xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
Criteria | Decision | |
---|---|---|
For vaccination | Against vaccination | |
Population density of susceptible animals | High | Low |
Predominant species clinically affected | pigs | ruminants |
Movement of potentially infected animals or products out of the protection zone | Evidence | No evidence |
Predicted airborne spread of virus from infected holdings | High | Low or absent |
Suitable vaccine | Available | Not available |
Origin of outbreaks (traceability) | Unknown | Known |
Incidence slope of outbreaks | Rising rapidly | Shallow or slow rise |
Distribution of outbreaks | Widespread | Restricted |
Public reaction to total stamping out policy | Strong | Weak |
Acceptance of regionalisation after vaccination | Yes | No |
a 24/48 hours rule means: (a) infected herds on holdings referred to in Article 10 cannot be stamped out within 24 hours after the confirmation of the disease, and (b) the pre-emptive killing of animals likely to be infected or contaminated cannot be safely carried out within less than 48 hours. | ||
Criteria | Decision | |
---|---|---|
For vaccination | Against vaccination | |
Acceptance of regionalisation by third countries | known | unknown |
Economic assessment of competing control strategies | If it is foreseeable that a control strategy without emergency vaccination would lead to significantly higher economic losses in the agricultural and non-agricultural sectors | If it is foreseeable that a control strategy with emergency vaccination would lead to significantly higher economic losses in the agricultural and non-agricultural sectors |
It is foreseeable that the 24/48 hours rule cannot be implemented effectively for two consecutive daysa | Yes | No |
Significant social and psychological impact of total stamping out policy | Yes | No |
Existence of large holdings of intensive livestock production in a non-densely populated livestock area | Yes | No |
The definition may be modified in the light of new scientific evidence in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 89(2).
In the case of animals of susceptible species a DPLA shall be a geographical area, with a radius of 10 km around a holding containing animals of susceptible species suspected of or infected with foot-and-mouth disease, where there is a density of animals of susceptible species higher than 1 000 head per km2. The holding in question must be situated either in a sub-region as defined in Article 2(s) where there is a density of animals of susceptible species higher than 450 head per km2 or at a distance of less than 20 km from such a sub-region.
in accordance with the report of the Scientific Committee on Animal Health 1999