xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"

ANNEX XU.K.CRITERIA FOR THE DECISION TO APPLY PROTECTIVE VACCINATION AND GUIDELINES FOR THE EMERGENCY VACCINATION PROGRAMMES

1.Criteria for the decision to apply protective vaccination(1) U.K.

CriteriaDecision
For vaccinationAgainst vaccination
Population density of susceptible animalsHighLow
Predominant species clinically affectedpigsruminants
Movement of potentially infected animals or products out of the protection zoneEvidenceNo evidence
Predicted airborne spread of virus from infected holdingsHighLow or absent
Suitable vaccineAvailableNot available
Origin of outbreaks (traceability)UnknownKnown
Incidence slope of outbreaksRising rapidlyShallow or slow rise
Distribution of outbreaksWidespreadRestricted
Public reaction to total stamping out policyStrongWeak
Acceptance of regionalisation after vaccinationYesNo

2.Additional criteria for the decision to introduce emergency vaccinationU.K.

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.

CriteriaDecision
For vaccinationAgainst vaccination
Acceptance of regionalisation by third countriesknownunknown
Economic assessment of competing control strategiesIf it is foreseeable that a control strategy without emergency vaccination would lead to significantly higher economic losses in the agricultural and non-agricultural sectorsIf 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 daysaYesNo
Significant social and psychological impact of total stamping out policyYesNo
Existence of large holdings of intensive livestock production in a non-densely populated livestock areaYesNo

3.Definition of Densely Populated Livestock Areas (DPLAs)U.K.

3.1.When deciding about the measures to be taken in application of this Directive, and in particular the measures provided for in Article 52(2), Member States shall in addition to a thorough epidemiological assessment consider the definitions of DPLAs as provided for in point 3.2. or where applicable as provided for in Article 2(u) of Directive 2001/89/EC and use the definition which is the more stringent.U.K.

The definition may be modified in the light of new scientific evidence in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 89(2).

3.2.Animals of susceptible speciesU.K.

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.

(1)

in accordance with the report of the Scientific Committee on Animal Health 1999