http://www.legislation.gov.uk/id/eudr/2003/85

ANNEX XCRITERIA FOR THE DECISION TO APPLY PROTECTIVE VACCINATION AND GUIDELINES FOR THE EMERGENCY VACCINATION PROGRAMMES

1.Criteria for the decision to apply protective vaccination46

Criteria	Decision
Criteria	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

2.Additional criteria for the decision to introduce emergency vaccination

Criteria	Decision
Criteria	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 days47	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
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.

3.Definition of Densely Populated Livestock Areas (DPLAs)

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.

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 species

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.