Developing a proper partnership Opinion & Comment / Information Releases from other Sources Posted by JimEdwards on Nov 07, 2004 - 12:57 PM Source: The Vet Record COMMENT 6th November 2004 [1]Answering a question at the BVA's annual general meeting last month, the outgoing President, Professor Tim Greet, remarked that the BVA wanted to work with government and DEFRA at all levels but, at the same time, intended to be eloquent with regard to any shortcomings (see pp 602-603 of this issue). At a time when the Government is developing a new Animal Health and Welfare Strategy (AHWS), the need for mutual cooperation - or partnership, as the Government likes to call it these days - is clearly apparent. The veterinary profession, after all, has a key role to play in helping to develop and implement the AHWS, as the Government itself has acknowledged. Partnership, however, is a two-way process, and it is unfortunate that, so far at least,the Government's approach has been less than encouraging. The difficulties were eloquently expressed by the new BVA President, Dr Bob McCracken, in a speech in Northern Ireland on October 14. In its numerous consultations on the AHWS and the associated strategy on surveillance, the Government has repeatedly emphasised that it cannot take the strategies forward on its own, and that successful implementation will require the partnership of everyone involved, all of whom must play their full part. This is fair enough, and the veterinary profession, for one, is keen to take the strategy forward. Also, many of the Government's comments regarding partnership relate to how costs should be shared and, in supporting the partnership approach, the BVA is in no doubt that the costs will have to be borne by all the beneficiaries. This must include the Government. As Dr McCracken remarked in his speech, 'The commitment to a partnership approach must not allow the Government to negate its own responsibility in this regard.' Consultation, he pointed out, is not the same as partnership, and, 'while the Government must continue to consult, it must also play its part in providing an environment where meaningful partnerships and alliances can be built, and where they are truly synergistic.' Areas where a positive approach has been lacking have included the Government's eager acceptance of the Competition Commission's recommendations on the supply of veterinary medicines, and its dismissive response to the concerns of the profession and the House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee about the viability of rural practices (see VR, August 7, pp 157-158). As Dr McCracken remarked with regard to the Competition Commission's recommendations, 'It is inevitable that these changes will reduce the income of the farm animal veterinarian and, with it, the viability of farm animal practices. The BVA remains concerned that the doctrinaire views of the Competition Commission and the Department of Trade and Industry have been pursued without reference to the welfare of animals and public safety. The inevitable increased costs will result in fewer consultations, especially by those who need them most.' The profession, he emphasised, was not advocating 'some sort of paternalistic handout'. Rather, it was the BVA's view that the maintenance of rural veterinary practice was essential for the proper surveillance of many animal diseases and the welfare of livestock. 'This surveillance is necessary for public health as well as the economic welfare of the state. Failure of epizootic disease surveillance could potentially have a wide-ranging impact on the economy of the UK as a whole. Similarly, proper surveillance is a prerequisite of meeting international obligations relating to trade and, if we have aspirations to develop wider world markets, we must be able to demonstrate that capacity. 'There is public benefit in the prevention of expensive epizootic diseases such as foot-and-mouth, in disease surveillance, in the elimination of zoonotic diseases like bovine tuberculosis, and in food safety. The Government cannot simply wash its hands of such responsibilities, leaving everything to market forces, and must weigh the cost implications of its strategies against the cost to the nation if disease control fails.' The veterinary profession, he said, had much to contribute to the AHWS, in terms of manpower, knowledge and expertise, and was willing and able to play a greater part in turning the many threats facing the livestock industry into opportunities. However, it could only do this if practices were viable and veterinarians were available in adequate numbers. It was the BVA's view that 'at the clinical level, we are no better equipped to deal with another foot-and-mouth disease outbreak than we were in 2001', and that improving the situation would depend on viable farm animal practices. There was a need to resolve this issue in partnership with government, not least because, if nothing were done, the situation would deteriorate and the AHWS and veterinary surveillance would be jeopardised. 'The Government must demonstrate its commitment to the livestock industry through its willingness to fund, at least initially until the benefits can be demonstrated to farmers, many of the initiatives contained in the strategy,' he said. The extent to which the Government responds to such calls remains to be seen, although it is encouraging that, at the recent BVA Congress, the deputy chief veterinary officer should have noted that 'pump-priming' funds might be available under the AHWS for schemes that could demonstrate sustainability and value for money (see VR, October 9 p 443). There is a need now to explore what can be achieved by these means and to move forward in developing the balanced partnership that can provide a proper foundation for the future. This article is from World Veterinary Association   http://worldvet.org/ The URL for this story is:   http://worldvet.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2145 Links in this article   [1] http://www.vetrecord.co.uk/