Foot And Mouth Disease: New Values, Innovative Research Agenda’s and Policies by A. J. Van Der Zijpp, C. H. A. M. Eilers, H. Kieft, and M. J. E. Braker


05586c7fe5506ee-261x361.jpg Author A. J. Van Der Zijpp, C. H. A. M. Eilers, H. Kieft, and M. J. E. Braker
Isbn 9789076998275
File size 2MB
Year 2004
Pages 77
Language English
File format PDF
Category medicine



 

Foot and Mouth Disease Foot and Mouth Disease New values, innovative research agenda’s and policies A.J. van der Zijpp M.J.E. Braker C.H.A.M. Eilers H. Kieft T.A.Vogelzang S.J. Oosting EAAP Technical Series No. 5 ISBN: 978-90-76998-27-5 e-ISBN: 978-90-8686-530-7 DOI: 10.3920/978-90-8686-530-7 ISSN 1570-7318 Subject headings: A-list diseases Participation Epidemiology First published, 2004 © Wageningen Academic Publishers The Netherlands, 2004 Wageningen Academic P u b l i s h e r s This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned. Nothing from this publication may be translated, reproduced, stored in a computerised system or published in any form or in any manner, including electronic, ­mechanical, reprographic or photographic, without prior written permission from the publisher, Wageningen Academic Publishers, P.O. Box 220, 6700 AE Wageningen, the Netherlands, www.WageningenAcademic.com The individual contributions in this publication and any liabilities arising from them remain the responsibility of the authors. The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the European Association for Animal Production concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The publisher is not responsible for possible damages, which could be a result of content derived from this publication. Table of Contents Preface ............................................................................................................................ 9 Chapter 1. Values at stake during the 2001 Foot and Mouth Disease epidemic in the Netherlands....................................................................................................... 11 1.1 The production value of land use ............................................................... 11 1.2 Land use in transition ................................................................................. 12 1.3 Conflicting values....................................................................................... 13 1.4 The workshop ............................................................................................. 13 References ........................................................................................................ 15 Chapter 2. The Foot and Mouth Disease workshop: from dialogue to research agenda.... 17 2.1 Summary and recommendations ................................................................ 17 2.2 Conclusions ................................................................................................ 19 2.3 Introduction ................................................................................................ 20 2.4 Purpose of the workshop ............................................................................ 21 2.5 Problem analysis......................................................................................... 23 2.6 Towards an integrated research agenda...................................................... 30 2.7 Towards an integrated research group........................................................ 34 2.8 Evaluation of the FMD Workshop ............................................................. 35 References ........................................................................................................ 38 Chapter 3. Evaluation of Foot and Mouth Disease policy during the 2001 epidemic in the Netherlands. A project summary ................................................................ 41 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 41 3.2 Aim of the study ......................................................................................... 42 3.3 Structure of the research project ................................................................. 42 3.4 Qualitative impact of the 2001 outbreak of FMD ...................................... 43 3.5. Towards a framework for sociological evaluation .................................... 45 3.6 Results of the Multi-Criteria Analysis........................................................ 46 3.7 Overall conclusions .................................................................................... 49 Appendix 1. Causes and effects of the FMD outbreak and crisis ......................................... 51 Appendix 2. Report of workshop 1: Workshop with stakeholders held 18 April 2002 ........ 53 Appendix 3. Report of workshop 2: Workshop with scientists held 5 June 2002 ................ 61 Appendix 4. Participants in various activities ....................................................................... 71 7 Preface The outbreak of foot and mouth disease in the Netherlands in Spring 2001 became a national crisis. Concern for the livestock industry and rural areas was clearly visible in all actions and reactions to the crisis. These social and scientific expressions have been linked together in the dialogue in the Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) Workshop. We wanted to use the discussion on the experience of stakeholders and scientists in different disciplines in formulating themes for the research agenda of the Wageningen University and Research Centre (University of Life Sciences). The research agenda should address the issues raised by stakeholders and integrate different scientific expertise. The results should support farmers’ organisations in policy development, and the government in the prevention and management of future outbreaks of Foot and Mouth Disease. The steering committee and participants in the FMD Workshop have learned much from this workshop approach. The sustainability of this approach, however, depends on how the workshop results and recommendations are used. We hope that stakeholders will continue to voice their opinions in setting up and carrying out of future research on Foot and Mouth Disease. Furthermore, we hope that students at the Wageningen University and Research Centre will carry out interdisciplinary studies and research on the issues set down in the research agenda. We can now offer support on policy issues with process experience and in future, on questions arising from research on these issues. The outcome of the FMD Workshop is the report entitled “Foot and Mouth Disease: new values, innovative research agenda’s and policies” and is the property of all participants. A number of colleagues deserve special acknowledgement for their work and vision in setting up, implementing and presenting workshop outcome. Karen Eilers and Marleen Braker took the lead in designing and organising the workshop. We are very grateful to Henk Kieft and Simon Oosting for their support in facilitating the workshop and their efforts in organizing many others. The confidence of the Board of Management of Wageningen University and Research Centre in creating this dialogue between stakeholders in the FMD crisis and scientists illustrates the social importance of the FMD Workshop and through it, of Wageningen University, in underpinning social issues with education and research. I hope that the FMD Workshop will advance the process of innovation and expand the relevance of Wageningen University in the wider society. On behalf of all participants and the Animal Production Systems Group, the Department of Animal Sciences, Akke van der Zijpp 9 Chapter 1. Values at stake during the 2001 Foot and Mouth Disease epidemic in the Netherlands In 2001, the Netherlands was stricken by an epidemic of Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD). The epidemic had a great impact on the whole country. Since dairy farming accounts for approximately 70% of the country’s agricultural land use, it was dairy farmers who suffered the most serious effects. However, what is remarkable was that the epidemic developed into a crisis affecting more individuals and groups than those involved in that sector. This was not because nobody was prepared for the epidemic; indeed, the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries (now the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality) already had an action plan addressing it. This consisted of a scenario specifying the necessary action, tasks, competencies, and responsibilities of various stakeholders in the event of an epidemic and it was implemented as intended. Moreover, the scenario did what it was supposed to do: it prevented the spread of the disease, eradicated it relatively quickly, and minimised the effect on agricultural exports. Nevertheless, there was in fact a crisis. The epidemic became a crisis because many groups and individuals, including many of the farmers affected, neither understood nor accepted the measures that were imposed by the scenario, in particular the killing of healthy animals. Discussion still continues (see, for example, Cuijpers & Osinga, 2004; RLG/RDA, 2003; LNV, 2003) as to whether healthy animals should be killed during any future FMD epidemic so as to prevent the disease spreading or whether animals should in fact be vaccinated, at least those in zoos or those kept as a hobby animal. The reasons for the controversy will be explained below. 1.1 The production value of land use Something had apparently changed in Dutch society between the action plan being drawn up and its being implemented. According to a taskforce set up by Wageningen University and Research Centre in 2001 to consider the future of Dutch agriculture (Taskforce Waardevolle Landbouw, 2001), the structure of Dutch society in the 1980s and early 1990s permitted an approach to tackling infectious animal diseases such as that set out in the scenario. A decade later, however, the same scenario led to a crisis because it conflicted with the new values that the Dutch associate with the countryside. As in other countries, agriculture in what is now the Netherlands, developed thousands of years ago as an activity involving the whole population. That remained so for a very long time; even with rising urbanisation, a major proportion of the Dutch population continued to be involved in farming and the countryside. Agriculture was the concern of all; everyone understood the importance of agricultural food products for their survival, and towns and the countryside were not separate as they are today (Bieleman, 1992). In the Netherlands, specialisation in a small range of products intended primarily for export began centuries ago (Bieleman, 1992). Specialisation and the focus on exports were boosted after the Second World War by the combined effects of policy, research, expansion, and education. The objective became relatively simple, with land in the Netherlands being used to produce a “value” that enjoyed wide acceptance, namely cheap and abundant food (Frouws & Leroy, 2003; Van der Weele et al., 2003) of high quality (Taskforce Waardevolle Landbouw, 11 2001). Scientific researchers and government authorities were spurred on to support this value by international competition, which demanded continual price reductions and improvements in quality. As a result, supporting values such as institutional and technological control of production processes and products, mass production, and product uniformity became associated with the use of land to produce abundant, cheap, high-quality food (Figure 1). System values production agriculture Low price Food abundance Physical quality Control - technological - institutional System values transition farming Sustainability Food values Metaphysical quality Authenticity & care Naturalness Confidence and transparency Landscape values nature culture history open, silent and quiet accessibility Figure 1. System values of production oriented and transition agriculture (Adapted from Oosting and De Boer, 2002). Moreover, key stakeholders involved in land use – farmers, processing industries (which were mainly exporters), and the Ministry of Agriculture – were unanimous in their attitude to most of the relevant issues. Moreover, this “green front” had a monopoly of knowledge and expertise and a great deal of political influence; the rural population provided the backbone of support for the Christian Democrat parties at the centre of the Dutch political spectrum, parties that have helped form the country’s ruling coalitions for most of the past 50 years. Most Dutch people were proud of the achievements of the country’s food producers and the Netherlands was seen as an example for the rest of the world, indeed as a solution to the evils of starvation and malnutrition in less favoured countries. All in all, land use in the Netherlands was for decades associated with feelings of pride and consensus, feelings expressing themselves in concrete form as a simple objective, namely the production of cheap, abundant, high-quality food products. 1.2 Land use in transition In the relatively prosperous and urbanised societies of Western Europe, food has become something that is taken for granted. Once basic needs were satisfied, higher ones such as social relationships and self-actualisation became increasingly important (this is in line with Maslow’s predictions (1954)). Enjoying the landscape, nature, and culture became important factors in self-actualisation. Recreation, keeping livestock as a hobby, art exhibitions in rural settings, and enjoyment of the beneficial effect on health of a quiet, peaceful, green, and open landscape are just some of the ways people make use of the various non-production functions 12 of the countryside (Van der Ziel, 2003). Some farmers have taken up the challenge of creating a new supply side to meet consumer demand and ecological requirements and there are numerous initiatives in this field (see Van Broekhuizen et al., 1997; Van der Ploeg et al., 2002). They include “agrotourism” and other recreational services, green “social care farms”, regional products, organic production, and a variety of landscape and nature conservation schemes. Such initiatives are often found in combination. Moreover, a growing number of countryside dwellers are not involved in farming and if they do keep livestock it is as a hobby rather than for any economic purpose. As a result of all this, non-production values (referred to in Figure 1 as transition values) were widespread in the areas affected by the FMD outbreak. 1.3 Conflicting values The two sets of values in Figure 1 would seem to conflict because nature and landscape values have fallen victim to rationalised land use. Streams have been straightened, plots of land levelled, and hedgerows removed. Artificial fertilisers, drainage schemes, and irrigation have made agricultural landscapes virtually identical throughout the country, and the excess of nitrogen and phosphorus produced by farms threatens nutrient-poor biotopes and water quality. Moreover, in order to prevent infection, farmers discouraged unnecessary visitors and when people did come into contact with farming or watched it on television, they perceived it as an industrialised activity in which animal welfare standards could not possibly be acceptable. (This was quite apart from reports showing cranes hoisting up animals slaughtered preventively during the FMD epidemic.) Production-oriented farming perceived changes in land use as a threat, while the transition to new types of land use was hampered by the traditional focus on production. Each set of values had its own interest groups: production values were in the interest of export-dependent processing industries, farmers who were economically dependent on those industries, and elements within the veterinary authorities. Societal, transition values, on the other hand, were cherished by the majority of the population. Moreover, both value clusters sometimes co-existed, even within such stakeholder groups as the Ministry of Agriculture, farming organisations, research institutions, and even individual farms, for example where milk production was combined with recreation, social care work, or keeping hobby animals. Values were therefore a matter of conflict both between and within groups of stakeholders; moreover, many groups and individuals did not realise what values were actually behind their behaviour. Values are after all implicit in the way people think and act and not explicit. The Foot and Mouth Disease workshop reported on in this book was intended to make individuals and stakeholder groups aware of the values behind their behaviour and to initiate a dialogue between the different groups on a basis of respect and understanding for the context in which each of them operated. 1.4 The workshop The “Valuable Agriculture” taskforce presented its report Values for a Valuable Agriculture (Naar een WaardeNvolle Landbouw) (Taskforce, 2001) on 11 October 2001, with the following recommendations: 13 Wageningen UR should initiate and facilitate serious discussion of agriculture, recognising that science is not a value-free activity. One’s own values should be made explicit and deployed as a force within the process of change. We also believe that Wageningen should pay much more attention to the way in which change takes place. The task force has considered this, but it is still a virtually unexplored field. Our second recommendation to Wageningen UR has to do with the method referred to as “Sharing knowledge is creating knowledge”. Problems and solutions in agriculture cannot be divided up into scientific disciplines and areas of expertise. Collaboration…is of great importance. Solutions to problems should be sought in collaboration with those concerned, with the various different parties within society. That is the only way to bring about true innovation. One initiative that gives concrete shape to these recommendations at Wageningen UR is that of the Wageningen Workshops. These are study and design workshops at which public debate plays a major role; they deal with specific problems in collaboration with those involved. Wageningen UR organises and supports the workshops with relevant knowledge and expertise. This is by definition an interdisciplinary matter. The topics for the workshops are determined on the basis of public interest. (Quotation from an address by Wijnie van Eck at the presentation of the report to the Executive Board of Wageningen UR on 11 October 2001) After Ms van Eck had given her address, the approximately 130 persons present had the opportunity to propose topics for workshops. Ten topics were put forward and those suggesting them gave a short explanation and reasons. The audience were then asked to decide which two of the ten topics should actually be made the topic of a workshop. Because of a malfunction in the voting equipment, it was not possible to produce a definite result but four topics were clearly favoured. Those proposing them all had the opportunity to implement their proposal. The FMD workshop was one of those proposals. 1.4.1 Overall methodology for the Foot and Mouth Disease workshop The work of organising the Foot and Mouth Disease workshop began approximately one year after the outbreak. Heated discussions were still going on between many of the groups involved, but there was hardly any real dialogue. People keeping animals as a hobby accused the authorities of making a one-sided choice in favour of agricultural producers, while others pointed out that the psychosocial effects had been underestimated and that the aspect of financial settlement was no simple matter. In short, it did not seem a good idea to simply bring together the various different parties. A decision was therefore taken to start interviewing the main stakeholders on an individual basis. The interviews confirmed the enormous differences of opinion between the various parties involved, but they also made clear that they had not acted solely on the basis of their own interests during the epidemic. Each of them had basically acted in a manner which it perceived as being as far as possible in the public interest. It was therefore necessary to establish a methodology for study and analysis that would do justice to the complex nature of the crisis, that would allocate a role to 14 each relevant party and opinion, and that could also be effective during the actual workshop. It was decided to create a problem tree (a core tool in the “Logical Framework Approach”; see www.snvworld.org/ruralDev/rural-development/oopp.htm) and to present it to two workshops, one for those directly involved and the other for researchers. The results are set out below. The Foot and Mouth Disease workshop was one of the ways in which Wageningen UR responded to the Foot and Mouth Disease crisis of 2001. Another was the evaluation carried out by the Social Sciences Group, which reviewed the policy pursued during the outbreak. The study proposes multi-criteria analysis as a tool for use in future decision-making. A summary of this project is given in Chapter 3. References Bieleman, J., 1992 (In Dutch). Geschiedenis van de landbouw in Nederland 1500-1950. (Dutch agricultural history 1500-1950). Boom, Meppel, The Netherlands. Cuijpers, M.P. and K.J. Osinga, 2004. What lessons have we learnt for the future? Position of the Dutch Farmers’ Union LTO-Nederland regarding the future prevention and control of FMD. (www.lto.nl/dossiers/mkz/LTO-OIEcontribution.doc) Frouws, J. and P. Leroy, 2003 (In Dutch). Boeren, burgers en buitenlui. Over nieuwe coalities in het landelijk gebied. (Farmers, citizens and villagers. About new co-allitions in rural areas). Tijdschrift voor sociaalwetenschappelijk onderzoek van de landbouw 18: 90-103. LNV, 2003 (In Dutch). Debat Toekomst Intensieve Veehouderij (Debate future of Intensive Livestock Production). Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food quality, The Hague. Maslov, A., 1954. Motivation and personality. Harper and Row, New York, USA. Oosting, S.J. and I.J.M. de Boer, 2002. Sustainability of organic dairy farming in the Netherlands. In [I. Kyriazakis and G. Zervas, eds.] Organic meat and milk from ruminants, pp. 101-107. EAAP publication 106. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands. RLG/RDA, 2003 (In Dutch). Dierziektebeleid met draagvlak. Advies over de bestrijding van zeer besmettelijke dierziekten. Deel 1 en deel 2. (Infectious animal disease policy with public support). Raad voor het Landelijk Gebied, Amersfoort; Raad voor Dierenaangelegenheden, Den Haag. Taskforce Waardevolle Landbouw, 2001 (In Dutch). Naar een waardeNvolle landbouw. (Towards a valuable agriculture). Wageningen UR, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Van Broekhuizen, R., L. Klep, H. Oostindië and J.D. van der Ploeg, 1997 (In Dutch). Atlas van het vernieuwend platteland. Tweehonderd voorbeelden uit de praktijk. (Atlas of a transforming countryside). Misset uitgeverij bv. Doetinchem, The Netherlands, 240 p. Van der Ploeg, J.D., A. Long and J. Banks, 2002 (Editors). Living countrysides. Elsevier bedrijfsinformatie bv. Doetinchem, The Netherlands, 230 p Van der Weele, C.N., V. Beekman, M.M.M. Overbeek, S.L. Koole and C.W.M. Giesen, 2003 (In Dutch). WAVE (Waarden in vergelijking) (Values in comparison). Rapport 7.03.08. LEI (Institure of Agricultural economics), The Hague, The Netherlands. Ziel, T. van der, 2003 (In Dutch). Verzet en verlangen. De constructie van nieuwe ruraliteiten rond de mkz-crisis en de trek naar het platteland. (Resistance and desire. The construction of new ruralities around the FMD-crisis and the migration to the countryside). PhD-thesis Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands. 15 Chapter 2. The Foot and Mouth Disease workshop: from dialogue to research agenda 2.1 Summary and recommendations 2.1.1 Summary According to the recommendations of the “Valuable Agriculture Taskforce”, Wageningen University should focus more on the social role it can fulfil. The Wageningen Workshops in which scientists and stakeholders analyse problems and formulate solutions are part of this process. This is the report on the Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) Workshop. The FMD epidemic in 2001 became a crisis because insufficient attention was given to the social consequences of the epidemic. The crisis was analysed in the workshop, solutions were formulated and a research agenda for Wageningen University and Research Centre proposed. During this process, social actors have gained more insight and understanding of one another’s points of view. The FMD Workshop process comprised a literature analysis, orientation interviews alternated with two workshops – one for stakeholders and the other for scientists - reporting and reflection by the steering committee. In the stakeholder workshop, a problem analysis was carried out and presented in the form of a problem tree, which shows the factors contributing to the outbreak of the epidemic that evolved into a crisis. Then the stakeholders presented solution pathways on which they considered research should focus. They also indicated criteria that the solution pathways must meet: • Support by society • Technically, process-wise and legally feasible • Cost efficient (financially) • Integrated weighing of the consequences of the solution for different sectors such as nature, recreation, small and medium-sized businesses, agricultural enterprises • Contribution to sustainability • Ethically sound • Cause minimum emotional stress. With these criteria in mind, the stakeholders formulated five solution pathways, in the following order of priority: • A completely new scenario (strategy, procedures and protocol) for dealing with a FMD outbreak (16) • Renewed discussion in the EU framework (12) • A pilot scenario to be tested in one area (7) • Examination of the production chain for processing products from vaccinated animals (7) • Conversion of the deduction system to a penalty system with regard to financial support from government, based on qualifications of farmers. (4) 17 The numbers in brackets indicate the number of votes each of these solution pathways received. The scientists’ workshop resulted in various additions to the problem tree and identified the current focus areas of research on FMD. This clearly indicated those problems not receiving sufficient attention. These ‘weak’ spots were identified as: • • • • • • International framework for policy innovation Future role of the livestock industry in rural development in relation to FMD control Attention to the production chain and consumers and the effect of both on policy Social cost/benefit analysis of the FMD crisis Interaction between scientific disciplines particularly with respect to communication Process of management decision models, conduct and style of action during an outbreak and in the preparation for control measures. The scientists proposed a research agenda for the solution pathways put forward by stakeholders and for one of the “weak” spots identified. The solution pathways proposed by the researchers and discussed by the sounding board group with representatives of business and social organisations were formulated into three recommendations. These recommendations were prepared on the basis of knowledge and recent reports on developments in the livestock industry and on FMD outbreaks in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. 2.1.2 Recommendations 1. Wageningen University and Research Centre takes up the challenge of formulating a research agenda to support knowledge requirements for policy preparation and political decision-making by farmers’ organisations, social organisations and governments. 2. The research agenda recognises the importance of existing research, identifies new areas for research and takes up the challenge of an interdisciplinary approach. The agenda comprises: • Organise or be actively involved in a bottom-up FMD analysis of the context in order to incorporate social changes in a current scenario and to up date this scenario every three years. The opportunity to re-consider FMD free-status in the future must be retained. Research the quality of such interactive processes. • Be actively involved in or organise a pilot study or exercise at local level with the relevant government bodies and social actors, using the lessons learned from the recent crisis. For this purpose, an analysis of the local context is essential in order to be able to call upon local knowledge and expertise. This local knowledge must be tested locally in an exercise to ensure that a national scenario including its procedures and protocols fit the local situation. • Research and evaluate different scenarios for emergency vaccination in managing future outbreaks. Give attention to the veterinary, economic, trade politics and psychosocial consequences of an outbreak. Research the commercial feasibility of local processing of products from FMD-vaccinated animals. Also, research the potential for local standstills and quarantine without the rest of the country losing its FMD-free status with regard to exports. 18 • Carry out epidemiological studies on the transmission and spread of FMD in relation to infrastructure and transport. Stimulate further development of a marker vaccine and rapid diagnostic techniques. • Research the potential for improving the effectiveness of Dutch and European management and policy. Research the potential for different ways of executing FMD policy with regard to different types of enterprises, regions and countries within the European Union. Knowledge is needed about the rural economy of different regions and countries in the European Union, to which control strategies must be adjusted. Research the management process in different EU countries. • Research communication before and during an outbreak and a crisis. The responsibility does not lie entirely with the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Conservation and Food Quality but also with other ministries, social actors and scientists. Communication from the different government bodies has to be attuned. A rapid analysis of the surroundings with a few people who know the area, at the beginning of a pilot study, can help determine and invite the relevant partners at each management level. The role that various communications means (medium, place and time) can play when there is a crisis and no crisis should be determined. • Make a proposal for a EU-funded research project in which the Member States adopt the approach of the FMD Workshop. Use the results to develop a future EU strategy. 3. Centre for Interactive FMD research to carry out an extensive research agenda should be set up. • The centre must operate independently of other science units and be responsive to the WUR Board of Management. This expert centre must organise innovative, interdisciplinary research on FMD and possibly other infectious animal diseases. • Continuity must be ensured in the preparation and implementation of research together with the stakeholders. Contact with this group is essential to ensure the social relevance of research. • The researchers involved in this centre must have, in addition to the subject matter expertise, an active interest in and skills for interactive research, and communication skills for cooperation with other disciplines and with stakeholders. • Contacts must be developed with research centres and other universities. The presence of Wageningen and the effectiveness of an integrated research programme must be strengthened. • MSc students should participate interactively in carrying out the research. 2.1.3 Conclusions The workshop aimed to stimulate dialogue between stakeholders and between stakeholders and scientists in order to achieve a socially responsible research agenda for the Wageningen University. This interaction has successfully led to the formulation of a research agenda. Also, a start has been made on dialogue between the various stakeholders during the workshops but there was only limited dialogue between scientists and stakeholders. The workshop is a first step in stimulating this dialogue and initiating further action from the dialogue. The Taskforce Valuable Agriculture concluded that research with an interactive, interdisciplinary and innovative approach must be stimulated within the Wageningen University and Research Centre. The FMD Workshop has stimulated a new approach to formulating a socially responsible research agenda. 19

Author A. J. Van Der Zijpp, C. H. A. M. Eilers, H. Kieft, and M. J. E. Braker Isbn 9789076998275 File size 2MB Year 2004 Pages 77 Language English File format PDF Category Medicine Book Description: FacebookTwitterGoogle+TumblrDiggMySpaceShare A foot-and-mouth disease outbreak is not by definition a foot-and mouth disease crisis. Why then did the 2001 outbreak result in a crisis situation in the Netherlands? It was not because nobody was prepared for it. The Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and Fisheries had a scenario in stock. The scenario was applied as intended and the scenario did what it was supposed to do; it prevented spreading of the disease; it resulted in a relatively quick eradication of the disease; and it minimized damage to agriculture exports. Nevertheless, the crisis was there. This document reports on a process in which the individuals and groups involved in the crisis participated in a joint analysis of what caused the crisis, and in the making of a policy and research agenda. The conclusion was that ignorance of the societal function of animals and the countryside was the cause of the crisis: the scenario focussed on foot-and-mouth disease control in a production-orientated environment. In reality many people perceived that the scenario and its rigid application as threatening non-production values such as the companion role of animals and the recreational function of the landscape. Inevitably another outbreak of foot-and-mouth will occur. However, research and policy should seriously address this perception of animals and countryside to prevent an outbreak from becoming a serious crisis.     Download (2MB) Addiction: From Biology to Drug Policy Pharmacotherapy in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Textbook Of Animal Science The Sunken Billions Revisited: Progress and Challenges in Global Marine Fisheries Strategies Of Care: Changing Elderly Care In Italy And The Netherlands Load more posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *