ECOLE NATIONALE DES SERVICES VETERINAIRES

N° D’IDENTIFICATION : D2/2002-03/53CONFIDENTIALITE : Diffusion restreinte ENSV et DGAl

ELABORATION D’UN DOCUMENT COMPILANT TOUTES LES INFORMATIONS RELATIVES A L’OBTENTION DU STATUT INDEMNE DE FIEVRE APHTEUSE.

ORGANISME D’ACCUEIL : OIE (Organisation Mondiale de la santé animale)12 rue de Prony75017 Paris

MAITRES DE STAGE : Dr Alejandro Schudel et Dr Jan Boyazoglu

DATES DU STAGE : du 14 avril 2003 au 27 juin 2003

RESUME :

Il est difficile de rassembler l’ensemble des documents relatifs aux procédures, aux normes et aux recommandations en vigueur à l’OIE à propos de la fièvre aphteuse (FA). C’est pourquoi le service scientifique et Technique du Bureau Central de l’OIE a fait appel à un stagiaire pour mettre sur pied un document écrit regroupant ces différents documents. Il est à noter que ce recueil n’est valable que pour 2003 et devrait être légèrement réactualisé tous les ans. En sus de ce document écrit, la stagiaire a établit un projet de site qui vise à faciliter un accès rapide et ciblé aux documents de l’OIE relatifs à la fièvre aphteuse. Le présent rapport contient une description des pièces du rapport ainsi que l’évolution de la politique de l’OIE en matière de fièvre aphteuse entre 2002 et 2003.

DESCRIPTEURS : OIE, fièvre aphteuse, santé animale, international

RAPPORT DE STAGE DE MISE EN RESPONSABILITE (D2)

1

Remerciements

Je remercie le Dr Vallat, de m’avoir permis de faire ce stage aussi enrichissant professionnellement que personnellement.

Je remercie les Dr Schudel et Boyazoglu de m’avoir fait l’honneur d’accepter d’être mes maîtres de stage, et de m’avoir proposé un travail si intéressant.

Je remercie le Dr Dewan Sibartie et Maria Zampaglione de m’avoir accueillis chaleureusement dans leurs bureaux respectifs.

Je présente mes excuses au Service administratif pour le bris de cette vitre.

Je remercie l’ensemble du personnel de l’OIE d’avoir répondu à mes questions tout au long de ce stage.

Je remercie particulièrement le Dr Véronique Bellemain de m’avoir permis de faire ce stage.

2

Elaboration d’un document compilant toutes les informations relatives à l’obtention du statut indemne de fièvre aphteuse.

Table des matières

Partie 1 : Organisation de l’OIE...................................................................................................61. Fonctionnement du Bureau central.......................................................................................6A. Le Bureau central de l’OIE........................................................................................................6B. Les Représentations Régionales (RR)........................................................................................7C. Les publications de l’OIE...........................................................................................................82. Réseau d’expertise et de laboratoires de l’OIE....................................................................8A. Les groupes d’experts.................................................................................................................8B. Le réseau mondial des Laboratoires de référence et des Centres collaborateurs reconnus par l’OIE...............................................................................................................................................113. Modalités de participation des Pays Membres à la prise de décision au sein de l’OIE......11A. Le Comité international et la Session générale........................................................................11B. La Commission administrative.................................................................................................11C. Les Représentations régionales................................................................................................12D. Les Commissions régionales....................................................................................................124. Association aux autres organismes internationaux.............................................................13Part 2: OIE foot and mouth disease free status.........................................................................141. Knowledge of the disease and approach to control and eradication...................................142. Notification of foot and mouth disease..............................................................................153. OIE procedure for Foot and mouth free disease status application....................................164. Questionnaires to obtain FMD free status..........................................................................195. World-wide free status in the Member Countries in may 2003.........................................19Part 3: OIE standards about national health measures related to foot-and-mouth disease. 211. Requirements from the Code Chapters concerning Foot-and-Mouth disease....................21A. Definition of countries status about FMD................................................................................21B. Fresh application of FMD free status.......................................................................................22C. Recovery of FMD free status....................................................................................................22D. Transfer of FMD susceptible animals from an infected zone to a free zone within a country. 24E. International Trade of live susceptible animals and commodities at risk for FMD infection. .24D. Content of the Appendix 3.6.2 about FMD inactivation procedures........................................262. Reference methods for FMD diagnostic and vaccination..................................................27A. OIE scientific and laboratories network...................................................................................27B. Clinical manifestation and diagnostic of foot and mouth disease (Callis, 1996; Fondation Mérieux, 2003; Kitching, 2002; OIE, 2002)..................................................................................28C. Diagnosis techniques recommended by the Manual for FMD.................................................29Part 4: Animals health situation and perspectives regarding to FMD....................................321. Recent outbreaks in OIE Members Countries according to officials OIE reports.............32

3

2. Perspectives for FMD control according to the latest Revue scientifique about FMD published (OIE, 2002)....................................................................................................................32A. In Africa....................................................................................................................................32B. In Americas..............................................................................................................................33C. In Asia and Pacific, and program of the Regional Coordination Unit of the South-East Asia Foot and Mouth Disease Campaign (RCU-SEAFMD)..................................................................33D. In Eastern Europe.....................................................................................................................34Conclusion......................................................................................................................................35L’établissement du document......................................................................................................35Appendix.......................................................................................................................................36Appendix 1: plan of the “OIE guidelines, standards and recommendations of the OIE related to FMD”. 36Appendix 2: list of resolutions related to FMD from 1995 to 2002...............................................37Appendix 3: recapitulative table of the articles of the Code Chapter 2.1.1 giving condition of importation of commodities susceptible to spread the disease.......................................................38Lexique français............................................................................................................................39English index:................................................................................................................................41Bibliographie..................................................................................................................................44

Table des figures

Figure 1: OIE procedure for FMD free status application..............................................................18Figure 2: map of countries or zones recognized Foot-and-Mouth Disease free with or without vaccination on 22 May 2003..........................................................................................................20Figure 3: FMD outbreaks in OIE Members Countries from May 2002 to March 2003................32

Table des tableaux

Table 1: waiting periods for recovery of free status.......................................................................23Table 2: international trade of live susceptible animals................................................................25Table 3: international trade of semen of domestic ruminants and pigs.........................................25Table 4: international trade of embryos of cattle...........................................................................25Table 5: international trade of fresh meat and meat products.......................................................26Table 6: diagnostic tests based on the identification of the agent..................................................29Table 7: serological tests prescribed by OIE for international trade purposes..............................30Table 8: summary of serological tests based on NSPs antibody detection cited in the Manual, section 2.1.1.B.2.d..........................................................................................................................31

4

Introduction

Il est difficile de rassembler l’ensemble des documents relatifs aux procédures, aux normes et aux recommandations en vigueur à l’OIE à propos de la fièvre aphteuse (FA). C’est pourquoi le service scientifique et technique du Bureau Central de l’OIE a fait appel à un stagiaire pour mettre sur pied un document écrit et électronique donnant les «Normes, lignes directrices et principales recommandations de l’OIE en matière de fièvre aphteuse». Il est à noter que ces documents ne sont valables que pour 2003 et devraient être légèrement réactualisé tous les ans. En sus du document écrit (document A), j’ai établit un projet de site qui vise à faciliter un accès rapide et ciblé aux documents de l’OIE relatifs à la fièvre aphteuse. Le rapport décrivant ce site servira à traduire et actualiser cette page (document B). Le présent rapport et le document concernant le site pourront également aider tout stagiaire susceptible faire le même travail. En effet, l’OIE envisage de mettre au point des documents récapitulatifs des normes, lignes directrices et principales recommandations de l’OIE pour toutes les maladies pour lesquelles une procédure d’établissement de statut indemne existe (à savoir la FA, l’ESB, la peste bovine et la PPCB).

Le présent rapport est bilingue car j’ai écrit les parties techniques en anglais pour pouvoir communiquer avec le plus grand nombre de personnes possible à l’OIE. De plus, la première version des documents normatifs provisoires est anglaise. Dans ces circonstances, l’emploi d’une seule langue me permettait d’éviter les erreurs de traduction.

En tant que membres des services vétérinaires, j’étais sensibilisée aux missions de l’OIE et à leur importance. En revanche, l’idée que j’avais de son fonctionnement était assez vague. Dans le présent rapport, je donc vais commencer par décrire le fonctionnement de l’OIE. Ensuite, je décrirai la procédure d’attribution du statut indemne de FA, qui est assez complexe et qui vient de changer. Mon stage a débuté avant la Session Générale, et a terminé après. Or, une grande partie des décisions de l’OIE se prennent pendant cette Session. J’ai donc dû, au cours de l’élaboration de mon rapport, comparer les documents normatifs de 2002 et 2003, puisque je ne savais pas encore ce qui sera validé au cours de la Session Générale. Dans le présent rapport, j’ai tenu à mettre en exergue les différence entre les documents normatifs de 2002 et de 2003, qui sont révélateurs du climat international général concernant la FA. La dernière partie comprend un point sur la situation zoosanitaire mondiale au regard de la fièvre aphteuse en mai 2003, avec un récapitulatif des principales politiques internationales régionales concernant cette maladie.

5

Partie 1 : Organisation de l’OIE.

L’OIE est la seule organisation internationale qui se consacre exclusivement à la lutte contre les maladies animales, y compris à la lutte contre les zoonoses. L’OIE a été créé le 25 janvier 1924 par 28 pays, son siège central était et demeure à Paris. En mai 2003, la dimension internationale de la santé animale n’a pas perdu de son actualité et l’OIE compte 164 Pays Membres. Cet office est en relation permanente avec plus de 20 autres organisations internationales. Sa création est antérieure à celle des Nations unies et l’OIE est resté indépendant par rapport à ce système. Compte tenu du nombre très important de Pays Membres et de l’impartialité que sous-tend son rôle d’organisme normatif, l’OIE est structuré par des textes fondamentaux (disponibles sur le site Web de l’OIE, www.oie.int).

1. Fonctionnement du Bureau central.

A. Le Bureau central de l’OIE.

Le Bureau central de l’OIE se trouve à Paris, dans le XVIIe arrondissement. Selon l’Article 2 des Statuts organiques de l’OIE, «il est indépendant des autorités du pays dans lequel il est placé ». Afin de garantir cette indépendance, le personnel du Bureau central est constitué d’une trentaine de personnes provenant des cinq continents. Selon les textes fondamentaux, les personnes travaillant à l’OIE doivent faire passer les intérêts de l’office avant ceux de leurs pays. Leur origine leur permet de demeurer conscientes des contingences des différentes régions du globe. Outre le Directeur Général, le personnel du Bureau central appartient à deux catégories : les fonctionnaires techniques et les agents nécessaires à la marche de l'office (Article 8 des Statuts Organiques). Les postes de fonctionnaires techniques sont pourvus par des hauts fonctionnaires de santé publique vétérinaire en détachement. Les trois langues officielles de l’OIE sont l’anglais, le français et l’espagnol. Le Bureau central met en œuvre et coordonne les activités d'information, de coopération internationale et de diffusion scientifique décidées par le Comité International (ensemble des délégués des Pays Membres). Le Bureau central de l’OIE assure par ailleurs, le secrétariat de la Session générale, seule réunion annuelle du Comité international, ainsi que le secrétariat des différentes réunions des Commissions et des réunions techniques tenues à l'office. Enfin, il contribue au secrétariat des conférences régionales ou spécialisées.

Le Dr Bernard Vallat, élu lors de la 68e Session générale en mai 2000 pour un mandat de cinq ans, assume les fonctions de Directeur général depuis le 1er janvier 2001. Entre autres taches, le Directeur général nomme les membres de toutes catégories du Bureau central. Ce Bureau compte six services (voir organigramme).

6

Le financement de l’OIE est supervisé par un Comité administratif (voir plus loin). Les dépenses nécessaires au fonctionnement de l'office sont couvertes par les États Membres, dont la contribution est établie suivant six catégories. La première catégorie correspond à 25 unités et la sixième à 3 unités. La valeur des unités est revue tous les ans et votée par le Conseil administratif en mai juste avant la Session générale. A titre d’exemple, la contribution des Etats de catégorie 1 en 2001 s’élevait à 105 250 €. Selon l’Article 11 des Statuts organiques, « Chaque État est libre de choisir la catégorie dans laquelle il désire s'inscrire ». Cependant, les Etats sont incités à choisir une catégorie correspondant réellement à leurs ressources. Devant la difficulté pour certains pays à payer leur contribution, le Conseil administratif a proposé en 2001 une Résolution visant à diviser par deux la somme de la contribution la plus faible pour les 49 Pays les Moins Avancés (PMA) reconnus comme tels par l’ONU.

B. Les Représentations Régionales (RR).

L'OIE a établi des Représentations Régionales pour les régions suivantes: Afrique, Amériques, Asie et Pacifique, Europe de l'Est, Moyen-Orient. L'objectif de ces Représentations est de fournir aux Pays Membres des services adaptés au plan régional afin qu'ils puissent renforcer la surveillance et le contrôle des maladies animales dans leur région. Outre ces Représentations Régionales, une campagne contre la fièvre aphteuse en Asie du sud-est menée par le SEAFMD vise à contrôler cette maladie dans les sept pays concernés de cette région (voir partie 4).

7

Elle est coordonnée par l'OIE  en collaboration avec les administrations nationales et d'autres agences internationales, au travers de l'unité de coordination  de la campagne contre la fièvre aphteuse en Asie du sud-est.

C. Les publications de l’OIE

Les publications de l’OIE sont d’une importance capitale. En effet, elles fournissent l’information zoosanitaire mondiale officielle et donnent des normes ou des références pour l’élaboration de normes régissant de commerce international des animaux et de leurs produits dérivés.

L’OIE publie les normes internationales disponibles en format papier et en format électronique sur le site Web de l’OIE. Ces normes sont confrontées aux progrès scientifiques majeurs et remises à jour fréquemment. Le Code Sanitaire pour les Animaux Terrestres (Code) et le Code Sanitaire pour les Animaux Aquatiques, sont mis à jour tous les ans. Le Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals et le Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Aquatic Animals sont mis à jour tous les quatre ans. Pour l’instant, ces deux manuels n’existent qu’en version anglaise mais il est prévu que la prochaine version du Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals, à sortir début 2004, soit également publiée en français et en espagnol.

L’OIE publie en outre des recueils d’information périodique. Il s’agit des Informations sanitaires, hebdomadaires, du Bulletin, trimestriel. Ces informations émanent des Pays Membres. Il s’agit d’informations officielles.

En outre, l’OIE publie les Revues scientifiques et techniques et des ouvrages thématiques. Un certain nombre de ces publications, y compris les Informations sanitaires sont disponibles en ligne. Toutes les publications de l’OIE sont en vente au service des publications de l’OIE.

Le Code et le Manuel sont modifiés par des Résolutions votées par le Comité international au cours de la Session générale. Le Bureau central assure le secrétariat de la Session générale où se prennent les décisions. Il édite donc les propositions de Résolutions qui seront votées ensuite par les délégués des Pays Membres. Ces propositions s’appuient sur le travail d’experts réunis en groupes de travails et en Commissions ainsi que sur un réseau de laboratoires et de centres de références. Ce dispositif d’expertise permet en outre d’atteindre le second objectif de l’OIE qui est de promouvoir et de coordonner les recherches effectuées sur la surveillance et le contrôle des maladies animales dans le monde.

2. Réseau d’expertise et de laboratoires de l’OIE.

A. Les groupes d’experts.

Il existe trois sortes de groupes d’experts qui travaillent pour l’OIE à l’échelle mondiale. Les Commissions spécialisées et les Groupes de travail ont une mission permanente relatives à des problèmes de santé animale. Les Groupes ad hoc sont sollicités par le Directeur général pour résoudre des problèmes ponctuels.

1. Les Commissions spécialisées.

8

Différentes Commissions spécialisées rassemblent des experts qui étudient les sujets d’épidémiologie et de prophylaxie des maladies animales. Ces Commissions élaborent ou révisent les normes de l'OIE sur la base des informations scientifiques les plus récentes. Elles peuvent être sollicités afin de résoudre des questions à caractère technique ou scientifique, soulevées par les Pays Membres. Les experts des Commissions sont élues par les membres du Comité International pour une période de trois ans. L’OIE compte actuellement quatre Commissions spécialisées comme suit :

La Commission des normes sanitaires pour les animaux terrestres de l’OIE (en abrégé “Commission du Code” ou CNSAT, Code Commission en anglais)Depuis 1960, cette Commission est chargée de mettre à jour le Code. Ce document contient les normes relatives aux échanges internationaux d'animaux terrestres (mammifères, oiseaux et abeilles) et de leurs produits dérivés. Cette Commission est constituée de six membres spécialisés dans la réglementation appliquée à la science vétérinaire et se réunit plusieurs fois par an. Elle sollicite systématiquement l'avis des Délégués des Pays Membres de l'OIE sur les projets qu'elle élabore. Par ailleurs, la Commission du Code exerce ses activités en étroite collaboration avec d’autres Commissions sur des sujets nécessitants l'adoption d'une approche harmonisée. Lors de chaque Session générale, les Délégués des Pays Membres discutent les projets élaborés par la Commission et les adoptent de manière formelle sous forme de Résolutions.

La Commission scientifique pour les maladies animales de l’OIE (en abrégé « commission scientifique » ou CSMA en français, SCAD en anglais)Cette Commission créée en 1946 contribue à identifier les stratégies et les mesures les mieux adaptées pour la protection et la lutte contre les maladies. Elle examine également les dossiers des Pays Membres désirant être inclus dans la liste des pays indemnes de certaines maladies (voir partie II). Son rôle est donc à la fois prénormatif et interprétatif.

La Commission des normes biologiques de l’OIE (en abrégé “Commission des laboratoires” ou CNB en français, OIEBC en anglais)Créée en 1949, la Commission des Normes est chargée de mettre au point ou d’approuver les méthodes permettant de diagnostiquer les maladies des mammifères, des oiseaux et des abeilles et de tester les produits biologiques tels que les vaccins. Elle supervise la production du Manuel des normes pour les tests de diagnostic et les vaccins de l’OIE reconnu par les accords OMC/SPS pour son statut normatif international. Elle sélectionne les Laboratoires de référence de l’OIE pour les maladies des animaux terrestres et encourage la préparation et la distribution de réactifs conformes aux épreuves de diagnostic.

La Commission des normes sanitaires pour les animaux aquatiques de l’OIE (en abrégé “Commission des animaux aquatiques” ou CNSAA).La Commission pour les maladies des poissons date de 1960, elle rassemble les informations relatives aux maladies des poissons, des mollusques et des crustacés, ainsi qu’aux méthodes de lutte à appliquer contre ces maladies. Chargée également de proposer les méthodes de diagnostic et de prévention les mieux adaptées à la sécurité du commerce international et du transfert des animaux aquatiques, la Commission produit deux recueils : le Code sanitaire pour les animaux aquatiques et le Manuel des tests de diagnostic et des vaccins pour les animaux aquatiques. La Commission des animaux aquatiques organise également des réunions scientifiques sur différents sujets importants pour le secteur de l’aquaculture.

2. Les Groupes de travail

9

Les Groupes de travail se réunissent pour faire le point sur les progrès réalisés dans leur domaine de compétence et prendre des initiatives concrètes pour que les Pays Membres de l’OIE puissent bénéficier rapidement de ces progrès à savoir la réalisation d’enquêtes mondiales et la publication de leurs résultats. Les groupes de travail organisent des réunions scientifiques, des séminaires, des ateliers et des cours. Pour l’instant il existe trois Groupes de travail permanents.

Groupe de travail sur les maladies de la faune sauvage.Depuis 1994, ce Groupe de travail informe et conseille l’OIE sur tous les problèmes sanitaires liés aux animaux sauvages, qu’ils vivent en liberté ou en captivité. Il a préparé des recommandations et supervisé de nombreuses publications scientifiques sur la surveillance et la prophylaxie des principales maladies spécifiques des animaux sauvages. Ce Groupe de travail comprend des scientifiques mondialement reconnus.

Groupe de travail sur le bien être animal. C’est le groupe d’experts permanent le plus récent. A l’origine, il s’agissait d’un groupe ad hoc créé sur demande du Directeur général et réunit pour la première fois en avril 2002. En effet, les Pays Membres de l'OIE avaient décidé qu'en tant qu'organisation de référence internationale pour la santé animale et les zoonoses, l'OIE devait devenir l'organisation phare en matière de bien-être animal. Même si ce sujet n'est pas encore couvert par les Accord OMC/SPS, les Pays Membres souhaitent disposer de lignes directrices et de recommandations afin de les aider dans les négociations bilatérales. L’OIE devra prendre en compte les multiples facettes du bien être animal, notamment des dimensions scientifiques, éthiques, économiques et politiques importantes. Elle doit élaborer une analyse détaillée et une stratégie intégrant, de façon équilibrée, ces différentes dimensions. Le Comité international a adopté les recommandations de ce Groupe ad hoc lors de la 70e Session générale. Un Groupe de travail permanent sur le bien-être animal a alors été constitué ; sa première réunion a eu lieu en octobre 2002. Les recommandations du Groupe de travail ont été présentées pour adoption lors de la 71e Session générale de l'OIE en mai 2003. L'OIE organisera une conférence internationale sur le bien-être animal qui se tiendra en février 2004.

Groupe de travail sur la sécurité sanitaire des aliments.Face à la demande croissante des consommateurs en matière d’amélioration de la sécurité sanitaire des aliments, l’OIE a reconnu la nécessité d’étendre ses activités normatives et scientifiques à la « sécurité sanitaire des aliments d’origine animale en phase de production ». Dans le cadre de ce nouveau domaine d'action, l'OIE collaborera avec d’autres organisations compétentes à la réduction des risques de santé publique liés aux aliments du fait de dangers provenant des animaux eux-mêmes avant la première transformation des produits d'origine animale. La définition de danger prise par le Groupe de travail sur la sécurité sanitaire des aliments est celle du Codex alimentarius à savoir « tout agent biologique, chimique ou physique présent dans un aliment pouvant avoir un effet nocif sur la santé » (la définition du danger dans le Code est différente, il s’agit de « tout agent pathogène susceptible de provoquer des effets indésirables à l’occasion de l’importation d’une marchandise »). Ce Groupe de travail était à l’origine un Groupe ad hoc créé en même temps que le Groupe pour le bien-être animal. La première réunion du Groupe de travail sur la sécurité sanitaire des aliments a eu lieu en novembre 2002.

3. Les Groupes ad hoc

Les Groupes ad hoc sont créés ponctuellement sur demande du Directeur Général pour évaluer un problème particulier. Les Groupes ad hoc traitant de sujet pérennes peuvent devenir permanents,

10

comme les Groupes sur le bien-être animal et la sécurité sanitaire des aliments. Il en existe une quinzaine dont le Groupe ad hoc sur l’antibio-résistance, le Groupe ad hoc sur l’influenza aviaire et le Groupe ad hoc sur les rôles des professions para vétérinaires et des vétérinaires privés.

B. Le réseau mondial des Laboratoires de référence et des Centres collaborateurs reconnus par l’OIE.

Ce réseau est constitué de 156 Laboratoires de référence et de 13 Centres collaborateurs. Les 13 centres collaborateurs se trouvent dans 8 pays. Les experts de ces laboratoires participent aux Groupes ad Hoc et aux Groupes de travail ci-dessus. Ils font également partie des Commissions spécialisées (leur rôle est partiellement décrit dans le chapitre sur le Manuel, voir plus loin).

3. Modalités de participation des Pays Membres à la prise de décision au sein de l’OIE.

Les Pays Membres sont représentés à la Commission administrative, au Bureau central, dans les groupes d’experts et les Laboratoires de référence. Les personnes travaillant dans ce cadre, bien que conscients des contingences de leurs pays respectifs, œuvrent pour l’intérêt de l’OIE. En revanche, les membres du Comité international défendent les intérêts des Pays Membres et œuvrent à orienter l’action de l’OIE. En outre, le Comité international est chargé de prendre les décisions qui seront formalisées dans les Manuels et les Codes puis appliquées au niveau international. Les Représentations régionales sont les composantes régionales de l’OIE. En revanche, les Commissions régionales sont constituées de délégués, elles étudient les problèmes spécifiques des Services vétérinaires et organisent la coopération au niveau régional.

A. Le Comité international et la Session générale.

Selon l’Article 6 des Statuts Fondamentaux, « l'Office est placé sous l'autorité et le contrôle d'un Comité International qui est composé de représentants techniques, désignés par les États participants, à raison d'un représentant pour chaque État ». Le Comité International est donc constitué de 164 délégués. Le délégué est un fonctionnaire de haut rang nommé par son gouvernement. Etant donné la nature nécessairement scientifique et technique des thèmes abordés, ce délégué possède généralement une formation vétérinaire et a pleinement conscience des préoccupations de santé animale de son pays. Il s’agit dans la majorité des cas d’un vétérinaire officiel chef des services vétérinaires.

Le Comité International se réunit tous les ans lors de la Session Générale qui dure cinq jours au mois de mai et se tient à Paris. A cette occasion, des Résolutions sont prises par vote. Ces Résolutions seront incluses dans les différents documents normatifs de l’OIE. Seuls les Délégués ont le droit de vote lors de la Session Générale. Une seule voie est attribuée par pays quelle que soit sa taille et son poids économique.

B. La Commission administrative.

La Commission administrative est composée du Président du Comité international, du vice-président, du Président sortant et de six Délégués, tous élus pour un mandat de trois ans (sauf le Président sortant) pendant la Session Générale. Les neuf membres de cette commission doivent être représentatifs des cinq continents. La Commission administrative représente le Comité dans l’intervalle entre les Sessions générales. Elle se réunit deux fois par an pour examiner, en

11

consultation avec le Directeur général, les questions techniques et administratives, notamment le programme d’activité et le projet de budget qui seront soumis au Comité international.

C. Les Représentations régionales.

Cinq Représentations régionales (RR) ont été créées par l’OIE pour étudier les problèmes spécifiques des Services vétérinaires et organiser la coopération au niveau régional des cinq régions du monde définies comme suit :

Afrique Amériques Asie,  Extrême-Orient et OcéanieEurope Moyen-Orient

Les Pays Membres de ces Représentations Régionales ne sont pas nécessairement des pays de la zone. Il peut s’agir de pays qui ont des intérêts commerciaux avec la zone. Un Pays peut appartenir à plusieurs RR, c’est le cas de Chypre, par exemple.

Les Mandat et Règlement relatifs aux Représentations régionales de l'OIE ont été définis par la Résolution XIX de la 63eme Session Générales en 1995. Les Représentations régionales de l'OIE pour les Amériques et pour le Moyen Orient ont été officialisées au cours de la Session Générale de 1997. La Représentation régionale pour l’Afrique a été officialisée en 1999. Le personnel de ces Représentations régionales est nommé par le directeur général mais leur budget est indépendant de celui du Bureau central.

D. Les Commissions régionales.

Les membres des Commissions régionales sont des délégués de la région élus par les délégués de la Commission régionale. Les Bureaux de ces Commissions, constitués de trois membres (Président, Vice-Présidents et Secrétaire général) ont été renouvelés, pour un mandat de trois ans, en mai 2003.

Chaque Commission régionale organise en moyenne tous les deux ans, dans l’un des pays de la région, une conférence consacrée à des thèmes techniques et à la coopération régionale pour la lutte contre les maladies animales. Les programmes régionaux sont mis en place pour renforcer la surveillance et le contrôle des maladies les plus importantes, notamment dans les régions où l'OIE a établi des représentations régionales. Les Commissions régionales rendent compte de leurs activités au Comité, auquel elles peuvent également soumettre des recommandations.

12

La diapositive suivante résume le fonctionnement de l’OIE, elle est présente sur le site Web de l’OIE.

4

COMITÉ INTERNATIONALCommission Administrative

Commissions spécialiséesCode, Normes, Poissons,

Fièvre aphteuse

Commissions régionalesAfrique, Amériques, Europe, Asie-

Extrême-Orient et Océanie, Moyen-Orient

Bureau Central

Directeur général

Service desActions Régionales

ServiceAdministratifet Financier

Service del’Information

Sanitaire

Service Scientifiqueet Technique

Service duCommerce

International

CentresCollaborateurs

Laboratoiresde Référence

Groupes ad hoc

Groupes detravail

Représentations Régionales

Service desPublications

4. Association aux autres organismes internationaux

L’OIE est donc associé à l’OMC en tant qu’organisme de référence dans les accords OMC/SPS concernant les règles sanitaires pour les échanges internationaux des animaux et de leurs produits. Cette association a été officialisée par un premier accord signé en 1996 au cours de la Session générale. Lors de la conférence interministérielle de l’OMC à Doha en novembre 2001, L'OIE s’est associée à la FAO, à l’OMS, à la Banque Mondiale, à l’OMC et à l’ONU pour l’Alimentation pour signer une déclaration commune. En août 2002, cette déclaration a donné le jour à un nouveau dispositif pour l’élaboration des normes et le développement du commerce, le STDF.

Afin de renforcer la cohérence entre les mesures internationales et régionales, l’OIE a signé des accords avec un certain nombre d’organisme régionaux à vocation sanitaire, à savoir l’Office international régional contre les maladies des plantes et des animaux (en 1999), le Secrétariat général de la Communauté du Pacifique (1999), l'Organisation panaméricaine de la santé (2000), l’Organisation de l’unité africaine/Bureau interafricain des ressources animales ou OAU/IBAR (2002) et la Communauté pour le développement de l’Afrique australe (2003).

L’OIE a également signé des accords de coopération avec certains organismes internationaux professionnels comme l’Association Mondiale Vétérinaire (2002), CAB international (2002), la fédération internationale de la santé animale ou IFAH (2002), la Commission économique du bétail, de la viande et des ressources halieutiques (2003), la Fédération Equestre Internationale (2003) et la Fédération Internationale de Laiterie (2003). Ces partenaires sont tous concernés par la santé animale.

13

Part 2: OIE foot and mouth disease free status

During my training period, I worked upon the “Standards, guidelines and recommendations of the OIE related to FMD1”. This document will be published to help Members Countries to follow up the recommendations of OIE in order to obtain a status of FMD free country or zone with or without vaccination. The first aim of this report is to sum up some characteristic of the disease and explain some documents included (appendix 1 and 2 and document A) in order to help the understanding of the condition for application of free status.

“International trade in animals and animal products depends on a combination of factors which should be taken into account to ensure unimpeded trade, without incurring unacceptable risks to human and animal health. Because of the likely variations in animal health situations, various options are offered by the Terrestrial Animal Health Code 2003 (the Code). The animal health situation in the exporting country, in the transit country or countries and in the importing country should be considered before determining the requirements which have to be met for trade. To maximise harmonisation of the sanitary aspects of international trade, Veterinary Administrations of Member Countries should base their import requirements on the OIE standards, guidelines and recommendations”(Code 2003, Chapter 1.2.1.1.).

The OIE standards about national health measures related to FMD are detailed in the Code and the Manual. This document is developed by the Code Commission made up of expert elected by the OIE International Committee. A revised version of the Code is published every year and is currently available on the World Wide Web. An analysis of both scientific and juridical approach of this Code is made here.

1. Knowledge of the disease and approach to control and eradication

The causative agent of FMD is a virus of the family Picornaviridae, genus Aphthovirus. It is a positive RNA simple segment non-enveloped virus. RNA viruses are quite variable and this leads to an antigenic pluralism. Seven immunologically distinct serotypes exist: A, O, C, SAT1, SAT2, SAT3 and Asia1. Infection by one serotype does not confer immunity against another. This point is important because vaccination against one serotype does no more confer immunity against other serotypes. Thus, Member Countries who want to apply preventive vaccination should base the choice of the vaccine strain on risk analysis for FMD. Non enveloped viruses are resistant to physical and chemical treatments and lypolitic agents are inefficient to destroy them. The available ways to inactive FMD virus are explained in the Code appendix 3.6.2.

FMD virus hosts include the Bovidae (cattle, zebus, domestic buffaloes, yaks), sheep, goats, swine, all wild ruminants and Suidae. The Camelidae (camels, dromedaries, lamas, vicunas) have low susceptibility (OIE Web site). The Code uses the term of “FMD susceptible animals” which is not defined. I would personally understand this term like the entire list above, and then this list would have to be actualised if a new host is discovered.

Sources of virus are incubating and clinically affected animals. Subclinically infected animals may be highly contagious. The contagiousness of carrier animals remains unclear. There is no

1 Foot and mouth disease

14

OIE definition of carriers, nor scientific consensus, but this word can be found in the appendix 3.8.6. of the Code 2003 (that is to say the “preliminary guidelines for the establishment or the regaining for a foot and mouth disease free country or zone”) and in the Manual.

In this chapter, carriers animals are defined as convalescent animals and exposed vaccinated cattle or water buffalo. Several controlled experiments were unable to show that carriers are able to initiate the disease (Sutmoller P. and Casas Olascoalga R., 2002). Furthermore, all secretions are infectious, that is to say breath, saliva, faeces, urine, milk and semen (up to 4 days before clinical signs). Meat and by-products from infected animals in which the pH has remained above 6.0 are infectious. The virus persists in the oropharynx for up to 30 months in cattle, longer in buffalo and 9 months in sheep.

The virus can be transmitted very easily by direct or indirect contact (droplets), animate vectors (humans, etc.), inanimate vectors (vehicles, implements), even by air in temperate zones. The strain of virus and species of infected animals are major determinants of airborne virus emission. Pigs emit more virus, cattle and sheep lesser. The probability of aerogenious infection differs greatly between livestock species. Cattle are more susceptible, followed by sheep, whereas pigs are more resistant (Donaldson A.I. and Alexander S., 2002).

The basis of any policy to control FMD is to limit access of the virus to FMD-susceptible animals. The methods of control depend upon the prevalence of the disease in particular zones, geographical considerations, and the desire to eradicate or simply control. Stamping out policy, emergency vaccination and serological surveillance can be used. Zoosanitary measures have to take into account the resistance of the picornaviridae. As said before, this virus can be indirectly transmitted, that lead to very drastic restriction of movement in infected zones. Because of antigenic variability, the outbreak strain of the FMD virus has to be known in order to manage the vaccination. For example, in Southern Africa, six of the seven serotypes of FMD virus are prevalent: SAT1, SAT2, SAT3, A, O, and C. Each of the serotypes (with the possible exception of C) have a different lineage with more or less defined distribution that in some cases are sufficient immunologically different from another to require specific vaccine to ensure efficient control (Vosloo and al, 2002).

FMD virus is very sensitive in animal products. The virus can be preserved by refrigeration and freezing and can be inactivated by temperatures above 50°C or pH <6 or >9. Thus, it can be inactivated in fresh meat. For disinfection, the FMD virus can be inactivated by the chemical action of sodium hydroxide (2%), sodium carbonate (4%), and citric acid (0.2%) (Code appendix 3.6.2). It is resistant to iodophores, quaternary ammonium compounds, hypoclorite and phenol, especially in the presence of organic matter.

2. Notification of foot and mouth disease

The first mission of OIE is to guarantee the transparency of animal disease status world-wide. The role of OIE and Members countries in transparency zoosanitary information is based on the harmonisation of trade of animals and animal products described in the Code. The first Code was approved by the OIE international committee, made up of the chief Veterinary officers of the member countries, in 1968.

OIE uses official information from the countries. The delegate of each Member Country undertakes to report the animal diseases that it detected on its territory. The OIE then

15

disseminates the information to other countries, which can take the necessary preventive action. Information is sent out immediately or periodically depending on the seriousness of the disease. Dissemination is via the OIE Web site, e-mail and the following periodicals: Disease Information, published weekly, the OIE Bulletin published every three months and the annual compilation World Animal Health. This transparency is fundamental to ensure the fluidity of these exchanges without resulting unacceptable risks for the public health and animal health (Chapter 1.2.1. of the Code).

Notification means the procedure by which the Veterinary Administration informs the Central Bureau, which informs the others Veterinary Administrations, of the suspicion or confirmation of an outbreak of disease. The notification and epidemiological information that Members countries have to send to OIE are explained in the Code chapter 1.1.3. This procedure must be followed in the event of new observation having linked with a disease of the List A. FMD is one of the most contagious animal diseases, with important economic losses, that’s why it is the first disease of List A.

3. OIE procedure for Foot and mouth free disease status application

In case of FMD, losses arise from the direct effects of the disease on production, coast of disease control and restriction of trade. Direct effects are of greatest importance in dairy and pig production systems. Cost of disease control, whether by stamping-out policy or vaccination are high. Thus, since the 1990’s, the OIE has been given by the member countries the responsibility of compiling a list of countries or zones that are officially recognised as free from certain disease. In May 1995, a new procedure was adopted by the International Committee (resolution XI of the 63rd General Session). This procedure permitted to the OIE to examine dossiers submitted by the Delegates of the Member States in support of a claim that their country or zones within their country could be considered as free of FMD, with or without vaccination in accordance with the provisions of chapter 2.1.1 of the Code. Due to its significance for international trade, FMD was the first disease chosen.

In the following figure, we can see that the procedure for recovery of a free status is less restricting that for a fresh application. Statutory, the decision for recognition is made by the Scientific Commission for Animal Diseases (SCAD) whereas the decision for a fresh application is made by the International Committee. With the resolution XXI, the International Committee agreed on 20 May 2003 that the SCAD could recognise a free zone in an infected country during an FMD emergency. On the opposite, the decision for fresh application can be made only if the Member Countries had reviewed the documents related to the application for 60 days before the meting of International Committee. The SCAD meets at least twice a year whereas the International Committee meets only one time a year at the General Session. Consequently, the reach of a free status in case of fresh application is longer. When it is possible, Members Countries prefers ask for recognition of a free status. The stakes are very important because a country which has lost his status loses a lot of money.

The Code chapter 2.1.1 on FMD makes provisions for countries or zones to apply for inclusion in the category of internationally recognised FMD free with or without vaccination. Maintaining recognition of FMD free status is subject to continual observation of the OIE’s rules and regulation and the declaration of any significant event likely to modify such status. FMD free status is immediately suspended if an outbreak of FMD is notified to the OIE. It is based on the following principles:

16

The procedure is entirely voluntary It may involve the entire country or only zones The country sends its proposals to the Director General of OIE, accompanied with a comprehensive report based on the model proposed by the questionnaire. Experts of an Ad Hoc Groups and of the SCAD examines the proposal. They can support a country if they are convinced that the application is well founded. Otherwise, it can decide to not support the proposal, that clarification or additional information is needed or that the visit of a group of experts is necessary. In case of the suspension of free status after an outbreak of FMD has occurred, if the a country is able to eradicate the disease under conditions defined by the Code, the FMD free status can be recognised again by the SCAD without waiting for the next General Session (Resolution No XII adopted in May 1997). The same procedure can be used by a country which has just lost its status and asks for a FMD free zone application during an FMD emergency (Resolution XXI adopted in May 2003). The countries included in the lists of FMD free countries or zones have to send a letter to OIE the following year to declare that they had not outbreak of FMD since the declaration of their freedom. In case of fresh application, the Director General informs all OIE Members Countries of the SCAD support for the proposal. They have 60 days in which to obtain and evaluate any information submitted by the applicant country, and to inform the OIE in writing of any objections they may have, based on scientific and technical grounds. The OIE Central Bureau and the SCAD then examine any objections received and decides whether or not to accept them.

Each year, during its General Session, the International Committee adopts, by way of Resolution, the list of freshly recognised FMD free countries and zones based on proposals formulated by the SCAD.

17

Figure 1: OIE procedure for FMD free status application.

18

4. Questionnaires to obtain FMD free status

A country who wants to obtain a free status has to send to OIE a report. The constitution of this report can be facilitated by an OIE questionnaire. They aims to help the countries to document the evidence that they have reached the OIE requirements to obtain the status of FMD free country or zone where vaccination is or not practised. In order to facilitate and thus accelerate the OIE Central Bureau work, the report should be filed up in one of the three official languages of OIE and the appendixes written in another language have to contain a resume in one of the three official languages of OIE.

During my training period, I made a new questionnaire, based on epidemiology and risk analysis. In this questionnaire, I add questions about transhumance, which is a real problem in northern Africa. This problem had been evoked during the General Session and will be the subject of the next symposium of African Regional Commission. I add questions about boundaries of countries and zones, asking cards in an electronic because the problems of boundaries can be the main obstacle to FMD freedom achievement in some countries. Moreover, OIE is trying to build maps about FMD status and FMD outbreaks, and thus needs precise definitions of boundaries of countries and zones.

There are four questionnaires : for the application of free status in a country without vaccination, application of free status in a country with application, application of free status in a zone without vaccination and application of free status in a zone with application. These questionnaires are based on the Code chapters. The first part is for a country or zone which asks for a fresh application. The third part of the questionnaire can be used for recognition of freedom after an outbreak. The case of recovery was not taken into account in the previous questionnaire.

5. World-wide free status in the Member Countries in may 2003.

In the resolution XX adopted the 20 May 2003 the International Committee approved the FMD free status of countries or zones applying for fresh application. In application of Article 2.1.1.2 of the Code, 57 countries have been declared FMD free without vaccination. FMD free zones without vaccination have been approved in five countries in accordance with Article 2.1.1.4 of the Code and three countries obtained FMD free zones with vaccination in accordance with Article 2.1.1.5 of the Code.The SCAD gave its decisions about FMD recovery of FMD free status on 22 May 2003 in accordance with article 2.1.1.7 of the Code. Taipei China and Uruguay obtained the status of FMD free countries with vaccination using this procedure. The northern zone of Argentine was approved to be recognised as FMD free without vaccination on 7 July 2003 provided that they have no FMD outbreak until this date.

19

Figure 2: map of countries or zones recognized Foot-and-Mouth Disease free with or without vaccination on 22 May 2003.

Legend

Since the countries of South America signed the Hemispheric Plan for the eradication of Foot-and-Mouth disease (PHEFA) in 1987, the clinical cases of FMD have decreased significantly throughout the continent. However, in the spring of 2001, FMD reappeared in certain countries of the Southern Cone. The disease reappeared in Argentina, Uruguay and the State of Rio Grande do Sul in Brazil, calling into question the basic premises of PHEFA, that countries of South America can achieve and maintain FMD free status (Correa E. and al, 2002).

In Africa, only two islands are FMD free (Mauritius and Madagascar) and two others countries managed to define free zones without vaccination (South Africa and Namibia).

FMD free Country without vaccination

Country with a FMD free zone without vaccinationCountry with a FMD free zone with vaccination Countries without an official OIE status for FMD

FMD free Country with vaccination

20

Part 3: OIE standards about national health measures related to foot-and-mouth disease

1. Requirements from the Code Chapters concerning Foot-and-Mouth disease

The Code is the basis of application for freedom for FMD, Rinderpest, PPCB and ESB. It is a legal document and SPS agreements used for international trade are based upon this document. The Code Chapter 2.1.1 about FMD, which can be consulted on the OIE web site (www.OIE.int), was completely revised between 1990 and 1997 and amended in May 2003, ensuring that it in line with the latest knowledge about the disease. As with any other standards, the content of this chapter are not fixed once and for all but must keep pace with advances in scientific and technical recent knowledge.In the Code, incubation period for FMD is 14 days and ruminant include animals of the family of Camelidae. The Code’s general definition of a case changed in May 2003. Instead of “an individual animal affected by any infectious or parasitic disease”, a case became “an individual animal infected a pathogenic agent listed by the OIE” (Article 1.1.1.1). For the purpose of the Code Chapter 2.1.1., a case of FMD was already dealing with FMD virus infection but since May 2003 it is clearly defined as “an animal infected with FMD virus”. In this chapter, I will not detail the entire requirement but tell where they can be found in the Code and expose changing proposed by the OIE and accepted by the International Committee in May 2003.

A. Definition of countries status about FMD

OIE defined 4 free status about FMD; a country will be included in the list after submitted evidence has been accepted by the OIE. The specific conditions are in the Articles as follows:

FMD free country where vaccination is not practised (Article 2.1.1.2)FMD free country where vaccination is practised (Article 2.1.1.3)FMD free zone where vaccination is not practised (Article 2.1.1.4)FMD free zone where vaccination is practised (Article 2.1.1.5)

A zone is defined in the Code as “a clearly defined part of the territory of a country with a distinct animal health status” (Article 1.1.1). The FMD free zones without vaccination can be established in an FMD free country where vaccination is practised, both FMD free zones (with or without vaccination) can be established in a country of which parts are still infected. In all cases, the country has to supply documented evidence that an effective system of surveillance for both FMD and FMD virus infection is in operation. The main innovation in these chapters is that the documented evidence the exporting countries have to supply must be in accordance with the Appendix 3.8.6. of the Code 2003 (that is to say the “preliminary guidelines for the establishment or the regaining for a foot and mouth disease free country or zone”). This Appendix aims to provide guidelines in order to work out a solid FMD scientific surveillance programme responding to society requests providing solid harmonized epidemiological bases to build this programme. It is largely evoked in major articles of the Code 2003 (2.1.1.2. to 2.1.1.5 and 2.1.1.7). For the first time, the Code contains a “preliminary” chapter because these guidelines are very difficult to build.

21

A free country or zone has reached the conditions of the Code chapters and has been approved following OIE procedure described above.

On the opposite, an FMD infected country/zone is a country/zone that does not fulfil the requirements to qualify as either an FMD free country/zone where vaccination is not practised or an FMD free country/zone where vaccination is practised (Article 2.1.1.6).

B. Fresh application of FMD free status

The Articles 2.1.1.2 to 2.1.1.5. define the various FMD free status as above. The Article 2.1.1.6 defines an infected country or zone. Some of the conditions that countries must reach to obtain FMD free status are common to all the status. The first part of the questionnaires is based upon these conditions. Namely, countries should: Supply documented evidence that regulatory measures of both FMD and FMD infection have been implemented; Have a record of prompt animal disease reporting; Have demonstrated that an effective system of surveillance is in operation (in the entire country or in the free zones, as appropriate); Have demonstrated that all regulatory measures for the prevention and control of FMD have been implemented; In case of application of free status with vaccination, use of a vaccine in compliance with OIE standard.

When a country asks for a FMD free zone, it has to supply evidence of implementing and supervising of regulatory measures of both FMD and FMD infection and to describe in details: The boundaries of the FMD free zones and the buffer/surveillance zone if it does exist; The system in place for preventing the entry of the virus into the FMD free zone (providing the proof that this system is implemented and supervised).

To obtain one of the FMD free status, a country has to exceed the following delays:

FMD free country/zone where vaccination is not practised

No outbreak for the past 12 monthsNo evidence of FMD infection for the past 12 monthsNo vaccination for at least 12 monthsNo importation/introduction of vaccinated animals since the cessation of vaccination

FMD free country/zone where vaccination is practised

No outbreak for the past 2 yearsNo evidence of FMD infection for the past 12 months

C. Recovery of FMD free status

The term “recognition” is not clearly defined in the Code. It can be understood like the recovery of the same status than before or by the recovery of another free status. The demand of a less restrictive status than before had ever been considered as a recovery by the SCAD in case of zones. For example, the procedure of recognition may be applicable to a country which was free without vaccination and which demand the free status with vaccination after an outbreak.

22

In Article 2.1.1.5 the inverted situation is envisaged. “If a country that has an FMD free zone where vaccination is practised wishes to change the status of the zone to FMD free zone where vaccination is not practised, a waiting period of 12 months after vaccination has ceased or 12 months after the last outbreak, whichever is later, is required and evidence must be provided showing that FMDV infection has not occurred in the said zone during that period.”

In the Article 2.1.1.7 of the Code 2002, a country or zone which have lots its status due to an outbreak of the disease, could ask for the recovery of the free status within two year after the occurrence of the first FMD outbreak or the first detection of FMDV infection. In the Code 2003, this period had been removed. Moreover, a country can now ask for recognition of a FMD free zone during an FMD emergency in application of resolution XXI of the 71 st General Session. A country can regain its status after waiting periods (Article 2.1.1.7.) depending on the policy applied. In the following table we can see that the waiting period without stamping out policy is 18 months. With the precedent delay of two years for recognition demand, it should have been difficult for a country not using stamping out policy to ask for recognition of free status within two years.

Except the definition of free period, the items above have been raised by the SCAD during its meeting in May 2003. This Commission have to interpret the Chapter 2.1.1.7 until it’s modified.

Table 1: waiting periods for recovery of free status.

Status Policy applied Waiting period Period left to eliminate the outbreak

According to the Code 2002 Chapter 2.1.1.7.FMD free country or zone where vaccination is not practised

Stamping out policySerological surveillance

3 month after the last case 21 months

Stamping out policyEmergency vaccinationSerological surveillance

3 month after the slaughter of the last vaccinated animal

21 months

Stamping out policyEmergency vaccination not followed by the slaughtering of vaccinated animalsSerological surveillance Serological survey based on NSPs *

6 months after the last case or the last vaccination (according to the latest event)

18 months

FMD free country or zone where vaccination is practised

Stamping out policyEmergency vaccinationEffective surveillanceSerological survey based on NSPs *

6 months after the last case 18 months

Stamping-out policy Effective surveillance demonstrating the absence of clinical cases

12 months after the last case 12 months

According to the Code 2003 Chapter 2.1.1.7.FMD free country or zone where vaccination is not practised

Stamping out policy Serological surveillance**

3 month after the last case No delay

Stamping out policyEmergency vaccination Serological surveillance**

3 month after the slaughter of all vaccinated animal

No delay

Stamping out policyEmergency vaccination not followed by the slaughtering of vaccinated animals Serological surveillance**Serological survey based on NSPs *

6 months after the last case or the last vaccination (according to the latest event)

No delay

23

FMD free country or zone where vaccination is practised

Stamping out policyEmergency vaccination Serological surveillance**Serological survey based on NSPs *

6 months after the last case No delay

Stamping-out policy Surveillance demonstrating the absence of clinical cases

12 months after the last case No delay

Emergency vaccination Serological surveillance **Serological survey based on NSPs *

18 months after the last case No delay

* Provided that a serological survey based on the detection of antibodies to NSPs of FMDV demonstrates the absence of infection in the vaccinated population** In accordance with appendix 3.8.6. under study (surveillance guideline)

D. Transfer of FMD susceptible animals from an infected zone to a free zone within a country.

Article 2.1.1.8 explains how FMD susceptible animals can be moved from an infected zone to a free zone within a country. “Live animals from susceptible species can only leave the infected zone if moved by mechanical transport to the nearest designated abattoir located in the buffer zone or the surveillance zone for immediate slaughter. In the absence of an abattoir in these zones, live FMD susceptible animals can be transported to the nearest abattoir in a free zone for immediate slaughter” only under restrictive conditions. Animals moved into a free zone for other purposes must be moved under the supervision of the Veterinary Authority and comply with the conditions in Article 2.1.1.11.

Article 2.1.1.9 of the Code 2002 has been removed. It provided a precise list of the commodities from the infected countries that could spread the FMD virus and considered that “other commodities should not be considered as not having the potential to spread FMD infection when they are to subject of international trade”. Now the Veterinary Administration might evaluate whether the commodities are susceptible to spread FMD virus or not, that is more adapted to risk analysis approach promoted by OIE.

E. International Trade of live susceptible animals and commodities at risk for FMD infection

The following products can contain FMD virus: seed of bulls, rams, oats and boars; ovules and embryos of ruminants and porcine; meat and meat products, lacteous milk and products (CALLIS J.J., 1996).

Articles 2.1.1.9 to 2.1.1.30 detail the guarantees that should be included in the international veterinary certificates, depending on the type of live animal or animal products and the health status of their state of origin regarding to FMD (the articles of the Chapter 2.1.1. of the Code 2003 about animal products are recapitulated in appendix 3). For all the products he deals with, OIE is more requiring when they are from free countries/zone with vaccination or from infected country/zone who want to export to free countries or zones without vaccination.

24

Live susceptible animals

Table 2: international trade of live susceptible animals

Status of the exporting country Animals ArticleFree country/zone without vaccination FMD susceptible animals 2.1.1.9Free country/zone with vaccination Domestic ruminants and pigs 2.1.1.10Infected country/zone Domestic ruminants and pigs 2.1.1.11

Those articles didn’t change.

Domestic ruminants and pigs

In all cases semen has to be collected, processed and stored in conformity with the provision of either appendix 3.2.1 or 3.2.3 of the Code. Appendix 3.2.1 deals with bovine semen and Appendix 3.2.3 with porcine semen. It can be noticed that articles 2.1.1.13 to 2.1.1.16 deals with semen of domestic ruminants and pigs but they don’t evoke Appendix 3.1.2 which give the guidelines for small ruminants semen.

Table 3: international trade of semen of domestic ruminants and pigs

Status of the exporting country Product ArticleFree country/zone without vaccination Fresh semen of domestic ruminants and pigs 2.1.1.12Free country/zone without vaccination Frozen semen of domestic ruminants and pigs 2.1.1.13Free country/zone with vaccination Semen of domestic ruminants and pigs 2.1.1.14Infected country Semen of domestic ruminants and pigs 2.1.1.15

Embryos of cattle

Table 4: international trade of embryos of cattle

Status of the exporting country Product ArticleIrrespective In vivo derived embryos of cattle 2.1.1.16Free country/zone without vaccination In vitro produced embryos of cattle 2.1.1.17Free country/zone with vaccination In vitro produced embryos of cattle 2.1.1.18

In Article 2.1.1.17, in vivo derived embryos are recommended to be collected, processed and stored in conformity with the provision of either appendix 3.3.1, or 3.3.9, as relevant. The Article 3.3.1 deals with bovine and embryo ova, the Article 3.3.9. with micromanipulated bovine embryos.In articles 2.1.1.19 and 2.1.1.20, in vitro produced embryos of cattle are recommended to be collected, processed and stored in conformity with the provision of either appendix 3.3.8, or 3.3.9, as relevant. The Article 3.3.8 deals with in vitro fertilised bovine embryos and in vitro maturing oocytes. For the in vitro embryos production, semen has to meet the conditions referred in Articles 2.1.1.14 to 2.1.1.16 above.The Article 2.1.1.17 had been modified and the Article 2.1.1.18 removed in order to simplify the international trade of in vivo derived embryos of cattle. The requirements for these products are now the same whatever the exporting country status. These amendments are in accordance with advances in scientific knowledge. The international trade of in vitro produced embryos from infected countries or zones is not taken up in the Code.

25

In the Articles above, the terms in vitro and in vivo are in italic but they are not defined in the Code Chapter 1.1.1.

Fresh meat and meat products

Table 5: international trade of fresh meat and meat products

Status of the exporting country Product ArticleFree country/zone without vaccination Fresh meat of FMD susceptible animals 2.1.1.19Free country/zone with vaccination Fresh meat of bovines (excluding feet, head

and viscera)2.1.1.20

Free country/zone with vaccination Fresh meat of pigs and ruminants other than bovines

2.1.1.21

Infected country/zones where an official control program exists

Fresh meat of bovines (excluding feet, head and viscera)

2.1.1.22

Infected countries/zones Meat product of domestic ruminant and pig 2.1.1.23

The requirements when importing from FMD free country or zones have been simplified in 2003 (by amendments in Articles 2.1.1.22 to 2.1.1.23.). Now, fresh meat from free countries or zones can come from animals kept in the country or zone or from animals imported in accordance with articles 2.1.1.10 to 2.1.1.12 above. Moreover, by amendment on Article 2.1.1.22, free countries or zones where vaccination is practised don’t need to debone and treat carcasses to export fresh meat of bovines.

Milk and milk products

The current Article 2.1.1.24 explains which requirement should be met to import milk and milk products intended for human consumption and for products of animal origin (from FMD susceptible animals) intended for use in animal feeding or for agricultural or industrial use from free countries/zone.

The current Article 2.1.1.25 deals with importation of milk, cream, milk powder and milk products from FMD infected countries or zones where an official control programme exists. Removing the Article 2.1.1.28 of the Code 2002, OIE no more supports importing of milk powder or milk products from infected countries or zone where there is no official control programme against FMD.

Any other business

Requirements for importation from FMD infected countries for blood and meat-meals and wool, hair, bristles, raw hides and skins (from domestic or wild ruminants and pigs) are detailed in Article 2.1.1.26 and 2.1.1.27. Requirements for importation from FMD infected countries or zones of straw and forage are described in Articles 2.1.1.28.

Articles 2.1.1.29 and 2.1.1.30 deals with importation of skins and trophies derived from wild animals susceptible to FMD.

26

D. Content of the Appendix 3.6.2 about FMD inactivation procedures.

The Code allows for the importation of the commodities mentioned in the Chapter 2.1.1. (see table above), even from countries or zones infected with the disease, subjects to certain conditions for destroying the virus, as described in the Chapter 2.1.1. and in the Appendix 3.6.2. The Appendix 3.6.2. provides FMD virus inactivation procedure for:

Meat in Article 3.2.2.1; Wool and hair in Article 3.2.2.1; Bristles in Article 3.2.2.3; Raw hides and skins in Article 3.2.2.4; Milk and cream for human consumption in Article 3.2.2.5; Milk for animal consumption in Article 3.2.2.6; Skins and trophies derived from wild animals susceptible to FMD in Article 3.2.2.7.

2. Reference methods for FMD diagnostic and vaccination.

The methods and tests of reference agreed by OIE are published in the Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals. The purpose of the Manual is to contribute to the international harmonisation of methods for the surveillance and control of the most important animal diseases. Standards are described for laboratory diagnostic tests and the production and control of biological products (principally vaccines) for veterinary use across the globe. Each chapter of the Manual has been written and reviewed by experts of international standing and has been approved by OIE Member Countries. The diagnostic tests and protocols are those referred to in the Code.

A. OIE scientific and laboratories network

The second mission of OIE is to collect, analyze and diffuse scientific information. The OIE collects and analyses the latest scientific information on animal disease control. This information is then made available to the Member Countries to help them to improve the methods used to control and eradicate these diseases. Scientific information is also disseminated through various works and periodicals published by the OIE, notably the Scientific and Technical Review (3 issues a year). This information is based on a world network of experts, Reference Laboratories and Collaborating Centres which bring to OIE the expertise for the development of measurements to manage animal diseases. Four OIE Reference Laboratories of OIE have been designated for FMD and four experts wrote the Manual chapter about this disease.

All OIE Reference Laboratories for FMD have as to function as a centre of expertise and standardisation for this disease. That is to say that they have to store and distribute biological reference products and any other reagents used in the diagnosis and control of FMD, to develop new procedures for diagnosis and control of FMD ; to gather, process, analyse and disseminate epizootiological data relevant to their speciality and to place expert consultants at the disposal of the OIE. They may also contribute to provision of scientific and technical training for personnel from OIE Member Countries. They may ensure the provision of diagnostic testing facilities to Member Countries. In the case of positive FMD results for diseases that have to be reported to OIE, the Reference Laboratory should immediately inform the OIE Delegate of the Member Country from which the samples originated. Reference Laboratories organise scientific meetings on behalf of OIE, coordinate scientific and technical studies in collaboration with other

27

laboratories or organisations and publish and disseminate any information in their sphere of competence which may be useful to OIE Member Countries.

B. Clinical manifestation and diagnostic of foot and mouth disease (Callis, 1996; Fondation Mérieux, 2003; Kitching, 2002; OIE, 2002)

The specific lesions are vesicles or blisters on the tongue, dental pad, gums, cheek, hard and soft palate, lips, nostrils, muzzle, coronary bands, teats, udder, snout of pigs, corium of dewclaws and interdigital spaces. Post-mortem lesions on rumen pillars, in the myocardium, particularly of young animals (tiger heart) can be found on cadavers. The mortality rate in adult animals is low, but FMD often causes high mortality in young animals due to myocarditis.

The incubation period is 2-14 days. The signs are characterised by breaking up of aphthae that gave the name of the virus family and non specifical losses of production.

Cattle is the most susceptible of the host species. However, in endemic regions where cattle have partial natural or vaccinal immunity, clinical signs may be mild and may be missed (Kitching R.P., 2002). Non-immune cattle infected for 2-3 days show pyrexia, anorexia, shivering and reduction in milk production. Later, symptoms include smacking of the lips, grinding teeth, drooling, lameness, stamping or kicking of the feet. Those signs are caused by vesicles (aphthae) on buccal and nasal mucous membranes or between the claws and coronary band. These vesicles can also occur on the mammary glands. The vesicle lesions break after 24 hours. The recovery generally occurs within 8-15 days. Young calves may die before the appearance of the vesicles because of the virus developing in heart cells. The complications can be: tongue erosions, superinfection of lesions, hoof deformation, mastitis and permanent impairment of milk production, myocarditis, abortion, death of young animals, permanent loss of weight and loss of heat control.

In sheep and goats, FMD is generally mild or unapparent, but can cause high mortality in young animals. Lesions occur in the dental pad of sheep. Economic losses can be caused by agalactia in milking sheep and goats or death of young stock. The recent outbreak in the United Kingdom has highlighted the importance of sheep in the disease (Kitching R.P.,2002).

In intensively reared pigs, the introduction of FMD results in severe clinical disease and vesicular lesions in adult and fattening animals, and high mortality in piglets.

The differential diagnosis can be difficult because FMD is clinically indistinguishable from 5 OIE list A and B diseases: Vesicular stomatitis Swine vesicular disease Rinderpest Blue tongue Infectious bovine rhinotracheitis :

Other differential diagnostic has to be done, taking into account: Vesicular exanthema of swine. Mucosal disease Bovine mammillitis Bovine papular stomatitis Bovine viral diarrhoea

28

Laboratory diagnosis is thus essential. The diagnosis tests available for international trade purposes are listed in the Code appendix 3.1.1, and in the Manual (see below). The success of the laboratory confirmation of a suspicion depends on the submission of adequate material sent under suitable conditions.

C. Diagnosis techniques recommended by the Manual for FMD.

The OIE recommend several diagnosis tests in the Manual. This list is not exhaustive but gives the tests available at international level. The abbreviations of test names are detailed in the Code appendix 3.1.1. At the OIE/FAO world reference laboratories for FMD, the preferred procedure for the detection of FMD viral antigen and identification of viral serotype is the Enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). The prescribed tests to use for international trade purpose are an ELISA test and virus neutralisation test (VN) according to the Code appendix 3.1.1 (see below). The alternative test is the complement fixation test (CF). The way the serological tests have to be used for determining evidence of infection in a susceptible population is explained in the diagram in Appendix 3.8.6.of the Code 2003.

Diagnostic tests based on the identification of the agent.

The Chapter 2.1.1 of the Manual gives the standard tests recommended to identify the agent. The section 2.1.1.B. specify that “the tissue of choice is epithelium (…) where epithelial tissue is not available from ruminant animals, for example in advanced or convalescent cases, or where infection is suspected in the absence of clinical signs, samples of [oesophageal-pharyngeal (OP)] fluid can be collected by means of a probang (sputum) cup (or in pigs by swabbing the throat) for submission to a laboratory for virus isolation.”

Epithelial samples must weight at least 1g and have to be placed in a transport medium, the final pH must lie between 7.2 and 7.6. OP sample should contain cellular material but no blood. Both types of samples have to be refrigerated or frozen immediately after collection and to be kept cold until the delivery at the laboratories. The mediums and the containers are described in detail. All these elements are very important to provide available samples to the laboratories.

The section 2.1.1.B.a. explains the way to prepare epithelium suspension which will be use to carry out the test for identification of agent. These tests are sufficient to provide evidence of infection.

Table 6: diagnostic tests based on the identification of the agent.

Test Purpose Chapter of the ManualELISA Detection of FMD viral antigen and

identification of viral subtype.2.1.1. section B.1.b.

Complement fixation test (CF)

Idem if ELISA reagents are not available.(less sensible and specific than ELISA)

2.1.1. section B.1.b.

Polymerase chain reaction (PCR)

Investigating the presence of FMD virus in tissue samples

2.1.1. section B.1.c.

Polymerase chain reaction (PCR)

Comparison of genetic differences between virus isolates

2.1.1. section B.1.c.

29

Serological tests prescribed for international trade.

The OIE has designated two FMD tests that are prescribed tests for international trade as follow. The second one has been added in the 2004 Manual edition. These tests have to be used to meet the Code requirements. The VN is the gold standard test for confirming results obtained by other tests. It is “serotype specific, sensitive and qualitative but requires cell culture facilities and takes 2-3 days to provide results”. The two others tests are also “serotype specific, sensitive and qualitative, and [have] the advantage that [they are] easier to perform, less variable and not dependant on tissue culture system” (introduction of section 2.1.1.B.2.).

Table 7: serological tests prescribed by OIE for international trade purposes.

Test Purpose Chapter of the ManualVirus neutralisation test (VN) Screening 2.1.1. section B.2.a.Liquid phase blocking ELISA (LPBE) Screening 2.1.1. section B.2.b.

The interpretation of VN tests can vary between laboratories in regard to the end point taken. OIE recommends that laboratories establish their own criteria by using standard reagents that can be obtained from OIE/FAO World Reference Laboratories. The SPCE is no more prescribed for international trade purpose. It can be used for the confirmation of the positives

Serological tests based on non-structural protein antibody detection to detect infected animals in vaccinate population.

The aim of serological tests based on non-structural protein (NSP) antibody is to identify past or present infection with any of the seven serotypes of the virus, whether or not the animal has been vaccinated. The newer tests using recombinant FMD virus NSPs provide increased security by reducing the likelihood of trading carrier animals and can be used to help define the limits of an outbreak. At present, however, they are not 100% sensitive (Kitching, 2002).

There are currently no internationally recognised standards for tests measuring antibody to FMD virus NSPs. However, several tests are recommended by OIE in section 2.1.1.B.2.d. of the Manual. The traditional AGID test measuring antibody to the virus infection-associated antigen (VIAA; the viral RNA polymerase protein 3D) is inexpensive and easy to perform but not very sensitive. It has now been superseded by tests produced by techniques that measure antibody to recombinant FMD virus NSPs. The section 2.1.1.B.2.d. describes more precisely how to use the indirect ELISA and the EITB. In spite of progress in the design of the tests, “care must be taken when interpreting results from single animals as some repeatedly vaccinated animals produce antibody to 3ABC and some animals that have been vaccinated and then become carriers following contact with live virus fail to develop antibodies to the NSPs.” (Manual 2004 section 2.1.1.B.2.).

30

Table 8: summary of serological tests based on NSPs antibody detection cited in the Manual , section 2.1.1.B.2.d.

Test CharacteristicsAgar gel immunodiffusion (AGID) Inexpensive, easy to perform but not

sensitiveIndirect ELISA:Mab trapping ELISA (MAT ELISA) for detecting antibodies to 3ABCBlocking ELISA for detecting antibodies to 3AB or 3ABC

Sensitive, specific and reliable in a number of laboratories

Enzyme-linked immunoelectrotransfer blot assay (EITB)

confirmation of animals positives for antibodies to NSPs

Requirements for vaccines and diagnostic biological

The control of FMD is a national responsibility and the countries have to choose the sanitary policy they want to apply. The OIE details the requirements for FMD vaccines and diagnostic biologicals in section 2.1.1.C of the Manual. The headings are: seed management, method of manufacture, in-process control, batch control and test on the final product.

The purification of FMD viral antigens, including the removal of NSPs, enables the immune response of vaccinated animals to be distinguished from the response of animals infected with live FMD virus. Consequently, the combined use of purified vaccines and tests for the detection of antibodies against NSPs provides a marker system to distinguish between vaccinated animals that subsequently become infected and those that have not (Bareteling S.J., 2002). OIE included these requirements in the edition 2004 of the Manual; section 2.1.1.C.4.c. gives guidelines to control vaccine purity.

31

Part 4: Animals health situation and perspectives regarding to FMD.

1. Recent outbreaks in OIE Members Countries according to officials OIE reports

In the following map, the FMD reported cases are the FMD outbreaks that occurred in Members Countries. On this map, outbreaks in not Member Countries are not mentioned, nor outbreak which were not reported yet in March 2003.

Figure 3: FMD outbreaks in OIE Members Countries from May 2002 to March 2003.

2. Perspectives for FMD control according to the latest Revue scientifique

about FMD published (OIE, 2002)

A. In Africa

In Southern Africa, the use of the fencing and other means to strictly control the movement of wildlife and livestock as well as judicious application of vaccine has resulted in countries of the region being able to access beef and other livestock markets in Europe and elsewhere in the developed world. Significant marketing of livestock and livestock products from Africa outside the continent is unlikely to be achieved unless similar approach can be developed for other regions of Africa (Vosloo and al, Brückner et al, 2002).

The Middle East of Africa is regarded as the region the most heavily affected by FMD. The situation in Middle East and North Africa constitutes a threat for other regions of the world, especially Europe (Aidaros H.A., 2002). In the Middle East of Africa, the national cattle is the

32

principal target of preventive vaccination. Vaccination is used as a tool for preventing economic losses due to the disease, rather than as a means to prevent the spread of infection.

In North Africa, as FMD occurs almost cyclically, management is focused on emergency preparedness and limitation of the spread of the disease upon diagnosis, as well as on effective control measures based on effective regional co-operation at many levels. To reduce future outbreaks of FMD in the countries of the two regions, a common strategic programme should be based on regional co-operation at many levels. This should be complemented by efforts to restructure and consolidate the national Veterinary Services (Aidaros, 2002).

B. In Americas

Nowadays, the PANAFTOSA program is 50 years old. This strategy having a regional focus and based on risk analysis methodology should success in disease eradication. This strategy could rely on high level of vaccination, effectiveness of outbreaks responses, and control of animal movements (Correa E. and al, 2002).

C. In Asia and Pacific, and program of the Regional Coordination Unit of the South-East Asia Foot and Mouth Disease Campaign (RCU-SEAFMD).

The Pacific zone has little interest in co-operation about FMD control for several raisons. Firstly, some of them are historically free from FMD (Austria for example). Secondly, island are by nature isolated from the close countries and don’t need co-operation for control of a disease if they don’t have close commercial relationship with the neighbouring countries or islands. Finally, some of these islands have little interest in exporting animals or commodities.

On the opposite, FMD is a major concern for Asia. Since May 2002, new outbreaks of FMD caused by the pan-asian serotype have occurred in pigs in the republic of Korea. Countries of the East of Asia had been free for many decades when in 1997 the virus once again invaded the region. This resulted in widespread occurrence of the disease, particularly in 2002 (Sakamoto K. and Yoshida K., 2002). Now FMD is endemic in several countries of South East Asia. On the mainland, three different serotype O lineage have been recorded, namely the South East Asian (EAS) topotype, the pig-adapted or Cathay topotype and the pan-asian topotype. Type Asian 1 has never been reported from the Philippines but was reported from countries of the mainland between 1996 and 2001. Type A virus have not been reported on the East of the Mekong river for the past six years. The distribution and movement of the virus in the region is a reflection of the trade driven movement of animals (Gleeson, 2002).

On the Web site of Regional Representation of Asia and Pacific, the information about FMD is available only for 21 of the 47 countries and islands of the Regional Representation. Moreover, since august 1967, countries of South East Asia are associated in the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN, 2003). Now, this association involves 10 member countries which are Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Brunei Darussalam, Singapore, Myanmar, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam. "The collective will of the nations of Southeast Asia [is] to bind themselves together in friendship and cooperation and, through joint efforts and sacrifices, secure for their peoples and for posterity the blessings of peace, freedom and prosperity" (ASEAN web site). Thus, the southern countries of Asia created the South East Asia FMD control and eradication campaign (SEAFMD) involving regional co-operation. SEAFMD implies eight countries of the ASEAN (Brunei Durassalam and Singapore are not involved). The campaign is coordinated through an OIE Regional Coordination Unit in Bangkok (Thailand) with major

33

sponsorship by the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID). The immediate objective is to improve the standards of Veterinary Services in participating countries. The intermediate objectives are to improve the productivity of animals by keeping FMD under control and to increase the income of livestock producers. The long-term objective is to facilitate and promote the international trade of commodities by creating FMD-free regions in South-East Asia.

D. In Eastern Europe

In Europe, the massive outbreak which took place in 2001 in the United Kingdom with 2,030 outbreaks raised questions on the policy utilised to control FMD. In future, utilisation of ring vaccination should be considered as an alternative to stamping-out policy without vaccination (Leforban Y. and Gerbier G., 2002 ; Pluimers et al, 2002). Furthermore, lessons identified after this crisis relate to the availability of serological tests in laboratories, the importance of animal identification and movement control, the necessity of carcass disposal. Lastly, the importance of emergency plans was lightened, taking into account animal welfare and communication ( Crispin S.M. et al, 2002; Cuijpers M.P. and Osinga K.J., 2002; De Klerk P.F., Costelloe J.A. and al, 2002; Laurence C.J., O’Malley R., Rossides S.C., Scudamore J.M. and al, 2002 ; Chmitelin I. and Moutou F., 2002). In this region, co-operation is ensured by the European commission for the control of FMD (EUFMD).

34

Conclusion

L’établissement du document «Normes, lignes directrices et principales recommandations de l’OIE en matière de fièvre aphteuse» a nécessité l’intervention de plusieurs services de l’OIE. Il m’a permis de comprendre le fonctionnement de l’OIE, les missions des différents services, et d’assister à une réunion de la CSMA. Ce stage a permis de formaliser la procédure d’obtention du statut indemne d’une façon synthétique sous forme de diagramme, ce qui n’existait pas auparavant. Les questionnaires de demande de statut indemne ont également été refais de façon à ce que les dossiers de demande de statut indemne soient plus faciles à remplir et à analyser. La différence essentielle entre une demande et un recouvrement de statut indemne a été soulignée. La mise en place conjointe d’un site Web devrait faciliter l’accès des utilisateurs aux documents concernant les statuts indemnes de fièvre aphteuse. De cette façon, l’obtention des statuts indemnes de FA sera plus transparente.

La publication du document écrit et du site nécessitera encore des passages devant la CSMA, des corrections et des discussions.

35

Appendix

Appendix 1: plan of the “OIE guidelines, standards and recommendations of the OIE related to FMD”.

Foreword by Dr VallatIndex

Part 1: Detailed procedure

Part 2: Questionnaire Questionnaire for FMD free country where vaccination is not practised Questionnaire for FMD free country where vaccination is practised Questionnaire for FMD free zone where vaccination is not practised Questionnaire for FMD free zone where vaccination is practised

Part 3: OIE standards about foot-and-mouth disease Chapter 2.1.1. of International Animals Health Code (mammals, birds and bees) twelfth

edition, 2003 about Foot-and-Mouth disease Chapter 2.1.1 of Manual of Standards for diagnosis test, fifth edition, 2004, about Foot and

mouth disease. Abstract of appendix 3.1.1. of the Code (2003) related to FMD and clinically

indistinguishable disease owning to OIE lists. On the Web site, the appendix 3.1.1 will be entire.

Appendix 3.6.2 of the Code (2003) about foot-and-mouth disease virus inactivation procedure.

Part 4: Resolutions Resolutions giving the lists of FMD free countries or zones since 1995 Resolutions about FMD free statues from 1995 to 2003AppendixAppendix 1: List of the 164 member countries of OIE as of 28 January 2003.Appendix 2: Chapter 1.2.1. of the Code (2003) about general obligation of international trade.Appendix 3: Article 1.1.2.1. of the Code (2003) giving OIE List A diseases.Appendix 4: Chapter 1.1.3 of the Code (2003), about notification and epidemiological information.Appendix 5: Map of FMD outbreaks in OIE Members countries between May 2002 and March 2003Appendix 6: Map of countries or zones recognized session foot-and-mouth disease free with or without vaccination by the international committee in the 71st general session.Appendix 7: List of OIE experts contributors to the Manual.Appendix 8: List of World Reference Laboratories for FMDAppendix 9: Currently available OIE approved International Standard Sera for foot and mouth disease Appendix 10: Appendix 3.8.6 of the Code (2003) : preliminary guidelines for the establishment or the regaining for a foot and mouth disease free country or zone.

Appendix 2: list of resolutions related to FMD from 1995 to 2002.

36

1. Resolutions giving the lists of FMD free countries or zones since 1995

RESOLUTION No XX of the 71st General SessionRecognition of the Foot and Mouth Disease Status of Member Countries

RESOLUTION No XVII of the 70th General SessionRecognition of the Foot and Mouth Disease Status of Member Countries

RESOLUTION No XVII of the 69th General SessionRecognition of the Foot and Mouth Disease Status of Member Countries

RESOLUTION No XII of the 68th General SessionRecognition of the Foot and Mouth Disease Status of Member Countries

RESOLUTION No XIV of the 67th General SessionRecognition of the foot and mouth disease status of Member Countries

RESOLUTION No X of the 66th General SessionRecognition of the foot and mouth disease status of Member Countries

RESOLUTION No XII of the 65th General SessionRecognition of the foot and mouth disease status of Member Countries

RESOLUTION No XII of the 64th General SessionRecognition of the foot and mouth disease status of Member Countries

2. Resolutions about FMD free statues from 1995 to 2003

RESOLUTION No. XXI of the 71st General SessionRecognition of a Foot and Mouth Disease Free Zone during an FMD Emergency

RESOLUTION No XVIII of the 70th General SessionPayment to the OIE of the Cost of Evaluating Member Country Compliance with Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, Foot and Mouth Disease, Rinderpest and Contagious Bovine Pleuropneumonia Chapters of the International Animal Health Code

RESOLUTION No XIII of the 69th General SessionRecommendations of the OIE/FAO International Scientific Conference on Foot and Mouth Disease

RESOLUTION No XVI of the 67th General SessionAdaptation of procedure for recognition of freedom from certain animal diseases

RESOLUTION No XIII of the 66th General SessionForecasting systems using the laboratory and epidemiology to prevent outbreaks

RESOLUTION No XVII of the 65th General SessionRestoration of Recognition of the Foot and Mouth Disease Status of Member Countries

RESOLUTION No XVII of the 63th General SessionProcedure for the recognition of the foot and mouth disease status of Member Countries

RESOLUTION No XI of the 63th General Session 1Establishment of a list of foot and mouth disease free countries where vaccination is not practised

37

Appendix 3: recapitulative table of the articles of the Code Chapter 2.1.1 giving condition of importation of commodities susceptible to spread the disease.

Status of the exporting country Commodity ArticleFree country/zone without vaccination

Fresh semen of domestic ruminants and pigs

2.1.1.12

Free country/zone without vaccination

Frozen semen of domestic ruminants and pigs

2.1.1.13

Free country/zone with vaccination Semen of domestic ruminants and pigs 2.1.1.14Infected country Semen of domestic ruminants and pigs 2.1.1.15Irrespective In vivo derived embryos of cattle 2.1.1.16Free country/zone without vaccination

In vitro produced embryos of cattle 2.1.1.17

Free country/zone with vaccination In vitro produced embryos of cattle 2.1.1.18Free country/zone without vaccination

Fresh meat of FMD susceptible animals 2.1.1.19

Free country/zone with vaccination Fresh meat of bovines (excluding feet, head and viscera)

2.1.1.20

Free country/zone with vaccination Fresh meat of pigs and ruminants other than bovines

2.1.1.21

Infected country/zones where an official control program exists

Fresh meat of bovines (excluding feet, head and viscera)

2.1.1.22

Infected countries/zones Meat products of domestic ruminant and pig

2.1.1.23

Free country/zone Milk and milk products intended for human consumption and for products of animal origin (from FMD susceptible animals) intended for use in animal feeding or for agricultural or industrial use

2.1.1.24

Infected country/zones where an official control program exists

Milk, cream, milk powder and milk products

2.1.1.25

Infected countries Blood and meat meal 2.1.1.26Infected countries wool, hair, bristles, raw hides and skins 2.1.1.27Infected countries/zones for straw and forage 2.1.1.28Free country or zones skins and trophies derived from wild

animals susceptible to FMD.2.1.1.29

Infected countries or zones skins and trophies derived from wild animals susceptible to FMD.

2.1.1.30

38

Lexique français

Les mots en gras sont définis dans le code.

Accords OMS/SPS : accords de l'OMC concernant les barrières sanitaires à l’importation. D’après le site de l’OMC, les accords sont négociés et signés par la majeure partie des puissances commerciales du monde et ratifiés par leurs parlements.

Administration vétérinaire : désigne le Service vétérinaire gouvernemental ayant compétence sur tout le pays pour mettre en œuvre les mesures zoosanitaires et les procédures de certification vétérinaire internationale que l’OIE recommande, et en surveiller ou auditer l’application.

Animal : désigne tout mammifère ou oiseau ainsi que les abeilles.

Autorité vétérinaire : désigne le Service vétérinaire, sous l’autorité de l’Administration vétérinaire, qui est directement responsable de l’application des mesures zoosanitaires dans un territoire déterminé du pays. Il peut aussi être responsable de la délivrance ou de la supervision de la délivrance des certificats vétérinaires internationaux dans ce territoire.

Bureau central : désigne le Secrétariat permanent de l’Office international des épizooties.

Code : désigne le Code zoosanitaire international de l’OIE.

Codex alimentarius : organisme créé en 1963 par la FAO et l'OMS afin d'élaborer des normes alimentaires, des lignes directrices et d'autres textes. Les buts principaux de ce programme sont la protection de la santé des consommateurs, la promotion de pratiques loyales dans le commerce des aliments et la coordination de tous les travaux de normalisation ayant trait aux aliments entrepris par des organisations aussi bien gouvernementales que non gouvernementales.

Échanges internationaux : désigne l’importation, l’exportation et le transit des marchandises.FAO : Food and Agriculture Organization of the united nations, organisation des Nations Unies pour l’alimentation et l’agriculture.

Foyer de maladie : désigne l’apparition d’une des maladies inscrites sur la Liste A ou la Liste B de l’OIE dans une exploitation agricole, un élevage ou un bâtiment où sont présents des animaux, ainsi que dans les lieux attenants.Dans le cas où cette délimitation n’est pas réalisable, est considérée comme foyer la partie de territoire dans laquelle, compte tenu des conditions locales, on ne peut garantir que les animaux, sensibles ou non, n’ont pu avoir un contact direct avec les animaux atteints ou soupçonnés d’être atteints.Dans le cas particulier de certaines parties de l’Afrique, on définit comme foyer un seizième de degré carré dans lequel la maladie s’est manifestée ; il n’y a lieu de mentionner qu’un seul foyer, même si la maladie apparaît en plusieurs points dans le même seizième de degré carré.

Laboratoire : désigne une institution convenablement équipée, employant un personnel technique compétent placé sous le contrôle d’un spécialiste des méthodes de diagnostic vétérinaire, qui est responsable de la validité des résultats. De tels laboratoires sont agréés et placés sous la supervision de l’Administration vétérinaire pour la réalisation des épreuves diagnostiques requises pour les échanges internationaux.

Liste A : désigne la liste des maladies transmissibles qui ont un grand pouvoir de diffusion et une gravité particulière, susceptibles de s’étendre au-delà des frontières nationales, dont les conséquences socio-économiques ou sanitaires sont graves et dont l’incidence sur les échanges internationaux d’animaux et de produits d’origine animale est très importante. Les rapports concernant ces maladies sont adressés à l’OIE avec une périodicité conforme aux dispositions des articles 1.1.3.2 et 1.1.3.3 du Code. Cette liste figure à l’article 1.1.2.1 du Code.

Liste B : désigne la liste des maladies transmissibles qui sont considérées comme importantes du point de vue socio-économique et/ou sanitaire au niveau national et dont les effets sur les échanges internationaux d’animaux et de produits d’origine animale ne sont pas négligeables. Ces maladies font généralement l’objet d’un rapport annuel, mais, dans certains cas, elles peuvent faire l’objet de rapports plus fréquents, selon la périodicité prévue par les dispositions des articles 1.1.3.2 et 1.1.3.3. Cette liste figure aux articles 1.1.2.2 à 1.1.2.10 du présent Code.

39

Manuel : désigne le Manuel des normes de l’OIE pour les épreuves de diagnostic et les vaccins.

Marchandise : désigne les animaux, les produits d’origine animale destinés à la consommation humaine, à l’alimentation animale, à l’usage pharmaceutique ou chirurgical ou à l’usage agricole ou industriel, la semence, les ovules/embryons, les produits biologiques et le matériel pathologique.

Notification : désigne la procédure par laquelle :l’Administration vétérinaire porte à la connaissance du Bureau central, le Bureau central porte à la connaissance des Administrations veterinaries la suspicion ou la confirmation d’un foyer de maladie, conformément aux dispositions du chapitre 1.1.3 du présent Code.

OMS : Organisation mondiale de la Santé, institution spécialisée des Nations Unies pour la santé. Dans sa Constitution, l'OMS a pour but d'amener tous les peuples au niveau de santé le plus élevé possible. Dans ce même document, la santé est définie comme un état de complet bien-être physique, mental et social et ne consiste pas seulement en une absence de maladie ou d'infirmité (définition du site officiel de l’OMS).

OMC : Organisation mondiale du Commerce, s’occupe des règles régissant le commerce entre les pays. Sa principale fonction est de favoriser autant que possible la bonne marche, la prévisibilité et la liberté des échanges (définition du site officiel de l’OMC).

ONU : Organisation des Nations Unies.

SEAFMD : South East Asia FMD control and eradication campaign

Services vétérinaires : les Services vétérinaires sont composés de l’Administration vétérinaire et de l’ensemble des Autorités vétérinaires.

STDF : Standards and Trade Development Facility.

Vétérinaire officiel : désigne un vétérinaire désigné par l’Administration vétérinaire de son pays pour effectuer l’inspection des marchandises en vue de la protection de la santé publique et/ou de la santé animale et, le cas échéant, pour effectuer la certification de ces marchandises conformément aux dispositions du titre 1.2 du présent Code.

40

English index:

Animal: means a mammal, bird or bee.

Buffer zone: means a zone established within, and along the border of, an infected zone using measures based on the epidemiology of the disease under consideration to prevent spread of the causative pathogenic agent into a free country or zone.These measures may include, but are not limited to, vaccination.Vaccinated animals must be recognisable by a specific permanent mark. The vaccines used must meet standards defined in the ManualThe buffer zone should have an intensified degree of disease surveillance and control.

Case : means an individual animal infected by a pathogenic agent listed by the OIE.

Central Bureau: means the Permanent Secretariat of the Office International des Epizooties which headquarters are:      12, rue de Prony, 75017 Paris, FRANCE      Telephone: 33-(0)1 44 15 18 88      Fax: 33-(0)1 42 67 09 87      Electronic mail: oie@oie.int

      http://www.oie.int 

Code: means the OIE International Animal Health Code.

Commodity: means animals, products of animal origin intended for human consumption, for animal feeding, for pharmaceutical or surgical use or for agricultural or industrial use, semen, embryos/ova, biological products and pathological material.

Disease: means the clinical and/or pathological manifestation of infection.

Disinfection: means the application, after thorough cleansing, of procedures intended to destroy the infectious or parasitic agents of animal diseases, including zoonoses; this applies to premises, vehicles and different objects which may have been directly or indirectly contaminated.

Eradication: means the elimination of a pathogenic agent from a country or zone.

Exporting country: means a country from which commodities are sent to another country.

Free zone: means a zone in which the absence of the disease under consideration has been demonstrated by the requirements specified in the Code for free status being met. Within the zone and at its borders, appropriate official veterinary control is effectively applied for animals and animal products, and their transportation.

Fresh meat: means meat that has not been subjected to any treatment irreversibly modifying its organoleptic and physicochemical characteristics. This includes frozen meat, chilled meat, minced meat and mechanically recovered meat.

Importing country: means a country that is the final destination to which commodities are sent.

Incubation period: means the longest period which elapses between the introduction of the pathogen into the animal and the occurrence of the first clinical signs of the disease.

Infected zone: means a zone in which the absence of the disease under consideration has not been demonstrated by the requirements specified in this Code being met.

Infection : means the presence of the pathogenic agent in the host.

International veterinary certificate: means a certificate, issued in conformity with the provisions of Chapter 1.2.2., describing the animal health and/or public health requirements which are fulfilled by the exported commodities

41

International trade: means importation, exportation and transit of commodities.

Laboratory: means a properly equipped institution staffed by technically competent personnel under the control of a specialist in veterinary diagnostic methods, who is responsible for the validity of the results. The Veterinary Administration approves and monitors such laboratories with regard to the diagnostic tests required for international trade.

List A: means the List of transmissible diseases which have the potential for very serious and rapid spread, irrespective of national borders, which are of serious socio-economic or public health consequence and which are of major importance in the international trade of animals and animal products. Reports are submitted to the OIE as often as necessary to comply with Articles 1.1.3.2. and 1.1.3.3. Diseases in List A are set out in Article 1.1.2.1. of the Code.

Manual: means the OIE Manual of Standards for Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines.

Meat: means all edible parts of an animal.

 Meat products: means meat that has been subjected to a treatment irreversibly modifying its organoleptic and physicochemical characteristics.

Notification: means the procedure by which:      a)    the Veterinary Administration informs the Central Bureau,      b)    the Central Bureau informs Veterinary Administrations, 

      of the suspicion or confirmation of an outbreak of disease, according to the provisions of Chapter 1.1.3. of this Code. 

Official control programme: means a programme which is approved, and managed or supervised by the Veterinary Administration of a country for the purpose of controlling a pathogen or disease by specific measures applied throughout that country or within a zone or zones of that country.

Outbreak of disease: means an occurrence of one of the diseases in OIE List A or List B in an agricultural establishment, breeding establishment or premises, including all buildings and all adjoining premises, where animals are present.Where it cannot be defined in this way, the outbreak shall be considered as occurring in the part of the territory in which, taking local conditions into account, it cannot be guaranteed that both susceptible and non-susceptible animals have had no direct contact with affected or suspected cases in that area.For example, in the case of certain parts of Africa, an outbreak means the occurrence of the disease within a sixteenth square degree; the occurrence is still referred to as an outbreak even though the disease may occur in several places within the same sixteenth square degree.

Prevalence : means the total number of cases or outbreaks of a disease that are present in a population at risk, in a particular geographical area, at one specified time or during a given period.

Products of animal origin intended for agricultural or industrial use : means products of animal origin, except those intended for food for human consumption, pharmaceutical or surgical purposes and animal feeding.

Stamping-out policy: means carrying out under the authority of the Veterinary Administration, on confirmation of a disease, the killing of the animals which are affected and those suspected of being affected in the herd and, where appropriate, those in other herds which have been exposed to infection by direct animal to animal contact, or by indirect contact of a kind likely to cause the transmission of the causal pathogen. All susceptible animals, vaccinated or unvaccinated, on an infected premises should be killed and their carcasses destroyed by burning or burial, or by any other method which will eliminate the spread of infection through the carcasses or products of the animals killed. This policy should be accompanied by the cleansing and disinfection procedures defined in the Code. The term modified stamping-out policy should be used in communications to the OIE whenever the above animal health measures are not implemented in full and details of the modifications should be given.

Surveillance zone: means a zone established within, and along the border of, a free zone separating the free zone from an infected zone. The surveillance zone should have an intensified degree of surveillance.

42

Transit country: means a country through which commodities destined for an importing country are transported or in which a stopover is made at a border post.

Veterinary Administration: means the governmental Veterinary Service having authority in the whole country for implementing the animal health measures and international veterinary certification process which the OIE recommends, and supervising or auditing their application.

Veterinary Authority : means a Veterinary Service, under the authority of the Veterinary Administration, which is directly responsible for the application of animal health measures in a specified area of the country. It may also have responsibility for the issuing or the supervision of the issuing of international veterinary certificates in that area.

Veterinary Services : the Veterinary Services comprise the Veterinary Administration and all the Veterinary Authorities.

Zone: is a clearly defined part of the territory of a country with a distinct animal health status. The following types of zones are recognised: free zone, infected zone, surveillance zone and buffer zone.

43

Bibliographie

1. ASEAN. Association of South East Asian Nations. [en ligne]. Avalable on: < http://www.aseansec.org>. (accessed on 5 June 2003).

2. AIDAROS (2002)Regional Status and approach to eradication of foot and mouth disease in the Middle East and North Africa.In: OIE (eds). Revue scientifique et technique, foot and mouth disease, facing the new dilemmas, volume 21 (3). OIE, Paris,451-458.

3. BARTELING S.J. (2002)Development and performance of inactivated vaccines against foot and mouth diseaseIn: OIE (eds). Revue scientifique et technique, foot and mouth disease, facing the new dilemmas, volume 21 (3). OIE, Paris, 577-588.

4. CALLIS J.J. (1996)Evaluation du risque de transmission du virus de la fièvre aphteuse par les produits du commerce international. In : OIE (eds). Revue scientifique et technique de l’Office international des Epizooties, 15, 3, 1075-1086.

5. CHMITELIN I., MOUTOU F. (2002)Fièvre aphteuse: les leçons de l’expérience française.In: OIE (eds). Revue scientifique et technique, foot and mouth disease, facing the new dilemmas, volume 21 (3). OIE, Paris,723-732.

6. CORREA MELO E., SARAIVA V., ASTUDILLO V. (2002)Review of the status of foot and mouth disease in countries of South America and approach to control and eradication.In: OIE (eds). Revue scientifique et technique, foot and mouth disease, facing the new dilemmas, volume 21 (3). OIE, Paris, 429-439.

7. CRISPIN S.M., ROGER PA, O’HARE H., BINNS S.H. (2002)The 2001 foot and mouth disease epidemic in the United Kingdom: animal welfare perspectivesIn: OIE (eds). Revue scientifique et technique, foot and mouth disease, facing the new dilemmas, volume 21 (3). OIE, Paris, 877-883.

8. COSTELLOE J.A., AL, 2002Ontrol of foot and mouth disease: lessons from the experience of Ireland.In: OIE (eds). Revue scientifique et technique, foot and mouth disease, facing the new dilemmas, volume 21 (3). OIE, Paris, 739-750.

9. CUIJPERS M.P., OSINGA K.J. (2002)The position of the Dutch Farmers’ Union on lessons learned and future prevention and control oin foot and mouth disease.In: OIE (eds). Revue scientifique et technique, foot and mouth disease, facing the new dilemmas, volume 21 (3). OIE, Paris, 839-850.

10. DE KLERK P.F. (2002)Carcass disposal: lessons from the Netherlands after the foot and mouth disease outbreaks of 2001In: OIE (eds). Revue scientifique et technique, foot and mouth disease, facing the new dilemmas, volume 21 (3). OIE, Paris, 569-575.

11. DONALDSON A.I., ALEXANDERSEN S. (2002)Predicting the spread of foot and mouth disease by airborne virus.In: OIE (eds). Revue scientifique et technique, foot and mouth disease, facing the new dilemmas, volume 21 (3). OIE, Paris, 569-575.

12. FONDATION MÉRIEUX (2003).

44

Foot and mouth disease, Control strategies, symposium proceedings, Lyon, 2-5 June 2002, , Editions scientifiques et médicales Elsevier, Paris, 390 pages.

13. GLEESON, (2002)A review of the status of foot and mouth disease in South Asia and approach to control and eradication.In: OIE (eds). Revue scientifique et technique, foot and mouth disease, facing the new dilemmas, volume 21 (3). OIE, Paris, 465-475.

14. KITCHING R.P.(2002)Identification of foot and mouth disease virus carrier and subclinically infected animals and differentiation form vaccinated animals.

15. LAURENCE C.J. (2002)Animal welfare consequences in England and Wales of the 2001 epidemic of foot and mouth disease.In: OIE (eds). Revue scientifique et technique, foot and mouth disease, facing the new dilemmas, volume 21 (3). OIE, Paris, 863-868.

16. LEFORBAN Y., GERBIER G. (2002)Review of the status and control of foot and mouth disease and approach to control/eradication in Europe and Central Asia.In: OIE (eds). Revue scientifique et technique, foot and mouth disease, facing the new dilemmas, volume 21 (3). OIE, Paris, 531-538.

17. OIE (2002)International Animal Health Code, (mammals, birds and bees). eleventh edition. Code Zoosanitaire International, (mammifères, oiseaux et abeilles). Onzième édition.OIE, Paris, 511 pages.[on line]. Adresse URL: http://www.oie.int/eng/normes/mmanual/A_summry.htm (accessed on 20 June 2003).

18. OIE (2003)Terrestrial Animal Health Code (2003), twelth edition. Code Sanitaire pour les Animaux Terrestres. Douzième édition.OIE, Paris, internal document (to be published in July 2003).

19. OIE (2000)Manual of standards for diagnostic tests and vaccine, fourth edition. OIE, Paris, 957 pages.[on line]. Adresse URL: http://www.oie.int/eng/normes/mmanual/A_summry.htm (accessed on 20 June 2003).

20. OIE (2003)“Manual of diagnostic tests and vaccines for terrestrial animals”OIE, Paris, internal document (to be published in March 2004).

21. OIE. Textes fondamentaux de l’OIE : statuts organiques. [en ligne]. Avalable on: <http://oie_nt3/fr/OIE/textfond/fr_statuts_ organiques.htm >. (accessed on 5 June 2003).

22. OIE (2002)Revue scientifique et technique, foot and mouth disease, facing the new dilemmas, volume 21 (3). OIE, Paris, 540 pages.

23. O’MALLEY R. (2002)Foot and mouth disease: the perspectives of framers in Ireland.In: OIE (eds). Revue scientifique et technique, foot and mouth disease, facing the new dilemmas, volume 21 (3). OIE, Paris, 851-862.

24. OMC. World Trade Organisation. [en ligne]. Avalable on: <http://www.wto.org >. (accessed on 5 June 2003).

25. OMS. World Health Organisation. [en ligne]. Avalable on: <http://www.who.int >. (accessed on 5 June 2003).

26. ROSSIDES S.C. (2002)

45

A farming perspective on the 2001 foot and mouth disease epidemic in the United Kingdom.In: OIE (eds). Revue scientifique et technique, foot and mouth disease, facing the new dilemmas, volume 21 (3). OIE, Paris, 831-838.

27. SAKAMOTO K., YOSHIDA K. (2002)Recent outbreaks of foot and mouth disease in countries of East Asia.In: OIE (eds). Revue scientifique et technique, foot and mouth disease, facing the new dilemmas, volume 21 (3). OIE, Paris, 459-463.

28. SCUDAMORE J.M., PRITCHARD D.G., WHITMORE G.M.,Comment on the paper: “animal welfare consequences in England and Wales of the 2001 epidemic of foot and mouth disease.”In: OIE (eds). Revue scientifique et technique, foot and mouth disease, facing the new dilemmas, volume 21 (3). OIE, Paris, 863-868.

29. SUTMOLLER P., CASAS OLASCOAGA (2002)Unapparent foot and mouth disease infection (sub-clinical infections and carriers): implications for control.In: OIE (eds). Revue scientifique et technique, foot and mouth disease, facing the new dilemmas, volume 21 (3). OIE, Paris, 519-530.

30. VOSLOO W., BASTOS A.D.S., SANGARE O., HARGREAVES S.K., THOMSON G.R.Review of the status of foot and mouth disease in sub-Saharan Africa.In: OIE (eds). Revue scientifique et technique, foot and mouth disease, facing the new dilemmas, volume 21 (3). OIE, Paris, 436-449.

46