1

The Critical Infrastructure Sector Partnership Model and the Food and

Agriculture Experience

June 11, 2013AFDO Annual Educational Conference

Louisville, KY

2

Clay DetlefsenIntl Dairy Foods Assn, Co-chair, Food/Ag Sector Coordinating

Council (FA-SCC) 

Randy GordonNatl Grain & Feed Assn, Co-chair, Food/Ag Sector Coordinating

Council (FA-SCC) 

LeeAnne JacksonUS Food and Drug Administration, Co-chair, Food/Ag Government

Coordinating Council (FA-GCC) 

Jessica PulzUS Department of Agriculture, Co-chair, Food/Ag Government

Coordinating Council (FA-GCC)

33

Overview• Background• Policy Directives, Statutes, & Authorities• Food & Agriculture Councils• Implementation & Accomplishments• Path Forward • Questions

Background

4

55

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.”

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

9

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)

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

12

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

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 ActFood 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

15

PPD-8: National Preparedness

16

Mission Areas and Core Capabilities

Defense of food and agriculture is identified as an element in the

definition of “protection”

17

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

Future DirectionsOutreach

EffortsInformation

Sharing

Operating in Parallel

Co-funding – Sharing of Resources

Co-creation & Co-programming

Co-ownership & P3 Models

18

1919

Food and Agriculture Sector Councils

20

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.

2121

Food & Agriculture Coordinating Councils

PUBLIC SECTOR PRIVATE SECTOR

Food and Agriculture Government Coordinating Council (GCC)

Food and Agriculture Sector Coordinating Council (SCC)

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

• 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

22

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

23

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

24

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.)

25

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

2626

GCC SlideGCC Value Proposition

2727

GCC Goals and Activities

Notes: Kentucky is both MSPSA and SAADRAVirginia and West Virginia are both SAADRA and MAAEMA

Multi-State Partnership for Security in AgricultureSouthern Animal and Agriculture Disaster Response AllianceMid-Atlantic Agriculture and Animal Emergency Management AllianceNew England States Animal Agriculture Security Alliance

2929

Implementation & Accomplishments

30

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

3131

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

32

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)

33

Additional SCC Accomplishments• Assisted in enhancing

overall awareness of threats to food and agriculture, and kept it in perspective

• Helped establish a structure for collaboration with our federal, state and local partners

• Participated with our partners in numerous vulnerability assessments

• Helped DHS understand “systems approach” to identify, evaluate critical assets/redundancies

• Beneficially influenced numerous DHS-driven projects and activities

• Actively participated in the development and execution of a number of excellent tabletop exercises

34

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

35

If You See Something, Say SomethingTM

36

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

Continuity of Business

37

• 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 non-infected premises

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 non-contaminated 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

39

Other Tools and Activities

FERN

FASCATStrengthening Community Agrosecurity Preparedness Workshops

FARM Toolkit

Economically Motivated Adulteration

Employees FIRST

CARVER+ShockMitigation Strategies Database

ALERTNPDN

Food Defense PlansVulnerability Assessments

Ag Screening Tools

NAHLNFood DefensePlan Builder

FREE-B

4040

The Path Forward:

Despite Progress, Challenges Remain

41

Scope and Diversity of Sector

• System of systems across diverse industry• Sector is very diverse and does not lend

itself well to traditional physical asset-based security practices

• Improve communication of risk• Develop and promote risk reduction

measures

42

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

43

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

4444

• 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

The Bottom Line …

45

Thank You!

Questions?