In 2025, avian influenza continues to wreak havoc on poultry sectors globally, and yet, many farmers find themselves uninsured and unsupported—not because of negligence or oversight, but due to new rules that tie insurance coverage to specific scheme memberships.
Across the UK, EU, and parts of Asia and Africa, poultry producers—especially smallholders and medium-scale commercial farms—are expressing deep frustration over the requirement to be part of government- or industry-led disease control schemes in order to qualify for avian flu insurance.
This development has triggered debates over:
- Access to insurance
- Equity in scheme participation
- The economic burden of compliance
- Whether the model actually benefits disease control efforts
Let’s explore the full scope of this issue and how it impacts the livelihoods, biosecurity practices, and financial stability of poultry farmers worldwide.
📉 The Rising Threat of Avian Influenza in 2025
🔍 A Worsening Crisis
Avian flu outbreaks are intensifying with newer, more virulent H5N1 and H7N9 strains, spreading across borders due to:
- Wild bird migration patterns
- Climate change disruptions
- Increased poultry trade and movement
In 2024–2025 alone, countries like the UK, France, Japan, and South Africa have reported millions of bird culls and billions in economic losses.
Insurance was once a farmer’s lifeline in such events—but the 2025 policy shift is now turning safety nets into locked gates.
🧾 The New Rule: Insurance Tied to Scheme Membership
Insurance providers and government-backed coverage bodies in several countries now require poultry farmers to be enrolled in designated surveillance or biosecurity schemes to be eligible for outbreak-related compensation.
These schemes often involve:
- Registration with national poultry registries
- Routine veterinary inspections
- GPS-based flock tracking
- Strict biosecurity audit standards
- Real-time outbreak reporting
Without membership, insurance claims are denied—even if the farmer follows general best practices.
😡 Why Farmers Are Upset: Voices from the Ground
🗣️ 1. “It’s Like a Tax on Survival”
Many farmers argue that membership fees, audit costs, and documentation requirements are too burdensome—especially for those with fewer than 1,000 birds.
“They say it’s voluntary, but we can’t get insurance unless we join. That’s coercion, not choice.” — Hassan, broiler farmer in Pakistan.
🧩 2. Not All Farmers Are Eligible to Join
Some smaller farmers or contract growers do not qualify for national schemes due to land ownership issues, production size, or regional regulations—leaving them uninsurable and vulnerable.
🕵️♂️ 3. Data Concerns
Scheme membership often requires real-time farm data sharing with authorities. Many fear this data could be used for tax audits, zoning restrictions, or even targeted shutdowns without consent.
“If my chickens sneeze on camera, they’ll shut me down. I’m better off uninsured.” — UK free-range poultry keeper.
💸 4. Insurance Premiums Are Still Rising
Even with membership, premiums have doubled in the past two years. So farmers feel they are being asked to pay more for less, with complicated conditions attached.
🔄 Why Insurance Companies Are Taking This Route
From the insurer’s perspective, risk management is the name of the game.
By tying coverage to scheme membership, they can:
- Ensure consistent biosecurity compliance
- Reduce fraudulent claims
- Collect more accurate exposure data
- Limit payouts in high-risk zones
They argue that non-compliant farms cost the entire system more during outbreaks, and schemes offer a form of shared accountability.
🧮 The Real Cost of Scheme Membership
📋 Direct Costs:
- Annual registration fees: $50–$500+
- Biosecurity audits: $100–$1,000/year
- Infrastructure upgrades: $2,000+ for compliance (netting, signage, cameras)
🕒 Indirect Costs:
- Time spent filling reports, updating logs
- Downtime during inspections
- Delays in product shipments during suspected exposure
For many small-scale poultry farmers, this adds up to 20–30% of their annual profit margin.
🐓 Impact on Small vs. Industrial Poultry Farmers
🏭 Large Industrial Farms:
- Already have compliance systems in place
- Easily absorb scheme costs
- Receive full coverage + fast-track payouts
🐔 Small & Medium Farmers:
- Struggle with compliance costs
- Miss deadlines or documentation
- Face insurance claim rejections or premium hikes
This creates a two-tier system—where coverage becomes a privilege of the powerful.
🌍 Country-by-Country Snapshot: 2025
🇬🇧 United Kingdom
- DEFRA-backed insurance now only valid for farms registered with the Avian Disease Management Scheme (ADMS)
- Non-scheme farms face zero compensation after culls
🇮🇳 India
- Regional insurance providers in states like Maharashtra require farmers to use digitally traceable chicks
- Exclusions apply to unregistered hatcheries
🇿🇦 South Africa
- Insurance only covers farms approved by the Poultry Disease Control Union
- Farms must pass 3-tier biosecurity audits
🇧🇷 Brazil
- Government scheme ties insurance with export compliance audits
- Non-certified farms lose both insurance and export eligibility
💬 What Industry Experts Say
“Insurance without accountability leads to moral hazard. But tying it to schemes must not be exclusionary.”
— Dr. Julia K., Agricultural Risk Consultant, EU Commission
“We need better risk pools and farmer-driven biosecurity programs—not top-down mandates.”
— Emmanuel Ngoma, Poultry Federation of Southern Africa
🛠️ Solutions Farmers Are Demanding
✅ 1. Tiered Schemes for Different Scales
Farmers want scaled compliance levels based on flock size and production model.
✅ 2. Subsidies for First-Time Members
Initial membership costs should be government-subsidized, especially in developing countries.
✅ 3. Independent Insurance Alternatives
Cooperatives and mutual funds could offer insurance outside of government-linked schemes.
✅ 4. Data Protection Guarantees
Authorities should pledge that data collected through schemes won’t be used punitively or politically.
🧠 Final Thoughts: The Cost of Protection or the Price of Exclusion?
The current model may protect insurers, but it risks alienating the very farmers it’s meant to support.
Unless governments and insurance bodies:
- Ensure fair, affordable access to schemes,
- Offer flexibility for small-scale producers, and
- Rebuild trust and transparency in how outbreak data is used...
Then more farmers will opt out of both schemes and insurance, leaving entire poultry sectors exposed during future avian flu outbreaks.
The solution must lie in inclusion, equity, and farmer-led safety programs—not in red tape and coercion.