DEFRA COMMENTS TO INQUIRIES ON FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE (FMD):
ACCESS TO THE COUNTRYSIDE
The top priority is to beat the disease and, to this end, tight biosecurity is essential.
A precautionary response was understandable in the early days of the FMD outbreak and most local authorities made use of powers then available to impose blanket closures on the rights of way network.
Regulatory controls over public access to the countryside must be proportionate to the risk of spreading FMD, taking account of the prevailing disease situation, and a risk based approach was adopted. Veterinary Risk Assessments have been reviewed and revised as the outbreak progressed.
On 18 May, the veterinary risk assessment was revised and recommended that regulatory controls on public use of rights of way should be confined to agricultural premises and agricultural land within 3 km Protection Zones round an Infected Place. Elsewhere, the public were encouraged to accept responsibility to owners and occupiers of the land they crossed by having regard to Codes which applied in Infected Areas and elsewhere, e.g. by staying off farmland if they had recently handled farm animals and by avoiding contact with livestock.
In the light of the revised Veterinary Risk Assessment, on 23 May the Government issued guidance to local authorities in England encouraging the re-opening of footpaths where it was safe to do so, outside 3 km Protection Zones.
Progress by local authorities towards re-opening their footpaths was slower than anticipated, so on 20 July, following consultation with the local authorities, the Government revoked most remaining blanket right of way closures previously imposed by local authorities.
Exemptions from the revocation of blanket closures were given to six local authorities worst affected by FMD, for all or part of their areas: Cumbria (whole county), Devon, Durham, Gloucestershire, Herefordshire and Lancashire. These were granted on logistical grounds, as many thousands of footpaths would have had to be re-signed individually as closed.
The exemptions have been reviewed, and three of the authorities (Devon, Gloucestershire and Herefordshire) have lifted their exemptions by completely re-opening all their footpaths except those across premises remaining under veterinary restrictions. The exemptions for Cumbria, Durham and Lancashire are being considered further in the light of revised veterinary risk assessment and local authority guidance on re-opening footpaths issued on 7 December.
Given the exceptional circumstances leading to the imposition of Restricted Infected Areas ("Blue Boxes"), Government accepted that footpaths within the boxes should remain closed if such an Area is declared.
On 7 December, the revised veterinary risk assessment on re-opening public footpaths was issued along with revised Government guidance to local authorities that footpaths, apart from those going through farmyards or buildings, across premises under veterinary restrictions (Form A, 'modified' Form D or FM37B 'article 38' Notices) could be re-opened subject to specific criteria.
Local authorities were encouraged to work closely with their local DEFRA Divisional Veterinary Managers to establish exactly which footpaths could be re-opened as a result of this development, but no significant further re-openings were expected until that process was completed
A media campaign was conducted to inform the public about access to the countryside. Key in this was the need to ensure that those wishing to visit the countryside had access to accurate information on the foot and mouth situation. Despite careful media choices to ensure that coverage across England and Wales was as thorough and even as possible, difficulties persisted in the level of accuracy of information available to the public on what was open.
www.countryside.gov.uk or individual local authority websites also gave more information about footpath re-opening.
Some concern has been expressed at the mixed message: on the one hand, maintain tight biosecurity; on the other, get visitors back to the countryside. There is no inconsistency between the two. The risks are of a very different order. The current Veterinary Risk Assessment notes that transmission by people has been recorded on many occasions, but those responsible have generally had close contact with animals on infected, and then on uninfected, premises. It is theoretically possible that walkers could carry infection to previously uninfected animals, although there is no evidence that this has actually happened and the risk, if any, is small in comparison to other transmission risks. It also notes that even small risks can be further diminished by appropriate action. Footpath users should continue to observe sensible precautions, including making use of biosecurity measures provided by farmers.
