s Requirements ** Assessment Matrix Criteria to Identify Shortcomings of Implementation
screen animal transportation.
4.6 Veterinary officers and support staff do not appropriately conduct animal
inspection at checkpoints.
4.7 Compliance with movement control regulations is not monitored.
5. Response plan - All herds or flocks with at least one laboratory confirmed
reactor should be investigated.
- The investigation should include reactor animals,
susceptible animals of the same unit, and susceptible
animals that have been in contact with reactor animals.
- Seropositive animals should be retested using repeat and
confirmatory test with high diagnostic specificity.
- The animals sampled should remain in the establishment
pending test results and should be clearly identified and
accessible.
5.1 There is a lack of communication of response plans.
5.2 Officers do not respond or provide inadequate response when FMD suspected
cases are reported e.g. no tracing back, no re-investigation, and no confirmation
of serological test.
5.3 Record of positive herds and/or animals is not appropriate to trace back to the
origin.
5.4 There is no quarantine when positive animals are found.
5.5 Infected carcasses, byproducts, and material (fodder, waste manure, and bedding)
are not adequately disposed.
5.6 Emergency vaccine is not sufficient for affected animals.
5.7 Compensation is not sufficient when infected animals are slaughtered during the
outbreak.
5.8 Local officers and farmers inappropriately restock new animals.
6. Engagement of
stakeholders
There are no OIE’s recommendations regarding
engagement of stakeholders
6.1 Farmers do not have sufficient knowledge to detect or recognize disease.
6.2 Farmers and private veterinarians do not have similar understandings of the
objectives of the FMD control program or of the importance of FMD
surveillance, early reporting, and movement control
6.3 Farmers and private veterinarians do not practice in accordance with DLD FMD
control program.
*The study assumed that the existing testing-diagnosis system is adequate, provides rapid diagnoses, meets international standards, and satisfies the performance veterinarian services based
on the PVS evaluation by OIE. It is not included in the assessment system.
**Adapted from the Terrestrial Code chapter 8.8 “Infection with Foot and Mouth Disease Virus.” Complete requirements can be accessed at
http://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_fmd.htm#article_fmd.40
Page 120
106
Table 4-2 The number of questionnaire distributors, questionnaires returned, responses used for
analysis, and target population in the proposed FMD-free zone
Group Number of
questionnaire
distributors
Questionnaires
returned
Responses used
for analysis
Target population in
the proposed FMD-
free zone
DLD Local officers a 16 51 34 109*
Private veterinarians b 15 67 32 102**
Farmers c 10 79 44 17702*
Total 41 197 110 17,913
a Responses were included veterinary officers, para-veterinary officers, animal husbandry staff, and livestock
assistants who worked for either provincial livestock offices, district livestock offices, animal quarantine stations,
dairy herd health unit, or the livestock production research center. b The majority of private veterinarians (68.75%, 22/32) who participated in this study were swine veterinarians and
they were all DLD accredited veterinarians. DLD accredited veterinarian is a private veterinarian who is authorized
by the DLD to perform certain tasks that support the national animal health program. Private veterinarians must hold
a license for practicing veterinary medicine which is provided by the Veterinary Council (Board of Veterinary).
Private veterinarians must attend, complete a training program, and pass the exam for accredited veterinarians. In
Thailand, private veterinarians who want to work for commercial or agribusiness farms are required to be
accredited. c Responses were collected from farmers who work in swine, dairy, beef, sheep, goat, and buffalo farms.
*Source: Department of Livestock Development, Information and Communication Technology Center 2015 [15]
**The number of private veterinarians was determined in 2018. A representative private veterinarian of each
company was contacted and was asked to fill in a spreadsheet the number of veterinarians in their companies who
work in the proposed FMD-free zone.
Page 121
107
Table 4-3 The survey participants’ responses regarding the current implementation of surveillance
system in the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand
Aspect N Never
1-2 times during
the past 3 years
At least 1-2
times/year
Communication of the findings of the FMD active
surveillance program
- Provincial officers received information
regarding the findings from national officers
5
1 (20%)
4 (80%)
- District officers received information regarding
the findings from provincial officers
5
5 (100%)
- Provincial and district officers inform farmers
of the findings
9 4 (44.44%) 5 (55.56%)
- Provincial and district officers inform private
veterinarians of the findings
9 6 (66.67%) 2 (22.22%) 1 (11.11%)
- Private veterinarians received information
regarding the findings from officers
22
15 (68.18%)
1 (4.55%) 6 (27.27%)
- Farmers received information regarding the
findings from officers
35 20 (57.14%) 4 (11.43%) 11 (31.43%)
Farms visits and animal health observation
Local officers;
- Provincial officers
- District officers
- Dairy Herd Health Unit staff
- Others (livestock production research center
staff)
16
6
8
1
1
1 (6.25%)
1 (16.67%)
15 (93.75%)
5 (83.33%)
8 (100%)
1 (100%)
1 (100%)
Private veterinarians 31 2 (6.45%) 2 (6.45%) 27 (87.1%)
Farmers 44 1 (2.27%) 43 (97.73%)
N = Number of respondents
Page 122
108
Table 4-4 The survey participants’ responses regarding the current implementation of reporting
system in the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand since the last protocol update in 2015
Aspect N Never
1-2 times during
the past 3 years
At least 1-2
times/year
Communication of the reporting protocol
- Provincial officers received the reporting
protocol from national officers.
5
1 (20%)
4 (80%)
- District officers received the reporting protocol
from provincial officers.
5
5 (100%)
- Provincial and district officers inform farmers
of the reporting protocol.
9
9 (100%)
- Provincial and district officers inform private
veterinarians of the reporting protocol.
9
7 (77.78%)
2 (22.22%)
- Private veterinarians received the reporting
protocol from officers.
22
7 (31.82%) 8 (36.36%)
7 (31.82%)
- Farmers received the reporting protocol from
officers.
35 7 (20%) 6 (17.14%) 22 (62.86%)
Implementation of reporting protocol
- Provincial and district officers notified to
national officers within 24 hours of FMD
suspected cases.
9
3 (33.33%)*
6 (66.6
- Private veterinarians notified officers of FMD
suspected cases within 12 hours.
15 13 (86.67%) 2 (13.33%)*
- Farmers notified officers of FMD suspected
cases within 12 hours.
11 6 (54.55%) 2 (18.18%)* 3 (27.27%)
N = Number of respondents
*They have seen FMD suspected case 1-2 times during the past 3 years
Page 123
109
Table 4-5 The survey participants’ responses regarding the current implementation of vaccination
program in the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand
Aspect N Never
1-2 times during
the past 3 years
At least 1-2
times/year
Communication of the vaccine strategy*
- Provincial officers received an updated vaccine
strategy from national officers.
5
4 (80%)
1 (20%)
- District officers received an updated vaccine
strategy from provincial officers.
5
5 (100%)
- Provincial and district officers informed farmers
of an updated vaccine strategy.
8
2 (25%)
6 (75%)
- Provincial and district officers informed private
veterinarians of an updated vaccine strategy.
8
3 (37.5%)
2 (25%)
3 (37.5%)
- Private veterinarians received an updated
vaccine strategy from officers.
22 12 (54.54%) 5 (22.73%) 5 (22.73%)
- Farmers received an updated vaccine strategy
from officers.
35 8 (22.86%) 4 (11.43%) 23 (65.71%)
Vaccination
- Provincial and district officers monitored FMD
vaccination program conducted following the
national FMD vaccination campaign.
12
1 (8.33%)
11 (91.67%)
- Provincial and district officers conducted FMD
vaccination program following the national
FMD vaccination campaign.
11
11 (100%)
- Private veterinarians advised their clients to do
FMD vaccination.
26 2 (7.69%) 2 (7.69%) 22 (84.62%)
- Farmers vaccinated their animals. 38 1 (2.63%) 37 (97.37%)
Record keeping
- Provincial and district officers kept those
vaccination records.
12
1 (8.33%)
11 (91.67%)
- Private veterinarians advised their client to keep
FMD vaccination records.
26
2 (7.69%)
1 (3.85%) 23 (88.46%)
- Farmers kept those vaccination records. 38 1 (2.63%) 37 (97.37%)
Post vaccination evaluation
- Provincial and district officers conducted sero-
surveillance for post vaccination evaluation.
12
12 (100%)
- Provincial officers received post vaccination
evaluation reports from national officers.
5
1 (20%)
2 (40%)
2 (40%)
- District officers received post vaccination
evaluation reports from provincial officers.
5 1 (20%) 4 (80%)
- Provincial and district officers informed farmers
of post vaccination evaluation reports.
8
5 (62.5%)
1 (12.5%)
2 (25%)
- Provincial and district officers informed private
veterinarians of post vaccination evaluation
reports.
8 3 (37.5%) 1 (12.5%) 4 (50%)
Page 124
110
Aspect N Never
1-2 times during
the past 3 years
At least 1-2
times/year
- Private veterinarians received post vaccination
evaluation reports from officers.
22 16 (72.73%) 2 (9.09%) 4 (18.18%)
- Farmers received post vaccination evaluation
reports from officers.
34 19 (55.88%) 4 (11.76%) 11 (32.36%)
Communication of vaccine matching test
- Provincial officers received reports of vaccine-
matching tests from national officers
5
4 (80%)
1 (20%)
- District officers received reports of vaccine-
matching tests from provincial officers.
5 2 (40%) 3 (60%)
*Regarding type of vaccine, vaccine strain, vaccine interval, and the species are included
Page 125
111
Table 4-6 The survey participants’ responses regarding the current implementation of animal
movement control system in the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand since the last protocol update
in 2015
Aspect N Never
1-2 times during
the past 3 years
At least 1-2
times/year
Communication of the updated protocol of animal
movement control
- Provincial officers received information
regarding the movement control protocol from
national officers.
5
1 (20%)
2 (40%)
2 (40%)
- District officers received information regarding
the movement control protocol from provincial
officers.
5
5 (100%)
- Private veterinarians received information
regarding the movement control protocol from
officers.
22
8 (36.36%)
5 (22.73%)
9 (40.91%)
- Farmers received information regarding the
movement control protocol from officers.
34 19 (55.88%) 5 (14.71%) 10 (29.41%)
Animal movement permits
- Farmers submitted an application for a
movement permit to the DLD officers.
18
2 (11.11%)
1 (5.56%)*
15 (83.33%)
- Farmers received a movement permit before
their animals were transported.
16 1 (6.25%) 15 (93.75%)
- Private veterinarians reported that animal
movement permits were obtained before
animals were transported.
17 17 (100%)
Animal health inspection
- Farmers reported that DLD officers observe
animal health status during loading animals on
vehicles.
17
6 (35.29%)
2 (11.77%)
9 (52.94%)
- Private veterinarians reported that DLD officers
observe animal health status during loading
animals on vehicles.
16 10 (62.5%) 6 (37.5%)
- Provincial and district officers observed animal
health status during loading animals on
vehicles.
12 2 (16.67%) 10 (83.33%)
- Quarantine station staff observed animal health
status while vehicles passed animal checkpoints.
17 17 (100%)
Vehicle which are used for animal transportation
- Farmers cleaned the vehicles.
22
4 (18.18%)
18 (81.82%)
- Farmers disinfected the vehicles. 25 6 (24%) 19 (76%)
- Farmers kept records of cleaning and
disinfection of those vehicles.
25 15 (60%) 1 (4%) 9 (36%)
- Farmers reported that DLD officers monitored
records of cleaning and disinfection.
18
10 (55.56%)
8 (44.44%)
Page 126
112
Aspect N Never
1-2 times during
the past 3 years
At least 1-2
times/year
- Farmers reported that DLD officers monitored
all vehicles for sufficient bedding to absorb
urine and dropping.
20
12 (60%)
5 (25%)
3 (15%)
- Private veterinarians monitored records of
cleaning and disinfection.
19
5 (26.31%)
2 (10.53%)
12 (63.16%)
- Private veterinarians monitored all vehicles for
sufficient bedding to absorb urine and dropping
18
12 (66.67%)
1 (5.55%) 5 (27.78%)
- Provincial and district DLD officers monitored
records of cleaning and disinfection.
11 3 (27.27%) (72.73%)
- Provincial and district DLD officers monitored
all vehicles for sufficient bedding to absorb
urine and dropping.
12 3 (25%) 9 (75%)
*They transported their animals 1-2 times during the past 3 years.
Page 127
113
Table 4-7 The survey participants’ responses regarding the communication of the response plan
and the training of preparedness and response plans
Aspect N Never
1-2 times during
the past 3 years
At least 1-2
times/year
Communication of the response plan
- Provincial officers received information
regarding the response plan from national
officers.
5
5 (100%)
- District officers received information regarding
the response plan from provincial officers.
5
1 (20%)
4 (80%)
- Provincial and district officers inform farmers
of the response plan.
8
1 (12.5%)
7 (87.5%)
- Provincial and district officers inform private
veterinarians of the response plan.
8 3 (37.5%) 3 (37.5%) 2 (25%)
- Private veterinarians received information
regarding the response plan from officers.
22 10 (45.45%)
7 (31.82%)
5 (22.73%)
- Farmers received information the response plan
from officers.
32 9 (28.13%) 6 (18.75%) 17 (53.12%)
Training of preparedness and response plans
- Provincial officers had been trained by national
officers on preparedness and response plans.
5
1 (20%)
4 (80%)
- District officers had been trained by provincial
officers on preparedness and response plans.
5
1 (20%)
4 (80%)
- Provincial and district officers provided training
courses regarding preparedness and response
plans to farmers.
8
3 (37.5%)
2 (25%)
3 (37.5%)
- Provincial and district officers provided training
courses regarding preparedness and response
plans to private veterinarians.
8
4 (50%)
3 (37.5%)
1 (12.5%)
- Private veterinarians had been trained by DLD
officers on preparedness and response plans.
21
15 (71.43%)
2 (9.52%)
4 (19.05%)
- Farmers had been trained by DLD officers on
preparedness and response plans.
31 17 (54.84%) 4 (12.9%) 10 (32.26%)
Page 128
114
Table 4-8 The survey participants’ responses regarding their activities when suspected case is
reported
Aspect N Never
1-2 times during
the past 3 years*
Always
Disease investigation
- Provincial and district officers conducted
disease investigation when they received a
notification of FMD suspected cases.
7
1 (14.29%)
6 (85.71%)
- Private veterinarians reported that DLD officers
conducted disease investigation after they notify
DLD officers of FMD suspected cases. **
2
1 (50%)
1 (50%)
- Farmers reported that DLD officers conducted
disease investigation after they notify DLD
officers of FMD suspected cases. **
5 2 (40%) 1 (20%) 2 (40%)
Sample collection and submission
- Provincial and district officers collected and
submitted samples to a laboratory for FMD
diagnosis during disease investigation.
6
1(16.67%)
2 (33.33%)
3 (50%)
- Private veterinarians reported that DLD officers
collected and submitted samples for FMD
diagnosis during disease investigation. ***
2 1 (50%) 1 (50%)
- Farmers reported that DLD officers collected
and submitted samples for FMD diagnosis
during disease investigation. ***
3 1 (33.33%) 1 (33.33%) 1 (33.33%)
Communication of laboratory results
- Provincial and district officers informed private
veterinarians regarding laboratory results.
6
2 (33.33%)
1 (16.67%)
3 (50%)
- Provincial and district officers informed farmers
regarding laboratory results.
6 2 (33.33%) 4 (66.67%)
- Private veterinarians reported that DLD officers
informed them of laboratory results.
2
1 (50%) 1 (50%)
- Farmers reported that DLD officers informed
them of laboratory results.
2 1 (50%) 1 (50%)
Quarantine of suspected animals and/or herds
- Provincial and district officers quarantined
suspected animals until laboratory results were
confirmed negative.
5
5 (100%)
- Provincial and district officers quarantined
suspected herds until laboratory results were
confirmed negative.
4 1 (25%) 3 (75%)
- Private veterinarians reported that DLD officers
quarantined clients’ suspected animals until
laboratory results were confirmed negative.
2
1 (50%)
1 (50%)
- Private veterinarians reported that DLD officers
quarantined clients’ suspected herds until
laboratory results were confirmed negative.
2
1 (50%)
1 (50%)
Page 129
115
Aspect N Never
1-2 times during
the past 3 years*
Always
- Farmers reported that DLD officers quarantined
suspected animals until laboratory results were
confirmed negative.
2
1 (50%)
1 (50%)
- Farmers reported that DLD officers quarantined
suspected herds until laboratory results were
confirmed negative.
2 1 (50%) 1 (50%)
* Participants, who responded in this category, had seen FMD 1-2 times during the past 3 years.
** Consider only participants who reported that they notified officers of FMD suspected cases within 12 hours.
*** Consider only participants who reported that DLD officers conducted disease investigation.
Page 130
116
Table 4-9 The survey participants’ responses regarding their activities when a positive case is
found
Aspect N Never
1-2 times during
the past 3 years*
Always
Quarantine of infected animals and/or herds
- Provincial and district officers quarantined
animals when animals are confirmed FMD
positive.
5
1 (20%)
4 (80%)
- Provincial and district officers quarantined herd
when it included an FMD positive cases.
5 1 (20%) 4 (80%)
- Private veterinarians reported that DLD officers
quarantined clients’ animals when animals are
confirmed FMD positive.
9 4 (44.44%) 3 (33.33%) 2 (22.22%)
- Private veterinarians reported that DLD officers
quarantined clients’ herd when it included an
FMD positive cases.
7 2 (28.57%) 3 (42.86%) 2 (28.57%)
- Private veterinarians advised their clients to
follow the DLD officers’ instructions regarding
quarantine requirements.
7 2 (28.57%) 2 (28.57%) 3 (42.86%)
- Private veterinarians monitored their clients
follow the DLD officers’ instructions regarding
quarantine requirements.
7 3 (42.86%) 1 (14.28%) 3 (42.86%)
- Farmers reported that DLD officers quarantined
animals when animals are confirmed FMD
positive.
10 3 (30%) 3 (30%) 4 (40%)
- Farmers reported that DLD officers quarantined
herd when it included an FMD positive cases.
10 3 (30%) 3 (30%)
4 (40%)
- Farmers follow the DLD officers’ instructions
regarding quarantine requirements.
10 3 (30%) 3 (30%) 4 (40%)
Disinfect and dispose of infected carcasses, bedding,
and materials
- Provincial and district officers advised farmers
to disinfect and dispose of infected carcasses,
bedding, and material following the DLD
recommendation.
5
1 (20%)
4 (80%)
- Provincial and district officers monitored
farmers that they followed the DLD
recommendation of disinfect and dispose of
infected carcasses, bedding, and material.
5 1 (20%) 4 (80%)
Emergency vaccine;
- Provincial and district officers vaccinated all
susceptible animals surrounding the index case.
5
1 (20%)
4 (80%)
- Private veterinarians reported that DLD
subsidized emergency vaccines to control FMD
outbreaks in clients’ farms.
7 2 (28.57%) 3 (42.86%) 2 (28.57%)
Page 131
117
Aspect N Never
1-2 times during
the past 3 years*
Always
- Farmers reported that DLD subsidized
emergency vaccines to control FMD outbreaks
in their farms.
10 3 (30%) 1 (10%) 6 (60%)
*The survey found that participants who responded this category reported that their animals or clients’ animals have
been confirmed as FMD positive 1-2 times during the past 3 years.
Page 132
118
Table 4-10 Survey participants’ responses regarding the slaughtering of FMD infected and exposed
animals
Slaughtering
of animals
Officers’ reports (n=5) Private veterinarians’
reports (n=8)
Farmers’ reports (n=9)
Yes No Not sure Yes No Not sure Yes No Not sure
FMD infected
animals
1
(20%)
2
(40%)
2
(40%)
4
(50%)
3
(37.5%)
1
(12.5%)
8
(88.89%)
1
(11.11%)
FMD exposed
animals
2
(40%)
3
(60%)
2
(25%)
5
(62.5%)
1
(12.5%)
7
(77.78%)
2
(22.22%)
Page 133
119
Figures
Researcher
Focal
persons
Potential
participants
Potential
participants
Potential
participants
Figure 4.1 Questionnaire distribution process
Page 134
120
Figure 4.2 Steps of getting an animal movement permit
Page 135
121
Figure 4.3 Inappropriate vehicles for animal transportation found during field observation.
Water or
urine
leakage
Water
or urine
leakage
Water or
urine
leakage
Water/
urine
stain
Page 136
122
Chapter 5 Conclusions and Recommendations to Thailand to Improve the Current FMD
Control Program in the Proposed FMD-Free Zone
After a thorough assessment of FMD control policies and their implementation in the
proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand, the assessment team came up with the following
conclusions:
⮚ The design of the current FMD control system in the proposed FMD-free zone in
Thailand, including the surveillance system, vaccine strategy, movement control, and
response plans, is appropriate and meets the OIE’s requirements for establishing an
FMD-free zone with vaccination. However, the assessment still found ways to improve
and strengthen the FMD control system in the proposed FMD-free zone.
Recommendations will be provided in the next section.
⮚ The implementation of the surveillance system, reporting system, vaccine strategy,
movement control, and response plans need improvement in order to fulfill the OIE’s
requirements.
⮚ Gaps among the implementation of each system and the OIE’s requirements are
summarized as follows:
o Surveillance system: the current surveillance system was not able to “provide an
early warning system to report suspected cases” [9] (the OIE Terrestrial Code
Article 8.8.40 bullet 1).
o Reporting system: the reporting protocol was not uniformly implemented at all
levels. Stakeholders did not “report promptly any suspicion of FMD” [9] (the OIE
Terrestrial Code Article 8.8.41 bullet 1).
o Vaccine strategy: there was insufficient evidence to prove that “compulsory
vaccination in the target population has been carried out to achieve adequate
vaccination coverage and population immunity and with appropriate vaccine
strain selection” [9] (the OIE Terrestrial Code Article 8.8.3 bullet 3c and 3d).
o Animal movement control: there was a lack of evidence to prove that “the control
of the movement of susceptible animals and their products has been properly
implemented and supervised” [9] (Article 8.8.4 bullet 4d).
o Response plans: there was inadequate response, follow-up, and investigation to
confirm or rule out FMD infection as it required by the OIE.
Page 137
123
⮚ Stakeholder engagement: Though private veterinarians and farmers in the proposed
FMD-free zone are supportive stakeholders who are aware of FMD control activities and
practice in accordance with the current FMD control program, one of the DLD’s
challenges is to enhance their engagement on disease reporting.
Recommendations
Based on the above conclusions, the following future needs and opportunities were
identified.
⮚ Policy/program design:
o Though the design of vaccination strategy meets the OIE’s requirements, which
clearly indicates the criteria for selection of vaccine strain and who has authority to
make the vaccine strain decisions, it could be strengthened by clearly specifying a
time for routine meetings of the committee with authority to make decisions on
vaccine strains. The committee should meet at a certain time of the year, every year to
review virus circulating strains and make recommendations for vaccine strains. They
should not wait until there is an outbreak - one that might not be able to be controlled
by current vaccines since because the FMD virus rapidly replicates and easily
spreads.
o Not only should the Food and Drug Administration Thailand (FDA-Thai) Ministry of
Public Health have authority over the importation of animal drugs and veterinary
biological products, but the DLD should have the authority to test and control FMD
imported vaccines after importation and prior to distribution at the field level for
better FMD vaccine management. The DLD will also have more information
regarding quality and virus strains used in FMD imported vaccines.
o The DLD regulation regarding animal movement control is appropriately designed
and in accordance with the OIE Terrestrial Code, but it should also clearly specify
requirements of vehicles used for animal transportation. For example, vehicles need
sufficient bedding to absorb urine and minimize the leakage of urine and feces.
Moreover, vehicles used for animal transportation should be inspected and approved
by DLD officers in order to ensure the vehicles are suitable for animal transportation
and are not a source of disease spread.
Page 138
124
o The DLD should clearly specify the criteria for when FMD infected animals will be
destroyed by stamping out and when they will be slaughtered for meat production.
These criteria are important for stakeholders because compensation at 75 % of the
market price of the animal will only be paid in the case of stamping out, not in the
case of slaughtering. Also, the criteria need to be clearly communicated to
stakeholders to avoid confusion.
⮚ Policy/program implementation:
o Findings of FMD active surveillance should be publicly available and accessible, so
private veterinarians and farmers will be aware of the actual FMD status. In addition,
private veterinarians and farmers should be able to access findings of FMD
surveillance of their own farms, so they can plan appropriately to prevent and control
FMD.
o DLD officers should increase private veterinarians’ and farmers’ awareness regarding
rapid disease reporting and closely monitor whether private veterinarians and farmers
comply with the DLD’s reporting protocols. In addition, DLD officers should clearly
communicate with private veterinarians and farmers about the response plans when
FMD suspected cases and/or FMD positive cases are found.
o The DLD should make official reports, such as reports of FMD status, post-
vaccination evaluation, and vaccine strain matching publicly available and accessible.
Reports of FMD status should clearly identify source and epidemiology of outbreaks.
o FMD vaccines should be available and sufficient to cover all susceptible species not
only during FMD outbreaks but also under normal situations. The DLD may increase
capacity and availability of the DLD’s vaccine production plant by establishing a new
vaccine plant. However, that may not be feasible due to the current DLD budget
constraints, yet an effective vaccination program is essential for a successful FMD
control program.
o The DLD should work closely with FDA-Thai to better manage the importation of
FMD vaccine. Information of FMD imported vaccine, such as virus strains used and
quality control, should be shared among these two agencies.
Page 139
125
o The DLD should revise their human resource plan to better allocate staff at local
levels to improve delivery of Veterinary Services.
o Communications between the DLD and stakeholders regarding the FMD control
program need to be strengthened for more effective message delivery. The DLD may
set up or increase regularity of stakeholder meetings. Webinars (web-based seminars)
and/or teleconference should be used to enhance communication with target
audiences, especially private veterinarians. Effective and adequate communication
could enhance stakeholders’ engagement in the FMD control program.
o The Thai government should support DLD recruitment of more veterinarians and
should have sufficient well-trained staff to work at the provincial and district levels in
order to deliver Veterinary Services appropriately and effectively.
o The Thai government should recognize the importance and benefits of establishing an
FMD-free zone and should have a strong commitment to support the DLD to make
sure that the proposed FMD-free zone will be recognized by the OIE.
The above recommendations are prioritized in the following table (Table 5-1). The
recommendations are prioritized based on an analysis of the feasibility factors. The first priority
recommendation is that the DLD should take immediate steps to strengthen communication with
stakeholders regarding the FMD control program. Although the impact of this implementation is
not as high as some of the other recommendations, strengthening communication does not
require special techniques or high levels of financial support to initiate and maintain. The DLD is
able to apply its tools, such as social media, podcasts, and mobile application, that are currently
available without external support to enhance its communication. Strengthening communication
can also be implemented immediately under current DLD authorities.
To strengthen communication, an immediate step the DLD can take is to update their
websites regarding the proposed FMD-free zone and the current FMD control program. This
should make the information easier to find. There are many approaches to strengthen and to
enhance DLD communication options, such as having regular stakeholder meetings, using video
conferencing to expand its communication, and publishing and distributing meeting notes to
stakeholders. Future research is needed to identify the cost-effectiveness and feasibility of each
approach.
Page 140
126
Tables
Table 5-1 Prioritized table of recommendations to improve the current FMD control implementation program
Recommendations Goals
Feasibility factors
Technical support Legal support Investment /
Financial support
Period of time Impacts
1) Strengthen
communication
between the DLD
and stakeholders
regarding the
current FMD
control program
To increase
stakeholder
awareness
regarding the
current FMD
control system
This
recommendation
does not require
external technical
support.
The DLD has
authority to
implement the
recommendation.
This recommendation
does not require a
high level of financial
support to initiate and
maintain.
This
recommendation
can be
implemented
immediately.
Medium - Though stakeholders
will increase their awareness and
their engagement in the current
FMD control program,
FMD may not be controlled by
this implementation alone.
2) Make official
reports publicly
available and
accessible
To increase
transparency,
raise
awareness, and
improve
collaboration
between DLD
and
stakeholders
This
recommendation
does not require
external technical
support.
The DLD has
authority to
implement the
recommendation.
This recommendation
does not require a
high level of financial
support to initiate and
maintain.
This
recommendation
can be
implemented
immediately.
High - there are positive and
negative outcomes if the reports
are made publicly available. The
negative outcome is that it may
affect trade if FMD is revealed
to be circulating. The positive
outcome is that the reports may
increase stakeholder awareness
and their concerns about the
disease situation in their farms
and surrounding areas.
3) Work closely
with the FDA-
Thai to ensure
imported
vaccines are of
the proper type
and quality
To ensure
imported
vaccines are
the appropriate
type and
quality to
control FMD in
Thailand
This
recommendation
does not require
external technical
support.
The DLD does
not have
authority to
implement this
recommendation
alone and needs
support from the
higher level
government.
This recommendation
does not require a
high level of financial
support to initiate and
maintain.
This
recommendation
takes time to
initiate and
make an
agreement
(MOU) among
two authorities.
Medium -The DLD will have
more information regarding the
imported vaccines that are
currently available in the market.
FMD could be better controlled
if the imported vaccines contain
the virus that matches with the
field virus.
Page 141
127
Recommendations Goals
Feasibility factors
Technical support Legal support Investment /
Financial support
Period of time Impacts
4) Revise the DLD's
human resources
plan
To better
allocate staff at
the local level
and to recruit
more
veterinarians
and technical
staff to work at
the local level
in high demand
areas
This
recommendation
does not require
external technical
support.
The DLD has
authority to
implement this
recommendation but the human
resources plan
also needs to be
approved by
another
government
agency (Office of
the Civil Service
Commission).
This recommendation
does require some
financial support to
hire more staff
working at the local
level.
This
recommendation
takes time to
propose a
revised plan and
to get approval
from another
government
agency.
Medium – The DLD will have
sufficient local staff to provide
better delivery of Veterinary
Services.
5) Establish a new
FMD vaccine
production plant
To increase
capacity and
availability of
DLD
production of
FMD vaccine,
ensure proper
vaccine type is
used
This
recommendation
requires technical
support from other
resources such as
international
agencies.
The DLD has
authority to
implement this
recommendation.
This recommendation
does require a very
high level of financial
support to initiate and
maintain. Also, it
may require extra
financial support
from the higher level
of government.
It can be time-
consuming to
plan, construct,
and establish a
new vaccine
plant.
High - FMD would be better
controlled if there were vaccines
sufficiently available to cover all
susceptible animals and such
vaccines contain the current field
strain. Would minimize or
eliminate the need to import
vaccines.
Page 142
128
Recommendations for potential future research
Further research is needed relative to some of the recommendations to determine which
options are most practical, cost-effective, and sustainable. This suggested research includes:
o Determine what type of communication and methods are preferable by stakeholders;
i.e. official letter, personal communication, electronic communication, cell phone
alerts, stakeholder meetings, or some other communication method(s)
o Determine the cost and effectiveness of each communication approach
o Conduct a workload assessment and determine optimal DLD staffing in the proposed
FMD-free zone
o Conduct a feasibility study of constructing and operating a new FMD vaccine plant
o Conduct an updated study to assess the cost-benefit and feasibility of applying for the
designation of the proposed FMD-free zone as an OIE -designated official FMD-free
zone
Page 144
130
APPENDIX 1.
Geography of Thailand and the proposed FMD-free zone
The Kingdom of Thailand (Thailand) is located in the center of Southeast Asia and shares
land borders with Myanmar (to the North and West), Laos (to the North and East), Cambodia (to
the East), and Malaysia (to the south). Thailand has two coastlines: on the East (Gulf of
Thailand) and the South (Andaman Sea). The total area of Thailand is 513,115 km2. Thailand is
divided into 6 geographical regions based on natural features, including North, Northeast,
Central, East, West, and South. These regions are comprised of 77 provinces. In line with
Department of Livestock Development (DLD) functional responsibility, the 77 provinces are
grouped into 9 livestock regions (Figure 1). Most of Thailand has a tropical wet and dry climate.
Average temperatures in Thailand range from 19C (66.2F) to 38C (100.4F).
Figure 1: Map of Thailand shows 77 provinces and 9 Livestock regions
Page 145
131
The proposed FMD-free zone is located in livestock region 2, in the eastern part of
Thailand (Figure 2). Only seven of nine provinces (64 districts, 481 sub-districts) livestock
region 2 are included in the proposed FMD-free zone: Chonburi, Rayong, Chantaburi, Trat,
Sakeaw, Prachinburi, and Chachengsao. The geographical barriers that separate the proposed
FMD-free zone and the rest of country are the Bangpakong River (west of the proposed FMD-
free zone), the Kaoyai Mountain (north of the proposed FMD-free zone), the Gulf of Thailand
(south of the proposed FMD-free zone), and the Bantad Mountain Range (east of the proposed
FMD-free zone and a natural boundary with Cambodia).
Figure 2: The proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand (livestock region 2)
The livestock production system in the proposed FMD-free zone is diverse, ranging from
backyard to agribusiness farms (integrated farms). Since the eastern part of Thailand is the
largest swine production area, swine commodities in the proposed FMD-free zone are usually
seen on integrated farms. The farming in general are seen on a backyard farming. Comparing to
the rest of the country, backyard farming in the proposed FMD-free zone is upscale to enhance
farmer’s living standard and farm biosecurity. For example, farmers have fencing that separates
the living area and farming area; they restrict visitors and vehicles entering to their farms. The
most populated livestock in the proposed FMD-free zone is swine population while sheep is the
least populated in this zone. Table 1 shows the number of livestock in the proposed FMD-free
zone. Figure 3 shows livestock density distribution.
Page 146
132
Table 1. Number of livestock in the proposed FMD-free zone, 2017 (source: Department of Livestock Development)
Province Beef cattle Dairy cattle Buffaloes Sheep Goats Swine
Chonburi 11,374 1,508 4,615 1,101 3,355 518,072
Rayong 13,985 - 590 49 819 161,162
Chantabuti 1,855 2,515 606 13 138 74,911
Trat 1,739 - 762 138 436 71,515
Chachengsao 13,785 140 2,714 643 2,110 222,993
Prachinburi 6,541 55 8,219 17 469 202,737
Sakeaw 37,858 21,193 10,582 303 2,136 20,367
Total 87,137 25,411 28,088 2,264 9,463 1,271,757
Figure 3. Livestock density distribution in the proposed FMD-free zone, 2017
Page 147
133
APPENDIX 2.
Process of the official recognition of disease status
by the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE)1
Official recognition of disease status by the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE)
currently applies to six diseases: African Horse Sickness (AHS), Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy (BSE), Classical Swine Fever (CSF), Contagious Bovine Pleuropneumonia
(CBPP), Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD), and Peste des Petits Ruminants (PPR). Member
countries applying for official recognition of a specific disease status must submit an application
(dossier) to the Director General of the OIE, and the dossier must be signed by the delegate of the
member country. OIE, the Scientific and Technical Department, at Headquarters screens the
dossier upon receipt. If an information gap is observed, OIE Headquarters may request an
amendment or additional information.
The dossier should be submitted 45 days before the deadline, which falls on the date of the
relevant ad hoc group meeting. The ad hoc groups are groups of world specialists for each disease.
After each General Session, the Director General writes a letter to inform the delegate of the
member country of the scheduled ad hoc group meetings. Any dossier received after the deadline
will be investigated in the following cycle.
The responsibility to assess the applications of member countries, in accordance with the
Terrestrial Code, belongs to the OIE Scientific Commission for Animal Diseases (Scientific
Commission), which operates on behalf of the World Assembly. The assessment of the Scientific
Commission is usually preceded by an assessment or recommendation by the relevant ad hoc
group. Any ad hoc group members who have conflict of interests or relations with a particular
dossier do not take part in the decision-making. Reports of the ad hoc group are provided to the
Director General through the Scientific Commission for consideration. These reports do not
predetermine the Scientific Commission’s conclusion; however, these aid the Scientific
Commission in making decisions and formulating recommendations for adoption by the World
Assembly at the General Session. The Scientific Commission may request an expert mission to an
applicant member country through the Director General to verify the facts in the dossier before
1 Source: World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) – Standard operating procedures for official recognition of disease status
and for the endorsement of official control programmes of member countries for FMD.
Page 148
134
making a decision or recommendation. If an application of a member country has been evaluated
by the Scientific Commission, the member country receives a letter from the Director General,
stating the evaluation results including reasons for a positive or negative outcome. In the case of a
negative outcome, the letter also indicates the gaps that should be addressed in the future and is
not released to the public.
Once the Scientific Commission has recommended which countries should receive official
disease statuses, the Director General distributes a list of those countries to all member countries’
delegates prior to each General Session for comments. Member countries have 60 days to register
any objection based on scientific or technical information.
The disease status is officially recognized and approved by adoption of resolutions in the
World Assembly, which is the last day of the General Session. A certificate of official disease
status recognition is provided to each member country at the end of the General Session. The list
of member countries obtaining an officially recognized disease status is updated and posted on the
OIE website by the OIE Headquarters.
Figure 2 Process of official recognition of disease status
Adapted from Standard operating procedures for official recognition of disease status, OIE
Page 149
135
Member countries obtaining an official recognition of disease status must reconfirm every
year that their status has remained unchanged, and they must submit the relevant data to the
Terrestrial Code for the recognized status category. The delegates must sign annual reconfirmation
forms and deliver these to the Director General. Failure to submit the annual reconfirmation forms
and relevant data results in suspension of official disease status.
Information and relevant data required by the OIE for official recognition of disease status
The OIE develops guidelines and questionnaires to assist member countries in developing
their dossiers. Dossiers of member countries are kept confidential unless the member countries
allow the OIE Headquarters to place the dossiers in the public domain. There are four categories
of FMD status recognition; (1) FMD-free country where vaccination is not practiced, (2) FMD-
free country where vaccination is practiced, (3) FMD-free zone where vaccination is not practiced,
and (4) FMD-free zone where vaccination practiced. This research focuses on “FMD-free zone
where vaccination is practiced”.
The dossier of any member country required to obtain official recognition as an FMD-free
country where vaccination is practiced must include national veterinary service, FMD diagnosis-
surveillance-eradication-prevention, and contingency planning and outbreak response programs.
The dossier should explain geographical and physical factors related to FMD circulation and
livestock industry in the applicant country. General information about the country, neighboring
countries that share borders, countries that share a link of FMD epidemiology, and a map
identifying these factors shall be provided.
National Veterinary Services
The applicant country must demonstrate appropriate organizations and legislation related
to Veterinary Services. Chain of command, responsibilities and structure of the organizations must
be defined and documented. The organization structure must clearly present the relationships
among government ministers, a department authority of the Chief Veterinary Officer, and
Veterinary Services. Also the relationships with other authorities and industrial sectors should be
described, and the role and responsibilities of the Chief Veterinary Officer must be defined.
Veterinary Services must meet the fundamental principles of quality: independence,
impartially, integrity, and objectivity. Veterinary Services employees must have relevant
qualifications, experience, and expertise to make reliable professional judgements. The legal
framework must state and verify the responsibilities and organization of Veterinary Services which
Page 150
136
control the animal identification system, animal movement control, disease surveillance, disease
control, import control, reporting systems, training, inspection and certification, traceability
systems, and communication of epidemiological information. Veterinary Services’ relationships
with field systems, laboratories, and other services should be described. Effective systems for
animal disease surveillance and notification systems must be demonstrated and adequately cover
animal populations. Standards and procedures related to animal disease control, surveillance,
diagnosis, prevention and eradication must be developed and documented for all stakeholders in
each relevant activity. Veterinary Services should have sufficient human resources, financial
resources, and effective organization to maintain ability to control animal disease and animal
health promotion.
The OIE also requests member countries to provide a list and summary of all FMD related
legislation. Veterinary Services must ensure that these policies are truly understood, implemented
and maintained at all levels of organization. In addition, the dossier must explain the role of
farmers, livestock industry, and related stakeholders in FMD surveillance and control, including
training and awareness programs. The role of private veterinarians related to FMD activities must
be included.
As the veterinary statutory body is not part of Veterinary Services, but rather complements
the evaluation of Veterinary Services, an evaluation of its legal framework, organization structure,
and function should be concerned. The veterinary statutory body is an organization or association
representing the veterinarians of the country that is free from political and commercial interests. It
must have the legal powers to enforce and control veterinarian and para-veterinarian practices. The
registration, licensing, and standards of veterinary professionals and para-veterinary professionals
should be included in the evaluation.
FMD eradication
An applicant country must describe its FMD history: the first date of virus detection, source
and origin of infection, date of the last case, and types and subtypes of FMD. The dossier must
explain how FMD was controlled and eradicated, and what strategy and policy were implemented
in the country. Each control and eradication activity should be described in all levels of
organization. If operational guidelines exist, the applicant should summarize and include these
guidelines in the dossier.
Vaccination strategies should be included in this section, providing the details of vaccine
strain selection, potency test, type of vaccine, purity, details of vaccine matching performed,
Page 151
137
vaccinated animal species, identification of vaccinated animals, record and record keeping, and
the date of last vaccination operation. Not only must the vaccine strategy be provided, but also
evidence of vaccine effectiveness, vaccination coverage, and serological surveillance.
Animal identification and movement control must be implemented in an applicant country.
The dossier should describe how susceptible animals are identified and which methods are applied
to identify those animals. Herd registration and traceability need to be described. In addition, paths
of movement and the action taken when illegal movement is detected must be included.
FMD diagnosis
The applicant country must provide documents related to FMD diagnosis techniques,
transport of specimens, and risk management in diagnostic laboratory and animal facilities. If the
applicant has FMD diagnosis laboratories, a list of approved laboratories must be provided. If not,
the applicant’s country must provide names of laboratories, procedures to handle and submit
samples to laboratories, follow-up procedures, and time frame to obtain results.
An overview of the FMD approved laboratories must be discussed, including the following
topics: procedure for official accreditation, internal quality management systems, inter-laboratory
proficiency testing, virus handling procedure, biosafety and biosecurity measurements, laboratory
capacity in tests and samples processing, and type of tests and their performance (sensitivity and
specificity).
FMD surveillance
The applicant country must explain the criteria for suspicious FMD, the procedure to notify
an FMD suspected case, and penalties if failure to notify. A summary table should be provided
with the number of suspected cases, number of tested samples, species, type of sample, testing
method, and results for the past two years.
Serological and virological surveillance must be conducted and freedom from infection
demonstrated. The applicant country should provide details on surveillance design (target
population, sample size, level of confidence, sampling strategy), frequency of surveillance
conducting, and a summary table of serological and virological surveillance. If suspicious or
positive results are found, the applicant must give details on follow-up actions.
The applicant country must give details about susceptible animal species in the country,
production systems and maps showing the distribution of the susceptible animal population,
including estimation of wildlife population and geographic distribution. Current measures to
prevent contact between domestic and susceptible wildlife species must be provided.
Page 152
138
The number and location of slaughterhouses, livestock markets, and events related to
susceptible livestock should be provided in the dossier. The applicant country also should describe
the patterns of livestock movement, transportation of susceptible animals, and handling of those
animals.
FMD prevention
The dossier should include not only information about the applicant country but also its
collaboration with neighboring countries. The applicant country should provide relevant
information about neighboring countries (e.g. size and distance from border to affected animals).
The dossier should present any collaboration and coordination of FMD related activities with
neighboring countries, including information sharing. If swill feeds are applied in the applicant
country, measures to monitor and control contamination of infected agents must be provided. Also
corrective action to prevent future FMD outbreaks must be provided.
The applicant country must describe the criteria for approving imports of susceptible
animals or their products from other countries. Also import conditions, required test procedures,
quarantine and isolation periods, and summaries of countries or zones that are allowed should be
described. The dossier must include the control measures and internal movement control that are
applied on imported animals and animal products. If imported animals and products require import
permits or health certificates, the applicant country should describe and provide the documents
related to the procedure to certify or obtain health certificates.
A map location and the number of ports, airports and land crossings must be attached to
the dossier. The applicant country must explain the import control and the communication systems
between central authorities and border inspection posts, and between border inspection posts. If
the import control system is an independent body which is not part of official services, the
applicant country needs to report its structure and management system, staffing levels, resources,
and its responsibility to Veterinary Services. Safe disposal and management of waste should be
detailed, especially waste from international traffic, the responsibilities body, quantity of disposal,
and disposal locations.
The dossier must include regulations concerning the import, procedure, type of products,
and frequency of checking at point of entry into the applicant country or the final destination.
Action when an illegal import is detected must be explained.
Page 153
139
Contingency planning and outbreak response program
The applicant country must provide guidelines and contingency plans for dealing with
suspected or confirmed FMD outbreaks. Quarantine measures for suspicious cases and premises
must be described, including procedures to follow suspicious cases and premises. The applicant
country must explain the actions taken to control and report of the disease if there is an FMD
outbreak. In addition, sampling and testing procedures to confirm the causative agent, control and
eradication procedures, procedures to access of antigen and vaccine bank, and details of any
compensation during FMD outbreak must be included in the contingency plans.
In summary, the ad hoc group and the Scientific Commission consider and certify an
applicant country as FMD-free based on the scientific evidence. The evidence to qualify a country
as FMD-free, where vaccination is practiced, is described:
Member countries must have regular animal disease records and a prompt animal
disease reporting system;
In the past two years, there have been no FMD cases and no evidence of FMDV
transmission during the past 12 months;
Disease surveillance has been implemented to detect FMD clinical signs and shows no
evidence of FMDV infection in unvaccinated animals and FMDV transmission in
vaccinated animals;
Regular prevention and early detection of FMD have been implemented;
Vaccination must be compulsory, be carried out to prevent FMD with appropriate
vaccine strain selection, and meet adequate vaccination coverage and population
immunity;
Member countries have properly implemented and supervised the prevention of FMDV
and the movement control of susceptible animals and animal products into the applicant
country.
Reference
1. World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) (2012). – Standard operating procedures for
official recognition of disease status and for the endorsement of official control
programmes of member countries for FMD. (July), 1–9.
Page 154
140
APPENDIX 3.
Assessment matrix to identify shortcomings of policy design
(1) Surveillance system is not appropriately designed to find the FMD infection
Indicators of shortcomings Measurements Methods Data sources
(1) Passive surveillance is not included in the
surveillance plan.
(2) Active surveillance is not included in the
surveillance plan.
1. The surveillance plan do not specify roles of
farmers and private veterinarians to report any
suspected case to officers as a passive
surveillance.
2. The surveillance plan do not include these
following activities as an active surveillance:
i. Annually serological test (to estimate
FMD prevalence)
ii. Routinely farm visit by veterinary
services
a. Review the DLD rules on disease
surveillance and prevention
b. Review disease surveillance plan
and design
Disease
control unit
(3) The surveillance plan is not covered all
susceptible species and/or all levels of
animal units such as industrial level, small
scale farmers, government facilities, etc.
(4) Sample size and sampling strategy are not
appropriate.
1. Referenced population do not include all
susceptible farmed animals (beef cattle, dairy
cattle, swine, sheep, and goat) that are raised in
the proposed FMD-free zone.
2. Referenced population do not include all types
of production (backyard, industrial, government
facilities).
3. Inappropriate underline assumptions for
sample size calculation:
i. Sample size is not calculated to
demonstrate the absence of FMD infection
ii. Sample size is not calculated with at least
90% confidence* with sensitivity and
specificity of the test at least 90%*
(*acceptable level)
a. Review surveillance sampling
strategy
Disease
control unit
Page 155
141
(2) Vaccination program is not appropriately designed
Indicators of shortcomings Measurements Methods Data sources
(1) Policy does not specify who has
authority to make decision on vaccine
strain needed.
1. Veterinary at the national level are not able to
present any document that specify a responsible
team/units to make a decision on vaccine strain.
a. Interview officers who is in charge
of development of vaccine strategy
b. Review vaccination strategy
c. Review roles and responsibilities of
policy actors
- Disease
control unit
- Vaccine unit
- Field visits
(2) Policy does not specify how vaccine
strains are determined.
2. Veterinary at the national level are not able to
present any document that clarify how vaccine
strain are determined and what criteria are used
for determination.
a. Interview officers who is in charge
of development of vaccine strategy
b. Review vaccination strategy
c. Review plan of vaccine selection,
production, and distribution
- Disease
control unit
- Vaccine unit
(3) Not all susceptible species including
swine are included in the overall vaccine
strategy.
1. vaccine strategy do not specify routine
vaccination programs (typically 1-3 times a year)
in all covered species based on scientific report
of the duration of immunity of a vaccine;
(1) Beef cattle
(2) Dairy cattle
(3) Swine
(4) Sheep
(5) Goat
a. Interview officers who is in charge
of development of vaccine strategy
b. Review vaccination strategy
c. Review vaccination campaign
design
- Disease
control unit
- Vaccine unit
Page 156
142
(3) Control of movement of animals and animal products into the proposed FMD-free zone is not appropriately designed
Indicators of shortcomings Measurements Methods Data sources
(1) Animals (susceptible species) and/or
animal products are not covered under
movement regulations.
1. The movement regulation does not include all
following
i. Swine
ii. Dairy cattle and beef cattle
iii. Sheep and goat
iv. Wildlife
v. Animal feed, and
vi. All products derived from susceptible
animals such as milk, hide, skin, etc.
a. Review DLD rules on animals and
animal products movement control
Disease
control unit
(2) Requirements (before movement are
allowed) are not adequate to detect
infection and prevent disease spread.
1. Requirements do not specify the following
criteria:
i. Animals show no clinical sign of FMD on
the day of shipment
ii. Animals are kept in the establishment of
origin for 90 days or since birth if younger
than 90 days
iii. FMD has not occurred within the
establishment of origin for 90 days and
within a 10 km radius of the establishment
for 30 days.
iv. Animals are isolated in an establishment
for the 30 days prior to shipment.
v. Animals in isolation is subject to diagnostic
for evidence of FMDV with negative
results on samples collected at least 28
days after start of isolation period.
vi. Animals were not exposed to any source of
FMDV during their transportation from the
establishment to the place of shipment.
a. Review DLD rules on animals and
animal products movement control
b. Interview officers who is in charge
of development of animal movement
regulations
Animal
movement
control unit
Page 157
143
Indicators of shortcomings Measurements Methods Data sources
(3) There is no regulation or requirements
for the use of vehicles for livestock
transportation
1. The regulation does not specify requirements
for the use of vehicles for livestock
transportation.
2. The regulation does not specify that “the
animals should be transported under the
supervision of the Veterinary Authority in a
vehicle, which was cleansed and disinfected
before loading, directly from the establishment of
origin to the slaughterhouse/abattoir without
coming into contact with other susceptible
animals”
3. Officers are not able to present any document
related to vehicles control regulation.
a. Review any existing vehicles policy
b. Interview national and regional
officers
- Animal
movement
control unit
- Field visits
(4) Response plan is not appropriately designed to stop FMDV circulation
Indicators of shortcomings
(Response plan design)
Measurements Methods Data sources
(1) There is no appropriate follow up plan,
investigation, further serological tests,
quarantine, and/or requirement to
remove animals if serological test (NSP)
was positive.
1. The follow up plan does not include:
i. Trace-back to origin
ii. Retest (confirmation)
iii. Quarantine (herds or animals)
iv. Quarantine release plan (what is criteria to
release quarantine)
a. Review current response,
management, and follow up plan when
positive animals are found
Disease
control unit
(2) Response plan does not include a
compensation.
1. Officers are not able to present any document
verify a compensation.
2. Criteria for compensation are not described in
details i.e. compensate to individual infected
animals or whole herds, compensation will not
be paid if farmers do not report disease to
officers, etc.
a. Interview officers who is in charge
of development of compensation
scheme
b. Review an existing policy
(Ministerial Regulation on animal
compensation due to disease outbreak)
- Disease
control unit
- Field visits
Page 158
144
APPENDIX 4.
Assessment matrix to identify shortcoming of implementation
(1) Surveillance system has not been appropriately implemented.
Indicators of failure
(surveillance
implementation)
Measurements Methods
National level/ National
officers
Local officers Private veterinarians Farmers
Provincial officers District officers
(1) Lack of
communication on
the findings of the
FMD active
surveillance.
Note: FMD sero-
surveillance has been
conducted biannually
Study expectation:
stakeholders received
information regarding
the surveillance 1-2
times/year
a. They report that they
have never informed
local officers, of the
FMD surveillance
findings in the
proposed FMD-free
zone.
b. They report that they
have never informed
private veterinarians
and farmers of the
FMD surveillance
findings in the
proposed FMD-free
zone.
a. They report that they
have never or 1-2
times during the past
three years received
information of the
FMD surveillance
findings in the
proposed FMD-free
zone from the national
officers.
b. They report that they
have never or 1-2
times during the past
three years informed
district officers of the
FMD surveillance
findings in the
proposed FMD-free
zone.
c. They report that they
have never or 1-2
times during the past
three years informed
private veterinarians
and farmers the FMD
surveillance findings
in the proposed FMD-
free zone.
d. They report that they
have never or 1-2
times during the past
a. They report that they
have never or 1-2
times during the past
three years received
information of the
FMD surveillance
findings in the
proposed FMD-free
zone from above
level.
b. They report that they
have never or 1-2
times during the past
three years informed
private veterinarians
and farmers the FMD
surveillance findings
in the proposed
FMD-free zone.
c. They report that they
have never or 1-2
times during the
past three years received laboratory
results from
laboratories.
d. They report that they
have never or 1-2
times during the
past three years informed private
a. They report that they
have never or 1-2
times during the
past three years received information
of the FMD
surveillance findings
in the proposed
FMD-free zone from
officers.
b. They report that they
have never or 1-2
times during the
past three years received laboratory
results from officers.
a. They report that they
have never or 1-2
times during the
past three years received information
of the FMD
surveillance findings
in the proposed
FMD-free zone from
officers.
b. They report that they
have never or 1-2
times during the
past three years received laboratory
results from officers.
a. Question
naire
b. Interview
Page 159
145
Indicators of failure
(surveillance
implementation)
Measurements Methods
National level/ National
officers Local officers Private veterinarians Farmers
Provincial officers District officers
three years received
laboratory results from
the laboratories.
e. They report that they
have never or 1-2
times during the past
three years informed
private veterinarians of
the laboratory results.
f. They report that they
have never or 1-2
times during the past
three years informed
farmers of the
laboratory results.
veterinarians of the
laboratory results.
e. They report that they
have never or 1-2
times during the
past three years informed private
veterinarians of the
laboratory results.
(2) There are no routine
farm visits and
animal health
observation.
a. They report that they
have never or 1-2 times
during the past three
years visited farms and
observed animal health
status in their
responsible areas.
a. They report that they
have never or 1-2
times during the past
three years visited
farms and observed
animal health status in
their responsible areas.
a. They report that they
have never or 1-2 times
during the past three
years visited clients
farms and observed
their clients animal
health status
a. They report that they
have never or 1-2 times
during the past three
years observed their
animal health status.
Questionn
aire
(3) The surveillance
program is not
evaluated.
a. They report that the
FMD surveillance
program have never
been audited by
internal or external
partners to identify
potential biases and
ensure the functional
system to provide
verifiable data and
documentation.
a. They report that they
have never kept
records when they
conduct a national
surveillance program.
b. They are not able to
trace back to the origin
of animals if the
surveillance found
positive results.
a. They report that they
have never kept
records when they
conduct a national
surveillance program.
b. They are not able to
trace back to the origin
of animals if the
surveillance found
positive results.
a. Interview
b. Collection
and analysis
existing
data
Page 160
146
Indicators of failure
(surveillance
implementation)
Measurements Methods
National level/ National
officers Local officers Private veterinarians Farmers
Provincial officers District officers
(5.1) If the surveillance program is evaluated,
ii. Surveillance program is not able to detect NSP positive animals.
iii. Samples are not taken from interested population and represent all covered species and types of production.
iv. There is no following action taken if positive results were found:
- Re-serological test
- Trace-back to the origin of animals
- Written quarantine (law enforcement)
- Verbal quarantine
v. There are no previous records of action that has been taken on positive results.
vi. Proportion of NSP positive and tested animals is not decreased.
Review
surveillance
program &
evaluation
reports.
(2) Reporting system has not been appropriately implemented.
Indicators of
shortcomings
Measurements Methods
National level/ National
officers
Local level Private veterinarians Farmers
Provincial officers District officers
(1) Lack of
communication of
reporting protocol
a. They report that they
have never informed
local officers about an
updated reporting
protocol.
b. They report that they
have never informed
private veterinarians
about an updated
reporting protocol.
c. They report that they
have never informed
farmers about an
updated reporting
protocol.
a. They report that they
have never received
an updated reporting
protocol from
national officers.
b. They report that they
have never informed
district officers of an
updated reporting
protocol.
c. They report that they
have never informed
private veterinarians
of an updated
reporting protocol.
d. They report that they
have never informed
farmers of an updated
reporting protocol.
a. They report that they
have never received an
updated reporting
protocol from
provincial officers.
b. They report that they
have never informed
private veterinarians of
an updated reporting
protocol from
provincial officers.
c. They report that they
have never informed
farmers of an updated
reporting protocol from
provincial officers.
a. They report that they
have never received an
updated reporting
protocol from the DLD
officer.
a. They report that they
have never received an
updated reporting
protocol from the DLD
officer.
a. Question
naire
b. Interview
Page 161
147
Indicators of
shortcomings
Measurements Methods
National level/ National
officers Local level Private veterinarians Farmers
Provincial officers District officers
d. They do not clarify the
report protocol in the
same direction with the
local officers.
e. They do not clarify
the report protocol in
the same direction
with the national
officers.
d. They do not clarify the
report protocol in the
same direction with the
national and provincial
officers.
Interview
e. They are not able to
present record of
communication.
f. They are not able to
present record of
communication.
e. They are not able to
present record of
communication.
Collection
and
analysis
existing
data
(2) Reporting protocol
is not uniformly
implemented at all
levels.
a. They report that they
have never received
disease reports from
local officers, private
veterinarians, and
farmers. (if there is any
suspected case)
a. They report that they
have never notified
the national officers
within 24 hours
when they noticed or
received any
notification of
suspected case.
a. They report that they
have never notified the
national officers within
24 hours when they
noticed or received any
notification of
suspected case.
a. They report that they
have never notified the
DLD officer within 12
hours when they
noticed any
notification of
suspected case.
a. They report that they
have never notified the
DLD officer within 12
hours when they
noticed any
notification of
suspected case.
a. Question
naire
b. Interview
c. Collection
and
analysis
existing
data
(3) There is no disease
report analysis at the
local or national
level.
a. The BDCVS do not
assign any responsible
unit to monitor FMD
status and analyze
disease outbreak.
b. They report that they
do not regularly
analyze disease report.
a. They report that
there is no disease
report analysis at
local level.
(Interview)
a. They report that there
is no disease report
analysis at local level.
(Interview)
a. Review
organization
structure
b. Interview
c. Question
naire
(4) No one is using the
disease report
analysis for
prevention and
control of FMD.
a. They report that they
do not regularly use
disease report analysis
to develop FMD
control and its
prevention plans.
a. They report that they
do not regularly use
disease report
analysis for
prevention and
control of FMD in
their responsible
areas.
a. They report that they
do not regularly use
disease report analysis
for prevention and
control of FMD in
their responsible areas.
a. They report that they
do not regularly use
disease report analysis
for prevention and
control of FMD in
their responsible
farms.
Interview
Page 162
148
Indicators of
shortcomings
Measurements Methods
National level/ National
officers Local level Private veterinarians Farmers
Provincial officers District officers
b. They strongly
disagree or disagree that they can easily
access the disease
report analysis.
b. They strongly disagree
or disagree that they
can easily access the
disease report analysis.
b. They strongly disagree
or disagree that they
can easily access the
disease report analysis.
They strongly disagree
or disagree that they can
easily access the disease
report analysis.
Questionn
aire
(5) Compliance with
reporting protocol is
not monitored.
a. They are not able to
provide records of
violators and penalties
if local officers fail to
follow the reporting
protocol.
b. They are not able to
provide records of
violators and penalties
if private veterinarians
fail to follow the
reporting protocol.
c. They are not able to
provide records of
violators and penalties
if farmers fail to
follow the reporting
protocol.
a. They are not able to
provide records of
violators and
penalties if district
officers fail to
follow the reporting
protocol.
b. They are not able to
provide records of
violators and
penalties if private
veterinarians fail to
follow the reporting
protocol.
c. They are not able to
provide records of
violators and
penalties if farmers
fail to follow the
reporting protocol.
c. They are not able to
provide records of
violators and penalties
if private veterinarians
fail to follow the
reporting protocol.
d. They are not able to
provide records of
violators and penalties
if farmers fail to
follow the reporting
protocol.
Collection
and
analysis
existing
data
Page 163
149
(3) Vaccination program has not been appropriately implemented.
Indicators of failure
(vaccination
implementation)
Measurements Methods
National level/ National
officers
Local officers Private
veterinarians
Farmers
Provincial officers District officers
(1) Lack of
communication on
vaccine strategy*
* Concerning type of
vaccine & adjuvant, the
species are included,
vaccine strain, and
vaccine interval
Note: FMD virus has a
very high antigenic
variation. Thus vaccine
need to be monitored
and updated.
Study expectation:
Stakeholders should
receive information
regarding the vaccine
strategy 1-2 times/year.
a. They report that they have
never or 1-2 time during
past 3 years informed local
officers about new
information and updated
vaccine strategy.
b. They report that they have
never or 1-2 time during
past 3 years informed
private veterinarians about
new information and
updated vaccine strategy.
c. They report that they have
never or 1-2 time during
past 3 years informed
farmers about type of
vaccine, vaccine adjuvant,
vaccine strain, and vaccine
interval that they should
apply to their livestock.
d. They are not able to present
record of communication.
a. They report that they have
never or 1-2 time during
past 3 years received any
information and updated
vaccine strategy from the
national officers.
b. They report that they have
never or 1-2 time during
past 3 years informed the
district officers about new
information and updated
vaccine strategy.
c. They report that they have
never or 1-2 time during
past 3 years informed
private veterinarians about
new information and
updated vaccine strategy.
d. They report that they have
never or 1-2 time during
past 3 years informed
farmers about type of
vaccine, vaccine adjuvant,
vaccine strain, and vaccine
interval that they should
apply to their livestock.
e. They are not able to present
record of communication.
a. They report that they
have never or 1-2 time
during past 3 years
received any information
and updated vaccine
strategy from the
provincial officers or
above level.
b. They report that they
have never or 1-2 time
during past 3 years
informed private
veterinarians about new
information and
updated vaccine
strategy.
c. They report that they
have never or 1-2 time
during past 3 years
informed farmers about
type of vaccine, vaccine
adjuvant, vaccine strain,
and vaccine interval.
d.They are not able to
present record of
communication.
a. They report that
they have never or
1-2 time during
past 3 years
received any
information and
updated vaccine
strategy from
officers.
a. They report that
they have never
or 1-2 time
during past 3
years received
any information
about type of
vaccine, vaccine
adjuvant, vaccine
strain, and
vaccine interval
from officers.
a. Questionn
aire
b. Interview
c. Collection
and analysis
existing
data
Page 164
150
Indicators of failure
(vaccination
implementation)
Measurements Methods
National level/ National
officers Local officers Private
veterinarians
Farmers
Provincial officers District officers
(2) Not all covered
species are
vaccinated
Note: Vaccination
campaign was
conducted at least 2
times/year (varied by
species)
Study expectation:
Stakeholders should
conduct FMD
vaccination at least 1-2
times/year.
a. They report that they have
never or 1-2 times during
the past three years
monitored FMD vaccination
following the national
vaccination campaign.
b. They report that they have
never or 1-2 times during
the past three years
conducted FMD vaccination
following the national
vaccination campaign.
a. They report that they
have never or 1-2 times
during the past three
years monitored FMD
vaccination following the
national vaccination
campaign.
b. They report that they
have never or 1-2 times
during the past three
years conducted FMD
vaccination following the
national vaccination
campaign.
a. They report that
they have never or
1-2 times during
the past three years advised their clients
do FMD
vaccination
a. They report that
their animal have
been never or 1-2
times during the
past three years
done FMD
vaccination.
Questionnaire
(3) Lack of
vaccination record
keeping and other
information related
to vaccination
campaign.
Note: Vaccination
campaign was
conducted at least 2
times/year (varied by
species)
Study expectation:
Stakeholders should
keep records of
vaccination every time.
a. They report that they have
never received the FMD
vaccination records from
local officers.
b. They are not able to present
those vaccination records.
a. They report that they have
never or 1-2 times during
the past three years kept the
FMD vaccination records.
b. They report that they do
keep record (only) at herd
level.
c. They are not able to present
those vaccination records.
d. They report that they have
never or 1-2 times during
the past three years
monitored vaccine cold
chain while they store it in
their cold storage.
a. They report that they
have never or 1-2 times
during the past three
years kept the FMD
vaccination records.
b. They report that they do
keep record (only) at
herd level.
c. They are not able to
present those vaccination
records.
d. They report that they
never or 1-2 times during
the past three years
monitor vaccine cold
chain while they store it
in their cold storage.
a. They report that
they have never or
1-2 times during
the past three years advised their clients
to keep the FMD
vaccination
records.
b. They report that
they have never or
1-2 times during
the past three years monitored their
clients to keep the
FMD vaccination
records.
c. They are not able to
present those
vaccination
records.
a. They report that
they have never
or 1-2 times
during the past
three years kept
the FMD
vaccination
records.
b. They are not able
to present those
vaccination
records.
a. Questionnaire
b. Interview
c. Collection
and analysis
existing data
Page 165
151
Indicators of failure
(vaccination
implementation)
Measurements Methods
National level/ National
officers Local officers Private
veterinarians
Farmers
Provincial officers District officers
(4) Lack of appropriate
sero-monitoring
program for post
vaccination
evaluation
Note: Vaccination
campaign was
conducted at least 2
times/year (varied by
species). DLD always
conduct sero-
surveillance for post
vaccination evaluation
after vaccination was
conducted.
Study expectation:
stakeholders received
information regarding
the post vaccination
evaluation 1-2
times/year.
a. The sero-monitoring
program does not include
samples from all the covered
species.
b. Sampling frame of sero-
monitoring program does
not include all type of
productions (backyard,
industrial, government
facilities).
c. The post vaccination
evaluation report shows the
sero-conversion (herd level
immunity) has not reached
up to 80%.
d. National officers are not
able to present the post
vaccination evaluation plan
and report.
e. They report that they have
never informed local
officers about the post
vaccination evaluation
reports.
f. They report that they have
never informed private
veterinarians about the post
vaccination evaluation
reports.
g. They report that they have
never informed farmers
about the post vaccination
evaluation reports.
a. They report that they
conduct a sero-surveillance
for post vaccination
evaluation less than 3 weeks
or more than six months
after animals are vaccinated,
or they are not sure of the
timing.
b. They report that they have
never received post
vaccination evaluation
reports from the national
officers.
c. They report that they have
never informed district
officers about the post
vaccination evaluation
reports.
d. They report that they have
never informed private
veterinarians about the post
vaccination evaluation
reports.
e. They report that they have
never informed farmers
about the post vaccination
evaluation reports.
a. They report that they
conduct a sero-
surveillance for post
vaccination evaluation
less than 3 weeks or
more than six months
after animals are
vaccinated, or they are
not sure of the timing.
b. They report that they
have never received post
vaccination evaluation
reports from above level.
c. They report that they
have never informed
private veterinarians
about the post
vaccination evaluation
reports.
d. They report that they
have never informed
farmers about the post
vaccination evaluation
reports.
a. They report that
they have never
received post
vaccination
evaluation reports
from officers.
a. They report that
they have never
received post
vaccination
evaluation
reports from
officers.
a. Review post
vaccination
evaluation
plan
b. Questionnaire
c. Interview
d. Collection
and analysis
existing data
Page 166
152
Indicators of failure
(vaccination
implementation)
Measurements Methods
National level/ National
officers Local officers Private
veterinarians
Farmers
Provincial officers District officers
(5) Lack of vaccine
matching
monitoring
a. They (BVB, RRL officers)
report that they never
conduct vaccine-matching
tests on the DLD’s
vaccines with the field
virus.
b. They (BVB, RRL officers)
report that they never
conduct vaccine-matching
tests on commercial
vaccines with the field
virus.
a. Interview
b. Collection
and analysis
existing data
(6) Lack of
communication of
vaccine matching
tests
a. They report that they have
never received any
information on vaccine
matching tests.
a. They report that they
have never received any
information on vaccine
matching tests.
a. They report that they
strongly disagree or
they don’t know that whether an FMD
vaccine, that they
use, has been
selected based on the
FMD virus field
strain
a. They report that
they strongly
disagree or they
don’t know that whether an FMD
vaccine, that they
use, has been
selected based on
the FMD virus
field strain
Questionnaire
(7) Lack of quality
control and/or
records on efficacy
of vaccine
production
a. National officers (BVB)
report that they have never
tested and recorded vaccine
efficacy before launching and
distribution.
b. National officers (BVB)
report that they have never
tested and recorded vaccine
stability before launching and
distribution.
c. National officers (BVB)
report that they have never
tested and recorded vaccine
a. They report that after
vaccine is distributed to
their offices, vaccine
stability has never been
tested and monitored by the
BVB or they don’t know.
b. They report that after
vaccine is distributed to
their offices, vaccine
stability has never been
tested and monitored by
the BVB or they don’t
know.
a. Interview
b. Questionnaire
c. Collection
and analysis
existing data
Page 167
153
Indicators of failure
(vaccination
implementation)
Measurements Methods
National level/ National
officers Local officers Private
veterinarians
Farmers
Provincial officers District officers
purity before launching and
distribution.
d. National officers (BVB)
report that they have never
tested and recorded duration
of immunity of vaccine.
e. National officers (BVB)
report that duration of
immunity of vaccine does not
last up to 4-6 month.
f. National officers (BVB)
report that vaccine shelf life
when stored at 2-8°C does
not reach 1-2 years.
g. National officers (BVB)
report that vaccine does not
have protective level at least
75% for swine or 3PD50 for
cattle.
h. National officers (BVB) are
not able to present records of
vaccine efficacy, stability,
purity, duration of immunity,
and vaccine shelf life.
Page 168
154
(4) Control of movement of animals and animal products into the proposed FMD-free zone has not been appropriately implemented.
Indicators of failure
(movement control
implementation)
Measurements Methods
National level/ National
officers
Local officers Private veterinarians Farmers
Provincial officers District officers
(1) There is no
communication on
movement control
protocol
Note: Some
requirements regarding
the movement control
protocol were revised
since 2015.
Study expectation:
Stakeholders should
receive updated
information regarding
movement control
protocol 1-2 times
during past 3 years.
a. They report that they
have never informed
local officers about any
information or updated
movement control
protocol.
b. They report that they
have never informed
private veterinarians
about any information
or updated movement
control protocol.
c. They report that they
have never informed
farmers about any
information or updated
movement control
protocol
d. They do not clarify the
movement control
protocol in the same
direction with other
officers.
e. They are not able to
present record of
communication
a. They report that they
have never received any
information or updated
movement control
protocol from national
officers.
b. They report that they
have never informed
district officers about any
information or updated
movement control
protocol.
c. They report that they
have never informed
private veterinarians
about any information or
updated movement
control protocol.
d. They report that they
have never informed
farmers about any
information or updated
movement control
protocol.
e. They do not clarify the
movement control
protocol in the same
direction with other
officers.
f. They are not able to
present record of
communication.
a. They report that they
have never received any
information or updated
movement control
protocol from above
level.
b. They report that they
have never informed
private veterinarians
about any information
or updated movement
control protocol.
c. They report that they
have never informed
farmers about any
information or updated
movement control
protocol.
d. They do not clarify the
movement control
protocol in the same
direction with other
officers.
e. They are not able to
present record of
communication.
a. They report that they
have never received
any information or
updated movement
control protocol from
officers.
b. They do not clarify
the movement control
protocol in the same
direction with
officers.
a. They report that they
have never received any
information or updated
movement control
protocol from officers.
b. They do not clarify the
movement control
protocol in the same
direction with officers.
a. Questionnaire
b. Interview
c. Collection
and analysis
existing
data
Page 169
155
Indicators of failure
(movement control
implementation)
Measurements Methods
National level/ National
officers Local officers Private veterinarians Farmers
Provincial officers District officers
(2) Animal identification
cannot differentiate
between animals
originating from
inside or outside of
the proposed FMD-
free zone.
a. They report that they
disagree or strongly
disagree that the animal
identification is able to
identify animals
originating from (inside
or outside of the
proposed FMD-free
zone).
a. They report that they
disagree or strongly
disagree that the animal
identification is able to
identify animals
originating from (inside
or outside of the
proposed FMD-free
zone).
a. They report that they
disagree or strongly
disagree that the
animal identification
is able to identify
animals originating
from (inside or
outside of the
proposed FMD-free
zone).
a. They report that they
disagree or strongly
disagree that the animal
identification is able to
identify animals
originating from (inside
or outside of the
proposed FMD-free
zone).
a. Questionnaire
b. Field
Observation
(3) DLD officers issuing
movement permits
without animal
inspection.
a. They report that they
have never visited farms
and inspected animal
health status before
issuing the movement
permits.
a. They report that they
have never visited
farms and inspected
animal health status
before issuing the
movement permits.
a. They report that the
DLD officers have
never visited their
(client) farms and
inspected animal
health status before
issuing the movement
permits.
a. They report that the
DLD officers have
never visited their farms
and inspected animal
health status before
issuing the movement
permits.
Questionnaire
(4) Animals and/or
animal products are
not transported in an
appropriate vehicle.
a. They report that they
have never checked
vehicles used for animal
transportation whether
vehicles are cleaned or
disinfected.
b. They report that they
have never monitored
records of vehicles
cleaning and
disinfection.
c. They report that they
have never checked
vehicles for sufficient
bedding to absorb urine
and droppings.
a. They report that they
have never checked
vehicles used for animal
transportation whether
vehicles are cleaned or
disinfected.
b. They report that they
have never monitored
records of vehicles
cleaning and
disinfection.
c. They report that they
have never checked
vehicles for sufficient
bedding to absorb urine
and droppings.
a. They report that they
have never checked
vehicles used for
animal transportation
whether vehicles are
cleaned or
disinfected.
b. They report that they
have never monitored
records of vehicles
cleaning and
disinfection records.
c. They report that they
have never checked
vehicles for sufficient
bedding to absorb
urine and droppings.
a. They report that the
DLD officers have
never checked vehicles
used for animal
transportation whether
vehicles are cleaned or
disinfected.
b. They report that the
DLD officers have
never checked vehicles
for sufficient bedding to
absorb urine and
droppings.
c. They report that they
have never cleaned and
disinfected their
vehicles before loading
a. Questionnaire
b. Field
observation
Page 170
156
Indicators of failure
(movement control
implementation)
Measurements Methods
National level/ National
officers Local officers Private veterinarians Farmers
Provincial officers District officers
and after unloading
animals.
b. They report that they
have never kept those
cleaning and
disinfection records.
(5) Animal checkpoints
are not sufficient
and are not located
in appropriate areas
to screen animal
transportation.
a. Animal checkpoints are not presented and located on each main route of
animal transportation (before entering to the proposed FMD-free zone).
a. Review
location and
number of
check points
b. Field
observation
(6) Veterinary officers
and support staffs do
not appropriately
conduct animal
inspection at the
checkpoints.
*animal movement
control is conducted
by the Division of
Veterinarian
Inspection and
Quarantine (DVIQ)
and the animal
quarantine station
staffs (at local level).
These local staffs are
not part of provincial
and district offices.
a. They do not inspect animal health status and match
with animal health records or animal ID.
b. They do not trace back to the origin of herds of
animals and animal products.
c. They do not check all the following criteria before
animals are transported into the proposed FMD-
free:
i. Animals do not show FMD clinical signs.
ii. Animals are born in FMD-free farm or raised in
FMD-free farm at least 90 days.
iii. Animals are tested (serological test) with
negative of FMDV.
iv. Animals are vaccinated with FMD vaccine at
least 30 days and no longer than 120 days. (*this
is not include in OIE code but include in DLD
regulation)
v. Surrounding area (10 km of farm) has no
outbreak within 90 days.
vi. Animals are transported with health certification
from veterinarians or support staff.
vii. Animals are transported in an appropriate
vehicle (clean, disinfection, no overload, and
sufficient bedding).
a. Interview
b. Field
observation
Page 171
157
Indicators of failure
(movement control
implementation)
Measurements Methods
National level/ National
officers Local officers Private veterinarians Farmers
Provincial officers District officers
(7) Compliance of
movement control is
not monitored.
a. They are not able to
provide records of
violators and penalties
if local officers fail to
follow movement
control protocol.
b. They are not able to
provide records of
violators and penalties
if private veterinarians
and farmers fail to
follow report protocol.
a. They report that they have never kept records of
violators and punishment of private veterinarians
and farmers who are failure to follow movement
protocol.
a. Interview
(DVIQ,
AQS)
b. Review
records of
activities
(5) Response plan has not been appropriately implemented.
Indicators of failure
(response plan)
Measurements Methods
National level/ National
officers Local officers Private veterinarians Farmers
Provincial officers District officers
(1) Lack of
communication on
response plan
a. They report that they
have never informed
local officers about the
response plan.
b. They report that they
have never informed
private veterinarians
about the response plan.
c. They report that they
have never informed
farmers about the
response plan.
a. They report that they
have never received
information about the
response plan from
national officers.
b. They report that they
have never informed
district officers about
the response plan.
c. They report that they
have never informed
private veterinarians
about the response plan.
d. They report that they
have never informed
farmers about the
response plan.
a. They report that they
never receive
information about the
response plan from
national officers.
b. They report that they
have never informed
district officers about
the response plan.
c. They report that they
have never informed
farmers about the
response plan.
d. They report that they
have never informed
farmers about the
response plan.
a. They report that
they have never
received
information about
the response plan
from officers.
a. They report that they
have never received
information about the
response plan from
officers.
Questionnaire
Page 172
158
Indicators of failure
(response plan)
Measurements Methods
National level/ National
officers Local officers Private veterinarians Farmers
Provincial officers District officers
d. They do not clarify the
response plan in the
same direction with the
other officers.
e. They do not clarify the
response plan in the
same direction with the
other officers.
e. They do not clarify the
response plan in the
same direction with the
other officers.
Interview
f. They are not able to
present record of
communication.
g. They are not able to
present record of
communication.
f. They are not able to
present record of
communication.
Field observation
(2) Officers do not
response or provide
inadequate response
when any suspected
cases is reported.
a. They report that they
have never responded to
any notification i.e.
disease investigation,
sample collection.
b. They report that they
have never informed
private veterinarians of
laboratory results.
c. They report that they
have never informed
farmers of laboratory
results.
d. They report that they
have never quarantined
suspected animals and
herds until laboratory
tests are confirmed.
e. They report that they
have never reported the
quarantine to national
officers or above level.
f. They report that they
have never informed
about a quarantine
release plan to private
veterinarians.
a. They report that they
have never responded
to any notification i.e.
disease investigation,
sample collection.
b. They report that they
have never informed
private veterinarians of
laboratory results.
c. They report that they
have never informed
farmers of laboratory
results.
d. They report that they
have never
quarantined suspected
animals and herds until
laboratory tests are
confirmed.
e. They report that they
have never reported
the quarantine to
national officers or
above level.
f. They report that they
have never informed
about a quarantine
a. They report that
DLD officers have
never responded to
their notification i.e.
disease
investigation,
sample collection.
b. They report that they
have never received
laboratory results
from DLD officers.
c. They report that
DLD officers have
never quarantined
their client animals.
d. They report that
DLD officers have
never informed them
of a quarantine
release plan when
DLD officers
quarantine their
animals.
a. They report that DLD
officers have never
responded to their
notification i.e. disease
investigation, sample
collection.
b. They report that they
have never received
laboratory results from
DLD officers.
c. They report that DLD
officers have never
quarantined their
animals.
d. They report that DLD
officers have never
informed them of a
quarantine release plan
when DLD officers
quarantine their
animals.
a. Questionnair
e
b. Collection
and analysis
existing data
Page 173
159
Indicators of failure
(response plan)
Measurements Methods
National level/ National
officers Local officers Private veterinarians Farmers
Provincial officers District officers
g. They report that they
have never informed
about a quarantine
release plan to farmers.
release plan to private
veterinarians.
g. They report that they
have never informed
about a quarantine
release plan to farmers.
(3) Record of positive
herds and/or animals
is not appropriate to
trace back to the
origin.
a. They are not able to
present the herd and
animal records.
a. They are not able to
present the herd and
animal records in their
responsibility areas.
b. They are unable to trace
back to the herds and
individual animals.
a. They are not able to
present the herd and
animal records in their
responsibility areas.
b. They are unable to trace
back to the herds and
individual animals.
a. Interview
b. Collection and
analysis
existing data
(4) There is no
quarantine when
positive animals are
found
a. They report that they
have never quarantined
animal(s) when animal(s)
are confirmed FMD
positive.
b. They report that they
have never quarantined
herds which include
positive animal(s)
a. They report that they
have never quarantined
animal(s) when
animal(s) are confirmed
FMD positive.
b. They report that they
have never quarantined
herds which include
positive animal(s)
a. They report that DLD
officers have never
quarantined their
client’s animals or
herds when animals
are confirmed FMD
positive.
b. They report that they
have never advised
their client to
quarantine animals or
herds following the
officer’s instructions.
c. They report that they
have never monitored
their client to
quarantine animals or
herds following the
officer’s instructions.
a. They report that DLD
officers have never
quarantined their
animals or herds when
animals are confirmed
FMD positive.
b. They report that they
have never quarantined
their animals or herds
following the officer’s
instructions.
Questionnaire
(5) Infected carcasses,
byproducts, and
material (fodder,
waste manure, and
a. They report that they
have never disinfected
and disposed of infected
carcasses, bedding, and
a. They report that they
have never disinfected
and disposed of infected
carcasses, bedding, and
a. They report that DLD
officers have never
recommended them
the DLD protocol to
a. They report that DLD
officers have never
recommended them the
DLD protocol to
Questionnaire
Page 174
160
Indicators of failure
(response plan)
Measurements Methods
National level/ National
officers Local officers Private veterinarians Farmers
Provincial officers District officers
bedding) are not
adequately disposed.
material following the
DLD recommendations.
material following the
DLD recommendations.
disinfect and dispose
of infected carcasses,
by products, and
material.
disinfect and dispose of
infected carcasses, by
products, and material.
(6) Emergency vaccine is
not enough for
affected animals.
a. They report that the DLD
subsidize 80% or lower*
of emergency vaccine for
all susceptible animals in
their responsibility area
(80% is calculated from
the combination of free
vaccines and low cost
vaccines)
a. They report that the
DLD subsidize 80% or
lower of emergency
vaccine for all
susceptible animals in
their responsibility area
a. They report that the
DLD subsidize 80%
or lower of
emergency vaccine
for all susceptible
animals in their
client’s farms
a. They report that the
DLD subsidize 80% or
lower of emergency
vaccine for all
susceptible animals in
their farms
Questionnaire
(7) Compensation is not
appropriate if infected
animals are
slaughtered during
outbreak.
a. They report that they
have never
compensated to farmers
if animals are
slaughtered because of
FMD infection.
b. They report that they
strongly disagree or
disagree that farmers
are satisfied with the
compensation of 75% of
estimated market price.
a. They report that farmers
have never received
compensation if animals
are slaughtered because
of FMD infection.
b. They report that they
strongly disagree or
disagree that farmers are
satisfied with the
compensation of 75% of
estimated market price.
a. They report that farmers
have never received
compensation if animals
are slaughtered because
of FMD infection.
a. They report that they
strongly disagree or
disagree that farmers
are satisfied with the
compensation of 75% of
estimated market price.
a. They report that
their client have
never received
compensation if
animals are
slaughtered because
of FMD infection.
b. They report that they
strongly disagree or
disagree that their
client are satisfied
with the
compensation of
75% of estimated
market price.
a. They report that they
have never received
compensation if animals
are slaughtered because
of FMD infection.
b. They report that they
strongly disagree or
disagree that their client
are satisfied with the
compensation of 75% of
estimated market price.
a. Interview
b. Questionnaire
Page 175
161
Indicators of failure
(response plan)
Measurements Methods
National level/ National
officers Local officers Private veterinarians Farmers
Provincial officers District officers
(8) Local officers and
farmers
inappropriately
restock new animals.
a. They report that they
have never advised
farmers to clean
livestock pens before
introducing new
animals.
b. They report that they
have never monitored
farmers to clean
livestock pens before
introducing new
animals
c. They report that they
have never advised
farmers to disinfect
livestock pens before
introducing new
animals.
d. They report that they
have never monitored
farmers to disinfect
livestock pens before
introducing new
animals.
e. They report that they
have never monitored
those cleaning and
disinfection records
before introducing new
animals.
f. They report that they
have never advised
farmers to wait at least
28 days after cleaning
and disinfection before
a. They report that they
have never advised
farmers to clean
livestock pens before
introducing new
animals.
b. They report that they
have never monitored
farmers to clean
livestock pens before
introducing new
animals
c. They report that they
have never advised
farmers to disinfect
livestock pens before
introducing new
animals.
d. They report that they
have never monitored
farmers to disinfect
livestock pens before
introducing new
animals.
e. They report that they
have never monitored
those cleaning and
disinfection records
before introducing new
animals.
f. They report that they
have never advised
farmers to wait at least
28 days after cleaning
and disinfection before
a. They report that they
have never monitored
and advised their
client to clean and
disinfect farms before
introducing new
animals.
b. They report that they
have never monitored
and advised their
client to wait at least
28 days after cleaning
and disinfection
before introducing
new animals.
c. They report that they
have never traced
back to the origins of
introduced animals
that are from FMD-
negative herds.
d. They report that they
have never checked
all introduced animals
that are confirmed
FMD negative.
e. They report that they
have never received
an official permit for
introducing new
animals to the herds.
a. They report that they
have never cleaned and
disinfected farms before
introducing new
animals.
b. They report that they
have never waited at
least 28 days after
cleaning and
disinfection before
introducing new
animals.
c. They report that they
have never traced back
to the origins of
introduced animals that
are from FMD-negative
herds.
d. They report that they
have never checked all
introduced animals that
are confirmed FMD
negative.
e. They report that they
have never received an
official permit for
introducing new
animals to the herds.
Questionnaire
Page 176
162
Indicators of failure
(response plan)
Measurements Methods
National level/ National
officers Local officers Private veterinarians Farmers
Provincial officers District officers
introducing new
animals.
g. They report that they
have never monitored
farmers to wait at least
28 days after cleaning
and disinfection before
introducing new
animals.
h. They report that they
have never traced back
to the origins of
introduced animals that
are from FMD-negative
herds.
i. They report that they
have never required
FMD-negative
laboratory results of all
introduced animals.
introducing new
animals.
g. They report that they
have never monitored
farmers to wait at least
28 days after cleaning
and disinfection before
introducing new
animals.
h. They report that they
have never traced back
to the origins of
introduced animals that
are from FMD-negative
herds.
a. They report that they
have never required
FMD-negative
laboratory results of all
introduced animals.
Page 177
163
APPENDIX 5.
Questionnaire for farmers
(Translated version for the IRB approval, the original questionnaire was in Thai language)
To whom it may concern,
I am Dr. Naree Ketusing, a PhD student at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, and I am conducting a research project
on “Assessment or Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) control policy and its implementation in the proposed FMD free zone in Thailand”.
The purpose of this study is to identify gaps in the policy and its implementation in the proposed FMD-free zone as well as to propose
recommendations for Thailand to improve the system so as to satisfy international requirements for recognition as an FMD-free zone.
Because you are considered a stakeholder who may or may not be affected by this policy, your feedback and comments are valuable for
this project. I would like to ask your voluntary participation in responding to this questionnaire. This questionnaire includes 9 sections.
Section 1: Screening question
Section 2: Surveillance, report of suspected cases, and response to report
Section 3: Prevention
Section 4: Animal movement control
Section 5: Disease control after FMD positive was confirmed
Section 6: Compensation
Section 7: Repopulation
Section 8: Government services and communication
Section 9: Participation in individual interview, background information, and comments
Total time for this survey will be no longer than 20 minutes. Results of this study will be included in a PhD dissertation, published, and
shared to the Department of Livestock Development (DLD) to propose recommendations for Thailand to improve the system so as to
satisfy international requirements for recognition as an FMD-free zone.
This survey is voluntary and limited to people 18 years of age and older. Please be ensured that your participation will be completely
confidential as your names will not be collected or used in analyzing data or presenting finding.
Should you have any questions, concerns, or comments related to this research topic, you may contact the co-investigator, Dr. Naree
Ketusing at [email protected]
Should you have any questions or concerns about your rights as a research subject, you may contact the VT IRB Chair, Dr. David M.
Moore at [email protected]
Thank you for your time and cooperation.
Section 1: Screening
1.1 I ……………………….
(1) Agree to participate in this study *go to section 2
(2) Do not agree to participate in this study *end of survey (system will direct to exist page)
Section 2: Surveillance, report of suspected cases, and response to report
*please recall the activities related to FMD control during past 3 year *
2.1 I observe animal health status daily.
(1) Never
(2) 1-2 times during past 3 years
(3) 1-2 times a year
(4) >2 times a year
(5) Always
2.2 I have noticed Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) suspected cases in my farm.
(1) Never *go to section 3
(2) 1-2 times during past 3 years
(3) 1-2 times a year
(4) > 2 times a year
(5) I don’t know what FMD suspected cases look like
*go to section 3
2.3 Please rate the following statement *please recall the activities related to FMD control during past 3 year *
Question Never
(1)
1-2 times
during past
3 years (2)
1-2
times /
year (3)
>2
times /
year (4)
Always
(5)
I notify the Department of Livestock Development (DLD) officers within 12
hours if I noticed FMD suspects.
Page 178
164
Question Never
(1)
1-2 times
during past
3 years (2)
1-2
times /
year (3)
>2
times /
year (4)
Always
(5)
The DLD officers conduct disease investigation after I notify them of any
suspected cases.
During disease investigation, the DLD officers collected and submitted tissue
or blood samples to the DLD’s laboratories.
The DLD officers informed me about laboratory results of the sample
collection mentioned above.
The DLD officers quarantined my individual animal (s) until laboratory results
were confirmed negative.
The DLD officers quarantined my herd(s) until laboratory results were
confirmed FMD negative.
After the DLD officers quarantined animals/herds, the DLD officers informed
me about the requirements to release quarantine.
2.4 please specify your reason for not to report the DLD within 12 hours………………….
2.5 How did The DLD officers inform you to quarantine FMD suspected “animals or herds”?
(1) Personal communication
(2) Official letter
(3) The DLD officers never inform me when they quarantine FMD suspected animals or herds.
(4) The DLD officers never quarantine FMD suspected animals or herds.
Section 3: Prevention
3.1 Please rate the following statement *please recall the activities related to FMD control during past 3 year*
Question
Never
(1)
1-2 times
during past
3 years (2)
1-2
times /
year (3)
>2
times /
year (4)
Alway
s (5)
1 I keep records of all vehicles entering farms.
2 I keep records of all visitors.
3 I disinfect all vehicles before entering farms.
4 I require all visitors follow biosecurity procedures before entering
farms. (for example: change cloth, boots, showering)
5 I clean livestock pens before introducing new livestock.
6 I keep records of livestock pens cleaning.
7 I disinfect livestock pens before introducing new livestock.
8 I keep records of livestock pens disinfection.
9 I wait at least 5 days after cleaning and disinfection before introducing new
livestock.
10 I know that all introduced animals are from FMD-negative herds.
11 I require FMD-negative laboratory results of all introduced animals.
12 I isolate new introduced animals for at least 28 days.
13 My animals have been FMD vaccinated (during past 3 year).
14 I keep those vaccination records.
15 The DLD subsidizes FMD vaccines for my animals.
3.2 Are FMD vaccines subsidized by the DLD (that is, free vaccines) sufficiently available for all livestock in your farms? (Please rate
the percentages of livestock received the DLD vaccine)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
3.3 Are FMD vaccines subsidized by the DLD (low cost vaccines) sufficiently available for all livestock in your farms? (Please rate the
percentages of livestock received the DLD vaccine)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Page 179
165
3.4 How do you clean and disinfect animal pens? (Please select all relevant terms)
(1) Cleaning with water
(2) Cleaning with soap or detergent
(3) Chemical disinfection, please give an example of disinfection ……………………………………………………
(4) Other, please specify…………………….
3.5 How do you clean and disinfect vehicles? (Please select all relevant terms)
(1) Cleaning with water
(2) Cleaning with soap or detergent
(3) Chemical disinfection, please give an example of disinfection ……………………………………………………
(4) Other, please specify…………………….
3.6 What biosecurity measure do you apply to visitors? (Please select all relevant terms)
(1) Shower before entering farms
(2) Provide and change clothes (farms used only)
(3) Provide and change shoes or boots (farms used only)
(4) Dipping shoes or boots with disinfectants before entering farms
(5) Restricted area for visitors (separate from farm area)
(6) Other, please specify…………………….
Section 4: Animal movement control
*please recall the activities related to FMD control during past 3 year*
4.1 My animal(s) have been transported to other provinces.
(1) Never… go to 4.3
(2) 1-2 times during past 3 years
(3) 1-2 times / year
(4) 1-2 times / 6 months
(5) 1-2 times / 3 months
(6) Every month
4.2 Please rate the following statement *please recall the activities related to FMD control during past 3 year*
Question
Never
(1)
1-2 times
during past
3 years (2)
1-2
times /
year (3)
>2
times /
year (4)
Alway
s (5)
Not
sure
(6)
I clean vehicles before loading animal(s).
I keep vehicle cleaning records.
Before movement of animals, I submit an application form for a
movement permit to the DLD officers.
I receive animal movement permits from the DLD officers before I
transport animals.
After receiving a movement permit, the DLD officers visit farms and
observe animal health status during loading animals on vehicles.
The DLD officers monitor all vehicles for sufficient bedding to absorb
urine and dropping.
After loading animals on vehicles, I disinfect the vehicles.
I keep vehicle disinfection records.
The DLD officers monitor records of vehicle cleaning and disinfection.
During animal transportation and stops at the animal quarantine station,
the DLD officers (at animal quarantine station) observe animal health
status.
During animal transportation and stops at the animal quarantine station,
the DLD officers (at animal quarantine station) disinfect vehicles that
are used for animal transportation.
I clean vehicles after unloading animals.
I keep those cleaning records.
4.3 The animal identification is able to identify animal origins (inside and outside of the proposed FMD-free zone).
(1) Strongly disagree
(2) Disagree
(3) Neither disagree nor agree
(4) Agree
(5) Strongly agree
Page 180
166
Section 5: Disease control after FMD positive was confirmed
*please recall the activities related to FMD control during past 3 year*
5.1 Serum sample have been collected and tested to monitor FMD status on my farms.
(1) Never *go to question 5.3
(2) 1-2 times during past 3 years
(3) Every year
(4) Every 6 month
(5) Every 3 month
(6) Every month
5.2 I received those laboratory results.
(1) Never
(2) 1-2 times during past 3 years
(3) 1-2 times / year
(4) > 2 times / year
(5) Always
5.3 My livestock have been confirmed as FMD positive.
(1) Never *go to section 8
(2) 1-2 times during past 3 years
(3) 1-2 times / year
(4) > 2 times / year
(5) Always
5.4 Please rate the following statement *please recall the activities related to FMD control during past 3 year*
Question
Never
(1)
1-2 times
during past
3 years (2)
1-2
times /
year (3)
>2
times /
year (4)
Alway
s (5)
The DLD officers quarantined my animals when they were confirmed FMD
positive.
The DLD officers quarantined my herd when it included positive cases.
I follow the DLD officers’ instructions regarding quarantine requirements.
The DLD subsidized emergency vaccines to control FMD outbreak in my
farms. **if never is selected, go to question 5.7
5.5 Are emergency vaccines subsidized by the DLD (that is, free vaccines) sufficiently available for all susceptible livestock in my
farms? (Please rate the percentages of livestock received the DLD vaccine)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
5.6 Are emergency vaccines subsidized by the DLD (low cost vaccines) sufficiently available for all susceptible livestock in my farms?
(Please rate the percentages of livestock received the DLD vaccine)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
5.7 FMD positive animals in my farms have been slaughtered.
(1) Yes
(2) No *go to section 8_ Government services and communication
(3) Not sure
5.8 FMD exposed animals in my farms have been slaughtered.
(1) Yes
(2) No *go to section 8_ Government services and communication
(3) Not sure
Section 6: Compensation (Display this section if 5.7 or 5.8 are not select “no”)
*please recall the activities related to FMD control during past 3 year*
Question Never
(1) Rarely (2) Sometimes (3)
Very often
(4)
Always
(5)
6.1 I receive compensation if my animals were
slaughtered for FMD.
Question
Strongly
disagree
(1)
Disagree (2)
Neither agree
nor disagree
(3)
Agree (4)
Strongl
y agree
(5)
6.2 I am satisfied with the compensation (75% of
estimated market price).
Page 181
167
Section 7: Repopulation
*please recall the activities related to FMD control during past 3 year*
7.1 Please rate the following statement
Question
Never
(1)
1-2 times
during past
3 years (2)
1-2
times /
year (3)
>2
times /
year (4)
Alway
s (5)
I clean livestock pens before introducing new livestock.
I disinfect livestock pens before introducing new livestock.
I wait at least 28 days after cleaning and disinfection before introducing new
livestock.
I know that the origins of introduced livestock that are from FMD-negative
herds.
I require FMD-negative laboratory results of all introduced livestock.
I receive official permits allowing importation of new livestock to premises.
7.2 Please rate the percentage of each the following statements (How much? How many time?)
(1) I receive official permits allowing importation of new livestock to premises.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
(2) I inform private veterinarian (who looks after my farm) of when I received official permits allowing importation of new livestock to
their premises.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Section 8: Government services and communication
8.1 Please rate the following statement*please recall the activities related to FMD control during past 3 year*
Question
Never
(1)
1-2 times
during past
3 years (2)
1-2
times /
year (3)
3-4
times /
year (4)
>4
times /
year (5)
1 The DLD officers observed livestock health in my farm(s).
2
The DLD officers informed me when I should notify them of FMD suspected
or FMD cases.
3
The DLD officers informed me about FMD surveillance findings in the
proposed FMD-free zone.
4
The DLD officers informed me about type of vaccine, vaccine adjuvant,
vaccine strain, and vaccine interval that should apply to my livestock.
5
The DLD officers informed me about the relevant of virus strain at field level
and vaccine used. (vaccine-matching test )
6
The DLD officers informed me about the post-vaccination evaluation reports.
7 The DLD officers informed me about movement control protocol.
8 The DLD officers informed me about the disposal and disinfection protocol.
9
The DLD officers informed me about response plan when animals were
confirmed with FMD positive.
10
The DLD officers provided me with training on preparedness and response
plans.
8.2 How did The DLD officers inform you about information mentioned above? (Please select all that apply) skip this question if you
never received any information from The DLD officers
(1) Stakeholders meeting
(2) Official letter
(3) Personal communication
(4) Online posting via official website
(5) Other, please specify …………………
8.3 I can easily access the national FMD disease analysis report.
(1) Strongly disagree
(2) Disagree
(3) Neither disagree nor agree
(4) Agree
(5) Strongly agree
(6) I don’t know
Page 182
168
8.4 I can easily access the regional FMD disease analysis report.
(1) Strongly disagree
(2) Disagree
(3) Neither disagree nor agree
(4) Agree
(5) Strongly agree
(6) I don’t know
8.5 When I use an FMD vaccine, I am sure that the vaccine has been selected based on the FMD virus field strain.
(1) Strongly disagree
(2) Disagree
(3) Neither disagree nor agree
(4) Agree
(5) Strongly agree
(6) I don’t know
Section 9: Participation in individual interview, background information, and comments
9.1 Will you agree to participate in individual interview if the researcher needs more information?
(1) Yes, please specify your email……………………
(2) No
9.2 How long have you had experience with farming?
(3) 5 years
(4) 5-10 years
(5) > 10 years
9.3 What species do you farm? (Please select all that apply)
(1) Swine
(2) Dairy cattle
(3) Beef cattle
(4) Sheep
(5) Goat
(6) Other, please specify………….......
9.4 How many total livestock on your farm?
(1) < 10
(2) 10 - 30
(3) 31 to <50
(4) 50 - 500
(5) > 500 – 5000
(6) > 5000
9.5 Where is your farm located? (Please select all that apply)
(1) Chonburi province
(2) Rayong province
(3) Chantaburi province
(4) Trat province
(5) Chachengsao province
(6) Sa-keaw province
(7) Prachinburi province
9.6 Are your farms certified for biosecurity by the Department of Livestock Development (DLD)?
(1) Yes (2) No
9.7 I familiar with FMD
(1) Not at all
(2) Slightly familiar
(3) Somewhat familiar
(4) Moderately familiar
(5) Extremely familiar
9.7 Gender
(1) Male
(2) Female
9.8 Age group
(1) 18 - 25
(2) 26 - 35
(3) 36 - 45
(4) 46 - 55
(5) > 55
9.9 Highest education
(1) Lower than high school
(2) High school
(3) Associate degree
(4) Bachelor degree
(5) Higher than bachelor degree
(6) Other, please specify
9.10 Comments
Page 183
169
APPENDIX 6.
Questionnaires for private veterinarians
(Translated version for IRB approval, the original questionnaire will be in Thai language)
To whom it may concern,
I am Dr. Naree Ketusing, a PhD student at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University and I am conducting a research project on
“Assessment or Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) control policy and its implementation in the proposed FMD free zone in Thailand”.
The purpose of this study is to identify gaps in Thailand’s Foot and Mouth Disease control policy and its implementation in the
proposed FMD-free zone as well as to propose recommendations for Thailand to improve the system so as to satisfy international
requirements for recognition as an FMD-free zone.
Because you are considered a stakeholder who may or may not be affected by this policy, your feedback and comments are valuable for
this project. I would like to ask your voluntary participation in responding to this questionnaire. This questionnaire includes 9 sections.
Section 1: Screening questions
Section 2: Surveillance, report of suspected cases, and response
Section 3: Prevention
Section 4: Animal movement control
Section 5: Disease control after FMD positive is confirmed
Section 6: Compensation
Section 7: Repopulation
Section 8: Government services and communication
Section 9: Participation in individual interview and comments
Total time for this survey will be no longer than 20 minutes. Results of this study will be included in a PhD dissertation, published, and
will be shared with the Department of Livestock Development (DLD) to propose recommendations for Thailand to improve the system
so as to satisfy international requirements for recognition as an FMD-free zone.
This survey is voluntary and limited to people 18 years of age and older. Please be ensured that your participation will be completely
confidential as your names will not be collected or used in analyzing data or presenting finding.
Should you have any questions, concerns, or comments related to this research topic, you may contact the co-investigator, Dr. Naree
Ketusing at [email protected]
Should you have any questions or concerns about your rights as a research subject, you may contact the VT IRB Chair, Dr. David M.
Moore at [email protected]
Thank you for your time and cooperation.
Section 1: Screening questions 1.1 I ……………………….
(1) Agree to participate in this study *go to 1.2
(2) Do not agree to participate in this study *end of questionnaire (system will direct to an exit page)
1.2 I work……………………….
(1) At provinces inside the proposed Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) free zone
(2) At provinces outside the proposed FMD-free zone but my work is relevant to provinces in the proposed FMD-free zone
(3) My work is not relevant to provinces in the proposed FMD-free zone *end of questionnaire (system will direct to an exit
page)
Section 2: Surveillance, report of suspected cases, and response to report
*please recall the activities related to FMD control during the past three years *
2.1 I observe my client’s animal health status for clinical signs of FMD.
(1) Never
(2) 1-2 times during the past three years
(3) 1-2 times a year
(4) >2 times a year
(5) Every month
2.2 I noticed suspected cases of FMD in farms belonging to my clients.
(1) Never *go to question 2.6
(2) 1-2 times during the past three years
(3) 1-2 times a year
(4) >2 times a year
(5) I don’t know what FMD suspected cases look like
*go to section 2.6
Page 184
170
2.3 Please respond to each of the following statements *please recall the activities related to FMD control during the past three years*
Question Never
(1)
1-2 times
during the
past three
yearๆs (2)
1-2
times /
year (3)
>2
times /
year (4)
Always
(5)
I notify the Department of Livestock Development (DLD) officers within 12
hours if I noticed FMD suspects.
The DLD officers conduct disease investigation after I notify them of any
suspected cases.
During disease investigation, the DLD officers collected and submitted tissue
or blood samples to the DLD’s laboratories.
The DLD officers informed me about laboratory results of the sample
collection mentioned above.
The DLD officers quarantined my clients’ individual animal (s) until
laboratory results were confirmed negative.
The DLD officers quarantined my clients’ herd(s) until laboratory results were
confirmed negative.
After the DLD officers quarantined animals/herds, the DLD officers informed
me about the quarantine release plan.
2.4 Please tell us why you did not notify FMD suspected cases to DLD officers (additional)
2.5 How did the DLD officers inform you that they have quarantined your client’s suspected (individual) animal or herds?
(1) Personal communication
(2) Official letter
(3) The DLD officers never inform me or my clients when they quarantine suspected (individual) animal or herds.
(4) The DLD officers never quarantine suspected livestock or herds.
2.6 Please respond to each of the following statements *please recall the activities related to FMD control during the past three years*
Question
Never
(1)
1-2 times
during the
past three
years (2)
1-2
times /
year (3)
>2
times /
year (4)
Alway
s (5)
When I notice or my client informs me of any suspected cases, I collect blood
or tissue samples.
I submit those samples to the DLD’s laboratories.
I submit those samples to private laboratories.
I inform the DLD officers if I have submitted those samples to a private
laboratory.
I receive laboratory results of the sample collection mentioned above.
Section 3: Prevention
3.1 Please respond to each of the following statements *please recall the activities related to FMD control during the past three years*
Question
Never
(1)
1-2 times
during the
past three
years (2)
1-2
times /
year (3)
>2
times /
year (4)
Always
(monthly)
(5)
I advise my clients to keep records of all vehicles entering their farms.
I monitor records of vehicles entering farms.
I advise my clients to keep records of visitors.
I monitor records of visitors.
I advise my clients to disinfect vehicles before entering farms.
I monitor whether my clients disinfect vehicles before entering farms.
I advise my clients to follow biosecurity procedures for all visitors before
entering farms. (for example: change cloth, boots, showering)
I monitor my clients to see if they follow biosecurity procedures for all
visitors before entering farms.
Page 185
171
Question
Never
(1)
1-2 times
during the
past three
years (2)
1-2
times /
year (3)
>2
times /
year (4)
Always
(monthly)
(5)
I advise my clients to clean livestock pens before introducing new livestock.
I advise my clients to keep records of livestock pens cleaning.
I monitor cleaning records of livestock pens.
I advise my clients to disinfect livestock pens before introducing new
livestock.
I advise my clients to keep records of livestock pens disinfection.
I monitor disinfection records of livestock pens.
I advise my clients to wait at least 5 days after cleaning and disinfection
before introducing new livestock.
I monitor that all livestock are introduced at least 5 days after cleaning and
disinfection.
I advise my clients that all introduced livestock should originate from FMD-
negative herds.
I monitor all introduced livestock are obtained FMD-negative laboratory
results.
I advise my clients to isolate introduced livestock for at least 28 days.
I monitor to see if all introduced livestock are isolated for at least 28 days.
I advise my clients to do FMD vaccination.
I advise my clients to keep FMD vaccination records.
I monitor FMD vaccination records.
The DLD subsidizes FMD vaccines for my clients’ livestock.
3.2 Are FMD vaccines subsidized by the DLD (that is, free vaccines) sufficiently available for all livestock in your clients’ farms?
(Please rate the percentages of livestock received the DLD vaccine)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
3.3 Are FMD vaccines subsidized by the DLD (low cost vaccines) sufficiently available for all livestock in your clients’ farms? (Please
rate the percentages of livestock received the DLD vaccine))
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
3.4 How do you advise your clients to clean and disinfect livestock pens? (Please select all relevant terms)
(1) Cleaning with water
(2) Cleaning with soap or detergent
(3) Chemical disinfection, please give an example of disinfection ……………………………………………………
(4) Other, please specify…………………….
3.5 How do you advise your clients to clean and disinfect vehicles? (Please select all relevant terms)
(1) Cleaning with water
(2) Cleaning with soap or detergent
(3) Chemical disinfection, please give an example of disinfection ……………………………………………………
(4) Other, please specify…………………….
3.6 What biosecurity measures do you advise your clients to use with visitors? (Please select all that apply)
(1) Shower before entering farms
(2) Provide and change clothes (farms used only)
(3) Provide and change shoes or boots (farms used only)
(4) Dip shoes or boots with disinfectants before entering the farm
(5) Restricts area for visitors (separate from farm area)
(6) Other, please specify…………………….
Section 4: Animal movement control
*please recall the activities related to FMD control during the past three years*
4.1 Livestock in my clients’ farms have been transported to other provinces.
(1) Never….. go to 4.3
(2) 1-2 times during the past three years
(3) 1-2 times / year
(4) 1-2 times / 6 months
(5) 1-2 times / 3 months
(6) Every month
Page 186
172
4.2 Please respond to each of the following statements *please recall the activities related to FMD control during the past three years*
Question
Never
(1)
1-2 times
during the
past three
years (2)
1-2
times /
year (3)
>2
times /
year (4)
Alway
s (5)
I advise my clients to clean vehicles before loading animal(s).
I advise my clients to keep vehicle cleaning records.
I monitor vehicle cleaning records.
I monitor all vehicles for sufficient bedding to absorb urine and droppings.
Animal movement permits are obtained before animals are transported to other
provinces.
After receiving a movement permit, the DLD officers visit farms and observe
animal health status during loading animals on vehicles.
The DLD officers monitor all vehicles for sufficient bedding to absorb urine and
droppings.
After loading livestock on vehicles, I advise my clients to disinfect the vehicles.
I advise my clients to keep vehicle disinfection records.
I monitor vehicle disinfection records.
The DLD officers monitor the vehicle cleaning and disinfection records before
allowing animals movement.
I advise my clients to clean vehicles after unloading livestock.
I advise my clients to keep those cleaning records.
I monitor those cleaning records.
4.3 Animal identification is able to identify animal origins (inside and outside of the proposed FMD-free zone).
(1) Strongly disagree
(2) Disagree
(3) Neither disagree nor agree
(4) Agree
(5) Strongly agree
Section 5: Disease control after FMD positive was confirmed
*please recall the activities related to FMD control during the past three years*
5.1 Serological surveillance is conducted to monitor FMD status on my clients’ farms.
(1) Never *go to section 5.3
(2) 1-2 times during the past three years
(3) Every year
(4) Every 6 months
(5) Every 3 months
(6) Every month
5.2 I received those laboratory results.
(1) Never
(2) 1-2 times during the past three years
(3) 1-2 times / year
(4) > 2 times / year
(5) Always
5.3 My clients’ livestock have been confirmed as FMD positive.
(1) Never *go to section 8
(2) 1-2 clients during the past three years
(3) 1-2 clients / year
(4) > 2 clients / year
(5) Always
5.4 Please respond to each of the following statements *please recall the activities related to FMD control during the past three years*
Question
Never
(1)
1-2 times
during the
past three
years (2)
1-2
times /
year (3)
>2
times /
year (4)
Alway
s (5)
The DLD officers quarantined my clients’ individual animals when they were
confirmed FMD positive.
The DLD officers quarantined my clients’ herd when it included positive
cases.
I advised my clients to follow the DLD officers’ instructions regarding
quarantine requirements.
I monitored that my clients followed the DLD officers’ instructions regarding
quarantine requirements.
The DLD subsidized emergency vaccines to control FMD outbreaks in my
clients’ farms.*
*if never is selected, go to question 5.7
Page 187
173
5.5 Are emergency vaccines subsidized by the DLD (that is, free vaccines) sufficiently available for all susceptible livestock in my
clients’ farms? (Please rate the percentages of livestock received the DLD vaccine)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
5.6 Are emergency vaccines subsidized by the DLD (low cost vaccines) sufficiently available for all susceptible livestock in my clients’
farms? (Please rate the percentages of livestock received the DLD vaccine)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
5.7 FMD positive animals owned by my clients are slaughtered.
(1) Yes
(2) No
(3) Not sure
5.8 FMD exposed animals owned by my clients are slaughtered.
(1) Yes
(2) No
(3) Not sure
Section 6: Compensation (Display this section if 5.7 or 5.8 are not select “no”)
*please recall the activities related to FMD control during the past three years*
Question Never
(1) Rarely (2) Sometimes (3)
Very often
(4)
Always
(5)
6.1 My clients receive compensation when their livestock
were slaughtered for FMD.
Question
Strongly
disagree
(1)
Disagree (2)
Neither agree
nor disagree
(3)
Agree (4) Strongly
agree (5)
6.2 My clients are satisfied with the compensation they
receive (75% of estimated market price).
Section 7: Repopulation *please recall the activities related to FMD control during the past three years*
7.1 Please respond to each of the following statements
Question
Never
(1)
1-2 times
during the
past three
years (2)
1-2
times /
year (3)
>2
times /
year (4)
Alway
s (5)
I advise my clients to clean farms before introducing new livestock.
I monitor that my clients clean farms before introducing new livestock.
I advise that my clients disinfect farms before introducing new livestock.
I monitor that my clients disinfect farms before introducing new livestock.
I advise my clients to wait at least 28 days after cleaning and disinfection
before introducing new livestock.
I monitor that my clients wait at least 28 days after cleaning and disinfection
before introducing new livestock.
I know that the origins of introduced livestock that are from FMD-negative
herds.
I recommend FMD-negative laboratory results for all introduced livestock.
7.2 Please rate the percentage of each the following statements (How much? How many time?)
(1) My clients receive official permits allowing importation of new livestock to premises.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
(2) My clients inform me when they received official permits allowing importation of new livestock to their premises.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Page 188
174
Section 8: Government services and communication
8.1 Please respond to each of the following statements *please recall the activities related to FMD control during the past three years*
Question
Never
(1)
1-2 times
during the
past three
years (2)
1-2
times /
year (3)
3-4
times /
year (4)
>4
times /
year (5)
The DLD officers observed livestock health in my clients’ farms.
The DLD officers informed me when I should notify them of FMD suspects
or FMD cases.
The DLD officers informed me about FMD surveillance findings in the
proposed FMD-free zone.
The DLD officers informed me about vaccine strategy2.
The DLD officers informed me about the post-vaccination evaluation
reports.
The DLD officers informed me about movement control protocol.
The DLD officers informed me about the disposal and disinfection protocol.
The DLD officers informed me about response plan when livestock were
confirmed with FMD positive.
The DLD officers provided me with training on preparedness and response
plans.
8.2 How did The DLD officers inform you about the information mentioned above (on questions of 8.1)? (Please select all that apply)
skip this question if you never received any information from The DLD officers
(1) Stakeholders meeting
(2) Official letter
(3) Personal communication
(4) Online posting via official website
(5) Other, please specify …………………
8.3 When I use an FMD vaccine, I am sure that the vaccine has been selected based on the FMD virus field strain.
(1) Strongly disagree
(2) Disagree
(3) Neither disagree nor agree
(4) Agree
(5) Strongly agree
(6) I don’t know
8.4 I can easily access the national FMD status report.
(1) Strongly disagree
(2) Disagree
(3) Neither disagree nor agree
(4) Agree
(5) Strongly agree
(6) I don’t know
8.5 I can easily access the regional FMD status report.
(1) Strongly disagree
(2) Disagree
(3) Neither disagree nor agree
(4) Agree
(5) Strongly agree
(6) I don’t know
Section 9: Participation in individual interview and comments
9.1 What is your employment type?
(1) Veterinarian employed by company farms or contracted farms
(2) Veterinarian consultant
(3) Technical sale or sale supplier
(4) Other, please specify ………………………..
9.2 What is your area of expertise/ species? (Please select all that apply)
(1) Swine
(2) Dairy cattle
(3) Beef cattle
(4) Sheep
(5) Goat
(6) Other, please specify …………...............
9.3 I am a DLD accredited veterinarian of ……………………. (Please select all that apply)
(1) Swine
(2) Dairy cattle
(3) Beef cattle
(4) Sheep
2 Concerning type of vaccine & adjuvant, the species included, vaccine strain, and vaccine interval
(5) Goat
(6) Other, please specify …………...............
(7) I am not an accredited veterinarian
Page 189
175
9.4 How long have you had experience working with Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD)?
(1) <5 years
(2) 5-10 years
(3) > 10 years
9.5 How often have the DLD officers trained you to do sample collection and submission for FMD diagnosis?
(1) Never
(2) 1-2 times during the past three years
(3) Once a year
(4) Every 6 months
(5) Every 3 months
9.6 When was your last training related to FMD?
(1) < 1 year
(2) 1-2 years
(3) 3-5 years
(4) 6-10 years
(5) > 10 years
(6) Never been trained
9.7 Are you?
(1) Male (2) Female
9.8 Age group
(1) < 30
(2) 30 - 40
(3) 41 - 50
(4) 51 – 60
(5) > 60
9.9 Are you interested in participating in an individual interview if the researcher needs more information?
(1) Yes, please specify your email……………………
(2) No
9.10 Comments
Page 190
176
APPENDIX 7.
Questionnaires for local officers
(Translated version for the IRB approval, the original questionnaire will be in Thai language)
To whom it may concern,
I am Dr. Naree Ketusing, a PhD student at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, and I am conducting a research project
on “Assessment or Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) control policy and its implementation in the proposed FMD free zone in Thailand”.
The purpose of this study is to identify gaps in the policy and its implementation in the proposed FMD-free zone as well as to propose
recommendations for Thailand to improve the system so as to satisfy international requirements for recognition as an FMD-free zone.
Because you are considered a stakeholder who may or may not be affected by this policy, your feedback and comments are valuable for
this project. I would like to ask your voluntary participation in responding to this questionnaire. This questionnaire includes 13 sections.
Section 1: Screening questions
Section 2: Surveillance, report of suspected cases, and response to report
Section 3: Vaccination program
Section 4: Animal movement control
Section 5: Disease control after FMD positive was confirmed
Section 6: Compensation
Section 7: Repopulation
Section 8: Communication from the national officers
Section 9: Communication from provincial officers
Section 10: Communication to district officers (This section for provincial livestock officers)
Section 11: Communication to private veterinarians (This section for all local officers)
Section 12: Communication to farmers (This section for all local officers)
Section 13: Participation in individual interview and comments
Total time for this survey will be no longer than 30 minutes. Results of this study will be included in a PhD dissertation, published, and
shared to the Department of Livestock Development (DLD) to propose recommendations for Thailand to improve the system so as to
satisfy international requirements for recognition as an FMD-free zone.
This survey is voluntary and limited to people 18 years of age and older. Please be ensured that your participation will be completely
confidential as your names will not be collected or used in analyzing data or presenting finding.
Should you have any questions, concerns, or comments related to this research topic, you may contact the co-investigator, Dr. Naree
Ketusing at [email protected]
Should you have any questions or concerns about your rights as a research subject, you may contact the VT IRB Chair, Dr. David M.
Moore at [email protected]
Thank you for your time and cooperation.
Section 1: Screening questions 1.1 I ……………………….
(1) Agree to participate in this study
(2) Do not agree to participate in this study *end of questionnaire (system will direct to an exit page)
1.2 I am working for……………………….
(1) Provincial livestock office (animal health control section)
(2) Provincial livestock office (Livestock product promotion section)
(3) District livestock office
(4) Animal quarantine station
(5) Dairy Herd Health Unit (DHHU)
(6) Other, please specify ……………………………………
Page 191
177
Section 2: Surveillance, reporting of suspected cases, and response to the reports (Display this section if animal quarantine station is not selected)
*please recall the activities related to FMD control during past 3 year *
2.1 I observe animal health status for clinical signs of FMD in my responsibility area.
(1) Never *go to question 2.3
(2) 1-2 times during past 3 years
(3) 1-2 times a year
(4) >2 times a year
(5) Every month
2.2 I visit farms…….
(1) Routinely in order to observe animal health status (please specify how often you visit farms………………………….)
(2) Only when farmers call and need help.
(3) Only when I need to conduct national FMD surveillance program.
(4) Only when I need to conduct national FMD vaccination program.
(5) Other, please specify ………………
(6) Never visit farm
2.3 I receive a notification of FMD suspected cases in my responsibility area.
(1) Never
(2) 1-2 times during past 3 years
(3) 1-2 times a year
(4) >2 times a year
(5) Every month
2.4 I found FMD suspected cases in my responsibility area.
(1) Never *go to section 3
(2) 1-2 times during past 3 years
(3) 1-2 times a year
(4) >2 times a year
(5) Every month
2.5 Please rate the following statement *please recall the activities related to FMD control during past 3 year *
Question Never
(1)
1-2 times
during past
3 years (2)
1-2
times /
year (3)
>2
times /
year (4)
Alway
s (5)
I notify the national officers or above level officers within 24 hours if I noticed
or received any notification of FMD suspected case.
I conduct disease investigation when I received a notification of FMD suspected
cases.
I collect tissue or blood samples of FMD suspected cases.
I inform private veterinarians about laboratory results of the sample collection
mentioned above.
I inform farmers about laboratory results of the sample collection mentioned
above.
I quarantine suspected animal(s) until laboratory results were confirmed
negative.
I quarantine suspected herd(s) until laboratory results were confirmed negative.
I report the quarantine to the national or above level.
I inform private veterinarians of requirements to release quarantine (quarantine
release plan).
I inform farmers of requirements to release quarantine (quarantine release plan).
2.6 How did you inform private veterinarians regarding the quarantine of suspected “animals or herds”?
(1) Personal communication
(2) Official letter
(3) I never inform them when I quarantine suspected animal(s) or herd(s).
(4) I never quarantine any suspected animal(s) or herd(s).
2.7 How did you inform farmers regarding the quarantine of suspected “animals or herds”?
(1) Personal communication
(2) Official letter
(3) I never inform them when I quarantine suspected animal(s) or herd(s).
(4) I never quarantine any suspected animal(s) or herd(s).
Page 192
178
2.8 How did you report the quarantine to the national or above level?
(1) Personal communication
(2) Official letter
(3) I never report to above level.
(4) I never quarantine any suspected animal(s) or herd(s).
Section 3: Vaccination program (Display this section if animal quarantine station is not selected)
3.1 What kinds of animal species are included in the national FMD vaccination campaign? (Please select all that apply).
(1) Swine
(2) Beef cattle
(3) Dairy cattle
(4) Sheep
(5) Goat
(6) Other, please specify
……………………………………
3.2 Please rate the following statement *please recall the activities related to FMD control during past 3 year *
Question Never
(1)
1-2 times
during past
3 years (2)
1-2
times /
year (3)
>2
times /
year (4)
Alway
s (5)
I monitor FMD vaccination program conducted following the national FMD
vaccination campaign.
I conduct FMD vaccination following the national FMD vaccination campaign.
I keep those vaccination records (herd level).
I keep those vaccination records (animal level).
I keep records of vaccine cold-chain while vaccines are stored in cold storage.
Serum samples are collected (to monitor sero-conversion), after I conduct the
national FMD vaccination campaign.
3.3 How long after you conduct a vaccination program and then collect serum samples to monitor sero-conversion?
(1) Less than a month
(2) 1-3 month after vaccination
(3) 4-6 month after vaccination
(4) More than 6 months after vaccination
(5) Not sure
3.4 What is temperature that you store vaccines?
(1) < 0 C (I keep vaccine in freezer)
(2) 2-8 C
(3) 8-12 C
(4) 12-25 C
(5) > 25 C
(6) Not sure
3.5 The Bureau of Veterinary Biologic (BVB) did random testing of vaccine stability after the BVB distributed vaccine to my office.
(1) Never
(2) 1-2 times during past 3 years
(3) 1-2 times a year
(4) > 2 times a year
(5) I don’t know
Section 4: Animal movement control
*please recall the activities related to FMD control during past 3 year*
4.1 All animals transport to other provinces need animal movement permits.
(7) Strongly disagree
(8) Disagree
(9) Neither disagree nor agree
(10) Agree
(11) Strongly agree
(12) Not sure
4.2 Please rate the following statement *please recall the activities related to FMD control during past 3 year*
(Display this section if animal quarantine station and DHHU is not selected)
Question
Never
(1)
1-2 times
during past
3 years (2)
1-2
times /
year (3)
>2
times /
year (4)
Alway
s (5)
Before animal(s) are transported to other provinces, I observed animal health
status during loading animals.
Before animal(s) are transported to other provinces, I monitored records of
cleaning and disinfection of vehicles that are used for animal transportation.
Page 193
179
Question
Never
(1)
1-2 times
during past
3 years (2)
1-2
times /
year (3)
>2
times /
year (4)
Alway
s (5)
Before animal(s) are transported to other provinces, I observed animal health
status during loading animals.
Before animal(s) are transported to other provinces, I monitored all vehicles
for sufficient bedding to absorb urine and dropping.
When animal(s) are transported into my responsible area, I observed animal
health status during unloading animals.
4.3 Please rate the following statement *please recall the activities related to FMD control during past 3 year*
(Display this section if animal quarantine station is selected)
Question
Never
(1)
1-2 times
during past
3 years (2)
1-2
times /
year (3)
>2
times /
year (4)
Alway
s (5)
I observe animal health status while all vehicles are passed my station.
I monitor all vehicles for sufficient bedding to absorb urine and dropping.
I disinfect all vehicles that are used for animal transportation while they are
passed my station.
I keep vehicle disinfection records.
4.4 The animal identification is able to identify animal origins (inside and outside of the proposed FMD-free zone).
(1) Strongly disagree
(2) Disagree
(3) Neither disagree nor agree
(4) Agree
(5) Strongly agree
Section 5: Disease control after FMD positive was confirmed *please recall the activities related to FMD control during past 3 year*
(Display this section if animal quarantine station and DHHU is not selected)
5.1 I conduct serological surveillance to monitor FMD status in my responsibility area.
(1) Never * go to question 5.3
(2) 1-2 times during past 3 years
(3) 1-2 times / year
(4) > 2 times / year
(5) Always
5.2 I receive laboratory results.
(1) Never
(2) 1-2 times during past 3 years
(3) 1-2 times / year
(4) > 2 times / year
(5) Always
5.3 Animals in my responsible area are confirmed as FMD positive.
(1) Never *go to section 8
(2) 1-2 times during past 3 years
(3) 1-2 times / year
(4) > 2 times / year
(5) Always
5.4 Please rate the following statement *please recall the activities related to FMD control during past 3 year*
Question
Never
(1)
1-2 times
during past
3 years (2)
1-2
times /
year (3)
>2
times /
year (4)
Alway
s (5)
I quarantine animal(s) when they are confirmed FMD positive.
I quarantine herd(s) when it include positive cases.
I advise farmers to disinfect and disposal infected carcasses, bedding, and
material following the DLD recommendation.
I monitor farmers that they follow the DLD recommendation of disinfect and
disposal infected carcasses, bedding, and material.
After FMD positive confirmation, I vaccinate all susceptible animals
surrounding the index case (5km radius).
5.5 Are emergency vaccines subsidized by the DLD (that is, free vaccines) sufficiently available for all susceptible livestock in my
responsibility area? (Please rate the percentages of livestock received the DLD vaccine)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Page 194
180
5.6 Are emergency vaccines subsidized by the DLD (low cost vaccines) sufficiently available for all susceptible livestock in my
responsibility area? (Please rate the percentages of livestock received the DLD vaccine)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
5.7 FMD positive animal(s) in my responsibility area have been slaughtered.
(4) Yes
(5) No
(6) Not sure
5.8 FMD exposed animal(s) in my responsibility area have been slaughtered.
(1) Yes
(2) No
(3) Not sure
Section 6: Compensation (Display this section if 5.7 and 5.8 are not select “no”) and (Display this section if animal quarantine station
and DHHU are not selected)
*please recall the activities related to FMD control during past 3 year*
6.1 Farmers in my responsibility area receive compensation when their livestock were slaughtered for FMD.
(1) Never
(2) Rarely
(3) Sometimes
(4) Very often
(5) Always
6.2 Farmers are satisfied with the compensation (75% of estimated market price).
(1) Strongly disagree
(2) Disagree
(3) Neither disagree nor agree
(4) Agree
(5) Strongly agree
Section 7: Repopulation (Display this section if 5.7 and 5.8 are not select “no”) and (Display this section if animal quarantine station
is not selected)
7.1 Please rate the following statement*please recall the activities related to FMD control during past 3 year*
Question
Never
(1)
1-2 times
during past
3 years (2)
1-2
times /
year (3)
>2
times /
year (4)
Alway
s (5)
I advise farmers to clean livestock pens before introducing new livestock.
I monitor farmers to clean livestock pens before introducing new livestock.
I advise farmers to disinfect livestock before introducing new livestock.
I monitor farmers to disinfect livestock before introducing new livestock.
I monitor those cleaning and disinfection records before allow new animals
introduction.
I advise farmers to wait at least 28 days after cleaning and disinfection
before introducing new animals.
I monitor farmers to wait at least 28 days after cleaning and disinfection
before introducing new animals.
I trace back to the origins of introduced animals that are from FMD-negative
herds.
I require FMD-negative laboratory results of all introduced animals.
Section 8: Communication from the national officers (This section for provincial livestock officers, animal quarantine officers,
and DHHU)
8.1 Please rate the following statement*please recall the activities related to FMD control during past 3 year*
Question
Never
(1)
1-2 times
during past
3 years (2)
1-2
times /
year (3)
3-4
times /
year (4)
>4
times /
year (5)
The national officers inform me when I should notify them of FMD suspects
or FMD cases.
Page 195
181
Question
Never
(1)
1-2 times
during past
3 years (2)
1-2
times /
year (3)
3-4
times /
year (4)
>4
times /
year (5)
The national officers inform me about FMD surveillance findings in the
proposed FMD-free zone.
The national officers inform me about vaccine strategy3.
The national officers inform me about results of vaccine-matching tests.
The national officers inform me about the post-vaccination evaluation
reports.
The national officers inform me about movement control protocol.
The national officers inform me about the disposal and disinfection protocol.
The national officers inform me about response plan when animals were
confirmed with FMD positive.
The national officers provide me with training on preparedness and response
plans.
8.2 How did the national officers inform you about information mentioned in question 8.1? (Please select all that apply)
Skip this question if you never received any information from the officers
(6) Town hall meeting
(7) Official letter
(8) Personal communication
(9) Online posting via official website
(10) Other, please specify …………………
8.3 I can easily access the national FMD disease analysis report.
(1) Strongly disagree
(2) Disagree
(3) Neither disagree nor agree
(4) Agree
(5) Strongly agree
(6) I don’t know
8.4 I can easily access the regional FMD disease analysis report.
(7) Strongly disagree
(8) Disagree
(9) Neither disagree nor agree
(10) Agree
(11) Strongly agree
(12) I don’t know
Section 9: Communication from provincial officers (This section for district livestock officers)
9.1 Please rate the following statement*please recall the activities related to FMD control during past 3 year*
Question
Never
(1)
1-2 times
during past
3 years (2)
1-2
times /
year (3)
3-4
times /
year (4)
>4
times /
year (5)
The provincial officers inform me when I should notify them of FMD
suspects or FMD cases.
The provincial officers inform me about FMD surveillance findings in the
proposed FMD-free zone.
The provincial officers inform me about vaccine strategy4.
The provincial officers inform me about results of vaccine-matching tests.
The provincial officers inform me about the post-vaccination evaluation
reports.
The provincial officers inform me about movement control protocol.
The provincial officers inform me about the disposal and disinfection
protocol.
The provincial officers inform me about response plan when animals were
confirmed with FMD positive.
The provincial officers or above level provide me with training on
preparedness and response plans.
9.2 How did the provincial officers inform you about information mentioned in question 9.1? (Please select all that apply) skip this
question if you never received any information from the provincial officers
(1) Town hall meeting
(2) Official letter
(3) Personal communication
3 Concerning type of vaccine & adjuvant, the species included, vaccine strain, and vaccine interval 4 Concerning type of vaccine & adjuvant, the species included, vaccine strain, and vaccine interval
(4) Online posting via official website
(5) Other, please specify …………………
Page 196
182
9.3 I can easily access the national FMD disease analysis report.
(1) Strongly disagree
(2) Disagree
(3) Neither disagree nor agree
(4) Agree
(5) Strongly agree
(6) I don’t know
9.4 I can easily access the regional FMD disease analysis report.
(1) Strongly disagree
(2) Disagree
(3) Neither disagree nor agree
(4) Agree
(5) Strongly agree
(6) I don’t know
Section 10: Communication to district officers (This section for provincial livestock officers)
10.1 Please rate the following statement*please recall the activities related to FMD control during past 3 year*
Question
Never
(1)
1-2 times
during past
3 years (2)
1-2
times /
year (3)
3-4
times /
year (4)
>4
times /
year (5)
I inform district officers when they should notify me of FMD suspects or
FMD cases.
I inform district officers the report of FMD surveillance findings in region 2
(the proposed FMD-free zone).
I inform district officers the vaccine strategy5.
I inform district officers the vaccine-matching test.
I inform district officers the post-vaccination evaluation reports.
I inform district officers the movement control protocol.
I inform district officers the disposal and disinfection protocol.
I inform district officers the response plan.
I provide training courses on preparedness and response plans to district
officers.
10.2 How did you inform district officers about information mentioned in question 10.1? (Please select all that apply) skip this question
if you never received any information from the provincial officers
(1) Town hall meeting
(2) Official letter
(3) Personal communication
(4) Online posting via official website
(5) Other, please specify …………………
10.3 Please specify the reason that you are not able to provide information mentioned above.
(1) Did not receive information from the national level
(2) Lack of staffing
(3) Other, please specify …………………
Section 11: Communication to private veterinarians (This section for all local officers)
11.1 Please rate the following statement*please recall the activities related to FMD control during past 3 year*
Question
Never
(1)
1-2 times
during past
3 years (2)
1-2
times /
year (3)
3-4
times /
year (4)
>4
times /
year (5)
I inform private veterinarians when they should notify the DLD officers of
FMD suspected cases.
I inform private veterinarians the FMD surveillance finding in region 2 (the
proposed FMD-free zone).
I inform private veterinarians the vaccine strategy6.
I inform private veterinarians the vaccine-matching test.
I inform private veterinarians the post-vaccination evaluation reports.
I inform private veterinarians the movement control protocol.
I inform private veterinarians the disposal and disinfection protocol.
I inform private veterinarians the response plan.
I provide training courses on preparedness and response plans to private
veterinarians.
5 Concerning type of vaccine & adjuvant, the species include, vaccine strain, and vaccine interval 6 Concerning type of vaccine & adjuvant, the species include, vaccine strain, and vaccine interval
Page 197
183
11.2 How did you inform private veterinarians about information mentioned in question 11.1? (Please select all that apply) skip this
question if you never received any information from the provincial officers
(1) Stakeholders meeting
(2) Official letter
(3) Personal communication
(4) Online posting via official website
(5) Other, please specify …………………
11.3 Please specify the reason that you are not able to provide information mentioned above.
(1) Did not receive information from the national level
(2) The information is confidential for officers
(3) Lack of staffing
(4) Other, please specify …………………
Section 12: Communication to farmers (This section for all local officers)
12.1 Please rate the following statement*please recall the activities related to FMD control during past 3 year*
Question
Never
(1)
1-2 times
during past
3 years (2)
1-2
times /
year (3)
3-4
times /
year (4)
>4
times /
year (5)
I inform farmers when they should notify the DLD officers of FMD
suspected cases.
I inform farmers the FMD surveillance finding in region 2 (the proposed
FMD-free zone).
I inform farmers about type of vaccine, vaccine adjuvant, vaccine strain, and
vaccine interval that they should apply to their livestock.
I inform farmers about the relevant of virus strain at field level and vaccine
used. (vaccine-matching test )
I inform farmers the post-vaccination evaluation reports.
I inform farmers the movement control protocol.
I inform farmers the disposal and disinfection protocol.
I inform farmers the response plan.
I provide training courses on preparedness and response plans to farmers.
12.2 How did you inform farmers about information mentioned in question 12.1? (Please select all that apply) skip this question if you
never received any information from the provincial officers
(1) Stakeholders meeting
(2) Official letter
(3) Personal communication
(4) Online posting via official website
(5) Other, please specify …………………
12.3 Please specify the reason that you are not able to provide information mentioned above.
(1) Did not receive information from the national level
(2) The information is restricted for officers
(3) Lack of staffing
(4) Other, please specify …………………
Section 13: Participation in individual interview and comments
13.1 I am a ……..
(1) Veterinarian
(2) Para-veterinarian
(3) Animal husbandry
(4) Livestock assistant
(5) Other, please specify………………………..
13.2 My responsible area is ……….
(1) Chonburi province
(2) Rayong province
(3) Chantaburi province
(4) Trat province
(5) Chachengsao province
(6) Sa-keaw province
(7) Prachinburi province
(8) Other, please specify…………………..
Page 198
184
13.3 How long have you had experience working with Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD)?
(1) <5 years
(2) 5-10 years
(3) > 10 years
13.4 How often have the national level or above level or laboratories trained you to do sample collection and
submission for FMD diagnosis?
(1) Never
(2) 1-2 times during the past three years
(3) Once a year
(4) Every 6 months
(5) Every 3 months
13.5 When was your last training related to FMD?
(1) < 1 year
(2) 1-2 years
(3) 3-5 years
(4) 6-10 years
(5) > 10 years
13.6 Are you?
(1) Male
(2) Female
13.7 Age group
(1) 18 - 25
(2) 26 - 35
(3) 36 - 45
(4) 46 - 55
(5) > 55
13.8 Are you interested in participating in an individual interview if the researcher needs more information?
(1) Yes, please specify your email…………….
(2) No
13.9 Comments
Page 199
185
APPENDIX 8.
Interview questions for private veterinarians
Please describe what you have done when you have found an FMD suspected case.
1. a) Please describe where you could find FMD status report (national and regional).
b) Do you use FMD national or regional status report for prevention and control FMD in
your clients’ farms?
2. If your clients’ animal(s) test FMD positive, please describe how you identify that animal
and what you do.
3. Please describe how you choose vaccine (vaccine strain) to apply to animals in your clients’
farms.
4. Are FMD vaccines that used in your clients’ farms randomly tested by the DLD for quality
control purposes? (both commercial and DLD vaccine)
5. Please describe movement control protocol when your clients want to transport their
animal(s) into other province.
6. What feedback you do have for the DLD to improve veterinary services and for
accomplishing the FMD-free zone?
Page 200
186
APPENDIX 9.
Interview questions and document lists for DLD officers at national level
Interview questions for national officers (all units)
1. Please describe your unit’s responsibilities related to FMD
Interview questions for national officers (Disease control = BDCVS)
Reporting system
1. Please describe the FMD reporting protocol that your unit provides to the regional, provincial
and district officers, private vets, and farmers when they find a suspected animal. (When
should they report? And to whom?)
2. a) Does your unit inform the regional, provincial and district officers, private vets and
farmers about the reporting protocol? If so, how? (town hall meeting / post on webpage /
personal communication)
b) What is reporting protocol?
c) How often does your unit inform the regional, provincial and district officers, private vets
and farmers?
3. Please describe how your unit monitors the regional, provincial, and district officers, private
veterinarians, and farmers to see if they comply with report protocol.
4. a) Is there a designated unit responsible for disease status/report analysis?
b) Which designated position or unit is responsible for these analyses at national, regional,
and provincial level?
5. How often are disease reports analyzed (at the national, regional, and provincial level)?
6. Please describe:
a) How your unit inform regional, provincial, and district officer, private veterinarians, and
farmers about these analyses. (town hall meeting / post on webpage / personal
communication)
b) How often your unit inform regional, provincial, and district officer, private
veterinarians, and farmers about these analyses.
7. a) How your unit utilize these report analyses? (using for develop the FMD prevention and
control plan, vaccination program, surveillance program)
b) How often your unit utilize these report analyses?
Surveillance system
8. a) Is the FMD surveillance program audited by internal or external partners? If so how often?
b) What are the findings?
c) How does your unit make the corrections?
9. Please describe:
a) How your unit inform the surveillance findings to the regional, provincial, and district
officers, private veterinarians, and farmers.
b) How often your unit inform the surveillance findings to the regional, provincial, and
district officers, private veterinarians, and farmers.
10. Please describe a follow up plan if serological surveillance results are FMD positive (NSP
positive).
Page 201
187
Vaccination
11. Which DLD unit is responsible for informing the regional, provincial, and district officers,
private veterinarians, and farmers about vaccination strategies? (vaccine strain, serotype,
interval of vaccination)
12. How often does this unit inform the regional, provincial, and district officers, private
veterinarians, and farmers about vaccine strategies?
13. Please describe how your unit monitors the vaccination campaign carried out by the
provincial and district officers and if it’s conducted per the criteria provided by the national
level.
14. a) Please describe how your unit monitors if the farmers have conducted FMD vaccination.
b) What is the procedure if they do not vaccine?
15. Please describe:
a) Does your unit conduct post vaccination evaluation?
b) How does your unit conduct post vaccination evaluation program?
c) How often does your unit conduct post vaccination evaluation program?
d) How does your unit inform the regional, provincial, and district officers, private
veterinarians, and farmers about post vaccination evaluation? (post vaccination
evaluation – field coverage, immunity protection: sero-conversion, field and vaccine
strain matching)
16. When vaccination program is a failure, is there a designated unit responsible for vaccine
analysis? (For example: animal(s) still show clinical signs even farmers claimed that they do
vaccination, and vaccine and filed strain are matched, what unit takes responsibility to rule
out? and what happens?)
17. a) How does your unit communicate to vaccine group about vaccine production, seed virus
selection, and how much your unit needs for the production?
b) How often does your unit communicate to vaccine group?
18. Please describe how your unit estimates the number of vaccines for vaccine production.
(including emergency vaccine)
Response plan
19. Please describe the steps that the regional, provincial, and district officers, private
veterinarians, and farmers should take in the case of confirmed FMD positive animals in their
responsible area or their farms. (Please describe the response plan --emergency vaccine,
quarantine, cleaning, disinfection, disposal of carcass)
20. How does your unit inform the regional, provincial, and district officers, private
veterinarians, and farmers the response plan to the local officers, private veterinarians, and
farmers?
21. How are FMD infected and exposed animals managed? (buried or slaughtered or treated,
onsite or slaughterhouse)
22. Is disposition of these animals officially reported? (see records)
23. Please describe the compensation scheme (what is the criteria for compensation? Are all
slaughtered animals compensated? Do you think that farmers are satisfied with 75%
compensation?)
Documents may need during interview (disease control officers)
Page 202
188
1. Records of communication on report protocol (non-human subject data)
2. Records of violators and penalties (report protocol) human subject data but no need to see or
take note of any personal identifiable data)
3. Records of communication on surveillance plan and the findings (non-human subject data)
4. Records of actions that have been taken on positive results (non-human subject data)
5. Quarantine reports from local officers (non-human subject data)
6. Records of communication on vaccination strategy (non-human subject data)
7. Vaccination records (Did they receive from the local officers?) (non-human subject data)
8. Records of communication on the response plan (non-human subject data)
9. Records of slaughter and disposition animals (non-human subject data)
10. Records of herds and animals (non-human subject data)
Observation: Is animal identification able to identify animals’ origins (inside or outside the
proposed FMD-free zone)
Interview questions for national officers (Vaccine group: BVB, RRL, VBARC)
1. Please describe how often your unit tests and records the vaccine quality control and
production following these aspects: (How often they test? and Are they able to provide
records?)
a. Vaccine efficacy
b. Vaccine stability
c. Vaccine purity
d. Duration of immunity (Does the duration last up to 4-6 month? Does recommendation
to do vaccination rely on the duration of immunity?)
e. Vaccine shelf life (what is recommendation of the DLD vaccine on shelf life and
vaccine storage?)
f. Vaccine protective level
2. Please describe criteria to choose the seed virus for vaccine production.
3. How often does your unit conduct vaccine-matching tests on the DLD’s vaccines with the
field virus?
4. a) How does your unit communicate to other DLD groups (disease control group) about
vaccine quality control, seed virus selection, vaccine-matching tests?
b) How often does your unit communicate to other DLD groups (disease control group) about
vaccine quality control, seed virus selection, vaccine-matching tests?
5. a) Does your unit conduct vaccine-matching test on the commercial vaccines with the field
virus? If so, how? If not, why?
b) How often?
6. a) How often does your unit inform the local officers, private veterinarians, and farmers of
strains of virus cause outbreaks and endemic?
b) Who is responsible to provide information about the strain of the virus that is currently in
the field?
c) How do you inform them? (Vaccine-matching type)
7. a) Is the DLD able to regulate the commercial vaccine?
b) How does the DLD regulate commercial vaccine importation?
c) What vaccine strain is allowed and disallowed for importation?
Page 203
189
d) Does the DLD have information of vaccine importation?
e) How does the DLD regulate the efficacy of commercial vaccine?
f) Does your unit keep record of commercial vaccine used?
8. Please describe how your unit estimates the number of vaccine to be produced.
9. Please describe how your unit delivers vaccines to local level
Documents may need during interview (vaccine group)
1. Records of vaccine quality test (non-human subject data)
2. Records of vaccine-matching test (non-human subject data)
3. Records of communication (vaccine-matching test, vaccine strategy) (non-human subject
data)
4. Record of vaccine used (both DLD and commercial vaccine: type, strain) (non-human
subject data)
Interview questions for national officers (animal movement control)
1. a) Please describe movement control protocol if farmers want to transport their animals to
other provinces.
b) How often do you inform the regional, provincial, and district officers, private
veterinarians, and farmers about movement protocol?
2. Please describe what documents do farmers / drivers have to provide to the officers at the
quarantine station
3. a) Please describe tasks of officers at the quarantine station?
b) Do they have to monitor and disinfect every (or random) vehicles that pass through a
quarantine station?
c) Do they observe all animals’ health status?
4. a) Does your unit monitor officers at the quarantine station to see if they do their tasks? If so,
how? b) What happens if they do not do their task?
5. a) Does your unit monitor farmers and private vets if they follow the movement control
protocol? If so, how?
b) What happens if they do not comply the movement control protocol?
6. a) How does your unit identify violators? (Inappropriate documents, failure to vaccinate
animals before movement, or do not stop at animal check points)
b) What are the consequences if they violate movement protocol?
Documents may need during interview
1. Records of communication on movement protocol (non-human subject data)
2. Record of animal movement (number of animal(s) movement, date, ID, test, other
documents) (non-human subject data)
3. Records of violators (officers, private veterinarians, and officers) who fail to comply with
movement protocol (human subject data but no need to see or take note of any personal
identifiable data)
4. Record of punishments (human subject data but no need to see or take note of any personal
identifiable data)
Page 204
190
APPENDIX 10.
Interview questions and document lists for DLD officers at regional level
1. Are your unit’s responsibilities are related to the following topics? If so, please describe
activities related to these following topics.
- FMD reporting system
- FMD Surveillance
- Animal movement control (animal health observation? Checking documents? Permit
issuing?)
- Vaccination program (Distribution of vaccine? Estimation of vaccine required?)
- Response plan (management of FMD infected and exposed animals?)
Reporting system
1. Please describe how your unit monitors the provincial and district officers, private
veterinarians, and farmers to see if they are complying with the reporting protocol
2. Is there a designated unit responsible for disease status/report analysis? Which designated
position or unit is responsible for these analyses at the regional and the provincial level?
3. How often is disease report analyzed (at the regional and the provincial level)?
4. a) Does your unit inform provincial, and district officer, private veterinarians, and farmers
about disease report analyses? If so, how? (Town hall meeting / post on webpage / personal
communication)
b) How often does your unit inform provincial, and district officer, private veterinarians, and
farmers about these analyses?
5. a) How does your unit utilize these report analyses? (planning FMD prevention and control
plan, vaccination program, surveillance program)
b) How often does your unit utilize these report analyses?
Surveillance system
6. Please describe what your actions are if serological surveillance results are FMD positive
(NSP positive).
Animal movement control
7. Does your unit monitor farmers and private veterinarians to see if farmers and private
veterinarians are following the movement control protocol? If so, explain how your unit do
it? What happens if farmers and private veterinarians do not comply with the movement
control protocol?
8. a) How does your unit identify violators? (Inappropriate documents, failure to vaccinate
animals before movement, or do not stop at animal check points)
b) What are the consequences of violations?
Vaccination
9. Please describe:
a) How often national officers provide you about vaccination strategies. (Do they inform
you about vaccine strain, serotype, and vaccination interval?)
b) What information national officers provide you about vaccination strategies? (Do they
inform you about vaccine strain, serotype, and vaccination interval?)
Page 205
191
10. Please describe how your unit monitors vaccination campaigns carried out by provincial and
district officers and if they are conducted per the criteria provided at the national level.
11. Please describe:
a) How your unit verifies if farmers have conducted FMD vaccination?
b) What is the procedure, if they do not vaccine?
12. a) Does your unit conduct post vaccination evaluation?
b) How your unit conducts post vaccination evaluation program. (After vaccination what is
the time frame of post vaccination evaluation? How is post vaccine evaluation conducted in
swine? How and how often does the national level inform you about the results of
evaluation?)
Response plan
13. Please describe the steps that regional, provincial, and district officers, private veterinarians,
and farmers should take in the case of confirmed FMD positive animals in their responsible
area or their farms. (Please describe the response plan --emergency vaccine, quarantine,
cleaning, disinfection, disposal of carcass)
14. How are FMD infected and exposed animals managed? (buried or slaughtered or treated,
onsite or at the slaughterhouse)
15. Is disposition of these animals officially reported at the national level? (ask if possible to
look at records)
Observations at regional level
1. Animal check points and quarantine stations before entering the proposed FMD-free zone
2. Animal identification system (to see if animal ID is able to identify animal(s)’ origins)
Documents may need during interview
1. Records of herds and animals in the region (non-human subject data)
2. Records of communication on
a. surveillance plan and the findings (from the national level to regional and provincial
level)
b. vaccination strategy
c. response plan
3. Records of issuing movement permits (what documents are needed to issue movement
permits) (non-human subject data)
4. Records of actions that have been taken on positive results (FMD infected animals) (non-
human subject data)
5. Records of slaughter and disposition animals (non-human subject data)
6. Quarantine reports (from provincial level and to national level) (non-human subject data)
7. Vaccination records (from provincial and district level) (non-human subject data)
8. Violators and penalties record (reporting protocol, vaccination, movement control) (human
subject data but no need to see or take note of any personal identifiable data)
Page 206
192
APPENDIX 11.
Details of research participants using in data analysis
Participants Interviews Questionnaires
Officers National Disease control unit 3
Vaccine unit 5
Animal movement control unit 1
Regional 2
Local
Provincial level 6
District level 8
Dairy Herd Health Unit 1
Animal quarantine stations 18
Biotechnology Research Center (AI
center)
1
Total 11 34
Private
Veterinarians
Employed by company farms or contracted farms 2 7
Consultant 1 2
Technical sale or sale supplier 2 12
Others (e.g. faculty) 1
None specified 10
Total 5 32
Farmers Pig 9
Dairy 15
Beef 8
Sheep 5
Goat 1
Buffalo 1
None specified 5
Total 44
Grand Total 16 110
Page 207
193
APPENDIX 12.
Animal Epidemics Act B.E. 2558 (2015) (Thai language)
Page 208
หนา ๒๒ เลม ๑๓๒ ตอนท ๑๔ ก ราชกจจานเบกษา ๒ มนาคม ๒๕๕๘
พระราชบญญต โรคระบาดสตว พ.ศ. ๒๕๕๘
ภมพลอดลยเดช ป.ร. ใหไว ณ วนท ๒๕ กมภาพนธ พ.ศ. ๒๕๕๘
เปนปท ๗๐ ในรชกาลปจจบน พระบาทสมเดจพระปรมนทรมหาภมพลอดลยเดช มพระบรมราชโองการโปรดเกลา ฯ
ใหประกาศวา โดยทเปนการสมควรปรบปรงกฎหมายวาดวยโรคระบาดสตว จงทรงพระกรณาโปรดเกลา ฯ ใหตราพระราชบญญตขนไวโดยคาแนะนาและยนยอมของ
สภานตบญญตแหงชาต ดงตอไปน มาตรา ๑ พระราชบญญตนเรยกวา “พระราชบญญตโรคระบาดสตว พ.ศ. ๒๕๕๘” มาตรา ๒ พระราชบญญตนใหใชบงคบตงแตวนถดจากวนประกาศในราชกจจานเบกษา
เปนตนไป มาตรา ๓ ใหยกเลก (๑) พระราชบญญตโรคระบาดสตว พ.ศ. ๒๔๙๙ (๒) พระราชบญญตโรคระบาดสตว (ฉบบท ๒) พ.ศ. ๒๕๔๒ มาตรา ๔ ในพระราชบญญตน “สตว” หมายความวา (๑) ชาง มา โค กระบอ ลา ลอ แพะ แกะ กวาง สกร หมปา สนข แมว กระตาย ลง ชะน
และใหหมายความรวมถงนาเชอสาหรบผสมพนธและเอมบรโอของสตวเหลานดวย (๒) สตวปกจาพวกนก ไก เปด หาน และใหหมายความรวมถงนาเชอสาหรบผสมพนธและไข
สาหรบใชทาพนธดวย
Animal Epidemics Act B.E. 2558 (2019)
194
Page 209
หนา ๒๓ เลม ๑๓๒ ตอนท ๑๔ ก ราชกจจานเบกษา ๒ มนาคม ๒๕๕๘
(๓) สตวชนดอนตามทรฐมนตรประกาศกาหนด และใหหมายความรวมถงนาเชอสาหรบผสมพนธ เอมบรโอ และไขสาหรบใชทาพนธของสตวชนดนนดวย
“เอมบรโอ” หมายความวา ตวออนของสตวทยงไมเจรญเตบโตจนถงขนทมอวยวะ และยงไมฝงตวทผนงมดลกของสตวนน
“ซากสตว” หมายความวา รางกายหรอสวนของรางกายสตวทตายแลว สงใด ๆ ทไดจากสตว ทมชวตหรอสตวทตายแลว และใหหมายความรวมถงอาหารสกททา ประกอบ หรอปรงจากซากสตว หรอสงประดษฐสาเรจรปททาจากซากสตวตามทรฐมนตรประกาศกาหนด
“โรคระบาด” หมายความวา กาฬโรคเปด โรคไขหวดนก โรคแซลโมเนลลา โรคทรคเนลลา โรคนวคาสเซล โรคบรเซลลา โรคปากและเทาเปอย โรคพษสนขบา โรครนเดอรเปสต โรคเลปโทสไปรา โรคโลหตจางตดเชอในมา โรคววบา โรคสมองอกเสบนปาห โรคอหวาตสกร โรคแอนแทรกซ โรคเฮโมรายกเซปทซเมย วณโรค และโรคอนตามทรฐมนตรประกาศกาหนด
“พาหะของโรคระบาด” หมายความวา (๑) สตวซงไมปรากฏอาการของโรคระบาดแตมเชอโรคระบาด หรอมเหตอนควรสงสยวา
ไดรบเชอโรคระบาด ซงอาจตดตอคนหรอสตวอนได (๒) ซากสตวของสตวทเปนโรคระบาดหรอของสตวตาม (๑) (๓) ซากสตวทมเหตอนควรสงสยวามเชอโรคระบาด “เขตควบคมโรคระบาด” หมายความวา ทองททดาเนนการปองกนและควบคมมใหมโรคระบาด
หรอเชอโรคระบาดชนดหนงหรอหลายชนด เพอกาหนดเปนเขตปลอดโรคระบาด “เขตปลอดโรคระบาด” หมายความวา เขตควบคมโรคระบาดทสามารถควบคมมใหมโรคระบาด
หรอเชอโรคระบาดชนดหนงหรอหลายชนดในสตวหรอซากสตว “เขตกนชนโรคระบาด” หมายความวา ทองททดาเนนการปองกนและควบคมมใหโรคระบาด
หรอเชอโรคระบาดชนดหนงหรอหลายชนดแพรกระจายเขาเขตปลอดโรคระบาดหรอเขาในราชอาณาจกร “เครองหมายประจาตวสตว” หมายความวา เครองหมายซงพนกงานเจาหนาท สารวตร หรอ
สตวแพทยทาหรอสงใหเจาของทาไวทตวสตวหรอซากสตว หรอยานพาหนะ อาคารสถานท ภาชนะ สงหอหมหรอกกขง เพอประโยชนในการจาแนกหรอตรวจสอบสตวหรอซากสตว
“เจาของ” หมายความวา เจาของกรรมสทธและผครอบครอง ในกรณของสตวหากไมปรากฏเจาของหรอไมสามารถหาเจาของได ใหหมายความรวมถงผเลยง ผใหทอยอาศยและผควบคมสตวดวย
“ดานกกกนสตว” หมายความวา ทสาหรบกกสตวหรอซากสตวเพอตรวจโรคระบาดตามทอธบดประกาศกาหนด
“อายด” หมายความวา หามจาหนาย จาย โอนหรอเคลอนยาย “สตวแพทย” หมายความวา
195
Page 210
หนา ๒๔ เลม ๑๓๒ ตอนท ๑๔ ก ราชกจจานเบกษา ๒ มนาคม ๒๕๕๘
(๑) นายสตวแพทยและสตวแพทยของกรมปศสตว (๒) ผซงรฐมนตรแตงตงใหเปนสตวแพทยเพอปฏบตการตามพระราชบญญตน และตองม
คณสมบตตามทรฐมนตรประกาศกาหนด “สารวตร” หมายความวา ผซงรฐมนตรแตงตงใหเปนสารวตรเพอปฏบตการตามพระราชบญญตน
และตองมคณสมบตตามทรฐมนตรประกาศกาหนด “นายทะเบยน” หมายความวา ผซงรฐมนตรแตงตงใหเปนนายทะเบยน “พนกงานเจาหนาท” หมายความวา ผซงรฐมนตรแตงตงเพอปฏบตการตามพระราชบญญตน “ผวาราชการจงหวด” หมายความรวมถง ผวาราชการกรงเทพมหานคร “อธบด” หมายความวา อธบดกรมปศสตว “รฐมนตร” หมายความวา รฐมนตรผรกษาการตามพระราชบญญตน มาตรา ๕ ใหรฐมนตรวาการกระทรวงเกษตรและสหกรณรกษาการตามพระราชบญญตน
และใหมอานาจแตงตงพนกงานเจาหนาท นายทะเบยน สารวตร และสตวแพทย ออกกฎกระทรวงกาหนดคาธรรมเนยมไมเกนอตราทายพระราชบญญตน ยกเวนคาธรรมเนยม และกาหนดกจการอน กบออกประกาศและระเบยบเพอปฏบตการตามพระราชบญญตน
กฎกระทรวง ประกาศและระเบยบนน เมอไดประกาศในราชกจจานเบกษาแลวใหใชบงคบได มาตรา ๖ ใหอธบดมอานาจออกประกาศและระเบยบเพอปฏบตการตามพระราชบญญตน ประกาศและระเบยบนน เมอไดประกาศในราชกจจานเบกษาแลวใหใชบงคบได
หมวด ๑ การปองกนและควบคมโรคระบาด
สวนท ๑ บททวไป
มาตรา ๗ เพอประโยชนในการปองกนและควบคมโรคระบาด ใหเจาของสตว ดงตอไปน ปฏบตตามระบบการปองกนและควบคมโรคระบาด
(๑) ชาง มา โค กระบอ แพะ แกะ กวาง สกร หมปา (๒) สนข แมว (๓) นก ไก เปด หาน (๔) สตวชนดอนตามทรฐมนตรประกาศกาหนด ระบบการปองกนและควบคมโรคระบาดตามวรรคหนง ใหเปนไปตามหลกเกณฑ วธการและเงอนไข
ทกาหนดในกฎกระทรวง ทงน ในกฎกระทรวงดงกลาวใหคานงถงความเหมาะสมเกยวกบสภาพของสตว และวตถประสงคของการเลยงสตวแตละชนด
196
Page 211
หนา ๒๕ เลม ๑๓๒ ตอนท ๑๔ ก ราชกจจานเบกษา ๒ มนาคม ๒๕๕๘
มาตรา ๘ เพอประโยชนในการปองกนและควบคมโรคระบาด ใหเจาของสตวหรอซากสตว ดงตอไปน ปฏบตตามหลกเกณฑ วธการและเงอนไขทอธบดประกาศกาหนดจานวนสตวหรอซากสตวลกษณะของยานพาหนะและอปกรณในการเคลอนยายสตวหรอซากสตว
(๑) ชาง มา โค กระบอ แพะ แกะ กวาง สกร หมปา (๒) นก ไก เปด หาน รวมถงไขสาหรบใชทาพนธ (๓) ซากสตวของสตวตาม (๑) หรอ (๒) (๔) สตวหรอซากสตวชนดอนตามทรฐมนตรประกาศกาหนด มาตรา ๙ ในทองทใดเมออธบดเหนสมควรใหมการปองกนและควบคมโรคระบาดในสตวชนดใด
ใหอธบดประกาศกาหนดใหทองทนนทงหมดหรอบางสวนของทองทตองมการทาเครองหมายประจาตวสตวสาหรบสตวหรอซากสตวชนดนน
การทาเครองหมายประจาตวสตว ลกษณะ ราคาและการยกเวนราคาเครองหมายประจาตวสตว และการดาเนนการกอนหรอหลงการทาเครองหมายประจาตวสตว ใหเปนไปตามหลกเกณฑ วธการและเงอนไขทอธบดประกาศกาหนด
ในกรณทประกาศตามวรรคสองกาหนดใหเจาของสตวหรอซากสตวมหนาททาเครองหมายประจาตวสตว หรอดาเนนการกอนหรอหลงการทาเครองหมายประจาตวสตว ใหเจาของสตวหรอซากสตว ปฏบตใหเปนไปตามประกาศดงกลาว
มาตรา ๑๐ หามมใหผใด (๑) ทาเครองหมายประจาตวสตวปลอม หรอแปลงหรอแกไขเครองหมายประจาตวสตวทแทจรง
เพอใหเขาใจวาเปนเครองหมายประจาตวสตวตามพระราชบญญตน (๒) ใชเครองหมายประจาตวสตวปลอม หรอเครองหมายประจาตวสตวทมการแปลงหรอแกไข (๓) ทาลายเครองหมายประจาตวสตว ใชหรอยนยอมใหผอนใชเครองหมายประจาตวสตว
เพอใหเกดความเขาใจผดในการจาแนกหรอตรวจสอบสตวหรอซากสตว มาตรา ๑๑ ใหเจาของสตวแจงตอพนกงานเจาหนาท สารวตร หรอสตวแพทย ภายในเวลา
สบสองชวโมงนบแตเวลาททราบวาสตวปวยหรอตาย เมอมกรณ ดงตอไปน (๑) มสตวปวยหรอตายโดยรวาเปนโรคระบาด (๒) มสตวปวยหรอตายโดยไมรสาเหต (๓) ในหมบานเดยวกน หรอบร เวณใกล เคยงกน มสตวปวยหรอตายมอาการคลายคลงกน
ในระยะเวลาหางกนไมเกนเจดวน การแจงและการดาเนนการกบสตวปวยหรอตายตามวรรคหนง และการกาหนดชนด จานวน
และลกษณะการปวยหรอตายของสตวตาม (๒) และ (๓) ใหเปนไปตามทอธบดประกาศกาหนด เมอมสตวตามวรรคหนงปวย ใหเจาของสตวควบคมสตวปวยทงหมดไวภายในบรเวณทสตวอย
และหามมใหเจาของสตวหรอบคคลอนใดเคลอนยายสตวปวยไปจากบรเวณนน เมอมสตวตามวรรคหนงตาย
197
Page 212
หนา ๒๖ เลม ๑๓๒ ตอนท ๑๔ ก ราชกจจานเบกษา ๒ มนาคม ๒๕๕๘
ใหเจาของสตวควบคมซากสตวนนใหคงอย ณ ททสตวนนตายและหามมใหเจาของสตวหรอบคคลอนใด เคลอนยาย ชาแหละ หรอกระทาการอนใดแกซากสตวนน เวนแตมการดาเนนการกบสตวปวยหรอตายตามทอธบดประกาศกาหนดตามวรรคสอง หรอสตวแพทยไดตรวจพสจนแลววาสตวนนมไดปวยหรอตายโดยโรคระบาด หรอสตวแพทยสงเปนอยางอน
มาตรา ๑๒ เมอไดมการแจงตามมาตรา ๑๑ หรอมเหตอนควรสงสยวามสตวปวยหรอตาย โดยโรคระบาด พนกงานเจาหนาท หรอสารวตรมอานาจออกคาสงเปนหนงสอใหเจาของสตวจดการ ดงตอไปน
(๑) กกขง แยก หรอยายสตวปวยหรอสงสยวาปวยไวภายในเขตตามวธการทกาหนด (๒) ฝง หรอเผาซากสตวนน ณ ททกาหนด ถาการฝงหรอเผาไมอาจทาไดใหทาลายโดยวธอน
ตามทเหนสมควร (๓) กกขง แยก หรอยายสตวทอยรวมฝงหรอเคยอยรวมฝงกบสตวทปวยหรอสงสยวาปวยหรอตาย
ไวภายในเขตตามวธการทกาหนด มาตรา ๑๓ เมอไดมการแจงตามมาตรา ๑๑ หรอตรวจพบ หรอมเหตอนควรสงสยวามสตวปวย
หรอตายโดยโรคระบาด นอกจากสตวแพทยมอานาจตามมาตรา ๔๐ แลว ใหมอานาจตรวจสตวหรอซากสตว รวมทงออกคาสงเปนหนงสอใหเจาของสตวหรอซากสตวจดการ ดงตอไปน
(๑) กกขง แยก หรอยายสตวปวยหรอสงสยวาปวยไวภายในเขตตามวธการทกาหนด หรอใหไดรบการรกษาตามทเหนสมควร
(๒) ฝง หรอเผาซากสตวนนทงหมดหรอแตบางสวน ณ ททกาหนด ถาการฝงหรอเผาไมอาจทาได ใหทาลายโดยวธอนตามทเหนสมควร
(๓) กกขง แยก หรอยายสตวทอยรวมฝงหรอเคยอยรวมฝงกบสตวทปวยหรอสงสยวาปวยหรอตายไวภายในเขตตามวธการทกาหนด หรอใหไดรบการปองกนโรคระบาดตามทเหนสมควร
(๔) ทาลายสตวทเปนโรคระบาดหรอมเหตอนควรสงสยวาเปนโรคระบาด หรอสตวหรอซากสตวทเปนพาหะของโรคระบาด ตามหลกเกณฑและวธการทอธบดประกาศกาหนด ทงน ใหชดใชราคาแกเจาของสตวหรอซากสตวไมตากวาสามในสของราคาสตวหรอซากสตวซงอาจขายไดในตลาดทองทกอนเกด โรคระบาด ตามหลกเกณฑและวธการทกาหนดในกฎกระทรวง เวนแตกรณทเจาของสตวหรอซากสตวไดจงใจกระทาความผดตอบทบญญตแหงพระราชบญญตน
(๕) กาจดเชอโรคทอาหารสตวหรอซากสตวทเปนพาหะของโรคระบาดตามวธการทกาหนด (๖) ทาความสะอาดและทาลายเชอโรคระบาดในททมเชอโรคระบาดหรอสงสยวามเชอโรคระบาด
ตามวธการทกาหนด มาตรา ๑๔ เมอมสตวทไมปรากฏเจาของปวยหรอตายในทดนของบคคลใดโดยรวาเปน
โรคระบาดหรอโดยไมรสาเหต ใหเจาของทดนนนมหนาทแจงตอพนกงานเจาหนาท สารวตร หรอสตวแพทย
198
Page 213
หนา ๒๗ เลม ๑๓๒ ตอนท ๑๔ ก ราชกจจานเบกษา ๒ มนาคม ๒๕๕๘
ภายในเวลาสบสองชวโมงนบแตเวลาททราบวาสตวปวยหรอตาย และใหนาความในมาตรา ๑๑ วรรคสอง มาใชบงคบกบเจาของทดนดวยโดยอนโลม
หามมใหบคคลใดเคลอนยาย ชาแหละ หรอกระทาการอนใดแกสตวหรอซากสตวตามวรรคหนง เวนแตมการดาเนนการกบสตวปวยหรอตายตามทอธบดประกาศกาหนดตามมาตรา ๑๑ วรรคสอง หรอสตวแพทยไดตรวจพสจนแลววาสตวนนมไดปวยหรอตายโดยโรคระบาด หรอสตวแพทยสงเปนอยางอน
ในกรณทสตวหรอซากสตวตามวรรคหนง เปนโรคระบาดหรอมเหตอนควรสงสยวาเปนโรคระบาด ใหสตวแพทยทาลายสตวหรอซากสตวนน และสตวหรอซากสตวอนทเปนพาหะของโรคระบาด หรอจดการโดยวธอนตามทเหนสมควรเพอปองกนมใหโรคระบาดแพรกระจายตอไป
เมอปรากฏเจาของสตวในภายหลง ใหกรมปศสตวหรอเจาของทดนมสทธเรยกรองคาใชจาย ทจาเปนเทาทจายจรงจากเจาของสตวไดตามหลกเกณฑและวธการทอธบดประกาศกาหนด
มาตรา ๑๕ เมอพนกงานเจาหนาท สารวตร หรอสตวแพทยไดรบแจงหรอตรวจพบวามสตวปวยหรอตายโดยรวาเปนโรคระบาดหรอโดยไมรสาเหตในทสาธารณะ หรอในทดนทไมปรากฏเจาของ พนกงานเจาหนาท สารวตร หรอสตวแพทยมอานาจกกสตวทปวยหรอตายนนไวตามทเหนสมควรภายในบรเวณนน
หามมใหบคคลใดเคลอนยาย ชาแหละ หรอกระทาการอนใดแกสตวหรอซากสตวตามวรรคหนง จนกวาสตวแพทยไดตรวจพสจนแลววาสตวนนมไดปวยหรอตายโดยโรคระบาดหรอสตวแพทยสงเปนอยางอน
ในกรณทสตวหรอซากสตวตามวรรคหนง เปนโรคระบาดหรอมเหตอนควรสงสยวาเปนโรคระบาด ใหสตวแพทยทาลายสตวหรอซากสตวนน และสตวหรอซากสตวอนทเปนพาหะของโรคระบาด หรอจดการโดยวธอนตามทเหนสมควรเพอปองกนมใหโรคระบาดแพรกระจายตอไป
เมอปรากฏเจาของสตวในภายหลง ใหกรมปศสตวมสทธเรยกรองคาใชจายทจาเปนเทาทจายจรงจากเจาของสตวไดตามหลกเกณฑและวธการทอธบดประกาศกาหนด
มาตรา ๑๖ หามมใหบคคลใดขดซากสตวทฝงไวแลวตามบทบญญตแหงพระราชบญญตน เวนแตไดรบอนญาตเปนหนงสอจากสตวแพทย หรอเปนการดาเนนการโดยสตวแพทย
สวนท ๒ เขตปลอดโรคระบาด
มาตรา ๑๗ ในทองทใดเมอรฐมนตรเหนสมควรใหมการปองกนการเกดโรคระบาดโรคใด ในสตวชนดใด ใหรฐมนตรประกาศกาหนดทองทนนทงหมดหรอบางสวนเปนเขตปลอดโรคระบาด หรอเขตกนชนโรคระบาดสาหรบโรคนนในสตวชนดนน และใหระบชนดของสตวและซากสตวทหามเคลอนยายไวในประกาศดวย
กอนการประกาศกาหนดใหทองทใดเปนเขตปลอดโรคระบาดตามวรรคหนง ใหรฐมนตรประกาศกาหนดทองทนนเปนเขตควบคมโรคระบาด และใหระบชนดของสตวและโรคระบาด รวมทงชนดของสตวและซากสตวทหามเคลอนยายไวในประกาศดวย
199
Page 214
หนา ๒๘ เลม ๑๓๒ ตอนท ๑๔ ก ราชกจจานเบกษา ๒ มนาคม ๒๕๕๘
เมอไดประกาศเปนเขตควบคมโรคระบาดตามวรรคสองแลว ใหอธบดประกาศกาหนดหลกเกณฑ วธการและเงอนไขเพอใหมการประกาศเปนเขตปลอดโรคระบาด
มาตรา ๑๘ เมอไดประกาศเขตควบคมโรคระบาด เขตปลอดโรคระบาด หรอเขตกนชนโรคระบาดตามมาตรา ๑๗ แลว หามมใหผใดเคลอนยายสตวหรอซากสตวตามทระบในประกาศดงกลาวเขาในหรอผานเขตนน เวนแตไดรบอนญาตเปนหนงสอจากอธบดหรอสตวแพทยซงอธบดมอบหมายทกครงทมการเคลอนยาย
มาตรา ๑๙ ภายในเขตควบคมโรคระบาด เขตปลอดโรคระบาดหรอเขตกนชนโรคระบาด ถาปรากฏวามโรคระบาด หรอมเหตอนควรสงสยวามโรคระบาด สตวแพทยจะประกาศเขตโรคระบาดชวคราวตามมาตรา ๒๐ หรอผวาราชการจงหวดจะประกาศเขตโรคระบาดหรอเขตเฝาระวงโรคระบาดตามมาตรา ๒๑ แลวแตกรณ กได
เมอสามารถควบคมโรคระบาดนนในเขตโรคระบาดได หรอไมมเหตอนควรสงสยวามโรคระบาดนนในเขตเฝาระวงโรคระบาด แลวแตกรณ ใหผวาราชการจงหวดสงยกเลกประกาศเขตโรคระบาดหรอ เขตเฝาระวงโรคระบาดตามวรรคหนงโดยเรว และปดประกาศใหประชาชนในทองทนนทราบ ในกรณ ทเขตดงกลาวเคยเปนเขตปลอดโรคระบาดตามมาตรา ๑๗ วรรคหนง ใหถอวาเขตนนเปนเขตควบคม โรคระบาดตามมาตรา ๑๗ วรรคสอง
สวนท ๓ เขตโรคระบาด
มาตรา ๒๐ ในกรณทสตวแพทยเหนวา โรคระบาดทตรวจพบในทองททรบผดชอบจะระบาดออกไป หรอทองทอนทตดตอกบทองทนนจะระบาดเขามา และทองททรบผดชอบนนยงไมมการประกาศใหเปนเขตโรคระบาด หรอเขตเฝาระวงโรคระบาดตามมาตรา ๒๑ ใหสตวแพทยมอานาจประกาศกาหนดเขตโรคระบาดชวคราวในทองททรบผดชอบมรศมไมเกนหากโลเมตรจากททตรวจพบโรคระบาดนน และใหระบชนดของสตวและโรคระบาด รวมทงสตวและซากสตวทหามเคลอนยายไวในประกาศดวย
ประกาศตามวรรคหนง ใหใชบงคบไดสามสบวนนบแตวนประกาศและใหปดไว ณ สานกงานเขต ทวาการอาเภอ ททาการองคการบรหารสวนตาบล สานกงานเทศบาล ททาการกานน ททาการผใหญบาน และทชมนมชนภายในทองทนน
มาตรา ๒๑ ในทองทจงหวดใดมหรอสงสยวามโรคระบาด ใหผวาราชการจงหวดมอานาจประกาศกาหนดทองทจงหวดนนทงหมดหรอบางสวนเปนเขตโรคระบาด หรอเขตเฝาระวงโรคระบาด แลวแตกรณ และใหระบชนดของสตวและโรคระบาด รวมทงสตวและซากสตวทหามเคลอนยายไวในประกาศดวย
ประกาศตามวรรคหนง ใหปดไว ณ ศาลากลางจงหวด ศาลาวาการกรงเทพมหานคร ศาลาวาการ เมองพทยา สานกงานเขต ทวาการอาเภอ ททาการองคการบรหารสวนจงหวด ททาการองคการบรหาร
200
Page 215
หนา ๒๙ เลม ๑๓๒ ตอนท ๑๔ ก ราชกจจานเบกษา ๒ มนาคม ๒๕๕๘
สวนตาบล สานกงานเทศบาล ททาการกานน ททาการผใหญบาน ทชมนมชนภายในทองทนน และททาการองคกรปกครองสวนทองถนอนทมกฎหมายจดตง
มาตรา ๒๒ เมอไดประกาศกาหนดเขตโรคระบาดชวคราวตามมาตรา ๒๐ หรอประกาศกาหนดเขตโรคระบาดหรอเขตเฝาระวงโรคระบาดตามมาตรา ๒๑ หามมใหผใดเคลอนยายสตวหรอซากสตวตามทกาหนดในประกาศดงกลาว เขา ออก ผาน หรอภายในเขตนน เวนแตไดรบอนญาตเปนหนงสอจากสตวแพทยผมหนาทรบผดชอบประจาเขตนนทกครงทมการเคลอนยาย
มาตรา ๒๓ ภายในเขตโรคระบาด หรอเขตเฝาระวงโรคระบาดตามมาตรา ๒๑ เมอสามารถควบคมโรคระบาดนนในเขตโรคระบาดได หรอไมมเหตอนควรสงสยวามโรคระบาดนนในเขตเฝาระวง โรคระบาด แลวแตกรณ ใหผวาราชการจงหวดสงยกเลกประกาศเขตโรคระบาดหรอเขตเฝาระวงโรคระบาดโดยเรว และปดประกาศใหประชาชนในทองทนนทราบ
หมวด ๒ การขออนญาต การออกใบอนญาต และหนาทของผรบใบอนญาต
มาตรา ๒๔ เพอประโยชนในการปองกนและควบคมโรคระบาดอนเกดจากการคาสตวหรอ ซากสตว ผใดทาการคาหรอหากาไรในลกษณะคนกลางซงสตวหรอซากสตวดงตอไปน ตองไดรบใบอนญาตจากนายทะเบยน
(๑) ชาง มา โค กระบอ แพะ แกะ กวาง สกร หมปา สนข แมว (๒) นก ไก เปด หาน รวมถงไขสาหรบใชทาพนธ (๓) ซากสตวของสตวตาม (๑) หรอ (๒) (๔) สตวหรอซากสตวชนดอนตามทรฐมนตรประกาศกาหนด การขออนญาตและการออกใบอนญาต ใหเปนไปตามหลกเกณฑ วธการและเงอนไขทอธบด
ประกาศกาหนด มาตรา ๒๕ เพอประโยชนในการปองกนและควบคมโรคระบาดอนเกดจากนาเชอสาหรบผสมพนธ
หรอเอมบรโอของสตว ผใดขาย จาหนาย จาย แจก แลกเปลยน หรอมไวเพอขายซงนาเชอสาหรบผสมพนธหรอเอมบรโอของชาง มา โค กระบอ แพะ แกะ กวาง สกร หมปา หรอสตวชนดอนตามทรฐมนตรประกาศกาหนด หรอมพอพนธของสตวดงกลาวเพอใหบรการผสมพนธแกสตวของบคคลอนโดยวธธรรมชาต ตองไดรบใบอนญาตจากนายทะเบยน
การขออนญาตและการออกใบอนญาต ใหเปนไปตามหลกเกณฑ วธการและเงอนไขทอธบดประกาศกาหนด
มาตรา ๒๖ ใบอนญาตตามมาตรา ๒๔ และมาตรา ๒๕ ใหมอายหนงปนบแตวนทออกใบอนญาต ถาผรบใบอนญาตประสงคจะขอตออายใบอนญาต ใหยนคาขอกอนใบอนญาตสนอาย เมอไดยนคาขอแลว ใหประกอบกจการตอไปไดจนกวานายทะเบยนจะสงไมอนญาตใหตออายใบอนญาตนน
201
Page 216
หนา ๓๐ เลม ๑๓๒ ตอนท ๑๔ ก ราชกจจานเบกษา ๒ มนาคม ๒๕๕๘
การขอตออายใบอนญาตและการอนญาต ใหเปนไปตามหลกเกณฑ วธการและเงอนไขทอธบดประกาศกาหนด
มาตรา ๒๗ ในกรณทผรบใบอนญาตประสงคจะโอนใบอนญาตตามมาตรา ๒๔ หรอมาตรา ๒๕ ใหยนคาขอตอนายทะเบยน และใหการโอนมผลเมอไดรบอนญาตจากนายทะเบยน
การขอโอนใบอนญาตและการอนญาต ใหเปนไปตามหลกเกณฑ วธการและเงอนไขทอธบดประกาศกาหนด
มาตรา ๒๘ ในกรณทผรบใบอนญาตตามมาตรา ๒๔ หรอมาตรา ๒๕ ตาย และมทายาท หรอผไดรบความยนยอมจากทายาทยนคาขอแสดงความจานงตอนายทะเบยนภายในสามสบวนนบแตวนทผรบใบอนญาตตาย เพอขอประกอบกจการทผตายไดรบอนญาตนนตอไป เมอไดรบอนญาตจากนายทะเบยนแลว ใหผแสดงความจานงนนประกอบกจการตอไปไดจนกวาใบอนญาตนนสนอาย ในกรณเชนวานใหถอวา ผแสดงความจานงเปนผรบใบอนญาตตามมาตรา ๒๔ หรอมาตรา ๒๕ แลวแตกรณ ตงแตวนท ผรบใบอนญาตตาย
การขอแสดงความจานงและการอนญาต ใหเปนไปตามหลกเกณฑ วธการและเงอนไขทอธบดประกาศกาหนด
มาตรา ๒๙ ในกรณทใบอนญาตตามมาตรา ๒๔ หรอมาตรา ๒๕ สญหาย ชารดหรอถกทาลายในสาระสาคญ ใหผรบใบอนญาตแจงตอนายทะเบยนและยนคาขอรบใบแทนใบอนญาตภายในสามสบวนนบแตวนทไดทราบการสญหาย ชารดหรอถกทาลายดงกลาว
การขอและการออกใบแทนใบอนญาต ใหเปนไปตามหลกเกณฑ วธการและเงอนไขทอธบดประกาศกาหนด
มาตรา ๓๐ ในกรณทผรบใบอนญาตตามมาตรา ๒๔ หรอมาตรา ๒๕ ประสงคจะเปลยนแปลงแกไขรายการในใบอนญาต ใหยนคาขอตอนายทะเบยน
การขอและการอนญาตแกไขรายการในใบอนญาต และรายละเอยดของรายการทขอเปลยนแปลงแกไข ใหเปนไปตามหลกเกณฑ วธการและเงอนไขทอธบดประกาศกาหนด
มาตรา ๓๑ เพอประโยชนในการปองกนและควบคมโรคระบาด ผใดนาเขา สงออก หรอนาผานราชอาณาจกรซงสตวหรอซากสตว ตองไดรบใบอนญาตจากอธบดหรอผซงอธบดมอบหมายทกครงทนาเขา สงออกหรอนาผานราชอาณาจกร
การขออนญาต การออกใบอนญาต และวธการนาเขา สงออก หรอนาผานราชอาณาจกร ใหเปนไปตามหลกเกณฑ วธการและเงอนไขทอธบดประกาศกาหนด
มาตรา ๓๒ ใหผรบใบอนญาตตามมาตรา ๓๑ ปฏบตดงตอไปน (๑) ทาเครองหมายประจาตวสตวกอนการนาเขา สงออก หรอนาผานราชอาณาจกรซงสตว
หรอซากสตว และใหนาความในมาตรา ๙ วรรคสอง และวรรคสาม มาใชบงคบโดยอนโลม
202
Page 217
หนา ๓๑ เลม ๑๓๒ ตอนท ๑๔ ก ราชกจจานเบกษา ๒ มนาคม ๒๕๕๘
(๒) นาสตวหรอซากสตวทไดดาเนนการตาม (๑) เขา ออกหรอผานทาเขาหรอทาออกตามทรฐมนตรประกาศกาหนด และใหปฏบตตามหลกเกณฑ วธการและเงอนไขทกาหนดในกฎกระทรวง
มาตรา ๓๓ เมอปรากฏวาทองทใดภายนอกราชอาณาจกรมหรอสงสยวามโรคระบาด ใหอธบดมอานาจประกาศเพอชะลอการนาเขาหรอนาผานราชอาณาจกรซงสตวหรอซากสตวจากทองทนนไดครงละไมเกนเกาสบวน หากรฐมนตรเหนสมควรอาจประกาศกาหนดหามการนาเขา หรอนาผานราชอาณาจกรซงสตวหรอซากสตวจากทองทนนได
มาตรา ๓๔ ภายใตบงคบมาตรา ๑๘ และมาตรา ๒๒ เพอประโยชนในการปองกนและควบคมโรคระบาด ผใดนาสตวหรอซากสตวดงตอไปนไปยงทองทจงหวดอนตองทาเครองหมายประจาตวสตว และใหนาความในมาตรา ๙ วรรคสอง และวรรคสาม มาใชบงคบโดยอนโลม และตองไดรบใบอนญาตจากสตวแพทยประจาทองทตนทางทกครง
(๑) ชาง มา โค กระบอ แพะ แกะ กวาง สกร หมปา หรอนาเชอสาหรบผสมพนธหรอเอมบรโอของสตวดงกลาว
(๒) นก ไก เปด หาน หรอนาเชอสาหรบผสมพนธ หรอไขสาหรบใชทาพนธ (๓) ซากสตวของสตวตาม (๑) หรอ (๒) (๔) สตวหรอซากสตวชนดอนตามทรฐมนตรประกาศกาหนด การขออนญาตและการออกใบอนญาต การตรวจโรคและทาลายเชอโรคจากสตวหรอซากสตว
ตามวรรคหนง ใหเปนไปตามหลกเกณฑ วธการและเงอนไขทอธบดประกาศกาหนด การออกใบอนญาตตามวรรคสอง สตวแพทยจะกาหนดเงอนไขเกยวกบยานพาหนะและการใชเสนทาง
หรอเงอนไขอนตามทจาเปนไวในใบอนญาตกได มาตรา ๓๕ ผรบใบอนญาตตามมาตรา ๓๔ ตองนาสตวหรอซากสตวผานดานกกกนสตว
ทงน ใหปฏบตตามหลกเกณฑ วธการและเงอนไขทอธบดประกาศกาหนด มาตรา ๓๖ ผใดประสงคจะใหมการดาเนนการเกยวกบการขออนญาตตามพระราชบญญตน
ในตางประเทศ หรอนอกสถานททาการโดยปกตในวนหยดราชการหรอนอกเวลาราชการ ใหผนนจดหายานพาหนะและรบผดชอบชาระคาปวยการและคาใชจายอนทจาเปนตองจายเนองในการปฏบตงานดงกลาวตามอตราทกาหนดในกฎกระทรวง
การจายคาปวยการและคาใชจายอนทจาเปนตองจายเนองในการปฏบตงานใหแกผปฏบตงานตามวรรคหนง ใหเปนไปตามหลกเกณฑ วธการและเงอนไขทอธบดประกาศกาหนด
มาตรา ๓๗ คาธรรมเนยมทเรยกเกบจากใบอนญาตนาสตวหรอซากสตวเขา ออก หรอผานราชอาณาจกร และคาทพกสตวหรอซากสตวทนาเขามาในหรอสงออกไปนอกราชอาณาจกร ใหหกไวเปนคาใชจายในการตรวจหรอควบคมการนาสตวหรอซากสตวเขา ออก หรอผานราชอาณาจกรเปนจานวนไมเกนรอยละหาสบของเงนคาธรรมเนยมดงกลาว สวนทเหลอใหนาสงเปนรายไดแผนดน ทงน ตามระเบยบ ทอธบดกาหนดโดยความเหนชอบของกระทรวงการคลง
203
Page 218
หนา ๓๒ เลม ๑๓๒ ตอนท ๑๔ ก ราชกจจานเบกษา ๒ มนาคม ๒๕๕๘
หมวด ๓ การพกใชและการเพกถอนใบอนญาต
มาตรา ๓๘ เมอปรากฏวาผรบใบอนญาตตามมาตรา ๒๔ หรอมาตรา ๒๕ ฝาฝนหรอไมปฏบตตามหลกเกณฑ วธการและเงอนไขทอธบดประกาศกาหนดตามมาตรา ๒๔ หรอมาตรา ๒๕ แลวแตกรณ หากสตวแพทยเหนสมควร ใหเสนอความเหนตอนายทะเบยนเพอพจารณาสงพกใชหรอเพกถอนใบอนญาต และนายทะเบยนมอานาจสงพกใชใบอนญาตไดครงละไมเกนเกาสบวน ทงน ในคาสงดงกลาวจะกาหนดเงอนไขเทาทจาเปนใหผถกพกใชใบอนญาตตองปฏบตไวดวยกได
ในกรณทมการฟองผรบใบอนญาตดงกลาวตอศาลวาฝาฝนหรอไมปฏบตตามหลกเกณฑ วธการและเงอนไขทอธบดกาหนดตามมาตรา ๒๔ หรอมาตรา ๒๕ แลวแตกรณ นายทะเบยนจะสงพกใชใบอนญาตนนไวจนกวาศาลจะมคาพพากษาถงทสดกได
หามมใหผรบใบอนญาตตามมาตรา ๒๔ หรอมาตรา ๒๕ ซงถกสงพกใชใบอนญาตประกอบกจการตามใบอนญาตทถกสงพกใชนน
ใหนายทะเบยนมอานาจสงเพกถอนใบอนญาตในกรณทผรบใบอนญาตฝาฝนคาสงพกใชใบอนญาตตามวรรคหนง หรอกรณทจะกอใหเกดความเสยหายรายแรงตามทอธบดประกาศกาหนด
มาตรา ๓๙ นายทะเบยนมอานาจสงเพกถอนคาสงพกใชใบอนญาตกอนกาหนดเวลาได เมอปรากฏวาผรบใบอนญาตไดปฏบตตามหลกเกณฑ วธการและเงอนไขทอธบดประกาศกาหนดตามมาตรา ๒๔ หรอมาตรา ๒๕ และไดปฏบตตามเงอนไขทนายทะเบยนกาหนดตามมาตรา ๓๘ วรรคหนง แลว
หมวด ๔ อานาจหนาทของสตวแพทยและสารวตร
มาตรา ๔๐ เพอประโยชนในการปองกนและควบคมโรคระบาด เมอปรากฏวามหรอสงสยวามเชอโรคระบาด หรอพาหะของโรคระบาด ใหสตวแพทยมอานาจ ดงตอไปน
(๑) ออกประกาศหรอสงเปนหนงสอใหเจาของสตวหรอซากสตวแจงจานวนสตวหรอซากสตว และถาเหนสมควรจะใหนาสตวหรอซากสตวนนมาเพอใหสตวแพทยทาการตรวจโรค เกบตวอยาง ปองกนโรคระบาด หรอทาเครองหมายประจาตวสตว กได
(๒) สงเปนหนงสอใหเจาของสตวหรอซากสตวกกสตวหรอซากสตวไว ณ ททเหนสมควร ตามความจาเปนเพอตรวจโรค
(๓) เรยกตรวจยานพาหนะ หรอเขาไปในอาคาร หรอสถานทอนใดเพอตรวจโรค เกบตวอยาง ปองกนโรคระบาด หรอทาเครองหมายประจาตวสตว ในการนใหสตวแพทยมอานาจสงเปนหนงสอ ใหเจาของยานพาหนะ อาคารหรอสถานทอนใด ทาความสะอาดและทาลายเชอโรคระบาดหรอพาหะของ
204
Page 219
หนา ๓๓ เลม ๑๓๒ ตอนท ๑๔ ก ราชกจจานเบกษา ๒ มนาคม ๒๕๕๘
โรคระบาดในททมเชอโรคระบาดหรอสงสยวามเชอโรคระบาด ตามวธการทกาหนด ทงน การเขาไปในอาคาร หรอสถานทดงกลาว ใหกระทาไดระหวางพระอาทตยขนและตก หรอในเวลาทาการของอาคารหรอสถานทนน และหากยงดาเนนการไมแลวเสรจ จะดาเนนการตอไปจนแลวเสรจกได
(๔) ตรวจสตวหรอซากสตว หรอสงของใด ๆ ทเปนของกลางและถกยดหรออายดไวตามพระราชบญญตนหรอตามกฎหมายอน ในกรณทสตวหรอซากสตวดงกลาวเปนโรคระบาด หรอเปนพาหะของโรคระบาด ใหมอานาจดาเนนการกบสตวหรอซากสตวนนตามระเบยบทอธบดกาหนด คาใชจาย ในการตรวจหรอการดาเนนการดงกลาว ใหเจาของสตวหรอซากสตวเปนผรบผดชอบ
(๕) ทาลายสงของใด ๆ ทมเชอโรคระบาดหรอมเหตอนควรสงสยวามเชอโรคระบาด ตามหลกเกณฑและวธการทอธบดประกาศกาหนด ทงน ใหชดใชราคาสงของแกเจาของตามหลกเกณฑและวธการทกาหนดในกฎกระทรวง เวนแตกรณทเจาของไดจงใจกระทาความผดตอบทบญญตแหงพระราชบญญตน
การดาเนนการของสตวแพทยตามวรรคหนง ใหผทเกยวของอานวยความสะดวกตามสมควร ในการปฏบตการตามพระราชบญญตน ใหสตวแพทยเปนเจาพนกงานตามประมวลกฎหมายอาญา มาตรา ๔๑ ในการปฏบตการตามพระราชบญญตน ใหสารวตรมอานาจ ดงตอไปน (๑) เขาไปในสานกงานหรอสถานประกอบการของผรบใบอนญาตตามมาตรา ๒๔ หรอมาตรา ๒๕
เพอตรวจหรอควบคมใหการเปนไปตามพระราชบญญตน (๒) เขาไปในอาคาร หรอสถานทอ นใด ในกรณท มเหตอนควรสงสยวาจะมการฝาฝน
หรอไมปฏบตตามพระราชบญญตน เพอตรวจคนและยดหรออายดสตวหรอซากสตวทเกยวกบการกระทาความผดตามพระราชบญญตน หรอพยานหลกฐานอนท เ กยวของ หรอจบกมผกระทาความผด ตามพระราชบญญตน โดยไมตองมหมายคน ในกรณ ดงตอไปน
(ก) เมอปรากฏความผดซงหนากาลงกระทาในอาคารหรอสถานทนน (ข) เมอบคคลทไดกระทาความผดซงหนา ขณะทถกไลจบหนเขาไป หรอมเหตอนแนนแฟน
ควรสงสยวาไดเขาไปซกซอนตวอยในอาคารหรอสถานทนน (ค) เมอมพยานหลกฐานตามสมควรวาสตวหรอซากสตวทเกยวกบการกระทาความผด
ตามพระราชบญญตน หรอพยานหลกฐานอนทเกยวของ ไดซอนหรออยในอาคารหรอสถานทนน ประกอบกบตองมเหตอนควรเชอวาเนองจากการเนนชากวาจะเอาหมายคนมาได สตวหรอซากสตว หรอพยานหลกฐานนนจะถกโยกยาย ทาลาย หรอทาใหเปลยนสภาพไปจากเดม
(ง) เมอผจะตองถกจบเปนเจาของอาคารหรอสถานท และการจบนนมหมายจบหรอจบไดโดยไมตองมหมายตามทประมวลกฎหมายวธพจารณาความอาญาบญญตไว
(๓) สงเจาของหรอผควบคมยานพาหนะใหหยดหรอจอด เพอตรวจหรอควบคมใหการเปนไปตามพระราชบญญตน หรอเพอตรวจคนยานพาหนะในกรณทมเหตอนควรสงสยวาจะมการฝาฝนหรอ ไมปฏบตตามพระราชบญญตน
205
Page 220
หนา ๓๔ เลม ๑๓๒ ตอนท ๑๔ ก ราชกจจานเบกษา ๒ มนาคม ๒๕๕๘
(๔) จบกมผกระทาความผดตามพระราชบญญตนโดยไมตองมหมายจบ เมอปรากฏวาม การกระทาความผดซงหนา หรอมเหตอนทประมวลกฎหมายวธพจารณาความอาญาบญญตไว เพอสงพนกงานสอบสวนดาเนนการตอไปตามประมวลกฎหมายวธพจารณาความอาญา
(๕) ตรวจสตวหรอซากสตว เอกสาร หรอพยานหลกฐานอนทเกยวของเพอใหการเปนไปตามพระราชบญญตน หรอในกรณทมเหตอนควรสงสยวาจะมการฝาฝนหรอไมปฏบตตามพระราชบญญตน
(๖) ยดหรออายดสตวหรอซากสตว ยานพาหนะ เอกสาร หรอพยานหลกฐานอนทเกยวของกบการกระทาความผดตามพระราชบญญตน ทงน ไมรวมถงสตวหรอซากสตวตามมาตรา ๔๒ วรรคสาม
ในการนใหสารวตรมอานาจสอบถามขอเทจจรง หรอเรยกเอกสารหรอพยานหลกฐานอนทเกยวของจากเจาของอาคารหรอสถานท หรอเจาของหรอผควบคมยานพาหนะนนได
การดาเนนการตาม (๑) หรอ (๒) ใหกระทาไดระหวางพระอาทตยขนและตกหรอในเวลาทาการของสานกงานหรอสถานประกอบการของผรบใบอนญาตตามมาตรา ๒๔ หรอมาตรา ๒๕ หรอของอาคารหรอสถานทนน ทงน หากยงดาเนนการไมแลวเสรจ จะดาเนนการตอไปจนแลวเสรจกได
การดาเนนการตาม (๑) ใหปฏบตตามระเบยบทอธบดกาหนด ระเบยบดงกลาวอยางนอย ตองกาหนดถงการแสดงความบรสทธกอนการเขาไป การมอบบนทกเหตผลในการเขาไปใหแกเจาของสานกงานหรอสถานประกอบการ และการรายงานผลการปฏบตหนาทตอผบงคบบญชา
การคนและการจบตามมาตราน ใหสารวตรปฏบตตามประมวลกฎหมายวธพจารณาความอาญา การดาเนนการของสารวตรตามมาตราน ใหผทเกยวของอานวยความสะดวกตามสมควร มาตรา ๔๒ ใหสารวตรมอานาจยดหรออายดสตวหรอซากสตวทนาเขาหรอนาผานราชอาณาจกร
เมอสตวหรอซากสตวดงกลาวมเหตอนควรสงสยวาเปนโรคระบาดหรอเปนพาหะของโรคระบาด ในกรณทสตวหรอซากสตวตามวรรคหนง เปนโรคระบาดหรอเปนพาหะของโรคระบาด ใหสตวแพทย
ทาลายสตวหรอซากสตวนน หรอจดการโดยวธอนตามระเบยบทอธบดกาหนด ในกรณทสตวหรอซากสตวตามวรรคหนงไดนาเขา หรอนาผานราชอาณาจกรโดยไมไดรบใบอนญาต
ตามมาตรา ๓๑ หรอไมปฏบตตามมาตรา ๓๒ หรอมาตรา ๓๓ ใหดาเนนการ ดงตอไปน (๑) กรณทสตวหรอซากสตวดงกลาวมไดเปนโรคระบาดหรอมไดเปนพาหะของโรคระบาด
ใหสารวตรมอานาจสงใหเจาของ ผนาเขาหรอนาผานสงกลบสตวหรอซากสตวนนไปยงประเทศตนทาง ทงน การดาเนนการสงกลบใหเปนไปตามหลกเกณฑและวธการทอธบดประกาศกาหนด
(๒) กรณทวธการตรวจพสจนไมอาจกระทาไดโดยงายหรอไมคมคาในอนทจะพสจนวาสตว หรอซากสตวดงกลาวเปนโรคระบาดหรอเปนพาหะของโรคระบาด ใหสตวแพทยทาลายสตวหรอซากสตวนน หรอจดการโดยวธอนตามระเบยบทอธบดกาหนด
คาใชจายเกยวกบการยด อายด หรอทาลาย ใหเจาของ ผนาเขาหรอนาผานสตวหรอซากสตวเปนผรบผดชอบ
206
Page 221
หนา ๓๕ เลม ๑๓๒ ตอนท ๑๔ ก ราชกจจานเบกษา ๒ มนาคม ๒๕๕๘
มาตรา ๔๓ สตวหรอซากสตวตามมาตรา ๔๒ วรรคสาม (๑) ใหตกเปนของกรมปศสตว ในกรณ ดงตอไปน
(๑) ไมปรากฏเจาของ ผนาเขาหรอนาผาน หรอไมมผมาแสดงตวเปนเจาของผนาเขาหรอ นาผานภายในสสบหาวนนบแตวนทไดมการประกาศหาตวบคคลดงกลาว ทงน การออกประกาศ ใหเปนไปตามหลกเกณฑและวธการทอธบดประกาศกาหนด
(๒) เจาของ ผนาเขาหรอนาผานไมสงกลบหรอไมสามารถสงกลบไปยงประเทศตนทางภายในเวลาสสบหาวนนบแตวนททราบคาสงใหสงกลบ
ในกรณทสตวหรอซากสตวตามมาตรา ๔๒ วรรคสาม (๑) เปนของเสยงายหรอถาเกบไว จะเปนการเสยงตอความเสยหาย หรอจะเสยคาใชจายในการเกบรกษาเกนคาของสงนน สารวตรทไดรบมอบหมายจากอธบดจะจดการขายทอดตลาดเสยกอนทสงนนจะตกเปนของกรมปศสตวกได ทงน ใหนาความในมาตรา ๔๖ วรรคสอง มาใชบงคบโดยอนโลม
เมอพนกาหนดเวลาตามวรรคหนงแลว ใหสารวตรทไดรบมอบหมายจากอธบดมอานาจจดการขายทอดตลาดสตวหรอซากสตวตามวรรคหนง ทงน ใหนาความในมาตรา ๔๗ มาใชบงคบโดยอนโลม
มาตรา ๔๔ ในการปฏบตการตามพระราชบญญตน ใหสารวตรเปนพนกงานฝายปกครอง หรอตารวจตามประมวลกฎหมายวธพจารณาความอาญา
มาตรา ๔๕ ในการปฏบตหนาทของสตวแพทยหรอสารวตรตามพระราชบญญตน ใหแสดง บตรประจาตวตอบคคลทเกยวของ
บตรประจาตวตามวรรคหนง ใหเปนไปตามแบบทอธบดประกาศกาหนด หมวด ๕
การขายทอดตลาด และการจายเงนสนบน
มาตรา ๔๖ สงทยดหรออายดไวตามมาตรา ๔๑ (๖) ใหตกเปนของกรมปศสตว ในกรณ ดงตอไปน
(๑) ไมปรากฏเจาของ หรอไมมผมาแสดงตวเปนเจาของภายในสสบหาวนนบแตวนทไดม การประกาศหาตวเจาของ ทงน การออกประกาศดงกลาวใหเปนไปตามหลกเกณฑและวธการทอธบดประกาศกาหนด
(๒) ไมมการดาเนนคดและผเปนเจาของมไดรองขอคนภายในสสบหาวนนบแตวนทไดรบ แจงคาสงวาไมมการดาเนนคด
(๓) มการดาเนนคดและพนกงานอยการมคาสงเดดขาดไมฟองคดหรอศาลไมไดพพากษาใหรบ และผเปนเจาของมไดรองขอคนภายในสสบหาวนนบแตวนททราบคาสงเดดขาดไมฟองคด หรอวนทศาล มคาพพากษาถงทสด แลวแตกรณ
207
Page 222
หนา ๓๖ เลม ๑๓๒ ตอนท ๑๔ ก ราชกจจานเบกษา ๒ มนาคม ๒๕๕๘
ในกรณทสงทยดหรออายดไวตามมาตรา ๔๑ (๖) เปนของเสยงาย หรอถาเกบไวจะเปน การเสยงตอความเสยหาย หรอจะเสยคาใชจายในการเกบรกษาเกนคาของสงนน สารวตรทไดรบมอบหมายจากอธบดจะจดการขายทอดตลาดเสยกอนคดถงทสด หรอกอนทสงนนจะตกเปนของกรมปศสตวกได เงนคาของสงนนเมอหกคาใชจายแลว เหลอเงนจานวนสทธเทาใดใหยดไวแทนสงนนโดยฝากไวกบ ธนาคารของรฐ หรอธนาคารพาณชยตามทตกลงกบกระทรวงการคลง
มาตรา ๔๗ สงทยดหรออายดไวตามมาตรา ๔๑ (๖) เฉพาะในสวนทตกเปนของกรมปศสตวตามมาตรา ๔๖ วรรคหนง สารวตรทไดรบมอบหมายจากอธบดมอานาจจดการขายทอดตลาด และใหหกเงนทขายไดเปนคาใชจายตามทจายจรงในการดาเนนการใด ๆ เพอใหสตวหรอซากสตวของกลาง ปลอดจากโรคระบาด เหลอเทาใดใหหกไวไมเกนกงหนงเพอจายเปนเงนสนบน สวนทเหลอใหนาสง เปนเงนรายไดแผนดน การจายเงนสนบนใหเปนไปตามระเบยบทรฐมนตรกาหนดโดยความเหนชอบของกระทรวงการคลง
มาตรา ๔๘ ในกรณทมการจบกมผกระทาความผด เมอพนกงานอยการรองขอใหศาลสงจายเงนสนบนแกผนาจบรอยละยสบหาของจานวนเงนสทธจากการขายทอดตลาดของกลางทศาลสงรบ สวนทเหลอใหนาสงเปนเงนรายไดแผนดน
มาตรา ๔๙ การขายทอดตลาดตามมาตรา ๔๖ วรรคสอง มาตรา ๔๗ หรอมาตรา ๔๘ ใหเปนไปตามหลกเกณฑ วธการและเงอนไขทรฐมนตรประกาศกาหนด
มาตรา ๕๐ ในกรณทมของกลางตามมาตรา ๔๗ หรอมาตรา ๔๘ แตขายทอดตลาด ของกลางไมได หรอในกรณทไมมของกลาง ใหจายเงนสนบนจากเงนคาปรบทไดชาระตอศาลหรอคาปรบจากการเปรยบเทยบไมเกนกงหนงของจานวนเงนคาปรบดงกลาว การจายเงนสนบนใหเปนไปตามระเบยบ ทรฐมนตรกาหนดโดยความเหนชอบของกระทรวงการคลง
มาตรา ๕๑ ในกรณทไมมผมารบเงนสนบนตามมาตรา ๔๗ มาตรา ๔๘ หรอมาตรา ๕๐ ภายในหาป ใหนาสงเปนเงนรายไดแผนดน
หมวด ๖ การอทธรณ
มาตรา ๕๒ ในกรณทนายทะเบยนไมออกใบอนญาตตามมาตรา ๒๔ หรอมาตรา ๒๕ ไมตออายใบอนญาตตามมาตรา ๒๖ หรอไมออกใบแทนใบอนญาตตามมาตรา ๒๙ ผยนคาขอมสทธอทธรณ คาสงดงกลาวเปนหนงสอตอรฐมนตรภายในสามสบวนนบแตวนทไดรบหนงสอแจงคาสงนน
คาวนจฉยของรฐมนตรใหเปนทสด ในกรณทนายทะเบยนไมอนญาตใหตออายใบอนญาต กอนทรฐมนตรจะมคาวนจฉยอทธรณ
ตามวรรคสอง รฐมนตรอาจพจารณาอนญาตใหประกอบกจการไปพลางกอนไดเมอมคาขอของผอทธรณ
208
Page 223
หนา ๓๗ เลม ๑๓๒ ตอนท ๑๔ ก ราชกจจานเบกษา ๒ มนาคม ๒๕๕๘
มาตรา ๕๓ ในกรณทนายทะเบยนมคาสงพกใชหรอเพกถอนใบอนญาตตามมาตรา ๓๘ ผรบใบอนญาตซงถกสงพกใชหรอเพกถอนใบอนญาต มสทธอทธรณเปนหนงสอตอรฐมนตรภายในสามสบวนนบแตวนททราบคาสง
การอทธรณตามวรรคหนง ยอมไมเปนการทเลาการบงคบตามคาสงพกใชหรอคาสงเพกถอนใบอนญาต
คาวนจฉยของรฐมนตรใหเปนทสด มาตรา ๕๔ การพจารณาอทธรณตามมาตรา ๕๒ และมาตรา ๕๓ ใหรฐมนตรพจารณาอทธรณ
ใหแลวเสรจภายในสามสบวนนบแตวนทไดรบคาอทธรณ ถามเหตจาเปนไมอาจพจารณาใหแลวเสรจภายในระยะเวลาดงกลาว ใหมหนงสอแจงใหผอทธรณทราบกอนครบกาหนดระยะเวลานน ในการน ใหขยายระยะเวลาพจารณาอทธรณออกไปไดอกไมเกนสองครง ครงละไมเกนสามสบวนนบแตวนท ครบกาหนดระยะเวลาดงกลาว
หมวด ๗ บทกาหนดโทษ
มาตรา ๕๕ เจาของสตวผใดไมปฏบตตามมาตรา ๗ ตองระวางโทษจาคกไมเกนหนงเดอน หรอปรบไมเกนหนงหมนบาท หรอทงจาทงปรบ และปรบเปนรายวนอกวนละไมเกนหนงพนบาทจนกวาจะไดปฏบตใหถกตอง
มาตรา ๕๖ เจาของสตวหรอซากสตวผใดไมปฏบตตามมาตรา ๘ ตองระวางโทษจาคก ไมเกนหนงเดอน หรอปรบไมเกนหนงหมนบาท หรอทงจาทงปรบ
มาตรา ๕๗ เจาของสตวหรอซากสตวผใดไมปฏบตตามมาตรา ๙ วรรคสาม ตองระวางโทษปรบไมเกนหนงหมนบาท
มาตรา ๕๘ ผใดฝาฝนมาตรา ๑๐ ตองระวางโทษจาคกไมเกนหนงป หรอปรบไมเกนสองหมนบาท หรอทงจาทงปรบ
มาตรา ๕๙ เจาของสตวผใดไมปฏบตตามมาตรา ๑๑ วรรคหนง ไมดาเนนการตามมาตรา ๑๑ วรรคสอง หรอไมปฏบตตามมาตรา ๑๑ วรรคสาม ตองระวางโทษจาคกไมเกนหนงเดอน หรอปรบไมเกนหนงหมนบาท หรอทงจาทงปรบ
มาตรา ๖๐ ผใดฝาฝนมาตรา ๑๑ วรรคสาม มาตรา ๑๔ วรรคสอง หรอมาตรา ๑๕ วรรคสอง ตองระวางโทษจาคกไมเกนหนงเดอน หรอปรบไมเกนหนงหมนบาท หรอทงจาทงปรบ
มาตรา ๖๑ เจาของสตวผใดไมปฏบตตามคาสงของพนกงานเจาหนาท หรอสารวตรตามมาตรา ๑๒ ตองระวางโทษจาคกไมเกนหนงเดอน หรอปรบไมเกนหนงหมนบาท หรอทงจาทงปรบ
209
Page 224
หนา ๓๘ เลม ๑๓๒ ตอนท ๑๔ ก ราชกจจานเบกษา ๒ มนาคม ๒๕๕๘
มาตรา ๖๒ เจาของสตวหรอซากสตวผใดไมปฏบตตามคาสงของสตวแพทยตามมาตรา ๑๓ หรอประกาศหรอคาสงของสตวแพทยตามมาตรา ๔๐ (๑) หรอ (๒) ตองระวางโทษจาคกไมเกนหนงป หรอปรบไมเกนสองหมนบาท หรอทงจาทงปรบ
มาตรา ๖๓ เจาของทดนผใดไมปฏบตตามมาตรา ๑๔ วรรคหนง ตองระวางโทษปรบไมเกนหนงหมนบาท
มาตรา ๖๔ ผใดฝาฝนมาตรา ๑๖ ตองระวางโทษจาคกไมเกนหนงป หรอปรบไมเกนสองหมนบาท หรอทงจาทงปรบ
มาตรา ๖๕ ผใดฝาฝนมาตรา ๑๘ หรอมาตรา ๒๒ ตองระวางโทษจาคกไมเกนสองป หรอปรบไมเกนสหมนบาท หรอทงจาทงปรบ
มาตรา ๖๖ ผใดไมปฏบตตามมาตรา ๒๔ วรรคหนง หรอมาตรา ๒๕ วรรคหนง ตองระวางโทษจาคกไมเกนหนงป หรอปรบไมเกนสองหมนบาท หรอทงจาทงปรบ
ผรบใบอนญาตตามมาตรา ๒๔ หรอมาตรา ๒๕ ผใดไมปฏบตตามหลกเกณฑ วธการและเงอนไขทอธบดประกาศกาหนดตามมาตรา ๒๔ วรรคสอง หรอมาตรา ๒๕ วรรคสอง แลวแตกรณ ตองระวางโทษจาคกไมเกนหนงเดอน หรอปรบไมเกนหนงหมนบาท หรอทงจาทงปรบ
มาตรา ๖๗ ผรบใบอนญาตตามมาตรา ๒๔ หรอมาตรา ๒๕ ผใดไมปฏบตตามมาตรา ๒๙ วรรคหนง หรอมาตรา ๓๐ ตองระวางโทษปรบไมเกนหนงหมนบาท
มาตรา ๖๘ ผใดนาเขา สงออกหรอนาผานราชอาณาจกรซงสตวหรอซากสตวโดยไมไดรบใบอนญาตตามมาตรา ๓๑ วรรคหนง ตองระวางโทษจาคกไมเกนสองป หรอปรบไมเกนสองแสนบาท หรอทงจาทงปรบ
มาตรา ๖๙ ผรบใบอนญาตตามมาตรา ๓๑ ผใดไมปฏบตตามมาตรา ๓๒ หรอฝาฝนประกาศ ของอธบดทออกตามมาตรา ๓๓ ตองระวางโทษจาคกไมเกนหนงป หรอปรบไมเกนสองหมนบาท หรอทงจาทงปรบ
มาตรา ๗๐ ผใดฝาฝนประกาศของรฐมนตรทออกตามมาตรา ๓๓ ตองระวางโทษจาคก ไมเกนสองป หรอปรบไมเกนสหมนบาท หรอทงจาทงปรบ
มาตรา ๗๑ ผใดไมปฏบตตามมาตรา ๓๔ วรรคหนง ตองระวางโทษจาคกไมเกนหนงป หรอปรบไมเกนสองหมนบาท หรอทงจาทงปรบ
ผรบใบอนญาตตามมาตรา ๓๔ ผ ใดฝาฝนหรอไมปฏบตตามเงอนไขทสตวแพทยกาหนด ในใบอนญาตตามมาตรา ๓๔ วรรคสาม ตองระวางโทษจาคกไมเกนหนงเดอน หรอปรบไมเกนหนงหมนบาท หรอทงจาทงปรบ
มาตรา ๗๒ ผรบใบอนญาตตามมาตรา ๓๔ ผใดไมปฏบตตามมาตรา ๓๕ ตองระวางโทษจาคกไมเกนหนงเดอน หรอปรบไมเกนหนงหมนบาท หรอทงจาทงปรบ
210
Page 225
หนา ๓๙ เลม ๑๓๒ ตอนท ๑๔ ก ราชกจจานเบกษา ๒ มนาคม ๒๕๕๘
มาตรา ๗๓ ผรบใบอนญาตตามมาตรา ๒๔ หรอมาตรา ๒๕ ผใดฝาฝนมาตรา ๓๘ วรรคสาม ตองระวางโทษจาคกไมเกนหนงป หรอปรบไมเกนสองหมนบาท หรอทงจาทงปรบ
มาตรา ๗๔ เจาของยานพาหนะ อาคารหรอสถานทผใดไมปฏบตตามคาสงของสตวแพทยตามมาตรา ๔๐ (๓) ตองระวางโทษจาคกไมเกนหนงป หรอปรบไมเกนสองหมนบาท หรอทงจาทงปรบ
มาตรา ๗๕ ผใดตอสหรอขดขวางการปฏบตหนาทของพนกงานเจาหนาท สารวตรหรอสตวแพทยตามพระราชบญญตน ตองระวางโทษจาคกไมเกนหนงป หรอปรบไมเกนสองหมนบาท หรอทงจาทงปรบ
ผใดไมอานวยความสะดวกตามสมควรในการปฏบตหนาทของสตวแพทยตามมาตรา ๔๐ วรรคสอง หรอสารวตรตามมาตรา ๔๑ วรรคหก หรอไมใหถอยคา ไมสงเอกสารหรอพยานหลกฐานอนทเกยวของตามมาตรา ๔๑ วรรคสอง ตองระวางโทษจาคกไมเกนหนงเดอน หรอปรบไมเกนหนงหมนบาท หรอทงจาทงปรบ
มาตรา ๗๖ ในกรณทผกระทาความผดซงตองรบโทษตามพระราชบญญตนเปนนตบคคล ถาการกระทาความผดของนตบคคลนนเกดจากการสงการ หรอการกระทาของบคคลใด หรอไมสงการ หรอไมกระทาการอนเปนหนาททตองกระทาของกรรมการผจดการ ผจดการ หรอบคคลใดซงรบผดชอบ ในการดาเนนงานของนตบคคลนน ผนนตองรบโทษตามทบญญตไวสาหรบความผดนน ๆ ดวย
มาตรา ๗๗ ความผดตามพระราชบญญตนทมโทษปรบสถานเดยวหรอโทษจาคกไมเกนหนงป ใหอธบดหรอผซงอธบดมอบหมายมอานาจเปรยบเทยบได และเมอผตองหาไดชาระเงนคาปรบตามจานวน ทเปรยบเทยบภายในระยะเวลาทกาหนดแลว ใหถอวาคดเลกกนตามบทบญญตแหงประมวลกฎหมาย วธพจารณาความอาญา
การเปรยบเทยบตามวรรคหนง ใหเปนไปตามระเบยบทอธบดกาหนด มาตรา ๗๘ เมอศาลไดพพากษาลงโทษผ ใดเนองจากไดกระทาความผดตามมาตรา ๕๘
มาตรา ๖๕ มาตรา ๖๖ มาตรา ๖๘ มาตรา ๖๙ มาตรา ๗๐ มาตรา ๗๑ หรอมาตรา ๗๒ ใหศาลมอานาจสงรบสตว ซากสตว ยานพาหนะ เครองหมายประจาตวสตว เครองมอ เครองใช ภาชนะบรรจ หรออปกรณ ทเกยวของกบการกระทาความผดเสยทงสน เวนแตทรพยสนดงกลาวเปนของผอนซงมไดรเหนเปนใจดวยในการกระทาความผด
ในกรณทศาลสงใหรบทรพยสนตามวรรคหนงแลว หากปรากฏในภายหลงโดยคารองของเจาของแทจรงวาผเปนเจาของแทจรงมไดรเหนเปนใจดวยในการกระทาความผด ใหศาลสงใหคนทรพยสนดงกลาว แตคารองของเจาของแทจรงนนจะตองกระทาตอศาลภายในสามสบวนนบแตวนทศาลมคาพพากษาถงทสด
สงทศาลสงรบตามวรรคหนงใหตกเปนของกรมปศสตว และใหสารวตรทไดรบมอบหมาย จากอธบดมอานาจดาเนนการขายทอดตลาดตามหลกเกณฑ วธการและเงอนไขทรฐมนตรประกาศกาหนดตามมาตรา ๔๙ หรอจดการอยางอนตามระเบยบทอธบดกาหนด
211
Page 226
หนา ๔๐ เลม ๑๓๒ ตอนท ๑๔ ก ราชกจจานเบกษา ๒ มนาคม ๒๕๕๘
บทเฉพาะกาล
มาตรา ๗๙ ใบอนญาตทไดออกใหตามพระราชบญญตโรคระบาดสตว พ.ศ. ๒๔๙๙ ใหใชไดตอไปจนกวาจะสนอาย และถาจะตออายใบอนญาตตามพระราชบญญตน ใหยนคาขอกอนใบอนญาต สนอาย
มาตรา ๘๐ คาขออนญาตใด ๆ ทไดยนไวตามพระราชบญญตโรคระบาดสตว พ.ศ. ๒๔๙๙ และยงอยในระหวางการพจารณา ใหถอวาเปนคาขออนญาตตามพระราชบญญตนโดยอนโลม และถา คาขออนญาตดงกลาวมขอความแตกตางไปจากคาขออนญาตตามพระราชบญญตน นายทะเบยนมอานาจสงใหแกไขเพมเตมคาขออนญาตเพอใหการเปนไปตามพระราชบญญตนได
มาตรา ๘๑ กฎกระทรวง ประกาศ หรอระเบยบ ทออกตามพระราชบญญตโรคระบาดสตว พ.ศ. ๒๔๙๙ ทใชอยในวนทพระราชบญญตนใชบงคบใหคงใชบงคบไดตอไปเทาทไมขดหรอแยงกบบทบญญตแหงพระราชบญญตน จนกวาจะมกฎกระทรวง ประกาศ หรอระเบยบทออกตามพระราชบญญตน ขนใชบงคบ
การดาเนนการออกกฎกระทรวง ประกาศ หรอระเบยบตามวรรคหนง ใหดาเนนการใหแลวเสรจภายในหนงปนบแตวนทพระราชบญญตนใชบงคบ หากไมสามารถดาเนนการได ใหรฐมนตรรายงานเหตผลทไมอาจดาเนนการไดตอคณะรฐมนตรเพอทราบ
ผรบสนองพระบรมราชโองการ พลเอก ประยทธ จนทรโอชา
นายกรฐมนตร
212
Page 227
อตราคาธรรมเนยม
(๑) (๒)
คาขออนญาต หรอคาขอตออายใบอนญาตตามมาตรา ๒๔ หรอมาตรา ๒๕ ใบอนญาตทาการคาหรอหากาไร ในลกษณะคนกลางซงสตวตามมาตรา ๒๔ ในกรณตอไปน (ก) นาเขาในราชอาณาจกร (ข) สงออกนอกราชอาณาจกร (ค) นาเขาในและสงออกนอกราชอาณาจกร (ง) ภายในราชอาณาจกร (จ) ภายในจงหวด
ฉบบละ ฉบบละ ฉบบละ ฉบบละ ฉบบละ ฉบบละ
๑๐๐ บาท
๒๐,๐๐๐ บาท ๒๐,๐๐๐ บาท ๓๐,๐๐๐ บาท ๔,๐๐๐ บาท ๑,๐๐๐ บาท
(๓)
ใบอนญาตทาการคาหรอหากาไร ในลกษณะคนกลางซงซากสตวตาม มาตรา ๒๔ ในกรณตอไปน (ก) นาเขาในราชอาณาจกร (ข) สงออกนอกราชอาณาจกร (ค) นาเขาในและสงออกนอกราชอาณาจกร (ง) ภายในราชอาณาจกร (จ) ภายในจงหวด
ฉบบละ ฉบบละ ฉบบละ ฉบบละ ฉบบละ
๔,๐๐๐ บาท ๔,๐๐๐ บาท ๕,๐๐๐ บาท ๑,๐๐๐ บาท ๒๐๐ บาท
(๔) ใบอนญาตขาย จาหนาย จาย แจก แลก เปลยน หรอมไวเพอขายซงนาเชอสาหรบ ผสมพนธ เอมบรโอ หรอมพอพนธของสตว เพอใหบรการผสมพนธแกสตวของบคคลอนโดยวธธรรมชาต ตามมาตรา ๒๕ ในกรณ ตอไปน (ก) สงออกนอกราชอาณาจกร (ข) ภายในราชอาณาจกร
ฉบบละ ฉบบละ
๘,๐๐๐ บาท ๒,๐๐๐ บาท
/(๕)
213
Page 228
- ๒ - (๕) ใบอนญาตนาสตวเขามาในราชอาณาจกร
(ก) ชาง (ข) มา โค กระบอ ลา ลอ แพะ แกะ สกร (ค) สนข แมว กระตาย ลง ชะน (ง) นกกระจอกเทศ นกอม (จ) ไก เปด หาน และสตวปกชนดอน (ฉ) สตวชนดอน (ช) นาเชอสาหรบผสมพนธ (ซ) เอมบรโอ
(ฌ) ไขนกกระจอกเทศ ไขนกอม สาหรบใชทาพนธ (ญ) ไขสาหรบใชทาพนธ
เชอกละ ตวละ ตวละ ตวละ ตวละ ตวละ โดสละ ตวละ ฟองละ ฟองละ
๒,๕๐๐ บาท ๑,๐๐๐ บาท ๕๐๐ บาท ๒,๐๐๐ บาท ๕๐ บาท ๑,๐๐๐ บาท
ในกรณทไมสะดวก ในการนบจานวนใหคดเปน กโลกรมละ ๑,๐๐๐ บาท
๑๐๐ บาท ๑,๐๐๐ บาท
๕๐๐ บาท ๕๐ บาท
(๖) ใบอนญาตนาสตวออกนอกราชอาณาจกร (ก) ชาง (ข) มา โค กระบอ ลา ลอ แพะ แกะ สกร (ค) สนข แมว กระตาย ลง ชะน (ง) นกกระจอกเทศ นกอม (จ) ไก เปด หาน และสตวปกชนดอน (ฉ) สตวชนดอน
เชอกละ ตวละ ตวละ ตวละ ตวละ ตวละ
๕๐๐,๐๐๐ บาท ๕๐๐ บาท ๒๕๐ บาท ๕๐๐ บาท ๒๕ บาท ๕๐๐ บาท
ในกรณทไมสะดวก ในการนบจานวนใหคดเปน
กโลกรมละ ๕๐๐ บาท /(ช)
214
Page 229
- ๓ -
(ช) นาเชอสาหรบผสมพนธ
(ซ) เอมบรโอ
(ฌ) ไขนกกระจอกเทศ ไขนกอม
สาหรบใชทาพนธ
(ญ) ไขสาหรบใชทาพนธ
โดสละ
ตวละ
ฟองละ
ฟองละ
๕๐ บาท
๕๐๐ บาท
๕๐ บาท
๒๕ บาท
(๗) ใบอนญาตนาสตวผานราชอาณาจกร
(ก) ชาง
(ข) มา โค กระบอ ลา ลอ แพะ แกะ สกร
(ค) สนข แมว กระตาย ลง ชะน
(ง) นกกระจอกเทศ นกอม
(จ) ไก เปด หาน และสตวปกชนดอน
(ฉ) สตวชนดอน
(ช) นาเชอสาหรบผสมพนธ
(ซ) เอมบรโอ
(ฌ) ไขนกกระจอกเทศ ไขนกอม
สาหรบใชทาพนธ
(ญ) ไขสาหรบใชทาพนธ
เชอกละ
ตวละ
ตวละ
ตวละ
ตวละ
ตวละ
โดสละ
ตวละ
ฟองละ
ฟองละ
๒๐๐,๐๐๐ บาท
๑,๐๐๐ บาท
๕๐๐ บาท
๒๕๐ บาท
๕๐ บาท
๕๐๐ บาท
ในกรณทไมสะดวก ในการนบจานวนใหคดเปน
กโลกรมละ ๕๐๐ บาท
๕๐ บาท
๒๐๐ บาท
๕๐ บาท
๕ บาท
(๘) ใบอนญาตนาซากสตวเขามาใน
ราชอาณาจกร
กโลกรมละ
๑๐๐ บาท
(๙) ใบอนญาตนาซากสตวออกนอก
ราชอาณาจกร
กโลกรมละ
๕ บาท
(๑๐) ใบอนญาตนาซากสตวผานราชอาณาจกร กโลกรมละ ๕ บาท
/(๑๑)
215
Page 230
- ๔ - (๑๑) ใบแทนใบอนญาตตามมาตรา ๒๔
หรอมาตรา ๒๕ ฉบบละ
๑๐๐ บาท
(๑๒) การตออายใบอนญาตตามมาตรา ๒๔ หรอมาตรา ๒๕
ครงละ
เทากบคาธรรมเนยม สาหรบใบอนญาตนน
(๑๓) การโอนใบอนญาตตามมาตรา ๒๔ หรอมาตรา ๒๕
ครงละ
๑๐๐ บาท
(๑๔) การเปลยนแปลงแกไขรายการในใบอนญาต ตามมาตรา ๒๔ หรอมาตรา ๒๕
ครงละ
๑๐๐ บาท
(๑๕) คาทาลายเชอโรคผานดานกกกนสตว (ก) สตว (ข) ซากสตว
ตวละ กโลกรมละ
๕๐ บาท
ในกรณทไมสะดวก ในการนบจานวนใหคดเปน กโลกรมละ ๕๐ บาท
๑ บาท (๑๖) คาทพกสตวทนาเขามาในหรอสงออกไป
นอกราชอาณาจกร (ก) ชาง (ข) มา โค กระบอ (ค) สกร (ง) สนข แมว (จ) แพะ แกะ (ฉ) ไก เปด หาน และสตวปกชนดอน (ช) สตวชนดอน
เชอกละ ตวละ ตวละ ตวละ ตวละ ตวละ ตวละ
๕,๐๐๐ บาท ๕๐๐ บาท ๓๐๐ บาท ๑,๐๐๐ บาท ๒๐๐ บาท ๕๐ บาท ๕๐๐ บาท
ในกรณทไมสะดวก ในการนบจานวนใหคดเปน กโลกรมละ ๕๐๐ บาท
/(๑๗)
216
Page 231
- ๕ -
(๑๗) คาทพกซากสตวทนาเขามาในหรอสงออกไปนอกราชอาณาจกร (ก) โค กระบอ สกร (ข) แพะ แกะ (ค) ไก เปด หาน และสตวปกชนดอน (ง) สตวชนดอน
กโลกรมละ กโลกรมละ กโลกรมละ กโลกรมละ
๑๐ บาท ๕ บาท ๕ บาท ๑๐ บาท
(๑๘) คาขออน ๆ ฉบบละ ๕๐ บาท
ในการคานวณนาหนก ถามเศษของกโลกรม ตงแต ๕๐๐ กรมขนไป ใหคดเปน ๑ กโลกรม ถาไมถง ๕๐๐ กรม ใหปดทง
217
Page 232
หนา ๔๑ เลม ๑๓๒ ตอนท ๑๔ ก ราชกจจานเบกษา ๒ มนาคม ๒๕๕๘
หมายเหต :- เหตผลในการประกาศใชพระราชบญญตฉบบน คอ โดยทพระราชบญญตโรคระบาดสตว พ.ศ. ๒๔๙๙ ไดใชบงคบมาเปนเวลานาน สมควรปรบปรงบทบญญตบางประการใหเหมาะสมกบสภาวการณในปจจบน เพอใหการปองกนและควบคมโรคระบาดทเกดกบสตว และการทางานของสตวแพทย สารวตร และพนกงานเจาหนาท มประสทธภาพมากยงขน อนเปนการคมครองความปลอดภยในชวตและทรพยสนของประชาชน และเพอประโยชนในทางเศรษฐกจของประเทศ รวมทงปรบปรงบทกาหนดโทษและอตราคาธรรมเนยมใหเหมาะสมยงขน จงจาเปนตองตราพระราชบญญตน
218
Page 233
219
APPENDIX 13.
Animal Movement Control Regulation B.E. 2558 (2015) (Thai language)
Page 234
หนา ๒ เลม ๑๓๒ ตอนพเศษ ๑๘๖ ง ราชกจจานเบกษา ๑๓ สงหาคม ๒๕๕๘
ระเบยบกรมปศสตว วาดวยการอนญาตเคลอนยายสตวหรอซากสตว เขาในหรอผานเขตควบคมโรคระบาด
หรอเขตปลอดโรคระบาดชนดปากและเทาเปอย ในภาคตะวนออกของประเทศไทย
พ.ศ. ๒๕๕๘
เพอใหการปฏบตงานเกยวกบการควบคมเคลอนยายสตวหรอซากสตว เขาในหรอผาน เขตควบคมโรคระบาดหรอเขตปลอดโรคระบาดชนดปากและเทาเปอยในภาคตะวนออกของประเทศไทย ตามมาตรา ๑๘ แหงพระราชบญญตโรคระบาดสตว พ.ศ. ๒๕๕๘ เปนไปในแนวทางเดยวกน อนจะสงผลใหการปองกนและควบคมโรคระบาดมประสทธภาพ เพอประโยชนแกการปฏบตงาน ปองกนและควบคมโรคระบาดสตว การตรวจสอบอาการของสตวจาพวกโค กระบอ แพะ แกะ สกร หมปา และกวาง รวมถงการทาเครองหมายประจาตวสตว กอนการเคลอนยายเขาในหรอผานเขตควบคมโรคระบาดหรอเขตปลอดโรคระบาดชนดปากและเทาเปอยในภาคตะวนออกของประเทศไทย
อาศยอานาจตามบทบญญตแหงกฎหมายประกอบมาตรา ๓๒ แหงพระราชบญญตระเบยบบรหารราชการแผนดน พ.ศ. ๒๕๓๔ ซงแกไขเพมเตมโดยพระราชบญญตระเบยบบรหารราชการแผนดน (ฉบบท ๒) พ.ศ. ๒๕๔๕ เพอใหเปนไปตามมาตรา ๑๘ แหงพระราชบญญตโรคระบาดสตว พ.ศ. ๒๕๕๘ อธบดกรมปศสตวจงวางระเบยบใหถอปฏบตไว ดงตอไปน
ขอ ๑ ระเบยบนเรยกวา “ระเบยบกรมปศสตว วาดวยการอนญาตเคลอนยายสตว หรอซากสตว เขาในหรอผานเขตควบคมโรคระบาดหรอเขตปลอดโรคระบาดชนดปากและเทาเปอย ในภาคตะวนออกของประเทศไทย พ.ศ. ๒๕๕๘”
ขอ ๒ ระเบยบนใหใชบงคบตงแตวนถดจากวนประกาศในราชกจจานเบกษาเปนตนไป ขอ ๓ ในระเบยบน “เขตควบคมโรคระบาดหรอเขตปลอดโรคระบาดชนดปากและเทาเปอย” หมายความวา
เขตควบคมโรคระบาดหรอเขตปลอดโรคระบาดชนดปากและเทาเปอยในโค กระบอ แพะ แกะ สกร หมปา และกวาง ในภาคตะวนออกของประเทศไทย ตามประกาศกระทรวงเกษตรและสหกรณ
“สตวแพทยประจาทองท” หมายความวา สตวแพทยของกรมปศสตวซงปฏบตงานในลกษณะประจาในทองททตนเองรบผดชอบ
“สตวแพทย” หมายความวา สตวแพทยตามกฎหมายวาดวยโรคระบาดสตว “เครองหมายประจาตวสตว” หมายความวา เครองหมายประจาตวสตวตามกฎหมายวาดวย
โรคระบาดสตว “สตว” หมายความวา โค กระบอ แพะ แกะ สกร หมปา และกวาง และใหหมายความ
รวมถงนาเชอสาหรบผสมพนธและเอมบรโอของสตวเหลานดวย “ซากสตว” หมายความวา
Animal movement control regulation B.E. 2558 (2015)
220
Page 235
หนา ๓ เลม ๑๓๒ ตอนพเศษ ๑๘๖ ง ราชกจจานเบกษา ๑๓ สงหาคม ๒๕๕๘
(๑) รางกายหรอสวนของรางกายโค กระบอ แพะ แกะ สกร หมปา และกวางทตายแลว (๒) สงใด ๆ ทไดจากโค กระบอ แพะ แกะ สกร หมปา และกวางทมชวตหรอทตายแลว (๓) อาหารสกททา ประกอบ หรอปรงจากซากโค กระบอ แพะ แกะ สกร หมปา และกวาง
ตามทรฐมนตรประกาศกาหนด (๔) สงประดษฐสาเรจรปททาจากซากโค กระบอ แพะ แกะ สกร หมปา และกวาง
ตามทรฐมนตรประกาศกาหนด “โรคระบาด” หมายความวา โรคระบาดตามกฎหมายวาดวยโรคระบาดสตว “พาหะของโรคระบาด” หมายความวา พาหะของโรคระบาดตามกฎหมายวาดวยโรคระบาดสตว “การตรวจโรคระบาด” หมายความวา การตรวจสขภาพสตวและสขศาสตรซากสตวทงทางกายภาพ
และหรอทางหองปฏบตการ เพอคนหาหรอทราบวาเปนโรคระบาดหรอพาหะของโรคระบาด “ทาลายเชอโรคระบาด” หมายความวา การกระทาใด ๆ เพอใหปราศจากเชอโรคระบาด
กบวสดอปกรณทสมผสกบตวสตวหรอซากสตว ยานพาหนะบรรทกสตว อาคารสถานท ภาชนะสงหอหม หรอกกขง รวมตลอดถงการกระทาทตวสตวหรอซากสตว
“คณะกรรมการ” หมายความวา คณะกรรมการตรวจรบรองสตวหรอซากสตว เขาใน หรอผานเขตควบคมโรคระบาดหรอเขตปลอดโรคระบาดชนดปากและเทาเปอยในภาคตะวนออกของประเทศไทยทกรมปศสตวแตงตง
“หนงสออนญาต” หมายความวา หนงสออนญาตใหเคลอนยายสตวหรอซากสตว เขาใน หรอผานเขตควบคมโรคระบาดหรอเขตปลอดโรคระบาดชนดปากและเทาเปอยในภาคตะวนออกของประเทศไทย
“ผออกหนงสออนญาต” หมายความวา อธบดกรมปศสตวหรอสตวแพทยซงอธบดกรมปศสตวมอบหมาย
ขอ ๔ ใหผอานวยการสานกควบคม ปองกนและบาบดโรคสตวรกษาการตามระเบยบน ขอ ๕ ใหสตวแพทยประจาทองทเปนผรบคาขออนญาตเคลอนยายสตวหรอซากสตวเขาใน
หรอผานเขตควบคมโรคระบาดหรอเขตปลอดโรคระบาดชนดปากและเทาเปอยในภาคตะวนออกของประเทศไทย
ขอ ๖ การขออนญาตเคลอนยายสตวหรอซากสตวเพอการคาหรอหากาไรในลกษณะคนกลาง หรอเพอการขาย จาหนาย จาย แจก แลกเปลยน หรอมไวเพอการขายซงนาเชอสาหรบผสมพนธ หรอเอมบรโอของสตวหรอพอพนธของสตวเพอใหบรการผสมพนธแกสตวของบคคลอน สตวแพทยประจาทองทจะตองทาการบนทกหมายเลข และสถานททนายทะเบยนออกใบอนญาตตามมาตรา ๒๔ หรอมาตรา ๒๕ แหงพระราชบญญตโรคระบาดสตว พ.ศ. ๒๕๕๘ แลวแตกรณ ไวในแบบคาขออนญาต
ขอ ๗ การขออนญาตเคลอนยายสตวเขาในหรอผานเขตควบคมโรคระบาดหรอเขตปลอด โรคระบาดชนดปากและเทาเปอยในภาคตะวนออกของประเทศไทย ใหสตวแพทยประจาทองทตรวจสอบ และดาเนนการดงตอไปน
221
Page 236
หนา ๔ เลม ๑๓๒ ตอนพเศษ ๑๘๖ ง ราชกจจานเบกษา ๑๓ สงหาคม ๒๕๕๘
(๑) ใหมการทาเครองหมายประจาตวสตว ตามหลกเกณฑ วธการ และเงอนไขทอธบด กรมปศสตวประกาศกาหนด
(๒) สตวตองไดรบการฉดวคซนปองกนโรคปากและเทาเปอยมาแลวเปนระยะเวลาไมนอยกวา ๓๐ วน และไมเกน ๑๒๐ วน โดยนบถดจากวนทไดรบการฉดวคซนจนถงวนททาการเคลอนยาย การยกเวนการฉดวคซนดงกลาวในสตวดงตอไปน ใหสตวแพทยประจาทองทมอานาจพจารณาตามทเหนสมควร
ก. ลกสกรทมอายนอยกวา ๘ สปดาห ข. ลกโค ลกกระบอ ลกแพะ หรอลกแกะทมอายนอยกวา ๔ เดอน (๓) กรณสตวทเคลอนยายโดยมวตถประสงคเพอนาไปฆาในโรงฆาสตว ก. ตองเปนสตวทเลยงอยในฟารมปลอดโรคปากและเทาเปอยทกรมปศสตวรบรอง
เปนระยะเวลาไมนอยกวา ๙๐ วน กอนการเคลอนยาย โดยในพนทรอบฟารมรศม ๑๐ กโลเมตร จะตองไมมการระบาดของโรคปากและเทาเปอยเปนระยะเวลาไมนอยกวา ๙๐ วน กอนการเคลอนยายดวย
ข. ใหกกดอาการของโรคระบาดในฟารมปลอดโรคปากและเทาเปอยตามขอ ๗ (๓) ก. เปนระยะเวลาไมนอยกวา ๓๐ วน กอนการเคลอนยาย โดยสตวตองไมแสดงอาการของโรคปากและเทาเปอย และตองไมมการนาสตวกบคอนเขามาปะปนในโรงเรอนหรอฟารมทใชกกสตว และในระหวางการกก บรเวณพนทรอบฟารมดงกลาวในรศม ๑๐ กโลเมตร จะตองไมมการระบาดของโรคปากและเทาเปอย เปนระยะเวลาไมนอยกวา ๓๐ วน กอนการเคลอนยาย
ค. โรงฆาสตวตองไดรบการรบรองการปฏบตทดสาหรบโรงฆาสตว (Good Manufacturing Practice : GMP) จากกรมปศสตว
(๔) กรณสตวทเคลอนยายโดยมไดมวตถประสงคเพอนาไปฆาในโรงฆาสตว ก. ตองเปนสตวทเลยงอยในฟารมปลอดโรคปากและเทาเปอยทกรมปศสตวรบรอง
มาตงแตกาเนด หรอ ข. กรณสตวทจะเคลอนยายไมไดกาเนดในฟารมตามขอ ๗ (๔) ก. แตไดนาเขามาเลยง
จากฟารมปลอดโรคปากและเทาเปอย หรอฟารมอนซงปฏบตตามหลกเกณฑการนาสตวเขาฟารมปลอดโรค ปากและเทาเปอย จะตองเลยงอยในฟารมปลอดโรคปากและเทาเปอยดงกลาวเปนระยะเวลาไมนอยกวา ๙๐ วน กอนการเคลอนยาย และพนทรอบฟารมรศม ๑๐ กโลเมตร ตองไมมการระบาดของโรคปากและเทาเปอย เปนระยะเวลาไมนอยกวา ๙๐ วน กอนการเคลอนยายดวย
ค. ใหกกสตวตามขอ ๗ (๔) ก. และ ข. เพอดอาการของโรคระบาดในฟารมปลอดโรค ปากและเทาเปอย เปนระยะเวลาไมนอยกวา ๓๐ วน กอนการเคลอนยาย โดยสตวตองไมแสดงอาการของโรคปากและเทาเปอย และตองไมมการนาสตวกบคอนเขามาปะปนในโรงเรอนหรอฟารม ทใชกกสตว และในระหวางการกกบรเวณพนทรอบฟารมดงกลาวในรศม ๑๐ กโลเมตร จะตองไมมการระบาดของโรคปากและเทาเปอย เปนระยะเวลาไมนอยกวา ๓๐ วน กอนการเคลอนยายดวย
222
Page 237
หนา ๕ เลม ๑๓๒ ตอนพเศษ ๑๘๖ ง ราชกจจานเบกษา ๑๓ สงหาคม ๒๕๕๘
ง. ในระหวางการกกตามขอ ๗ (๔) ค. ใหเกบตวอยางเพอตรวจพสจนวาไมมหลกฐาน การตดเชอโรคปากและเทาเปอยมากอน
(๕) กรณนาเชอสาหรบผสมพนธของสตว ก. นาเชอตองมาจากสตวซงอยในฟารมปลอดโรคปากและเทาเปอยทกรมปศสตวรบรอง
และสตวทกตวในฟารมตองไมมอาการของโรคปากและเทาเปอยในวนททาการรดนาเชอและหลงการรดนาเชอเปนระยะเวลา ๓๐ วน
ข. กรณนาเชอทมาจากสตวทฉดวคซนปองกนโรคปากและเทาเปอย ตองฉดวคซนดงกลาวมาแลวอยางนอย ๒ ครง โดยฉดวคซนครงสดทายเปนระยะเวลาไมนอยกวา ๓๐ วน แตไมเกน ๑๒๐ วน โดยนบถดจากวนทสตวไดรบการฉดวคซนจนถงวนทรดนาเชอ และตองมการสมเกบตวอยางนาเชอเพอตรวจพสจนวาไมมหลกฐานการตดเชอโรคปากและเทาเปอยมากอน
ค. กรณนาเชอทมาจากสตวทไมไดรบการฉดวคซนปองกนโรคปากและเทาเปอย สตวนนตองมการเกบตวอยางซรมภายหลงการรดนาเชอไปแลว ๒๑ วน แตไมเกน ๓๐ วน เพอทดสอบระดบแอนตบอดของโรคปากและเทาเปอยและตองไมพบระดบแอนตบอด โดยวธ LP-ELISA
ง. สตวรวมฝงทอยในฟารมปลอดโรคปากและเทาเปอยเพอผลตนาเชอตองไมมการฉดวคซนปองกนโรคปากและเทาเปอยภายใน ๓๐ วน กอนวนรดนาเชอ
จ. ตองไมมสตวอนเคลอนยายเขามาปะปนในโรงเรอนทใชเลยงสตวเปนระยะเวลา ๓๐ วน กอนวนทรดนาเชอ
ฉ. ในรศม ๑๐ กโลเมตร รอบฟารมปลอดโรคปากและเทาเปอยเพอผลตนาเชอ หรอสถานท เกบนาเชอ ตองไมมการระบาดของโรคปากและเทาเปอยเปนระยะเวลา ๓๐ วนกอนและหลงการรดหรอเกบนาเชอ
ช. อนญาตใหเคลอนยายนาเชอไดภายหลงรดนาเชอมาแลว ๓๐ วน (๖) ฟารมปลอดโรคปากและเทาเปอย ฟารมปลอดโรคปากและเทาเปอยเพอผลตนาเชอ
หรอสถานทเกบนาเชอ ตองไดรบการตรวจสอบและรบรองจากคณะกรรมการกอน (๗) กรณสตวทนาเขาหรอนาผานมาจากตางประเทศ ตองเปนสตวมาจากประเทศทไดรบ
การรบรองสถานภาพปลอดโรคปากและเทาเปอยจากองคการโรคระบาดสตวระหวางประเทศ (OIE) และตองปฏบตตามหลกเกณฑ วธการ และเงอนไขเกยวกบการนาเขาหรอนาผานราชอาณาจกรซงสตวและซากสตว ตามกฎหมายวาดวยโรคระบาดสตว
ขอ ๘ การขออนญาตเคลอนยายซากสตวเขาในหรอผานเขตควบคมโรคระบาดหรอเขตปลอดโรคระบาดชนดโรคปากและเทาเปอยในภาคตะวนออกของประเทศไทย ใหสตวแพทยประจาทองทตรวจสอบและดาเนนการ ดงตอไปน
(๑) กรณเปนซากสตวประเภทเนอสตว
223
Page 238
หนา ๖ เลม ๑๓๒ ตอนพเศษ ๑๘๖ ง ราชกจจานเบกษา ๑๓ สงหาคม ๒๕๕๘
ก. ตองไดจากสตวซงอยในฟารมปลอดโรคปากและเทาเปอยทกรมปศสตวรบรอง เปนระยะเวลาอยางนอย ๓๐ วน และพนทรอบฟารมในรศม ๑๐ กโลเมตร จะตองไมมการระบาดของโรคปากและเทาเปอยตามระยะเวลาดงกลาวดวย
ข. ตองมาจากสตวทไดรบการฉดวคซนปองกนโรคปากและเทาเปอยมาแลวอยางนอย ๒ ครง โดยการฉดวคซนครงสดทายเปนระยะเวลาไมนอยกวา ๓๐ วน แตไมเกน ๑๒๐ วน โดยนบถดจากวนทสตวไดรบการฉดวคซนจนถงวนเขาฆาและสตวตองไดรบการตรวจกอนการฆาและหลงการฆาโดยสตวแพทย หรอตามทกฎหมายวาดวยการฆาสตวและจาหนายเนอสตวกาหนดไว
ค. ตองเปนเนอถอดกระดก ซงไมมเทา หว เครองใน และเนอดงกลาวตองไมปนตอมนาเหลอง โดยกอนการถอดกระดกจะตองเกบซากสตวไวทอณหภมระหวาง ๒ ถง ๔ องศาเซลเซยส เปนเวลา ไมนอยกวา ๒๔ ชวโมง หรอวดคาความเปนกรดดาง (PH) ทกลามเนอไดตากวา ๖.๐
ง. ตองผานกระบวนการฆาจากโรงฆาสตวทไดรบการรบรองการปฏบตทดสาหรบ โรงฆาสตว (Good Manufacturing Practice : GMP) จากกรมปศสตว
จ. โรงฆาสตวตามขอ ๘ (๑) ง. ตองไมพบโรคปากและเทาเปอยตงแตนาสตวนนเขามาฆาจนสนสดกระบวนการฆา
ฉ. โรงฆาสตว สถานทตดแตงซากสตว ทพกซากสตว ตองไดรบการตรวจสอบและรบรองจากคณะกรรมการกอน
ช. กรณเนอสตวทนาเขาหรอนาผานมาจากตางประเทศ ตองเปนเนอสตวทมาจากประเทศทไดรบการรบรองสถานภาพปลอดโรคปากและเทาเปอยจากองคการโรคระบาดสตวระหวางประเทศ (OIE) และตองปฏบตตามหลกเกณฑ วธการ และเงอนไขเกยวกบการนาเขาหรอนาผานราชอาณาจกรซงสตว และซากสตวตามกฎหมายวาดวยโรคระบาดสตว
(๒) กรณซากสตวประเภทขน (wool and hair) ใหมการทาลายเชอโรคระบาด ดงตอไปน ก. แชนาสบผสมกบโซเดยมไฮดรอกไซด หรอแชนาสบผสมกบโพแทสเซยมไฮดรอกไซด หรอ ข. ใชปนขาว หรอโซเดยมซลไฟด หรอ ค. ใชวธรมควน ๒๔ ชวโมง โดยใชฟอรมาลน ๕๓ มลลลตร และโพแทสเซยม
เปอรแมงกาเนต ๓๕ กรมตอพนทหนงลกบาศกเมตร รมควนเปนระยะเวลาอยางนอย ๒๔ ชวโมง หรอ ง. ใชนาอณหภม ๖๐ - ๗๐ องศาเซลเซยสผสมผงซกฟอก ลางทาความสะอาด หรอ จ. ใชวธเกบขนทอณหภม ๔ องศาเซลเซยส เปนระยะเวลานาน ๔ เดอน หรอท
อณหภม ๑๘ องศาเซลเซยส เปนระยะเวลานาน ๔ สปดาห หรออณหภม ๓๗ องศาเซลเซยส เปนระยะเวลานาน ๘ วน
(๓) กรณซากสตวประเภทขนแขง (bristles) ใหมการทาลายเชอโรคระบาดโดยผานกระบวนการตม ๑ ชวโมง หรอแชในสารละลายฟอรมลดไฮด ๑ % (เตรยมจากฟอรมาลน ๓๐ มลลลตร ในนา ๑ ลตร) อยางนอยนาน ๒๔ ชวโมง
224
Page 239
หนา ๗ เลม ๑๓๒ ตอนพเศษ ๑๘๖ ง ราชกจจานเบกษา ๑๓ สงหาคม ๒๕๕๘
(๔) กรณซากสตวประเภทหนงสตว (hide and skin) ใหมการทาลายเชอโรคระบาด โดยใชวธหมกในเกลอทผสมโซเดยมคารบอเนต ๒ % เปนระยะเวลานาน ๒๘ วน
(๕) กรณซากสตวประเภทอนจะใหมการทาลายเชอโรคระบาดหรอไม วธการใดใหเปนไป ตามทกรมปศสตวกาหนด
ขอ ๙ กรณการปฏบตในการขออนญาตเคลอนยายสตวหรอซากสตวท ไมครบถวน ตามความในระเบยบน ผออกหนงสออนญาตจะผอนผนอนญาตใหเคลอนยายสตวหรอซากสตว เขาในหรอผาน เขตควบคมโรคระบาดหรอเขตปลอดโรคระบาดชนดปากและเทาเปอยในภาคตะวนออกของประเทศไทยกได
ขอ ๑๐ เมอสตวแพทยประจาทองทไดรบคาขอตามขอ ๕ และไดตรวจสอบหรอดาเนนการ ตามขอ ๖ ขอ ๗ หรอขอ ๘ แลว หากสตวแพทยประจาทองทตนทางเหนสมควรอนญาต ใหเคลอนยายได ใหรายงานผลการปฏบตพรอมเอกสารหลกฐานทเกยวของและเสนอความเหนตอผออกหนงสออนญาตทราบ โดยดวนทสด เพอพจารณาอนญาตใหเคลอนยายสตวหรอซากสตวเขาในหรอผานเขตควบคมโรคระบาด หรอเขตปลอดโรคระบาดชนดปากและเทาเปอยในภาคตะวนออกของประเทศไทย
ขอ ๑๑ ใหผออกหนงสออนญาต พจารณาดาเนนการดงตอไปน (๑) กอนออกหนงสออนญาตใหพจารณารายงานผลการปฏบตงานพรอมขอมลเอกสาร
หลกฐานตาง ๆ ทเกยวของในการตรวจสอบและดาเนนงานตามขอ ๑๐ ใหถกตองครบถวนตามทกาหนด ในระเบยบน
(๒) ผออกหนงสออนญาตกาหนดจานวนวนทใหใชหนงสออนญาตใหเหมาะสมกบระยะทาง ในการเดนทาง แตตองไมเกน ๔๘ ชวโมง นบจากวนอนญาต โดยไมมการปะปนกบสตวอนในระหวางการขนยาย
(๓) กรณทตองใชยานพาหนะขนสงสตวหรอซากสตวจานวนหลายคน ใหออกหนงสออนญาตเปนรายคน
(๔) แจงการขออนญาตนาสตวหรอซากสตวไปยงสตวแพทยประจาทองทปลายทางซงสตวหรอซากสตวนนจะเคลอนยายไป โดยวธดวนทสด เชน โทรสาร จดหมายอเลกทรอนกส หรอทางระบบอนเตอรเนต เปนตน
ขอ ๑๒ ใหผออกหนงสออนญาตหรอสตวแพทยทไดรบมอบหมายไปทาการตรวจโรคระบาดสตวหรอซากสตวทไดรบอนญาต หากไมพบโรคระบาด ใหควบคมการนาสตวหรอซากสตวขนยานพาหนะ ใหเรยบรอย และใหมการทาลายเชอโรคระบาดดงตอไปน กอนมอบหนงสออนญาตใหแกผขอรบหนงสออนญาต
(๑) สงใหผขอรบหนงสออนญาตชาระลางยานพาหนะ ภาชนะทใชบรรจ วสดอปกรณ ทกชนดทเกยวของกบการเคลอนยายสตวหรอซากสตวใหสะอาดกอนทจะใชบรรทกสตวหรอซากสตว
(๒) เมอนาสตวขนยานพาหนะแลว ใหทาลายเชอโรคระบาดดวยวธการฉดพนดวยนายา ฆาเชอโรคทยานพาหนะ และวสดอปกรณตาง ๆ ซงเกยวของกบการบรรทกสตว เชน วสดรองพน หรอวสดทสมผสกบสตว
225
Page 240
หนา ๘ เลม ๑๓๒ ตอนพเศษ ๑๘๖ ง ราชกจจานเบกษา ๑๓ สงหาคม ๒๕๕๘
(๓) สงใหผขอรบหนงสออนญาตชาระลางยานพาหนะ ภาชนะทใชบรรจ วสดอปกรณทกชนด ทเกยวของกบการเคลอนยายสตวหรอซากสตวใหสะอาดภายหลงจากทนาสตวหรอซากสตวลงจากยานพาหนะเมอถงปลายทางแลวทนท
ขอ ๑๓ เมอสตวแพทยประจาทองทปลายทางหรอสตวแพทยทไดรบมอบหมายไดรบแจง จากผออกหนงสออนญาตตามขอ ๑๑ (๔) แลวใหตรวจสตวหรอซากสตวทเคลอนยายมาถงและใหบนทกรายการตอบรบสตวหรอซากสตวตามแบบทกรมปศสตวกาหนด โดยใหตรวจสอบโรคระบาด และจานวนสตวตามทไดรบอนญาต หากตรวจพบสตวหรอซากสตวเปนโรคระบาดหรอพาหะของโรคระบาด หรอมเหตอนควรสงสยวาเปนโรคระบาดใหรายงานปศสตวจงหวดตนทางและปลายทาง รวมถงปศสตวเขตทองทตนทางและปลายทางทราบโดยวธดวนทสดและดาเนนการควบคมโรคตามมาตรการทกรมปศสตวกาหนดตอไป
ในวนทสตวหรอซากสตวมาถงตามกาหนดทไดรบแจงจากผออกหนงสออนญาตแตสตวแพทยประจาทองทปลายทางหรอสตวแพทยทไดรบมอบหมายตรวจไมพบสตวหรอซากสตวดงกลาว จนเวลาลวงเขาไปในวนถดไปอกหนงวน หรอตรวจสอบพบวาสตวหรอซากสตวไมครบถวนหรอเกนจานวนตามทระบไวในหนงสออนญาต ใหทาการสอบสวนหาสาเหตและขอเทจจรงพรอมทงใหตดตอขอสาเนาหลกฐานหนงสออนญาตจากผออกหนงสออนญาต หากพบวามการกระทาการฝาฝนตอบทบญญต แหงกฎหมายวาดวยโรคระบาดสตว ใหดาเนนการรองทกขกลาวโทษตอพนกงานสอบสวน เพอทาการสอบสวนและดาเนนคดตอไปแลวรายงานใหผบงคบบญชาทราบ
ขอ ๑๔ ในกรณสตวทเคลอนยายโดยมไดมวตถประสงคเพอนาไปฆาในโรงฆาสตวใหสตวแพทยประจาทองทปลายทางดาเนนการกกไวเปนเอกเทศในสถานกกกนสตวปลายทางทปศสตวจงหวดรบรอง เปนเวลาไมนอยกวาสามวนนบถดจากวนทสตวมาถง
ขอ ๑๕ แบบคาขออนญาต หนงสออนญาต หนงสอรบรองตาง ๆ ใหเปนไปตามท กรมปศสตวกาหนด
ประกาศ ณ วนท ๒๔ กรกฎาคม พ.ศ. ๒๕๕๘
อยทธ หรนทรานนท อธบดกรมปศสตว
226
Page 241
227
APPENDIX 14.
Sample size calculation to demonstrate freedom of disease
Page 242
English
Sample size for demonstration of freedom (detection ofdisease) in a finite population
Inputs
This utility calcuates the sample size required to provide a desired probability ofdetecting disease ( herd-sensitivity) at the specified design prevalence, for a finitepopulation, assuming a test of known sensitivity and 100% specificity. These analysesuse an approximation of the hypergeometric distribution (MacDiarmid, SC (1988). NZVet J, 36:39-42).
Inputs are the size of the population, test sensitivity, the desired herd-sensitivity and thedesign (target) prevalence.
Outputs are:
the number of samples required to be tested to provide the desired herd-sensitivityfor the given design prevalence;a table and graph of sample sizes required to provide the desired herd-sensitivity,for the specified test sensitivity and a range of population sizes and designprevalences.
Populationsize (forfinitepopulations):
17702
Testsensitivity :
0.98
Desiredherdsensitivity :
0.95
Designprevalence :
0.02
Submit
Sample size to demonstrate freedom in a finite populationAnalysed: Fri Oct 05, 2018 @ 09:09
Inputs
Population size 17702
Test sensitivity 0.98
Confidence level 0.95
Design prevalence 0.02
ResultsRequired sample size for the specified level of confidence, design prevalence test sensitivity and population size =152.
The table and graph below show the sample sizes required to provide the specified probability of detecting disease,for various prevalence levels and population sizes for the specified test sensitivity.
Blank cells indicate either that the number of infected individuals for that combination of prevalence and populationsize is less than 1 or that it is not possible to attain the desired level of probability even if the entire population istested.
Prevalence= 0.005
Prevalence= 0.01
Prevalence= 0.02
Prevalence= 0.03
Prevalence= 0.04
Prevalence= 0.05
Prevalence= 0.1
Prevalence= 0.2
Population= 50
49 40 40 33 23 14
EpiTools epidemiological calculators
Home Prevalence Freedom Studies Diagnostics
Sampling
Sample size calculation to demonstrate freedom of disease
228
Page 243
Population= 100
97 80 65 54 46 27 15
Population= 200
194 159 108 81 64 53 29 15
Population= 300
238 194 121 87 68 56 30 15
Population= 500
323 230 133 93 71 58 30 16
Population= 1000
460 265 142 97 74 60 31 16
Population= 5000
577 297 151 101 76 61 31 16
Population= 10000
594 302 152 102 77 61 31 16
Population= 1e+05
610 306 153 102 77 62 31 16
Population= 1e+06
612 306 153 102 77 62 31 16
Plot of sample sizes
Download excel file of results
Download Top
[ Home | About this site | Glossary | References | Links | 134 recent calculations
This site was created by Ausvet with funding from a range of sources.
It provides a range of epidemiological tools for the use of researchers and epidemiologists particularly in
229
Page 244
230
APPENDIX 15.
Distribution map of DLD officers at local level in the proposed FMD-free zone
Page 245
231
APPENDIX 16.
Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval letter
Page 246
Office of Research ComplianceInstitutional Review BoardNorth End Center, Suite 4120, Virginia Tech300 Turner Street NWBlacksburg, Virginia 24061540/231-4606 Fax 540/231-0959email [email protected] http://www.irb.vt.edu
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 20, 2017
TO: Valerie E Ragan, Naree Ketusing
FROM: Virginia Tech Institutional Review Board (FWA00000572, expires January 29,2021)
PROTOCOL TITLE: Assessment of Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) control policy and itsimplementation in the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand
IRB NUMBER: 17-177
Effective September 20, 2017, the Virginia Tech Institution Review Board (IRB) Chair, David M Moore,approved the New Application request for the above-mentioned research protocol. This approval provides permission to begin the human subject activities outlined in the IRB-approvedprotocol and supporting documents. Plans to deviate from the approved protocol and/or supporting documents must be submitted to theIRB as an amendment request and approved by the IRB prior to the implementation of any changes,regardless of how minor, except where necessary to eliminate apparent immediate hazards to thesubjects. Report within 5 business days to the IRB any injuries or other unanticipated or adverseevents involving risks or harms to human research subjects or others. All investigators (listed above) are required to comply with the researcher requirements outlined at:http://www.irb.vt.edu/pages/responsibilities.htm
(Please review responsibilities before the commencement of your research.)
PROTOCOL INFORMATION:
Approved As: Expedited, under 45 CFR 46.110 category(ies) 5,6,7 Protocol Approval Date: September 20, 2017Protocol Expiration Date: September 19, 2018Continuing Review Due Date*: September 5, 2018*Date a Continuing Review application is due to the IRB office if human subject activities coveredunder this protocol, including data analysis, are to continue beyond the Protocol Expiration Date. FEDERALLY FUNDED RESEARCH REQUIREMENTS:
Per federal regulations, 45 CFR 46.103(f), the IRB is required to compare all federally funded grantproposals/work statements to the IRB protocol(s) which cover the human research activities includedin the proposal / work statement before funds are released. Note that this requirement does not applyto Exempt and Interim IRB protocols, or grants for which VT is not the primary awardee. The table on the following page indicates whether grant proposals are related to this IRB protocol, andwhich of the listed proposals, if any, have been compared to this IRB protocol, if required.
Institutional Review Board (IRB) Approval Letter
232
Page 247
IRB Number 17-177 page 2 of 2 Virginia Tech Institutional Review Board
Date* OSP Number Sponsor Grant Comparison Conducted?
* Date this proposal number was compared, assessed as not requiring comparison, or comparisoninformation was revised.
If this IRB protocol is to cover any other grant proposals, please contact the IRB office ([email protected] ) immediately.
233
Page 248
234
APPENDIX 17.
Assessment report prepared for the Department of Livestock Development
Page 249
235
ASSESSMENT OF FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE (FMD) CONTROL
POLICY AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION IN THE PROPOSED FMD-FREE
ZONE IN THAILAND
RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE THE CURRENT FMD CONTROL
PROGRAM IN THE THAI’s LIVESTOCK REGION 2 IN ORDER TO BE
RECOGNIZED AS AN FMD-FREE ZONE BY THE WORLD
ORGANISATION FOR ANIMAL HEALTH (OIE)
Proposed by
N. Ketusing (1, 2), S. Premashthira (2), J. Hodgson (1), K. Hult (3) & V. Ragan (1)
1 Department of Population Health Sciences, Virginia-Maryland College of Veterinary Medicine, Blacksburg, VA.
2 Department of Livestock Development, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Bangkok, Thailand
3 Department of Political Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA
Page 250
236
Acronyms
BDCVS Bureau of Disease Control and Veterinary Services
BVB Bureau of Veterinary Biologics
DLD Department of Livestock Development
FAO United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization
FDA-Thai Food and Drug Administration, Thailand
FMD Foot and Mouth Disease
OIE World Organisation for Animal Health (Office International des Epizooties)
Page 251
237
Executive Summary
This report is part of a PhD dissertation by the first author at the Virginia-Maryland College of
Veterinary Medicine, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, USA. It describes the outcome of an assessment
of Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) control policies and their implementation in the proposed
FMD-free zone, Livestock Region 2, in Thailand. The main objectives of the assessment were to
determine whether the revised regulations (since 2015) currently being implemented are fully in
compliance with the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE)’s requirements, and to verify
whether the implementation of the current FMD control program is sufficient to control FMD
effectively.
The assessment found that the current policies and the Department of Livestock Development
(DLD)’s regulations related to FMD control system are appropriately designed and comply with
the OIE’s requirements. However, their implementation needs more improvement in order to fulfill
the OIE’s requirements. This report offers recommendations to the DLD to improve the FMD
control system in the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand in order to be recognized as an FMD-
free zone by the OIE. For example, the DLD should implement policies that can increase
stakeholders’ awareness of disease reporting requirements. Compliance of disease reporting should
be closely monitored. In addition, official reports related to FMD control activities, such as reports
of FMD status, post vaccination evaluations, and vaccine strain matching should be publicly
available and easily accessible by stakeholders.
In order to meet the DLD’s goal of making the proposed FMD-free zone become recognized by
the OIE, this report also recommends that there should be strong commitment and support by the
higher level of Thailand’s government.
Page 252
238
1. INTRODUCTION
In 2012, the Thai Department of Livestock Development (DLD), within the Ministry of Agriculture
and Cooperatives, requested an evaluation of the Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) status of Livestock
Region 2 (the proposed FMD-free zone) in Thailand by experts of the World Organization for
Animal Health (OIE) for official recognition of FMD-free status [1]. The outcome from this
evaluation revealed that the proposed FMD-free zone could not be recognized as such as the zone
was not in full compliance with the OIE’s requirements [1]. In addition, there was insufficient
evidence to validate FMD-free status within the proposed FMD-free zone [1]. As a result of this
evaluation, in 2015, the DLD revised the FMD control regulations to be in compliance with the
recommendations of the OIE experts and implemented a revised FMD control program in the
proposed zone.
To ensure that the revised regulations currently being implemented are fully in compliance with the
OIE’s requirements and that the implementation of the current FMD control program is sufficient to
control FMD effectively, an assessment of FMD control policies and their implementation in the
proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand was conducted.
This assessment was part of a PhD dissertation by Dr. Naree Ketusing at the Virginia-Maryland
College of Veterinary Medicine, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, USA. This project was also supported
financially by the Royal Thai Government Scholarship.
2. OBJECTIVES OF THE ASSESSMENT
The specific objectives of this assessment were:
⮚ To determine whether the design of the current FMD control system follows the OIE’s
requirements for establishing an FMD-free zone with vaccination;
⮚ To determine whether implementation of the FMD policies currently in place in the
proposed FMD-free zone complies with the provisions for the OIE’s recognition of an
FMD-free zone with vaccination;
⮚ To propose recommendations to policy makers so as to enhance and improve the FMD
control system in the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand to be recognized as an FMD-
free zone by the OIE.
Page 253
239
3. METHODOLOGY
The assessment study utilized mixed methods research that gathered important information related
to FMD control in the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand. It was initiated by the development of
an assessment framework (Figure 1) and tools in order to identify scope and criteria of the
assessment. The framework and tools were used to evaluate both policy design and
implementation of current FMD control policies. The assessment tools included assessment
matrices, questionnaires, and interview questions. Assessment matrices were used to pinpoint
potential shortcomings of current policy design, implementation, veterinary capacity, and
stakeholder engagement in Thailand’s FMD control program. Interview questions and
questionnaires were developed to collect data regarding FMD control activities from stakeholders
(DLD officers, private veterinarians, and farmers) in the proposed FMD-free zone.
3.1 Development of Assessment Framework and Tools
3.1.1 Legal documents and materials used for the development
The assessment framework and tools were developed using DLD regulations and the OIE
terrestrial animal health code. Other official documents related to the Thailand FMD control
program were also used as the foundation for the development of the framework and assessment
tools.
The core DLD’s laws related to FMD control program included:
● Animal Epidemic Act B.E. 2558 (2015) [2]
● Control of Animal Slaughter for the Distribution of Meat Act B.E. 2559 (2016) [3]
● DLD Regulation on Animal Movement Control B.E. 2558 (2015) [4]
The primary chapters of the terrestrial code used for establishing the assessment criteria for this
study included:
● Chapter 1.4 Animal health surveillance [5];
● Chapter 1.6 Procedures for self-declaration and for official recognition by the OIE [6];
● Chapter 3.2 Evaluation of Veterinary Service [7];
● Chapter 4.3 Zoning and compartmentalization [8]; and
● Chapter 8.8 Infection with foot and mouth disease virus [9].
Page 254
240
The following documents were reviewed and used for development of the framework and
assessment tools;
● National FMD Strategic Plan of Thailand [10]
● Dossier for OIE Official Recognition of Foot and Mouth Disease Free Zone with
Vaccination in the Eastern Region of Thailand [11]
● Report of OIE FMD Expert Mission to Thailand [1]
● Thailand National FMD plan for OIE Endorsement [12]
● OIE Performance Veterinarian Services (PVS) Evaluation Report (Thailand) [13]
● PVS Gap Analysis Mission Report (Thailand) [14]
The framework for assessment of FMD control policies and their implementation in the proposed
FMD-free zone is shown in figure 1.
3.2 Interviews
Interviews were conducted to get in-depth information regarding the implementation of the FMD
control system in the proposed FMD-free zone. A purposive sampling method was used to recruit
participants for the interviews. The interview participants included the DLD national officers who
formulated FMD control policies, the DLD regional officers who had experience with FMD
control implementation, and private veterinarians. Interview questions were developed to assess
the surveillance system, reporting system, vaccination program, control of animal movement, and
response plans.
A table below lists the number of participants and the scope of interviews during the assessment:
Participants Number Scope of Interviews
DLD national officers 9 (out of 14) Design of FMD control policies
DLD regional officers 2 (out of 5*) FMD control implementation
Private veterinarians 5 (out of 102*) FMD control implementation
*Total number who work in the proposed FMD-free zone
3.3 Questionnaire Survey
Three sets of questionnaires were developed, using an online survey tool named “Qualtrics”, for
three different target groups: DLD local officers, private veterinarians, and farmers. Each
questionnaire was divided into sections such as surveillance and reporting, prevention, vaccination
program, animal movement control, and communication among stakeholders. Participants self-
Page 255
241
reported on the questionnaires which focused on their practices related to the control of FMD
within the past three years. For those cases when potential participants, such as a farmer group, did
not have internet access, the questionnaire was administered on a face-to-face basis.
To deliver questionnaires to potential participants, multistage distribution and snowball technique
were used. The questionnaire links and Quick Response (QR) codes allowed potential participants
to distribute and respond to the questionnaires within four months, December of 2017 to March of
2018. The links and QR codes were then made inactive.
The table below lists the number of questionnaire distributors, number of questionnaires returned,
number of responses used for analysis, and the target population in the proposed FMD-free zone:
Group Number of
questionnaire
distributors
Number of
questionnaires
returned
Number of
responses used
for analysis
Target population in
the proposed FMD-
free zone
DLD Local officers 16 51 34 109*
Private veterinarians 15 67 32 102**
Farmers 10 79 44 17702*
Total 41 197 110 17,913
*Source: Department of Livestock Development, Information and Communication Technology Center 2015 [15]
**The number of private veterinarians was determined in 2018. A representative private veterinarian of each
company was contacted and was asked to fill in a spreadsheet the number of veterinarians in their companies who
work in the proposed FMD-free zone.
3.4 Field Data Collection
Field visits were conducted from January to February 2018 to collect data related to participants’
activities such as farm biosecurity, vaccination, animals’ records keeping, visitors’ records
keeping, and cleaning and disinfection of the farms. Face-to-face questionnaires were also
conducted during field visits. When face-to-face questionnaires were conducted, records of
respondents’ activities were reviewed and compared against their responses.
3.4.1 Study Sites
Thailand is comprised of 77 provinces and is divided into six geographical regions based on
natural features including landforms, drainage, and human cultural patterns. These regions are
central, northern, northeastern, eastern, western, and southern part of Thailand. However, within
the DLD functional responsibilities, 77 provinces of Thailand are grouped into nine livestock
administrative regions (figure 2).
Page 256
242
The proposed FMD-free zone was established in the Livestock Region 2, in the eastern region of
Thailand (figure 3). Geography of this region is characterized by short mountain ranges alternating
with small basins of short rivers which drain into the Gulf of Thailand. This region is bordered by
Cambodia in the east and central region of Thailand in the west. It covers an area of 34,380 square
kilometers. Livestock Region 2 comprises nine provinces namely Chanthaburi, Chonburi, Trat,
Rayong, Chachengsao, Prachinburi, Sakeaw, Nakhonnayok, and Samutprakarn.
The assessment was conducted in the proposed FMD-free zone. Due to budget and time
constraints, the field visits were undertaken in only three provinces; Chachengsao, Sakeaw, and
Chonburi.
3.5 Data Analysis
The assessment was a qualitative study using an assessment matrix as an analytical tool.
Descriptive statistics were performed to summarize the responses. Assessment matrices of FMD
policy design and their implementation were applied to determine how well the current FMD
control program meets and complies with the OIE’s requirements for the recognition of an FMD-
free zone with vaccination. Participants’ responses and data collected during field observations
were comparatively analyzed against the assessment matrix criteria.
For example, if the provincial officers reported “never or 1-2 times during the past three years” to
the survey question “have you received information regarding the FMD surveillance findings in
the proposed FMD-free zone from DLD national officers?”, the matrix indicated lack of
communication on the findings of FMD active surveillance. According to this matrix analysis, the
surveillance system has not been appropriately implemented.
4. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
4.1 Surveillance System
The assessment found the design of the DLD surveillance system is appropriate and meets the
OIE’s requirements which state that “a surveillance system should be the responsibility of the
Veterinary Authority” [1] (Article 8.8.40, bullet 1). The 2016 FMD surveillance plan for the
proposed FMD-free zone and Animal Epidemic Act B.E. 2558 (2015) includes both active and
passive surveillance. The active surveillance (serological surveillance) is conducted biannually.
The assessment also found that the DLD has an appropriate sample plan and adequate sample sizes
Page 257
243
to detect the disease in accordance with the OIE’s requirements, which state that the surveillance
strategies employed to “substantiate freedom from FMD infection or transmission” should be
based on “randomized or targeted” sampling at an “acceptable level of statistical confidence” [1]
(Article 8.8.40 bullet 4).
The assessment of implementation of the surveillance system found that some surveillance
activities are not fully implemented and do not fulfill the OIE’s requirements. First, there was
ineffective communication of the findings of the FMD active surveillance program between DLD
officers and stakeholders. Not all private veterinarians and farmers receive information regarding
the findings of surveillance. They are not able to access official reports of the actual FMD status in
their area or their own farms. Secondly, the current surveillance system is not able to provide an
appropriate early warning system due to the lack of consistent reporting of suspected cases. The
assessment found that farmers (54.55%, 6/11) and private veterinarians (86.67%, 13/15) never
notify DLD officers when an FMD suspected case is found. Third, the FMD surveillance program
has been evaluated internally but those results are not publicly available. Surveillance activities are
internal monitored annually by the Bureau of Disease Control and Veterinary Services (BDCVS)
staff. However, reports of monitoring and evaluation of the surveillance activities could not be
accessed for this assessment. The surveillance program was audited externally as well but the last
external audit was in 2013 by the OIE. Without transparent evaluation, there is no concrete
evidence to validate whether the existing surveillance system will be accepted by the OIE.
4.2 Reporting System
The assessment found the reporting system in the proposed FMD-free zone is not fully
implemented and does not fully comply with the OIE’s requirements. First, the reporting protocol
was not uniformly implemented at all levels. The majority of farmers and private veterinarians
knew the disease reporting protocols but they do not report an FMD suspected case to DLD
officers. They fear that DLD officers will restrict their animal movement and/or condemn their
animals without compensation. A private veterinarian also mentioned that there were no actions
taken by DLD officers when FMD suspected cases were reported. These findings emphasized that
the current reporting system does not fully comply with the OIE’s requirement, which states that
“farmers, workers who have day-to-day contact with livestock, as well as veterinary
Page 258
244
paraprofessionals, veterinarians and diagnosticians, should report promptly any suspicion of FMD”
[1] (Article 8.8.41, bullet 1).
Secondly, not all reports of FMD status are available or easily accessible. The webpage of BDCVS
contains reports of FMD status at the national level but not the regional level. These reports
indicate locations and number of outbreaks, number of affected animals, species of affected
animals, and FMD serotypes but do not identify causes of outbreaks. On a regional webpage, there
are no reports of the FMD status or analysis of FMD outbreaks available.
Third, stakeholders’ compliance with the reporting protocol is not routinely monitored by the
DLD. No records of violations and penalties were available when the assessment was conducted at
the field level.
4.3 Vaccine Strategy
The assessment of design of vaccine strategy found that 1) all susceptible species are included in
the vaccination program and 2) there is a designated committee which has authority to make
decisions on vaccine strains needed and to specify how vaccine strains are determined. Findings
suggest that the design of vaccine strategy meets the OIE’s requirement, which states that 1)
“compulsory systematic vaccination in the target population” should be “carried out to achieve
adequate vaccination coverage and population immunity” [1] (Article 8.8.3, bullet 3c) and 2)
vaccination should be “carried out following appropriate vaccine strain selection” [1] (Article
8.8.3, bullet 3d).
However, the vaccine strategy is not fully implemented and does not fulfill the OIE’s
requirements. First, ineffective communication of vaccine strategy between DLD officers and
private veterinarians was found. The communication regarding vaccine strategy includes, but is not
limited to, current vaccine strain and field strains, type of vaccine, and vaccination interval.
Though the assessment found all DLD covered species are vaccinated to some degree, ineffective
communication on vaccine strategy can lead to improper vaccination and inadequate vaccination
coverage and population immunity. Animals may be vaccinated with any FMD vaccine available
in the market, but such vaccine may not contain the current FMD virus field strain.
Secondly, the assessment found a lack of communication regarding post vaccination sero-
monitoring. Not all provincial and district DLD officers received reports of post vaccination
Page 259
245
evaluation. Also, the majority of private veterinarians (72.73%, 16/22) and farmers (55.88%,
19/34) claimed that they do not receive reports of post vaccination evaluations from DLD officers.
Due to the absence of such reports and the lack of evidence of adequate vaccination coverage and
population immunity, it is unknown whether the implementation of the vaccination program meets
the OIE’s requirements.
Third, a lack of communication of vaccination matching monitoring between DLD officers and
private veterinarians was found. It needs to be emphasized that FMD vaccines distributed in
Thailand can be either imported vaccines or DLD-produced vaccines. Currently, DLD is not able
to test the antigenic relationship (r value) between imported vaccines and FMD virus field strains
because imported vaccines are not under the supervision and authority of DLD. In addition,
participating private veterinarians and farmers are not able to access official reports regarding the
actual FMD status or strain in their area. It is important to inform stakeholders of current field
virus and vaccine used strain. The assessment found that private veterinarians (63.64%, 14/22)
used FMD vaccines, either imported or DLD-produced vaccines, without knowing whether the
vaccine was selected based on FMD virus field strain. They were unsure if their clients’ animals
had immunity against the virus field strain. Findings indicate that the current vaccination strategy
is not appropriately implemented and does not meet the OIE’s requirements because there is a lack
of evidence to prove that “vaccination has been carried out to achieve adequate vaccination
coverage and population immunity” [1] (Article 8.8.3 bullet 3c.)
Fourth, the assessment also found inappropriate vaccine quality control. Although the officers
from the Bureau of Veterinary Biologics (BVB) (n=2) claimed that vaccine quality control testing
protocol follows the OIE’s Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals, they
were not able to conduct vaccine potency tests in every lot. There were insufficient animals that
could be used in experiments and there were limited laboratory facilities to do so. Duration of
immunity is not routinely tested. Vaccine shelf life had also not been tested for the past 3 years.
During the field visits, an expired FMD vaccine was found. In addition, an officer of Veterinary
Biologics Assay and Research Center (VBAC) revealed that there was no post-marketing quality
control of FMD vaccines due to a lack of budget allocations. Since there was a lack of evidence to
prove the quality of vaccines after distribution was certified, the quality of FMD vaccine produced
by the DLD is unknown. It can be implied that the current vaccine strategy does not meet the
OIE’s requirements.
Page 260
246
4.4 Animal Movement Control System
The assessment of the design of the animal movement control system found that 1) the regulation
(DLD regulation of animal movement control B.E. 2558 (2015)) covers all susceptible species and
animal products, 2) the requirements (before movement is allowed) are adequate to prevent disease
spread in accordance with the OIE Terrestrial Code, and 3) there is a requirement specifying that
the vehicles for livestock transportation must be cleaned and disinfected. From these findings, it
could be implied that animal movement control regulations have been appropriately designed and
meet the OIE’s requirements.
However, the assessment found only partial implementation of the animal movement control
system. First, ineffective communication of animal movement control protocols was found
between DLD officers and private veterinarians and between DLD officers and farmers. Private
veterinarians (36.36%, 8/22) and farmers (55.88%, 19/34) never received information regarding
the movement control protocol since the last update in 2015. The protocol has been communicated
well among DLD officers (100%) through official meetings and official letters.
Secondly, animal inspections are not being fully conducted. According to the Animal Epidemic
Act B.E. 2558 (2015) and the DLD Regulation on Animal Movement Control B.E. 2558 (2015),
the inspections should take place (1) before DLD officers issue animal movement permits, (2)
when animals are loaded onto vehicles, and (3) while animals pass through animal checkpoints.
The assessment found that due to the insufficient number of provincial and district DLD officers,
the officers were not able to visit all farms and inspect animal health status prior to issuing
movement permits. Some officers request that farmers bring animals (on vehicles) to their office to
get inspected and receive an animal movement permit at the same time. However, DLD officers at
quarantine stations reported that they always observe and inspect animal health status while the
animals pass through checkpoints or quarantine stations.
Though, DLD’s regulation of animal movement control and the OIE’s requirements do not state
whether vehicles must have sufficient bedding to absorb urine and droppings during animal
transportation, inappropriate control of vehicles for animal transportation can be one of the sources
of FMD spread and infection. During field visits, the assessment found, that some vehicles did not
have sufficient bedding for animal transportation. Leakage of water and urine along the road from
those vehicles was observed (figure 4). The assessment concludes that there is a lack of evidence to
Page 261
247
prove that the control of susceptible animals and their products have been properly implemented
and supervised. Thus, the implementation of animal movement control does not meet the OIE’s
requirements.
4.5 Response Plans
The assessment found that the current DLD response plans are appropriately designed and meet
the OIE’s requirements. Response plans include appropriate measurements such as disease
investigation, quarantine, control of animal movement, ring vaccination, disposal of carcass,
disinfection of infected premises, follow up plans for infected and suspected cases, and further
serological tests to a positive serological test (Non Structure Protein, NSP). DLD also utilizes a
compensation scheme to subsidize farmers even though the Terrestrial Code does not mention
compensation.
Nonetheless, the implementation of response plans needs to be further improved to meet the OIE’s
requirements. First, ineffective communication regarding response plans was found between DLD
officers and stakeholders. Private veterinarians were less informed than farmers regarding the
response plans. Second, training on preparedness and response plans was not thoroughly provided
to private veterinarians and farmers. The majority of private veterinarians (71.43%, 15/21) and
farmers (54.84%, 17/31) reported that they have never been trained to deal with any suspected
cases or outbreaks. It can be implied that majority of private veterinarians and farmers in the
proposed FMD-free zone may not be aware of DLD’s protocols when it comes to FMD outbreaks.
Third, there was inadequate response to reported FMD suspected cases by DLD officers.
Participating farmers and private veterinarians reported that after they reported FMD suspected
cases to DLD officers, DLD officers did not conduct disease investigations or collect or submit
samples for FMD diagnosis. This indicates that the implementation of response plans does not
fully meet with the OIE’s requirements as the OIE requires immediate follow-up and investigation
to confirm or rule out FMD infection.
Fourth, emergency vaccines that control FMD outbreaks were not sufficiently available for all
susceptible animals in the proposed FMD-free zone. Ring vaccination is indicated as one of the
measures to control an FMD outbreak in the DLD’s response plans. However, private veterinarians
(n=6), all of whom work on swine farms, reported that DLD provided no-cost FMD vaccines for
Page 262
248
only 6% of the total number of their clients’ animals and provided low-cost vaccines for 60%. As a
result of insufficient availability of FMD vaccines in an outbreak, the implementation of response
plans does not meet the OIE’s requirements as there is no evidence to prove whether adequate
vaccine coverage of the target population had been achieved.
Fifth, FMD infected and exposed animals are not stamped out (killed and buried on site) or
slaughtered (transported to a slaughter facility) in accordance with the DLD’s response plans. The
plans specify that FMD infected and exposed animals must be stamped out or slaughtered;
however, the assessment found that most FMD infected and exposed animals were not slaughtered
by either method. Although the OIE does not require stamping-out or slaughtering when there is an
outbreak in a free zone with vaccination, the OIE does require evidence of no FMDV transmission
and circulation for at least 12 months in order for that region to be qualified as an FMD-free zone.
One participating private veterinarian commented that their clients believe that stamping out was
more economically devastating than treating infected animals so most of their clients decided to
keep potentially infected animals on their farms. It can be implied that the virus might exist and be
circulating in the proposed FMD-free zone, even though no FMD clinical signs were noticed and
no FMD suspected cases were reported.
Sixth, the introduction or importation of susceptible animals into the proposed FMD-free zone
does not follow the DLD regulation and does not meet the OIE’s requirements. The DLD
regulation specifies that animals are subject to be serologically tested for FMDV with negative
results before the movement is allowed. However, one participating district officer reported that
he/she reviews the documentation of imported animals to ensure they originated from FMD-
negative herds but does not require a FMD-negative test. Private veterinarians (n=5) working for
company farms revealed that the companies required FMD-negative laboratory results for their
imported animals, but not all of their clients (especially backyard farmers) required a FMD-
negative test. Findings indicate that not all newly introduced animals enter the herds in the
proposed FMD-free zone with FMD negative laboratory results.
All findings mentioned above indicates that the implementation of response plans needs further
improvement in order to meet the OIE’s requirements.
Page 263
249
4.5 Engagement of Stakeholders
This assessment found that most private veterinarians and farmers in the proposed FMD-free zone
who participated in this study are supportive stakeholders. They usually practice and are aware of
FMD control activities in accordance with the current FMD control program. They observe animal
health status regularly. They routinely vaccinate their animals or clients’ animals with FMD
vaccine even though they are not able to identify vaccine quality or are unsure of vaccine strain
matching. They usually notify DLD officers and receive a movement permit before animals are
transported. They comply with DLD officers’ instructions when animals’ quarantine is needed.
They follow biosecurity measures recommended by DLD officers. Overall, the assessment found
good collaboration between DLD officers and stakeholders.
Although private veterinarians and farmers participate well and collaborate with DLD officers in
controlling FMD in the proposed FMD-free zone, they are not fully engaged in disease reporting
or willing to report FMD suspected cases or outbreaks. They fail to notify DLD officers of an
FMD suspected case within 12 hours. Though they recognize clinical signs of FMD suspected
cases they do not want to report to DLD officers. As a result, FMD suspected cases in the proposed
FMD-free zone could be underreported, and DLD officers and stakeholders are unaware of the
actual FMD status. Lack of early disease reporting could hinder DLD’s effort in proposing to the
OIE that Livestock Region 2 should be officially recognized as an FMD-free zone.
4.6 Conclusions
After a thorough assessment of FMD control policies and their implementation in the proposed
FMD-free zone in Thailand, the assessment team came up with the following conclusions:
⮚ The design of the current FMD control system in the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand,
including the surveillance system, vaccine strategy, movement control, and response plans,
is appropriate and meets the OIE’s requirements for establishing an FMD-free zone with
vaccination. However, the assessment still found ways to improve and strengthen the FMD
control system in the proposed FMD-free zone. Recommendations will be provided in the
next section.
⮚ The implementation of the surveillance system, reporting system, vaccine strategy,
movement control, and response plans need improvement in order to fulfill the OIE’s
requirements.
Page 264
250
⮚ Gaps among the implementation of each system and the OIE’s requirements are
summarized as follows:
o Surveillance system: the current surveillance system was not able to “provide an
early warning system to report suspected cases” [9] (the OIE Terrestrial Code
Article 8.8.40 bullet 1).
o Reporting system: the reporting protocol was not uniformly implemented at all
levels. Stakeholders did not “report promptly any suspicion of FMD” [9] (the OIE
Terrestrial Code Article 8.8.41 bullet 1).
o Vaccine strategy: there was insufficient evidence to prove that “compulsory
vaccination in the target population has been carried out to achieve adequate
vaccination coverage and population immunity and with appropriate vaccine strain
selection” [9] (the OIE Terrestrial Code Article 8.8.3 bullet 3c and 3d).
o Animal movement control: there was a lack of evidence to prove that “the control
of the movement of susceptible animals and their products has been properly
implemented and supervised” [9] (Article 8.8.4 bullet 4d).
o Response plans: there was inadequate response, follow-up, and investigation to
confirm or rule out FMD infection as it required by the OIE.
⮚ Stakeholder engagement: Though private veterinarians and farmers in the proposed FMD-
free zone are supportive stakeholders who are aware of FMD control activities and practice
in accordance with the current FMD control program, one of the DLD’s challenges is to
enhance their engagement on disease reporting.
5. RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the above conclusions, the following future needs and opportunities were identified.
⮚ Policy/program design:
o Though the design of vaccination strategy meets the OIE’s requirements, which clearly
indicates the criteria for selection of vaccine strain and who has authority to make the
vaccine strain decisions, it could be strengthened by clearly specifying a time for
routine meetings of the committee with authority to make decisions on vaccine strains.
The committee should meet at a certain time of the year, every year to review virus
circulating strains and make recommendations for vaccine strains. They should not wait
until there is an outbreak - one that might not be able to be controlled by current
vaccines since because the FMD virus rapidly replicates and easily spreads.
Page 265
251
o Not only should the Food and Drug Administration Thailand (FDA-Thai) Ministry of
Public Health have authority over the importation of animal drugs and veterinary
biological products, but the DLD should have the authority to test and control FMD
imported vaccines after importation and prior to distribution at the field level for better
FMD vaccine management. The DLD will also have more information regarding
quality and virus strains used in FMD imported vaccines.
o The DLD regulation regarding animal movement control is appropriately designed and
in accordance with the OIE Terrestrial Code, but it should also clearly specify
requirements of vehicles used for animal transportation. For example, vehicles need
sufficient bedding to absorb urine and minimize the leakage of urine and feces.
Moreover, vehicles used for animal transportation should be inspected and approved by
DLD officers in order to ensure the vehicles are suitable for animal transportation and
are not a source of disease spread.
o The DLD should clearly specify the criteria for when FMD infected animals will be
destroyed by stamping out and when they will be slaughtered for meat production.
These criteria are important for stakeholders because compensation at 75 % of the
market price of the animal will only be paid in the case of stamping out, not in the case
of slaughtering. Also, the criteria need to be clearly communicated to stakeholders to
avoid confusion.
⮚ Policy/program implementation:
o Findings of FMD active surveillance should be publicly available and accessible, so
private veterinarians and farmers will be aware of the actual FMD status. In addition,
private veterinarians and farmers should be able to access findings of FMD surveillance
of their own farms, so they can plan appropriately to prevent and control FMD.
o DLD officers should increase private veterinarians’ and farmers’ awareness regarding
rapid disease reporting and closely monitor whether private veterinarians and farmers
comply with the DLD’s reporting protocols. In addition, DLD officers should clearly
communicate with private veterinarians and farmers about the response plans when
FMD suspected cases and/or FMD positive cases are found.
Page 266
252
o The DLD should make official reports, such as reports of FMD status, post- vaccination
evaluation, and vaccine strain matching publicly available and accessible. Reports of
FMD status should clearly identify source and epidemiology of outbreaks.
o FMD vaccines should be available and sufficient to cover all susceptible species not
only during FMD outbreaks but also under normal situations. The DLD may increase
capacity and availability of the DLD’s vaccine production plant by establishing a new
vaccine plant. However, that may not be feasible due to the current DLD budget
constraints, yet an effective vaccination program is essential for a successful FMD
control program.
o The DLD should work closely with FDA-Thai to better manage the importation of
FMD vaccine. Information of FMD imported vaccine, such as virus strains used and
quality control, should be shared among these two agencies.
o The DLD should revise their human resource plan to better allocate staff at local levels
to improve delivery of Veterinary Services.
o Communications between the DLD and stakeholders regarding the FMD control
program need to be strengthened for more effective message delivery. The DLD may
set up or increase regularity of stakeholder meetings. Webinars (web-based seminars)
and/or teleconference should be used to enhance communication with target audiences,
especially private veterinarians. Effective and adequate communication could enhance
stakeholders’ engagement in the FMD control program.
o The Thai government should support DLD recruitment of more veterinarians and
should have sufficient well-trained staff to work at the provincial and district levels in
order to deliver Veterinary Services appropriately and effectively.
o The Thai government should recognize the importance and benefits of establishing an
FMD-free zone and should have a strong commitment to support the DLD to make sure
that the proposed FMD-free zone will be recognized by the OIE.
6. REFERENCES
1. Clercq K. De, Kim Y.J. & Batho H. (2013). – Foot and Mouth Disease Expert Mission to
Thailand. Thailand.
2. The Royal Thai Government Gazette (2015). – Animal Epidemic Act B.E. 2558. 132, 22.
Available at: http://www.ratchakitcha.soc.go.th/DATA/PDF/2558/A/014/22.PDF.
Page 267
253
3. The Royal Thai Government Gazette (2016). – Control of Animal Slaughter for the
Distribution of Meat Act B.E. 2559. , 133, 22. Available at:
http://www.ratchakitcha.soc.go.th/DATA/PDF/2559/A/085/9.PDF.
4. Department of Livestock Development (2015). – Animal Movement Control Regulation. R.
Thai Gov. Gaz., 132, 186ง. Available at:
http://dcontrol.dld.go.th/dcontrol/images/RUMINANT/DLD/9.PDF.
5. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2018). – Animal Health Surveillance. , 1–10.
Available at:
http://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_surveillance_general.htm
(accessed on 31 May 2018).
6. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2018). – Procedures for self declaration and
for official recognition by the OIE. Available at:
http://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_selfdeclaration.htm (accessed
on 31 May 2018).
7. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2018). – Evaluation of Veterinary Services.
Available at:
http://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_eval_vet_serv.htm (accessed
on 31 May 2018).
8. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2018). – Zoning and compartmentalization.
Available at:
http://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_zoning_compartment.htm
(accessed on 31 May 2018).
9. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2018). – Infection with Foot and Mouth
Disease. Terr. Anim. Heal. Code. Available at:
http://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_fmd.htm (accessed on 9
April 2019).
10. Department of Livestock Development (2012). – National FMD strategic plan of Thailand.
2nd ed., Bangkok, Thailand. doi:10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2.
11. Department of Livestock Development (2012). – Dossier for OIE Official Recognition of
Foot and Mouth Disease Free Zone with Vaccination in the Eastern Region of Thailand.
Bangkok, Thailand.
12. Department of Livestock Development (2015). – Thailand National FMD Plan for OIE
Endorsement 2015: Application for OIE Validation of the Official Foot and Mouth Disease
Control Programme. Bangkok, Thailand.
13. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2012). – PVS Evaluation Report (Thailand).
14. World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) (2014). – PVS GAP Analysis Mission Report
(Thailand).
Page 268
254
FIGURES
Figure 1 Evaluation Framework for the Assessment of FMD Control Policy and Its
Implementation in The Proposed FMD-Free Zone in Thailand.
Figure 2 Map of Thailand and Nine Livestock Regions
Figure 3 Map of the Proposed FMD-Free Zone in Thailand
Figure 4 Inappropriate Vehicles for Animal Transportation
Page 269
255
Figure 1 Evaluation framework for the assessment of FMD control policy and its implementation in the proposed FMD-free zone in Thailand.
*Conditions:
(1) Reporting system
is appropriate design.
(2) Testing and
diagnosis system is
adequate and rapid to
diagnose FMD.
Policy design
Implementation
Implementation
Policy design
Implementation
Policy design
Implementation
Policy design
Implementation
Page 270
256
Figure 2 Map of Thailand and nine Livestock Regions
Page 271
257
Figure 3 Map of The Proposed FMD-free Zone in Thailand
Page 272
258
Figure 4 Inappropriate Vehicles for Animal Transportation
Water or
urine
leakage
Water
or urine
leakage
Water or
urine
leakage
Water/
urine
stain