| 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
|
