Workshop June 2007

National Animal Health Strategy (NAHS)
Multi-partner Workshop

June 5-6, 2007

June 2007 Workshop Summary Report

< Part 1: Workshop Context

Table of Contents

Part 3 : Next Steps >

---

Part 2: Defining the Workings of Canada’s Animal Health System: Participant Discussion and Feedback

Canada’s animal health system is extremely complex and intrinsically multifaceted, with numerous players intersecting across many varied sectors.

A series of five value chain models were proposed by the NAHS team to provide discussion starting points toward identifying the components of Canada’s animal health system. The value chains included: Farmed Food or Fur Animals; Wildlife; Animals Used for Scientific Purposes; Zoo/Aquarium Animals; and Companion Animals.

Participants worked in facilitated small groups to explore the proposed value chains in terms of:

• Are the elements identified in the value chain accurate and complete? Are the boxes on the chart the right ones? Are there any boxes missing? Are there any linkages absent?
• For each of the elements/boxes, what activities occur under this element?
• Under each element, who are the players who conduct/perform/play a role in the activities? Who are decision makers? Who completes these activities? Who contributes to the activities?

The following section provides a summary of each breakout group’s key messages. Please refer to Annex 1 for the transcript of group work.

Key Messages From Breakout Groups

Value Chain – Wildlife

Participants felt strongly that the value chain model does not work for wildlife – it’s a “square peg in a round hole.” The group defined “wildlife” as “animals (both native/natural and naturalized, which included foreign species and animals that were released/escaped; and both invertebrates and vertebrates) that free range independent of human care.”   

A key difference between the value chain for wildlife and those of other animal sectors is that wildlife is a public resource, rather than a private resource. The groups suggested that there are four main values associated with wildlife as a public resource: social, economic, ecological and cultural. The cultural value was seen to be particularly important, as wildlife is a large part of Canada’s national pride and cultural identity, it is of significant importance to Aboriginal peoples, and has implications for the arts, tourism and other areas.

In identifying activities and players related to the value chain, the group focused around four categories based on functions: policy management/decision making; service provision; equipment and supplies; and affected groups.

The group emphasized that wildlife health affects everyone and that wildlife health is extremely important to Canada’s economic, cultural and social prosperity.

Value Chain – Farmed Food or Fur Animals

Note: Two groups worked on this value chain.

Group 1

Participants suggested that a table be used to identify the various links of the food chain instead of using a generic chart. Using a table in which each row represents areas of activity such as monitoring, traceability, training, communications, and research, would lead to a more horizontal approach..

Competition and how it fits into the value chain needs to be considered as well, as it has important implications for the sector.

In identifying the various players associated with the activities of the value chain, participants noted that there are many cross-cutting activities/players. There are also variables related to public and private sectors, and primary and secondary players and roles.

The definition of roles and responsibilities of the players is a huge task for this and for the other value chains; an alternative process to document the workings of Canada’s animal health system may be more productive.

Group 2

The proposed value chain model was considered to be too linear to appropriately represent the cyclical nature and interconnectedness of the sector. The model proposed describes the target and not the system since the connections between different value chains are not illustrated in it.

Participants suggested that a more overarching approach be taken that looks to identify a common value proposition, one that defines the animal health system in terms of the value that all animal sectors are seeking to provide. Here, the animal health system helps each sector deliver on this common value proposition.

Representation of an overarching value chain could be through a circular model, with each animal sector having a separate circle which is linked to a broader circle that encompasses all the sectors, thereby representing the whole animal health system. Common components, for example, biosecurity, would connect the various sectors.

A key element of a value chain representation for "Farmed Food or Fur Animals" would be the establishment of a Policy Framework.  Led by federal and provincial governments, this would cover areas such as technology transfer (including education and awareness, research, and the introduction of new technologies), international standards, and coordination and collaboration.

Participants noted that the media is a key player in many of the value chain elements, in terms of its ability to influence and educate consumers.

Value Chain – Companion Animals

The group felt that the proposed value chain provided a fairly comprehensive model of the sector.

The following additions would improve the model proposed:

• add a box to represent “Family Life/Co-existence”, which would address activities such as feeding, grooming, training, boarding, supplies, therapy, pet identification/traceability, etc.
• An “After care” box should follow the “Death” box, as there are specific post-death care activities related to companion animals.

It was proposed that separate value chains be developed for cats, dogs, and exotic pets.

The participants noted that there are interconnections between companion animals and other sectors, for example, zoo/aquarium.

A circular model was proposed to reflect linkages with other sectors and to the overall animal health system, and to the social, spiritual, cultural, economic, and ecological benefits arising from companion animals and their interaction with humans.

The group identified six common areas of activity: feed; housing; veterinary services; veterinary products; animal care products and services (non-veterinary); and education. It was noted that many players have roles in a number of the activity areas.

Participants noted that it is unclear whether “working” animals (e.g., vision assistance dogs, sporting dogs) should be included within the Companion Animal sector.

Value Chain – Zoo/Aquarium Animals

The group focused on zoos and aquariums that are accredited by the Canadian Association of Zoos and Aquariums (CAZA), while recognizing that non-accredited sites will also need to be considered in the scope of the NAHS.

Accredited zoos and aquariums tend to be large, with primary objectives of education, research and conservation. Most are staffed by professionals, including one or more veterinarians. It was also noted that while there are similarities between zoos and aquariums, there are also key differences that must be considered in identifying the elements of the value chain. The “value” tends to be in intangibles (especially education, conservation awareness, etc.), although there is economic benefit through admissions, special events, tourism, etc.

When articulating a value chain for the zoo/aquarium sector, the zoo/aquarium population as a whole should be considered, rather than individual animals. Again, a circular model (a “value cycle”), rather than a linear model, would better represent the animal life cycle continuum, activities and players.

In terms of animal source, most mammals and birds in zoos were born in zoos or are acquired through commercial breeders; aquarium species, including reptiles, amphibians and fish, tend to be sourced from the wild. The primary movement of animals is between zoos, usually by exchange or breeding loans. Transport of animals occurs between zoos, and in some cases when an animal is introduced into the wild, which may occur for endangered species. Upon death, zoo animals go to museums for display and universities and other groups for research related to husbandry, breeding, artificial reproduction, etc.

There are many people and organizations involved in activities related to zoos/aquariums, including breeding organizations, local farmers who provide feed and bedding, food companies, veterinary supply companies, and contractors who build/repair facilities.

Value Chain – Animals Used for Scientific Purposes

Participants felt that the original name given to this group of animals i.e. "laboratory/research animals" should be changed to “animals used for scientific purposes” to better reflect the broad range of research and to align with the terminology used internationally.

Generally, the proposed value chain was considered to provide a fairly good representation of the sector.

The protocols and standards developed and used at each step be shown as an important group of activities. For example, "Animal Source" could include species-specific information (farmed, wild, pound/stray, donated, bred, etc.).  The type of research may also need to be more fully explored, to reflect protocols that may be disease-specific, for example.