1. Development of national strategies implemented through action plans |
If developed collaboratively, there should be support from all stakeholders and consistent actions across sectors
Clear objectives for monitoring effectiveness of measures
Government support may provide encouragement
Mandatory measures may facilitate widespread and harmonised implementation of measures
Adoption into industry quality assurance schemes may facilitate implementation and compliance
Raises public awareness
|
|
2. Development of harmonised systems for monitoring antimicrobial use and surveillance of AMR integrating data from humans, food‐producing animals and food derived thereof |
Detailed knowledge of trends in AMR (human, veterinary, food) at both the MS and local level
Possibility to study the association between use and resistance in food‐producing animals and humans
May help to identify areas for future research
Enables monitoring of effectiveness of reduction measures and direct feedback according to the level at which data are collected
Enables identification of farms and prescribers that are associated with excessive use for targeted action
Allows implementation and monitoring of targets for reduction of use of antimicrobials
|
Requires technical expertise to perform testing and analyse data
May be problematic to harmonise established systems, including agreed usage and AMR indicators
May be difficult to organise in the absence of established livestock quality schemes
Requires changes in management to record antimicrobial use – possible reluctance from involved parties
Reluctance from involved parties due to reputational concerns for high users
|
3. Establishing targets for reduction of the use of antimicrobials in food‐producing animals, especially CIAs |
Establishes a clear objective for end users, with opportunity for tangible success
High‐level targets supported by national governments can be publically visible and raise awareness of AMR
Intervention required to meet targets should lead to improvement in farming conditions and husbandry and consequentially animal health and welfare
|
Difficult to set targets with a clear scientific basis until there is a better understanding of the relationship between antimicrobial use and AMR
Reducing antimicrobial use could result in increased disease in some circumstances and impact animal welfare
May be impacted by external factors, e.g. unexpected disease outbreak, poor harvest
Requires regular review
|
4. On‐farm animal health management with professional input |
Improvements in control and administration of antimicrobials at the farm level
Can be linked with monitoring of use per farm/veterinary practice, to facilitate tailored interventions
Clear working framework for farm staff
Can be used as opportunity for increasing farmer awareness of AMR
Improved animal health ‐ benefits felt at the local level
|
Requires changes in management
Resistance from some parties
Considerable care in design and implementation needed
Requires further education/training
|
5. Increasing the responsibility taken by veterinarians for prescribing antimicrobials |
|
Reluctance from involved parties, conflicts of interest
Requires further training/education, e.g. advisory skills
Requires more labour/resources, e.g. recording and reporting antimicrobial use
May be viewed as anticompetitive and limiting farmer's choice
|
6. Increased oversight of preventive and metaphylactic antimicrobial use |
|
Professional input associated with reviewing preventive and metaphylactic use and making recommendations
Reducing antimicrobial use could result in increased disease in some circumstances and impact animal welfare
Training of stockmen needed to better detect disease in early stages
|
7. Training and education for veterinarians and for end users of antimicrobials, and raising public awareness |
Up to date knowledge of methods to reduce and improve antimicrobial use by all interested parties
Greater awareness of consequences of AMR for animal and public health
May help address barriers to behavioural change
Rapid return as knowledge can be implemented immediately
|
Professional resources required to develop and maintain treatment guidelines
Further planning and research needed into development of effective training programmes
Training and guidelines need to be promoted to audiences
Reluctance from involved parties
Access may be difficult in remote locations
|
8. Increasing the availability and use of rapid and reliable diagnostics and antimicrobial susceptibility tests, including at the farm level |
Targeted treatment should improve animal health and welfare
Reduced unnecessary or inappropriate antimicrobial use
Stimulates new technologies
|
Further research, validation and development necessary
Requirement for quality assurance schemes at the EU level
Possibility of overprescribing due to false positive results
Training and education needed so that tests are applied and interpreted correctly
|
9. Improvement of husbandry and management procedures for disease prevention, control and eradication of infectious diseases in livestock production, including vaccination |
|
Requires further training/education
May require changes to traditional practices
Reluctance from involved parties due to aversion to change and natural inertia
Advanced vaccine technology may not yet be available
Methods for the improved development, formulation and delivery of next‐generation vaccines needed
|
10. Rethinking livestock production systems: reduced reliance on antimicrobial use and exploring further the potential of alternative production systems |
|
Reluctance from some involved parties
May require changes to traditional practices
Impacts on antimicrobial use and AMR may be long‐term
Possible higher risk for bacterial/parasitical/viral exposure in such systems
|
11. Development of treatments which are alternatives to antimicrobials |
Beneficial to animal health and welfare
Benefit may extend beyond target pathogens
Stimulus for research and development of alternatives to antimicrobials
Control of use of antimicrobials for group treatment
|
Long term
Robust validation protocols necessary
May have animal welfare complications if antimicrobials are withheld when needed
The use of possible alternatives may result in new safety risks to animals and to the food chain
Development of a new regulatory framework for alternative treatment regimens required
|