PVS self-evaluation of the Belgian Veterinary Services

1. REGIONAL INFORMATION SEMINAR FOR RECENTLY APPOINTED OIE DELEGATES BRUSSELS / BELGIUM 18-20 FEBRUARY 2014 PVS self-evaluationof theBelgian Veterinary Services Pierre Naassens, CVO Belgium 20/02/2014

2. Presentation • Context of self-evaluation • Preparations • Course of evaluation • Methodology • Results • Conclusions

3. Context of self-evaluation • EU context (Com non-paper 04-05-2012) • Advocated by the Commission • To eventually have a global EU PVS evaluation as a capital argument in EU trade discussions with Third Countries, there was a need for around ten self evaluations done between 2012 and 2013. • MS self evaluation missions are completely voluntary; they can be performed by the trained experts of the MS concerned. • If and only if needed and requested by the MS concerned, help could be sought from the Commission and even the OIE through trained EU experts. • Reports are strictly under the concerned MS responsibility and are to be used, as far as the EU strategy is concerned, only to prepare for a wider evaluation and comparison with the current EU auditing tools to help in the EU trade with Third Countries.

4. Context of the self-evaluation • According to OIE • To assess a country’s own Veterinary Service performance • Governmental and non-governmental organisations that implement animal health and welfare measures and other standards and recommendations in the Terrestrial Code (and the OIE Aquatic Animal Health Code) in the territory. • The Veterinary Services are under the overall control and direction of the Veterinary Authority • Private sector organisations, veterinarians, (veterinary paraprofessionals or aquatic animal health professionals) are normally accredited or approved by the Veterinary Authority to deliver the delegated functions • Performed by internal experts with possible input by OIE experts

5. Context of the self-evaluation • In Belgium All authorities / organisations of the VS cooperated on voluntary basis

6. Veterinary Service in Belgium Public Service (Veterinary Authority) FASFC Veterinary Statutory Body FPS PHSFCE (incl. CODA/CERVA & WIV/ISP) Animal Health Associations FAMHP Approved Veterinarians Private Service Regions (Wildlife)

7. Preparations • PVS course December 2011 • 3 day training course by OIE on the “OIE PVS Tool” • Composition of evaluation team • 2 experts from the FASFC • certified to perform OIE PVS Evaluation missions • Veterinarians • 1 veterinary policy officer • 1 internal auditor

8. Course of evaluation • Invitation to be part of the evaluation to all parties concerned • Opening meeting • Request for information to all parties concerned • Visits and interviews • Closing meeting • Draft report and remarks • Final report From January to September 2012 Ongoing

9. Course of evaluation – Site sampling • 14 sites were visited in 15 days • 73 persons were interviewed

10. Methodology • Use of the PVS tool • Four fundamental components • Divided into 46 critical competencies • For each critical competency a list of suggested indicators was used to help determine the level of advancement

11. Methodology • Five qualitative levels of advancement for each critical competency • A higher level assumes compliance with all preceding levels • Underrate – emphasize the strengths • Overrate – emphasize theweaknesses Advancement Level 5 Full compliance with OIE standards (incl. audits) Advancement Level 1 no compliance

12. Methodology • Information taken into account • Gathered over the internet • Documentation given during interview or sent by the different organisations / authorities • Interviews • Visits • Results of internal audits and FVO missions

13. Results • For each critical competency of each fundamental component • Level of advancement • List of main weaknesses

14. I: Human, physical and financial resources • I-2B. Education in animal health is not required for ‘controllers (paraprofessionals)’ • I-3. Procedures are not foreseen for the follow up of the ‘quality’ of the work of the approved veterinarian (notification of disease, sampling, etc.) and of their continuing education • I-6. Evaluation of internal and external coordination is not always foreseen • I-11. Audits are not performed in all sections of the VS concerning management of resources and operations

15. II: Technical authority and capability – part 1 • II-2. Outsourcing of analyses by NRL not always to accredited labs • II-3. Obligations to OIE are not included in the risk assessment by the Scientific Committee • II-4. Risk through illegal import of pets from countries at risk for rabies • II-5. No supervision on knowledge and on implementation of notification of recognized vets • II-5. No obligations to notify outbreaks/cases between authorities • II-6. Wildlife is not included in the national disease contingency plans • II-7. Obligations to OIE are not included in the risk assessment

16. II: Technical authority and capability – part 2 • II-8B. Administration of veterinary drugs only registered in ‘risk period’ • II-9. No controls on the ‘quality’ of the prescriptions of veterinary drugs • II-9. Inspections are not based on an ‘inspection plan’ • II-11. Not al concerned parties are included in the simulation exercises • II-12. Procedures sometimes take too long to rapidly implement technical innovations • II-13. Registration of poultry at flock level is not implemented

17. III: Interaction with stakeholders • III-4. Private vets are approved to perform certain tasks but there is no follow up of the quality of tasks performed • III-5A. There is no control on the implementation of the deontology by the VSB. Inquiries starts and disciplinary measures are taken after complaints • III-5B. The financial and institutional management of the VSB has not been audited by an external organisation

18. IV: Access to markets • IV-1. Evaluation of legislation not on periodic basis • IV-1. Legislation on wildlife disease management does not exist • IV-6 . There is no central registration of legislation of other EU member states or trading countries • IV-6. Exchange of information between authorities is on voluntary basis • IV-6. The information in WAHID is not really correct (endemic disease instead of not reported)

19. Results • Recommendations were given for all weaknesses EXAMPLES • Elaboration of procedures for the control of approved vets • Involvement of all concerned parties in simulation exercises • Internal and external audits of all authorities involved • Elaboration of conditions for laboratories that perform analyses for accredited labs or NRL’s • Federal and regional contingency plans must be in line with each other • Registration of each administration of veterinary medicines • Facilitation to implement technical innovations in existing programmes • ...

20. General conclusions • Evaluation • High level of advancement of PVS in Belgium • Not all authorities perform internal/external audits • Internal Audit Department of the FASFC plans a follow-up of the recommendations. • General satisfaction of all parties involved – first time (during closing meeting) that all parties were together in one room

21. General conclusions • PVS-tool • The tool itself is well documented, practical and easy to use • Seen the high level of advancement, details and in-depth evaluation are important • Seen the variety of aspects considered (cfr. OIE Terrestrial Code) it is not feasible to have an in-depth evaluation of every aspect in a reasonable time frame • PVS is a severe tool. A low score of one part of the VS determines the score for the whole critical competence. There is no average.