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