Across the world, highly pathogenic avian influenza has shifted from an episodic animal health issue to a permanent feature of poultry production. Its persistence is reshaping how the sector thinks about disease control, sustainability, trade stability and public trust. Managing HPAI effectively now requires a longer-term, internationally coordinated response rather than a series of short-term reactions to each new outbreak.
The consequences of the current approach are becoming increasingly clear. High levels of virus circulation continue in many regions, millions of birds are destroyed year after year, and producers face recurring financial and emotional strain. At the same time, repeated stamping-out campaigns raise questions about environmental impact, resource waste and the overall resilience of poultry supply chains. These pressures are no longer isolated problems; together they undermine confidence in the sector’s ability to manage systemic risk.
Trade discussions often dominate the debate. There have been renewed calls to ease restrictions linked to HPAI, based on the well-established scientific consensus that properly handled and cooked poultry products present a negligible risk of virus transmission. From an exporter’s perspective, overly rigid or precautionary trade measures can be deeply disruptive. Yet focusing only on trade adjustments risks treating the symptoms rather than the cause. HPAI is not merely a market-access issue, but a structural animal health challenge that will continue to generate trade friction unless its root dynamics are addressed.
Within this context, vaccination deserves a more balanced and pragmatic place in global disease control strategies. It should not be portrayed as a standalone solution, nor as a replacement for biosecurity, surveillance, early detection or rapid response. Instead, it is one tool among several. Its value, however, depends heavily on whether its use is supported and recognised beyond national borders. Without such recognition, countries that consider vaccination for sound epidemiological reasons face uncertainty over continued market access, which can delay or discourage adoption even when disease pressure is high.
This hesitation has broader implications. When vaccination remains politically or commercially risky, outbreaks continue to recur, public health concerns linger, and sustainability goals become harder to defend. Adjusting import rules alone will not break this cycle. What is needed is a shared international understanding of how vaccination fits into a credible, science-based HPAI control framework over the coming decade.
A more strategic approach would involve agreeing, at international level, that vaccination is a legitimate and normal component of HPAI management when used responsibly. This does not imply blanket vaccination everywhere, but rather a progressive and targeted application in higher-risk systems, species and regions. Such an approach would rely on robust surveillance, transparent data sharing, and reliable methods to distinguish vaccinated from infected animals, alongside clear alignment with international animal health standards. Crucially, it would also involve engagement with global trade institutions to ensure that products from vaccinated flocks are not subject to unjustified barriers.
Global industry platforms are well placed to support this shift. Organisations that bring together poultry leaders from all major producing regions can help move discussions beyond narrow national interests and towards a shared vision. By facilitating dialogue on vaccination strategies, encouraging convergence around monitoring and certification practices, and promoting science-based positions on trade, these fora can help build international credibility and trust. They can also support pilot initiatives, information exchange and mutual learning between regions facing different epidemiological realities.
A clearer global direction would have implications beyond policy. Vaccine developers and biotechnology companies currently operate in a fragmented environment marked by mixed signals and uncertain demand. Greater international coherence on the role of vaccination would provide predictability, encouraging investment in safer, more effective and more adaptable vaccines. This, in turn, would strengthen preparedness as virus strains continue to evolve.
Ultimately, the case for stronger coordination is not only economic. Reducing the scale of mass culling would improve animal welfare, lower virus circulation would support public health objectives, and avoiding the destruction of healthy birds would reduce waste and improve sustainability outcomes. More stable production would also contribute to food security in a sector that plays a critical role in global protein supply.
The long-term interests of the poultry sector are best served by collective leadership rather than fragmented responses. While regulatory differences and market realities cannot be ignored, greater alignment on HPAI control, including the responsible use of vaccination, offers a more credible path forward than an endless cycle of outbreaks, emergency measures and disputes. With coordinated effort, it is possible to move towards a future where HPAI is managed more effectively, vaccination can be applied without disproportionate trade consequences, and the sector strengthens its standing with policymakers and the public alike.
