The Critical Infrastructure Sector
Partnership Model and the Food and
Agriculture Experience
June 11, 2013
AFDO Annual Educational Conference
Louisville, KY
1
Clay Detlefsen
Intl Dairy Foods Assn, Co-chair, Food/Ag Sector Coordinating
Council (FA-SCC)
Randy Gordon
Natl Grain & Feed Assn, Co-chair, Food/Ag Sector Coordinating
Council (FA-SCC)
LeeAnne Jackson
US Food and Drug Administration, Co-chair, Food/Ag Government
Coordinating Council (FA-GCC)
Jessica Pulz
US Department of Agriculture, Co-chair, Food/Ag Government
Coordinating Council (FA-GCC)
2
Overview
•
•
•
•
•
•
Background
Policy Directives, Statutes, & Authorities
Food & Agriculture Councils
Implementation & Accomplishments
Path Forward
Questions
3
Background
4
Food and Agriculture Sector
Vision Statement
“The Food and Agriculture Sector acknowledges the Nation’s critical
reliance on food and agriculture. The sector will strive to ensure that the
Nation’s food and agriculture networks and systems are secure, resilient,
and rapidly restored after all-hazards incidents. Public and private
partners aim to reduce vulnerabilities and minimize consequences
through risk-based decision-making and effective communication.”
5
The Global Supply Chain
Courtesy of National Center for Food Protection and Defense (NCFPD)
6
Background & Approach
Why: $2.1T industry, 1/5 of the Nation’s economy, vast
& open systems, diverse farm-to-fork continuum,
susceptible to a wide range of threats & hazards
How: Policy Directives, Statutes, Regulations, &
Authorities; Grants, Cooperative Agreements,
Assistance Programs; and Public-Private Partnerships
What: A secure & resilient [food & agriculture sector]
with the capabilities required across the whole
community to prevent, protect against, mitigate,
respond to, and recover from threats & hazards of
greatest risk.
7
Policy Directives, Statutes, &
Authorities
8
Policies, Directives, & Authorities
Then …
•
•
•
•
•
Homeland Security Act of 2002
Bioterrorism Preparedness and
Response Act of 2002
Animal Health Protection Act of 2002
HSPD-5: Management of Domestic
Incidents (2003)
HSPD-7: Critical Infrastructure
Protection (2003)
•
•
•
•
HSPD-8: National Preparedness
(2003)
HSPD-9: Defense of U.S. Agriculture
and Food (2004)
Post-Katrina Emergency
Management Reform Act (2006)
National Response Framework (2008)
Now …
•
•
•
•
•
PPD-2: Countering Biological Threats •
(2009)
PPD-8: National Preparedness (2011) •
FDA Food Safety Modernization Act •
(2011)
National Disaster Recovery
Framework (2011)
National Preparedness Goal (2011)
PPD-21: Critical Infrastructure
Security and Resilience (2013)
National Planning Frameworks (2013)
Interagency Operating Plans (2013)
9
HSPD-7:
Protecting Critical Infrastructure
•
•
•
National policy for Federal departments and agencies to
identify and prioritize U.S. critical infrastructure and key
resources and to protect them from terrorist attacks
Defines roles and responsibilities for DHS and designated
Sector Specific Agencies
Key Activities:
– National Infrastructure Protection Plan
– Sector Specific Plans
– National and Sector Annual Reports
USDA and FDA are the designated Sector Specific Agencies
for the Food and Agriculture Sector.
10
PPD-21: Critical Infrastructure
Security & Resilience
• Refocuses efforts based on:
– Threats and hazards of greatest risk
– Critical infrastructure resilience
– Improved coordination and integration of physical and cyber
security initiatives
• Addresses strategic imperatives:
– Refine and clarify critical infrastructure initiatives across the
Federal government
– Enable effective information exchange
– Implement an integration and analysis function to inform
planning and operations decisions
11
Sector Concept & Authorities: HSPD-9
HSPD-9 set a national policy for defending U.S. food and
agriculture system against terrorist attacks, major
disasters, and other emergencies
Key Components:
–
–
–
–
–
Awareness & Warning
Vulnerability Assessments
Mitigation Strategies
Response Planning & Recovery
Outreach & Professional
Development
– Research & Development
12
FDA Food Safety Modernization Act
•
Prevention
– Mandatory preventive controls for
food and feed facilities
– Mandatory produce safety
standards
– Authority to prevent intentional
contamination
•
Inspection and Compliance
– Mandated inspection frequency
– Records access
– Testing by accredited laboratories
•
Response
– Mandatory recall
– Expanded administrative
detention
– Suspension of registration
– Enhanced product tracing abilities
– Additional recordkeeping for high
risk foods
•
Imports
–
–
–
–
Importer accountability
Third-party certification
Certification for high-risk foods
Voluntary qualified importer
program
– Authority to deny entry
•
Enhanced Partnerships
– State and local capacity building
– Foreign capacity building
– Reliance on inspections by other
agencies
– Additional partnerships are
required to:
•
•
•
Develop and implement a national
agriculture and food defense
strategy
Establish an integrated consortium
of laboratory networks, and
Improve foodborne illness
surveillance
13
FDA Food Safety Modernization Act
Food and Agriculture Defense Provisions
• Section 106 – Protection Against Intentional
Adulteration
• Section 108 – National Agriculture and Food Defense
Strategy
• Section 109 – Food and Agriculture Coordinating
Councils
• Section 110(g) – Biennial Food Safety and Food
Defense Research Plan
• Section 205(c) – Improving Food Safety and Food
Defense Capacity at the State and Local Level
• Section 208 – Decontamination and Disposal Standards
and Plans
14
PPD-8: National Preparedness
15
Mission Areas and Core Capabilities
Defense of food and agriculture is
identified as an element in the
definition of “protection”
16
Future Food & Agriculture
Defense Policy
• What are the strategic imperatives for the next 5 – 10
years of food and agriculture defense policy?
• Current focus on:
– Public-private partnerships
– Intelligence and information sharing
– Response and recovery
17
Future Directions
Outreach
Efforts
Information
Sharing
Operating in Parallel
Co-funding – Sharing of Resources
Co-creation & Co-programming
Co-ownership & P3 Models
18
Food and Agriculture
Sector Councils
19
Food & Agriculture
Coordinating Councils
• Government Coordinating Council (GCC)
• Sector Coordinating Council (SCC)
• Stated Goal:
– A public-private effort that protects public health and
builds and sustains a protected national food supply
chain where the U.S. Food and Agriculture
Infrastructure is secure, resilient and prepared.
20
Food & Agriculture Coordinating Councils
Food and Agriculture Government
Coordinating Council (GCC)
PUBLIC SECTOR
• Department of Agriculture*
• Department of Health and Human Services - Food and Drug
Administration*
• Department of Homeland Security
• Department of Defense
• Environmental Protection Agency
• Department of Commerce
• Department of Justice
• Department of Interior
• American Assoc. of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians
• Assoc. of Food & Drug Officials
• Assoc. of Public Health Laboratories
• Assoc. of State & Territorial Health Officials
• Intertribal Agriculture Council
• Multi-State Partnership for Agriculture Security
• Nat’l Assembly of State Chief Livestock Health Officials
• Nat’l Assoc. of City & County Health Officials
• Nat’l Assoc. of State Depts of Agriculture
• National Environmental Health Association
• National Plant Board
• Southern Agriculture and Animal Disaster Response Alliance
(SAADRA)
• State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial GCC
Food and Agriculture Sector
Coordinating Council (SCC)
PRIVATE SECTOR
 Producers/Plant firms and associations
 Producers/Animal firms and associations
 Processors/Manufacturers firms and associations
 Restaurants/Food Service associations
 Retail associations
 Warehousing and Logistic associations
 Agriculture Production Inputs and Services firms
and associations
21
SCC/GCC Activity
• The SCC and GCC meet face-to-face four times
per year
• The Leadership of the two councils meet once
per month via conference call
• The SCC and GCC periodically conduct tabletop
food defense exercises
• At times, the contact between the GCC and SCC
can be daily
22
SCC Mission
• Serves as the primary, policy-level interface with DHS,
FDA, USDA, and other federal, state and local agencies
on homeland security matters
• Communicates the sector’s needs and requests for
resources to the government
• Facilitates communications, plans, and activities with
other relevant infrastructure sectors, government
entities, and others necessary to further secure the
nation’s food supply and critical infrastructure
23
SCC’s Current Structure
• Singular entity – no sub councils
• Leadership – 2 Co-chairs
• Trade associations represent interests of member
companies in SCC membership
• Solid participation from multinationals [e.g., Archer
Daniels Midland (ADM), Kraft, McCormick & Co.,
ConAgra, others]
• SCC is part of Partnership for Critical Infrastructure
Security (PCIS) – cross-sector council consisting of all
16 designated sectors (e.g., Nuclear, Financial Services,
Transportation, Dams, Water, etc.)
24
SCC’s Underlying
Owners & Operators
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
2,170,000+ Farms
171,000+ Domestic Registered Food Facilities
278,000+ Foreign Registered Food Facilities
~1,000,000 Restaurant/Food Service Outlets
37,000+ Supermarkets (sales > 2M)
146,000+ Convenience Stores
21,000 Dollar Stores
57,000+ Pharmacies (including some in supermarkets)
Plus many more
25
GCC Value Proposition
GCC Slide
26
GCC Goals and Activities
27
Multi-State Partnership for Security in Agriculture
Southern Animal and Agriculture Disaster Response Alliance
Mid-Atlantic Agriculture and Animal Emergency Management Alliance
New England States Animal Agriculture Security Alliance
Notes:
Kentucky is both MSPSA and SAADRA
Virginia and West Virginia are both SAADRA and
MAAEMA
Implementation &
Accomplishments
29
Sector Formation & Existence
•
•
•
•
•
•
Formation of the sector was – and remains – challenging
Too many activities, all with time and resource commitments
Focus, at times, was perceived to be "checking boxes“
Extremely diverse needs, philosophies exist within sector
Enormous potential should palpable threat materialize
Critical relationships within the sector and with government
personnel have materialized
• Mutual understandings and trust developed
• Progress made; more needs to be achieved
30
Strategic Partnership Program
on Agroterrorism (SPPA)
• Extremely well-received by industry and government alike
• Excellent opportunity for private sector to inform, educate
officials about their operations and to interact with government
• Excellent opportunity for government to educate private sector
to understand government concerns
• Excellent opportunity for industry to learn from each other
• Numerous concerns ruled-in or ruled-out
• Identified critical research needs
• Supported development of other tools and resources for
sector
31
Sector Table Top Exercises
• 2006 – Raleigh, Carolina – Intentional contamination of bottled
water
• 2006 – Washington, DC - Foreign Animal Disease
• 2007 – Harrisburg, PA – Intentional contamination of animal feed
resulting in human food contamination (primarily early response)
• 2009 – Oklahoma City, OK - Intentional contamination of animal
feed resulting in human food contamination (more focused on late
response and recovery issues)
• 2009 – Crystal City, VA – Federal follow-on to Oklahoma exercise
• 2010 and 2011 – Arlington, VA – Intentional contamination at food
retail/food service locations in several major cities
• 2013 – Nuclear Reactors, Materials & Waste and Food & Agriculture
Cross-Sector Workshop
• 2013 – Nuclear Reactors, Materials & Waste and Food & Agriculture
Tabletop Exercise (TBD)
32
Additional SCC Accomplishments
• Assisted in enhancing
• Helped DHS understand
overall awareness of
“systems approach” to
threats to food and
identify, evaluate critical
agriculture, and kept it in
assets/redundancies
perspective
• Beneficially influenced
• Helped establish a
numerous DHS-driven
structure for collaboration
projects and activities
with our federal, state and • Actively participated in the
local partners
development and
• Participated with our
execution of a number of
partners in numerous
excellent tabletop
vulnerability assessments
exercises
33
Cross-Sector Collaboration
• Partnership with FBI and EPA to support
multi-sector workshops
• Collaboration at local level to promote
coordination between water utilities, public
health, food and agriculture, emergency
management, and law enforcement
• Upcoming workshops to be announced
34
If You See Something,
Say SomethingTM
35
Prioritization
of Critical Infrastructure
• Total of 30 States successfully added FA Sector assets, systems,
and clusters as part of the 2011 National Critical Infrastructure
Prioritization Program (NCIPP) data call
• This marked the first time that FA Sector assets were included in
this prioritization, an accomplishment that is the direct result of the
collaborative partnership among DHS, SSAs, and SLTT partners
• “Criticality Workgroup” established to facilitate ongoing efforts to
standardize prioritization and identify and implement risk reduction
measures and mitigation strategies
36
Continuity of Business
•
Preparedness
–
–
•
Work with industry stakeholders and experts to
prioritize animal or commodity movements that
have the potential to be affected by disease or
disease response
Establish transparent and effective system for
risk assessments, surveillance requirements,
biosecurity procedures, and a permit process to
promote stakeholder acceptance and compliance
with regulatory interventions by Federal, State,
and Tribal authorities
Response
–
–
Implement appropriate COB plan for affected
industries or industry segment(s)
Work with industry and Incident Command to
facilitate movement of non-infected animals and
non-contaminated animal products from noninfected premises
37
Secure Food Supply
•
Continuity of business plans and
processes, like the Secure Food
Supply projects, work with
quarantines to…
– Plan for the managed movement of
non-infected animals and noncontaminated animal products from
non-infected premises during an
outbreak
– Facilitate normal business operations,
avoiding unnecessary economic
consequences, as well as animal
welfare issues
– Mitigate risk of disease spread
through risk assessments,
surveillance, biosecurity, cleaning
and disinfection, and other measures
• National and
State/Regional Projects
include:
– Secure Milk Supply
– Secure Pork Supply
– Secure Egg Supply
38
Other Tools and Activities
39
The Path Forward:
Despite Progress, Challenges Remain
40
Scope and Diversity of Sector
• System of systems across diverse industry
• Sector is very diverse and does not lend
itself well to traditional physical assetbased security practices
• Improve communication of risk
• Develop and promote risk reduction
measures
41
Resources
• Day-to-day challenges to deal with already;
resources are finite
• Economic downturn has triggered staff
reductions at trade associations and private
sector owner operators … food defense is
frequently lost in the shuffle
• Similar challenges with SLTT partners
• Need to identify dual-use applications of food
and ag defense initiatives
42
Additional Areas of Improvement
• Continue to improve visibility of food and
agriculture sector
• Increase SLTT and private-sector participation
and engagement
• Improve two-way communications during an
incident
• Promote awareness of National Preparedness
Goal and National Planning Frameworks
43
The Bottom Line …
•
The partnership is far from perfect, but, we are far
better off today for it
•
Should something happen, we will be able to act
more quickly and efficiently
•
The investment to date has been worthwhile
44
Thank You!
Questions?
45