Assessment of the control measures for category A diseases of Animal Health Law: Contagious Caprine Pleuropneumonia

Abstract

EFSA received a mandate from the European Commission to assess the effectiveness of some of the control measures against diseases included in the Category A list according to Regulation (EU) 2016/429 on transmissible animal diseases (‘Animal Health Law’). This opinion belongs to a series of opinions where these control measures will be assessed, with this opinion covering the assessment of control measures for Contagious Caprine Pleuropneumonia (CCPP). In this opinion, EFSA and the AHAW Panel of experts review the effectiveness of: (i) clinical and laboratory sampling procedures, (ii) monitoring period, (iii) the minimum radius of the protection and surveillance zones and iv) the minimum length of time the measures should be applied in these zones. The general methodology used for this series of opinions has been published elsewhere. Several scenarios for which these control measures had to be assessed were designed and agreed prior to the start of the assessment. Different clinical and laboratory sampling procedures are proposed depending on the scenarios considered. The monitoring period of 45 days was assessed as effective in affected areas where high awareness is expected, and when the index case occurs in an area where the awareness is low the monitoring period should be at least 180 days (6 months). Since transmission kernels do not exist and data to estimate transmission kernels are not available, a surveillance zone of 3 km was considered effective based on expert knowledge, while a protection zone should also be developed to include establishments adjacent to affected ones. Recommendations, provided for each of the scenarios assessed, aim to support the European Commission in the drafting of further pieces of legislation, as well as for plausible ad hoc requests in relation to CCPP.

Assessment of the control measures of the Category A diseases of the Animal Health Law: prohibitions in restricted zones and risk‐mitigating treatments for products of animal origin and other materials

“…Scientific evidence for the assessment of animal movements has been collected through an ELS and summaries in the sections ‘Epidemiology’ of earlier EFSA scientific outputs, which also provide details on the ELS protocol applied (EFSA AHAW Panel, 2021a , 2021b , 2021c , 2021d , 2021e , 2021f , 2021g , 2021h , 2022a , 2022b , 2022c , 2022d , 2022e , 2022f ).…”

“…Regarding prohibitions of activities concerning animals related to Category A diseases listed in Annex VI of the DR ( ToR 4.1 ), the following recommendations are made: Irrespective of the purpose or nature of the activity, it is recommended to not move animals from restricted zones without appropriate mitigation measures. Appropriate mitigation measures have been assessed in previous EFSA opinions (EFSA AHAW Panel, 2021a , 2021b , 2021c , 2021d , 2021e , 2021f , 2021g , 2021h , 2022a , 2022b , 2022c , 2022d , 2022e , 2022f ). …”

“…ToRs 1, 2 and 3 have been addressed in 14 individual opinions, one for each of the Category A diseases for terrestrial animals (EFSA AHAW Panel, 2021a , 2021b , 2021c , 2021d , 2021e , 2021f , 2021g , 2021h , 2022a , 2022b , 2022c , 2022d , 2022e , 2022f ).…”

“…The epidemiological details and deviations from the general pathology and the resulting possibilities of derogating from the general prohibitions (if and under which circumstances) are the focus of other ToRs of the mandate (1, 2) and have been assessed in other EFSA scientific opinions (EFSA AHAW Panel, 2021a , 2021b , 2021c , 2021d , 2021e , 2021f , 2021g , 2021h , 2022a , 2022b , 2022c , 2022d , 2022e , 2022f ).…”