Surveillance systems

from Good emergency management practice: the essentials

D: GEMP checklist

that is too generous might encourage risky behaviour in the hope that animals will become infected so that compensation will be paid.

Animals that are killed may represent to the owner both a direct capital loss and a loss of valuable future genetic capital. Most loss incurred by producers is the consequential loss of ongoing production during the outbreak rather than the value of the animals killed. However, these losses are not predictable, because they will depend on the overall duration and severity of the outbreak in the area of an affected farm. Therefore, other support mechanisms (e.g. financial and social, beyond compensation payments) should be considered as part of the plan to assist affected farmers to recover.

While compensation may be thought of as being expensive, the incentive it creates for rapid reporting has a strong effect on limiting the overall size and cost of an outbreak. Compensation is very likely to save money overall.

Compensation should be paid for any animals that are killed as part of a compulsory culling campaign, whether they are infected or killed as dangerous contacts or sometimes for welfare purposes. In effect, the government buys the animals and then kills them. Compensation should also be paid for products and property that are destroyed as part of a compulsory campaign. Since one of the major roles of compensation is to encourage the early reporting of disease, compensation should not be paid for animals that have already died or have been killed by the producer before the disease is reported and confirmed.

For compensation to be effective, it needs to be paid soon after the losses are incurred. Planning should consider how monies for compensation can be easily and quickly disbursed to those who are eligible for them.

financing for compensation plans

The financial plan should include the provisions for compensation to owners for any livestock or property destroyed as part of the disease eradication campaign. The payment of inadequate compensation is inherently unfair and also very counterproductive to the campaign. Inadequate compensation fosters resentment and lack of cooperation. It also encourages farmers to hide the presence of the disease or to move their animals to where they believe they will be safe.

Compensation should be based on the fair market ‘farm-gate’ value of the animals at the time of culling (assuming a value that the animal would have had as a healthy animal). Where possible, compensation should be paid at full market value. Compensation should be paid also for animals suspected as infected even if found later uninfected, and for contact animals destroyed within the efforts to contain or eradicate the disease. The same principle should be applied to products and property. The valuation should be done by an independent, professional valuer or team. If individual valuations are not practical, then generic valuations for different classes of livestock may be acceptable. Compensation for consequential, rather than direct, losses is usually difficult to administer and is inappropriate.