Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page

Improved outcomes for Victorian sheep farmers affected by the OJD management program.

Maryanne Martin1 and Frank Tobin1

1 Dept Primary Industries, 402 – 406 Mair St, Ballarat, 3350 Email maryanne.martin@dpi.vic.gov.au
2
1842 Caramut Rd, Winslow, 3281 Email frtobin@datafast.net.au

Abstract

The attempt to eradicate ovine Johne’s disease (OJD) from the Victorian sheep flock between 1996 and 1999 created resentment and alienation amongst sheep farmers. Not only did eradication prove to be infeasible, the social and emotional impact of the program seriously eroded social capital in many sheep farming communities and amongst the industry as a whole. In 2002 a new program was adopted, one that was led and initiated by the sheep industry but with significant support from government. This new program has met with considerable success. This paper outlines the progress made since 2002 and identifies the factors that contributed to a program that now enjoys a greater degree of confidence and support from the sheep industry.

Three key learnings: (1) representative industry ownership is critical to gaining support for livestock disease control programs; (2) a social support structure that assists farmers to deal with the social and emotional impact of having an endemic disease diagnosed on property is an important ingredient in engaging affected producers; (3) it is possible to apply the group approach, often adopted by many extension programs working on production issues, to a regulatory issue such as control of endemic diseases.

Key words

Ownership, participation, pathways, cooperation, social support

Representative industry ownership is critical to gaining support for livestock disease control programs.

The report of the OJD ministerial advisory committee in 2001, headed by a former judge, made it clear that major changes were needed to the program for the management and control of ovine Johne’s disease in Victoria. (Fogarty 2001) In particular, the report identified the need for greater industry involvement in the decision making process. It also emphasised that if any future program was to enjoy support from the sheep industry, that program needed more effective communication and the building of relationships between key stakeholders from both industry and government.

With this in mind, a subsequent Minister for Agriculture appointed a second OJD advisory committee in 2002. Its role was to advise the Minister on developments in relation to OJD that might impact on policies and procedures in Victoria, and nationally, for disease control, communication, financial assistance and social support.

In establishing this committee the Minister had called for expressions of interest from all interested and affected groups in Victoria. Advertisements were placed in ‘The Weekly Times’ newspaper. In determining the industry representatives to sit on the committee the Minister included all groups with an interest or stake in the issue. Subsequently the following groups had a representative appointed to the committee. The Merino stud breeders, the meat sheep breeders, The OJD Action Group, The Victorian Farmers’ Federation (VFF), The Australian Livestock and Property Agents’ Association, veterinarians in private practice, and the Department of Natural Resources and Environment (NRE). A social scientist with experience in rural communities was appointed to ensure that the social impact of policies was given due consideration in any future program. Any further industry opinions were covered through the appointment of three ‘broader industry’ representatives to the committee. This allowed for the inclusion of individuals who were not members of specific industry groups to take their place on the committee.

The breadth of committee membership was in direct contrast to the approach pre 2002 where decisions had been made primarily by certain sections of industry and government without direct representation from other industry groups. The change of approach is expressed in the following quote from a senior veterinary officer with the Department of Primary Industries (successor to NRE)

‘The grass roots of industry have taken much more control of it. Whereas initially it was an industry program but it was done by the hierarchy of the industry bodies and they didn’t consult with their members to any great extent and our hierarchy didn’t consult with us at all. They just passed it down, carved in stone that this is what you are going to do. That was the base problem. Staff were implementing a program they didn’t have any confidence in and farmers were forced to accept a program they weren’t consulted about’ (Boxelaar 2005)

The Minister’s intention was for the committee to provide a forum for an open and transparent discussion of the issues so that decisions about the future management of the disease in Victoria would be made with the involvement of all industry sectors. This would increase the level of ownership and commitment to the implementation of any future program.

The committee’s willingness to forge a new way forward became evident when they voted to select their own chairperson and chose a sheep producer who had been directly affected by the previous program, Frank Tobin. His property had been destocked in 1996 after which he initiated a campaign to stop the policy of eradication by forming a lobby group called the OJD Action Group. The efforts of this group met with success when a newly elected state government stopped the eradication scheme in 1999. Subsequently, the OJD Action Group lobbied for a new program that whilst science-based would be more sympathetic to the needs of farmers. The inclusion of the OJD Action Group on the committee and the appointment of their leader as Chairman were especially significant decisions. There were some risks inherent in the appointment of Tobin as chairman given his radicalism in the past but these were outweighed but the risk of leaving the group ‘outside’ any future decision making process. The lobby group represented approximately 60 farming families directly affected by the trading restrictions of the control program. To be omitted from any decision making forum would only exacerbate tensions and the sense of disenfranchisement already felt by affected producers. To have their leader as chairman clearly signalled a new approach to the whole industry.

The past program had been very divisive. Whilst the industry as a whole had wanted to control the spread of OJD the brunt of control program had been born by a small minority of families who were detected with the disease through tracing activities conducted by NRE. Once the disease was confirmed on a property, or suspected of being present on a property, trading restrictions were put in place that often seriously limited the economic viability of these farms. This raised questions of equity and more importantly brought resistance from sheep producers many of whom refused to cooperate with the program. Resistance took the form of failing to notify the presence of the disease, unwillingness to test for the disease and lack of co-operation with NRE in devising an appropriate management strategy to prevent the disease from spreading. In December 2002 there were approximately 400 suspect farms with very few willing to test to resolve their status. Most significantly many sheep farmers lived in fear of being detected with the disease and being placed under restrictions. Owners of ‘suspect’ properties faced pressure from their neighbours not to test. If the test on a suspect property proved positive thereby moving that farm to an infected status, then the neighbouring properties subsequently became suspect.

Clearly such a situation was unsustainable and solutions needed to be devised. Any future program had to ease the burden of the disease on affected producers and provide them with a pathway to resume trading over time. Furthermore the engagement of all producers in understanding and managing the disease would be necessary if the disease was to be managed into the future.

One of the first actions of the new advisory committee was to devise a financial assistance package for properties that were infected with OJD. Previous financial assistance had taken the form of compensation for destocking infected farms. The new package provided incentives for owners of infected flocks to actively manage the disease. It was also hoped that the package would encourage a number of producers whose flocks were suspected of being infected to undertake testing to determine whether the disease was present, and if so at what prevalence.

The financial assistance measures were funded by the sheep industry through the Sheep and Goat Compensation Fund, raised by a levy of 12c per sheep sold in Victorian saleyards.

Initially, the response to the package was slow. However, over time it gained increasing favour, especially following an extensive and on-going communications led by the advisory committee and supported by staff from the Department of Primary Industries, especially its animal health operations branch.

Establishing a social support structure to assist farmers to deal with the social and emotional impact of having an endemic disease diagnosed on property is an important ingredient in engaging affected producers

A key recommendation of the former advisory committee was the creation of a support program coordinator to provide support to producers who were affected by the regulations of the OJD control program. (Fogarty 2001)Appointed in late 2002, the coordinator sat on the Advisory Committee as a non-voting member and was a departmental employee. Within the Department the position was put at a distance from the animal health operations branch so that the coordinator would be seen by producers as an independent figure able to advocate and work for their interests. The position was set up as a separate project with its own budget and time frame. It was expected however that the coordinator would still work closely with the animal health staff and the advisory committee.

The selection criteria for the position had placed emphasis on the coordinator having experience and skills in communication. It was not seen as necessary for the coordinator to have any technical skills on OJD or experience and knowledge of the sheep industry. The appointee came with a background in education and communication and had been raised on a sheep property in Victoria.

The main elements of the support program were as follows:

The use of support groups is the component that is discussed at length in this paper.

Several support groups were set up across the state between 2003-2005. The support program coordinator approached producers in areas where the OJD program had had a significant impact on the emotional and social well being of individuals and their communities. These issues were well identified in a Victorian Parliamentary report published in 2002

‘Uncertainty, stress, anger, a sense of losing personal control over life and despair. These feelings build up over time. They have an impact on the way in which individuals behave and whole communities thrive and decline’

Producers were asked if they wished to form a group as a means to address issues within their communities. The philosophy behind the group concept was to give the control and ownership of the issue to the group. Each group was therefore provided with its own budget and given the freedom to choose a group coordinator from within their community. This person, paid from their group budget, became the organiser and with the group’s input decided on activities to run for the group’s benefit. The backgrounds of the coordinators were varied. As were the activities run by the groups. The support groups took a leading role in educating their group members about the new points scoring system for sheep (Assurance Based Credit (ABC) scheme) and worked closely with department animal health staff to ensure producers had relevant and accurate information that informed their decision making about the disease and the management program. This collaborative approach helped to take much of the stigma and negativity out of having the disease diagnosed on properties. Furthermore, most groups were able to shift attitudes within their communities within twelve months through the conduct of two – five activities. After the shift the need for the group declined as people felt more comfortable about the issue.

In 2005 The Department of Primary Industries undertook an independent evaluation of the support project to understand what worked and how well the project met the needs of affected producers. The report from the University of Melbourne found that the support groups were instrumental in addressing the needs of the sheep farming communities for accessing information about the disease, in providing peer support to reduce alienation and isolation, and encouraging greater farmer cooperation in managing the disease within the district.

‘Really to break down the isolation, to get the information out there. Get people together and discuss ideas on how to manage it. What was happening on other people’s properties, just generally getting all the information together (Farmer)’ (Boxelaar 2005)

‘The good thing has been that everyone else has got it and it’s not a problem. In the first instance it was a bit of a problem if you got it. You were isolated and you couldn’t trade or do a lot of things but because of these groups, we are all equal (Farmer)’ (Boxelaar 2005)

Another factor that shows the shift in attitudes to the program is the number of letters written to the major rural newspapers since 2002. Only one letter has been published in this period in stark contrast with the previous program where hundreds of letters were received from agitated and angry sheep producers. Articles on OJD occasionally feature in the rural media but these have been about occupational health and safety issues of the OJD Gudair vaccine and also border trade issues with South Australia where a much more regulatory approach continues to dominate their program.

The success of a group approach to farmers in the management program for OJD suggests that it is possible to apply the group approach often adopted by many extension programs working on production issues to a regulatory issue such as control of endemic diseases.

There is enormous industry benefit in improving the delivery of extension messages to producers in relation to the management of animal diseases. Inaction or inertia in the management of the disease by an individual farmer may impact on many others. OJD has the potential to become endemic throughout Australia unless adequately managed over the next decade. It will have a significant impact on the profitability of sheep producers who do not take steps to manage the disease if it infects their property. There are also potential export issues if importers of Australian sheep, lamb and mutton decide that OJD represents a health risk to their consumers.

The table below lists the group activities that were organised and the number of people who attended these activities between 2003 – 2005. It shows the range of technical information important to the disease’s management that could be accessed by sheep producers through the support groups.

Group

Number
of
activities

Topics covered

Number
of
attendees

Skipton

7

  • How to diagnose OJD in sheep (post mortem)
  • Vaccination strategies and addressing OHS issues in its use
  • Understanding the new Assurance Based Credit (ABC) Scheme
  • Pasture management on an OJD infected property

14 - 42

Tarra Latrobe Management Group

6

  • How to diagnose OJD in sheep (post mortem)
  • Social events to bring producers together
  • Understanding the new Assurance Based Credit (ABC) Scheme

20 - 46

Mustons

2

  • How to diagnose OJD in sheep (post mortem)
  • Vaccination strategies and addressing OHS issues in its use
  • Pasture management on an OJD infected property

8-33

Dundas Ranges

2

  • How to diagnose OJD in sheep (post mortem)
  • Vaccination strategies and addressing OHS issues in its use
  • Pasture management on an OJD infected property

9-33

Corangamite

2

  • How to diagnose OJD in sheep (post mortem)
  • Vaccination strategies and addressing OHS issues in its use
  • Understanding the new Assurance Based Credit (ABC) Scheme

14-25

Omeo Shire

3

  • How to diagnose OJD in sheep (post mortem)
  • Vaccination strategies and addressing OHS issues in its use
  • Understanding the new Assurance Based Credit (ABC) Scheme
  • Pasture management on an OJD infected property
  • Policy update

9-36

Avon OJD Management Group

2

  • Vaccination strategies and addressing OHS issues in its use
  • Understanding the new Assurance Based Credit (ABC) Scheme
  • Low stress sheep handling

20- 26

Lexton Bestwool Group

2

  • Public Meeting to address community issues
  • Post mortem of infected sheep

20- 45

Violet Town

2

  • Vaccination strategies and addressing OHS issues in its use
  • How to diagnose OJD in sheep (post mortem)
  • Policy update
  • Marketing sheep under the ABC scheme

15-22

Mansfield

2

  • Bus trip to another OJD infected property to understand management issues
  • Vaccination strategies and addressing OHS issues in its use
  • How to diagnose OJD in sheep (post mortem)
  • Marketing sheep under the ABC scheme

50

Loddon Valley Bestwool Group

2

  • Marketing sheep under the ABC scheme
  • Vaccination strategies and addressing OHS issues in its use
  • How to diagnose OJD in sheep (post mortem)

25

Thus the support groups purpose has been two fold. Firstly providing a supportive peer environment where people have been able to deal with social and emotional issues in a more positive way. Secondly to receive relevant technical information in order to manage the disease on their properties. This is expressed well in the following quote.

‘Apart from the benefits of peer support and farmers learning from each other, the group approach was also considered to be a more efficient way of disseminating information than the one-on-one approach, as it allowed for groups of farmers to receive information all at once. Moreover, the group approach allowed information to be delivered in a farmer-controlled forum that was more receptive to advice from departmental staff’ (Boxelaar 2005)

Using the group approach on regulatory issues such as animal disease management programs is more likely to be relevant where there are significant social issues that need to be addressed. The OJD program has been highly controversial because when there is an infected diagnosis made a number of properties may be involved. Thus a farmer with OJD on property has to not only manage the disease but also handle relationships with neighbours who may also be implicated and drawn into the management program. Under the previous program there was considerable blame attached to producers who were perceived as introducing the disease to an area through their trading practices and/or poor farm management skills. After the establishment of a support groups in an area this ‘blame’ syndrome often declined as farmers had better understanding and access to information about how the disease is introduced to a property and spread. Furthermore, the groups helped producers see that vaccination was an important step in managing the spread of a disease within a farming locality.

‘I immediately took it on board and started vaccinating. To me it is the most positive thing that I can do to prevent an outbreak on this farm ever again. The way it was going I would not have done that, and I would not have known as much about it.’(Farmer) (Boxelaar 2005)

The success of the new approach can be seen to some extent in the number of doses of vaccine sold to producers. In May 2003 there had been 58,150 doses sold to producers with an infected property status. In October 2005 this had risen to 1.2 million doses. An additional one million doses of vaccine had been sold to producers whose properties are not known to be infected with OJD.

Any consideration of this approach in the future needs to recognise that the following factors are likely to be important to the success of a group approach to livestock disease control issues:

Conclusion

The successful engagement of the sheep industry in the decision making and implementation processes for the control and management of OJD has been a key factor in contributing to a more producer oriented program in Victoria. A more representative sheep industry advisory committee has been a key factor in bringing about significant change to the program, especially in regard to the attitudes of sheep producers in working with government.

Providing a social support structure to producers whose properties were affected by the trading restrictions of the management program was also an important step in engaging producers in the program and getting them to take active steps to manage the disease. The use of support groups where producers felt they could own and manage the learning about the disease, the management program, and to share experiences was also a significant. The experience in Victoria suggests that using a farmer group approach to disease control may be a way of gaining greater participation and cooperation in issues relating to livestock disease control programs in the future.

References

Boxelaar, Lucia 2005, Ovine Johne’s Disease Communication and Support Project – Evaluation Report - A report prepared for the Department of Primary Industries of Victoria, University of Melbourne, pp.26-31

Fogarty, John 2001. ‘Advice to Minister for Agriculture, Hon, Keith Hamilton’, pp.19-22

Parliament of Victoria 2002, 'Inquiry into the control of Ovine Johne's Disease in Victoria' in www.parliament.vic.gov.au/enrc/ojd/, Access date 12 June 2002

Previous PageTop Of PageNext Page