Annual report on surveillance for avian influenza in poultry and wild birds in Member States of the European Union in 2022.

All European Union (EU) Member States (MSs) are required to implement surveillance for avian influenza (AI) in poultry and wild birds and (i) to notify the outbreaks, when relevant and (ii) to report the results to the responsible authority. In addition, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and the United Kingdom (Northern Ireland) also implement ongoing surveillance programmes to monitor occurrences of avian influenza viruses (AIVs) in poultry and wild birds. EFSA received a mandate from the European Commission to collate, validate, analyse and summarise the data resulting from these AI surveillance programmes in an annual report. The present report summarises the results of the surveillance activities carried out in MSs, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and the United Kingdom (Northern Ireland) in 2022. Overall, the 31 reporting countries (RCs) sampled 22,171 poultry establishments (PEs) during the 2022 surveillance activity: 18,490 PEs were sampled for serological testing and 3775 were sampled for virological testing. Some PEs were therefore sampled for both type of analytical methods. Out of the 18,490 PEs sampled for serological testing, 15 (0.08%) were seropositive for influenza A(H5) viruses. Out of the 3775 PEs sampled for virological testing, 74 PEs (1.96%) were positive to the virological assay for influenza A(H5) viruses. Seropositive PEs were found in four RCs (Belgium, Poland, Spain and Sweden) and as in previous years, the highest percentages of seropositive PEs were found in PEs raising breeding geese and waterfowl game birds. Out of these 15 seropositive PEs, 3 also tested positive by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for influenza A (H5) viruses - 2 for highly pathogenic avian influenza virus (HPAIV) and 1 low pathogenic avian influenza (LPAI) (H5N3). In relation to the virological surveys, 10 RCs (32%) out of the 31 reported the detection of A (H5) viruses in 74 PEs, covering 12 different poultry categories. More specifically, 54 reported HPAIV A(H5N1), 17 HPAIV (H5N8), 2 AIV (H5N1) with unknown virus pathogenicity and 1 low pathogenic avian influenza (LPAI) (H5N3). Additionally, six PEs tested positive for undefined AIVs in three RCs. A total of 32,143 wild birds were sampled, with 4163 (12.95%) wild birds testing positive for HPAIVs by PCR, from 25 RCs. In contrast to previous years, out of the 4163 wild birds testing positive for HPAIv, subtype A(H5N1) virus was the main influenza A virus subtype identified among the wild bird testing positive for HPAIVs (3942; 95%). In addition, RCs also reported 984 wild birds testing positive for low pathogenic avian influenza (LPAI). Out of those, for 660 (67%) it was ascertained that the subtype was non-A(H5/H7); 260 (26%) wild birds tested positive for LPAIv of A(H5 or H7) subtypes and the remaining 64 (7%) LPAI viruses were belonging to other H-subtypes.

Annual assessment of Echinococcus multilocularis surveillance reports submitted in 2023 in the context of commission delegated regulation (EU) 2018/772.

This report is part of the Echinococcus multilocularis surveillance scientific reports which are presented annually by EFSA to the European Commission and are intended to assess the sampling strategy, data collection and detection methods used by Finland, Ireland, United Kingdom (Northern Ireland) and Norway in their respective surveillance programmes. The surveillance programmes of these four countries were evaluated by checking the information submitted by each of them and verifying that the technical requirements were fulfilled as laid down in Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/772 of 21 November 2017 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 576/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to preventive health measures for the control of Echinococcus multilocularis infection in dogs, and repealing Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1152/2011. The information was divided into four different categories for assessment: the type and sensitivity of the detection method, the selection of the target population, the sampling strategy and the methodology. For each category, the main aspects that need to be considered in order to accomplish the technical requirements of the legislation were checked against compliance of several criteria. The countries participating in this surveillance (Finland, Ireland, Norway and United Kingdom [Northern Ireland]) succeeded in the fulfilment of the technical legal requirements foreseen in Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/772 concerning these four different categories None of the four countries recorded positive samples in the 12-month reporting period.

Epidemiological analysis of African swine fever in the European Union during 2022.

This report presents the epidemiological analysis of African swine fever (ASF) during 2022 based on the surveillance and pig population data submitted by the European Union (EU) affected countries and one neighbouring country. Coinciding with regulatory changes and an important decrease in ASF outbreaks in 2022 in the EU, the number of domestic pig samples tested as part of active surveillance decreased by 80%, while the number of samples from passive surveillance almost doubled compared with 2021. Most outbreaks among domestic pigs in the EU were detected by testing clinical suspicions (93% of outbreaks), followed by tracing activities (5%) and weekly testing of the first two dead pigs per establishment (2%). Although most of the wild boar samples came from hunted animals, the probability of detecting PCR-positive animals was much higher in wild boar found dead. The ASF outbreaks among domestic pigs in the EU decreased by 79% while a decrease of 40% in the wild boar cases was observed in comparison with 2021. This was strongly marked in Romania, Poland and Bulgaria, with a reduction of 50-80% compared with 2021. In many countries, an important decrease in the number of pig establishments was observed, especially of small establishments with fewer than 100 pigs. The regional between farm incidence and proportion of pigs lost due to ASF in the EU was in general very low (average of 1%) apart from some regions in Romania. The impact of ASF on wild boar populations was variable, with a decline in wild boar abundance observed in certain countries versus a stable or even increased population after ASF introduction. This supports the negative relationship observed in this report between the proportion of the country with restricted zones due to ASF in wild boar and wild boar hunting bags.

Coordinated surveillance system under the One Health approach for cross-border pathogens that threaten the Union - options for sustainable surveillance strategies for priority pathogens.

This report provides guidance for Member states who plan to submit applications under the work programme 'CP-g-22-04.01 Direct grants to Member States' authorities'. The priority pathogens on which the coordinated surveillance under the grant initiative shall focus have been identified in a prioritisation exercise with Member States and ECDC. These are Crimean Congo haemorrhagic fever, echinococcosis, hepatitis E, highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI), influenza in swine, Lyme disease, Q-fever, Rift Valley fever, tick-borne encephalitis, West Nile fever and Disease X (Disease Y of animals). Surveillance activities (surveillance cards) have been proposed for these agents in this report. Member States should select one or more diseases from the list of priority diseases and then choose surveillance activities from the surveillance cards and modify them where needed, to reflect their national needs and situation. Member States can also design alternative surveillance activities for the priority infectious agents that may better fit the epidemiological situation in their country. Further, this report provides a section on surveillance perspectives that links infectious agents to different hosts, allowing Member States to consider the testing for multiple infectious agents in samples from a single host population, as well as sections providing guidance on surveillance in vectors and wildlife and for Disease X (Disease Y in animals). Member States are encouraged to develop cross-sectoral collaborations and the report provides guidance on cross-sectoral collaboration to help them. Finally, there is a roadmap providing an overall description of the steps in the process of developing a surveillance system in order to apply for the grant.

Annual assessment of Echinococcus multilocularis surveillance reports submitted in 2022 in the context of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/772.

This report is part of the Echinococcus multilocularis surveillance scientific reports which are presented annually by EFSA to the European Commission and are intended to assess the sampling strategy, data collection and detection methods used by Finland, Ireland, United Kingdom (Northern Ireland) and Norway in their respective surveillance programmes. The surveillance programmes of these four countries were evaluated by checking the information submitted by each of them and verifying that the technical requirements were fulfilled as laid down in Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/772 of 21 November 2017 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 576/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to preventive health measures for the control of Echinococcus multilocularis infection in dogs, and repealing Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1152/2011. The information was divided into four different categories for assessment: the type and sensitivity of the detection method, the selection of the target population, the sampling strategy and the methodology. For each category, the main aspects that need to be considered in order to accomplish the technical requirements of the legislation were checked against compliance of several criteria. Three of the countries participating in this surveillance (Finland, Ireland and Norway (mainland)) succeeded in the fulfilment of the technical legal requirements foreseen in Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/772 concerning these four different categories. United Kingdom (Northern Ireland) fulfils those requirements, only assuming a diagnostic test sensitivity value of 0.99 (value provided by the national reference laboratory, higher than the conservative sensitivity value suggested by EFSA, i.e. 0.78). None of the four countries recorded positive samples in the 12-month reporting period.

Epidemiological analyses of African swine fever in the European Union: (September 2020 to August 2021).

This report provides a descriptive analysis of the African swine fever (ASF) Genotype II epidemic in the affected Member States in the EU and two neighbouring countries for the period from 1 September 2020 to 31 August 2021. ASF continued to spread in wild boar in the EU, it entered Germany in September 2020, while Belgium became free from ASF in October 2020. No ASF outbreaks in domestic pigs nor cases in wild boar have been reported in Greece since February 2020. In the Baltic States, overall, there has been a declining trend in proportions of polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-positive samples from wild boar carcasses in the last few years. In the other countries, the proportions of PCR-positive wild boar carcasses remained high, indicating continuing spread of the disease. A systematic literature review revealed that the risk factors most frequently significantly associated with ASF in domestic pigs were pig density, low levels of biosecurity and socio-economic factors. For wild boar, most significant risk factors were related to habitat, socio-economic factors and wild boar management. The effectiveness of different control options in the so-named white zones, areas where wild boar densities have been drastically reduced to avoid further spread of ASF after a new introduction, was assessed with a stochastic model. Important findings were that establishing a white zone is much more challenging when the area of ASF incursion is adjacent to an area where limited control measures are in place. Very stringent wild boar population reduction measures in the white zone are key to success. The white zone needs to be far enough away from the affected core area so that the population can be reduced in time before the disease arrives and the timing of this will depend on the wild boar density and the required population reduction target in the white zone. Finally, establishing a proactive white zone along the demarcation line of an affected area requires higher culling efforts, but has a higher chance of success to stop the spread of the disease than establishing reactive white zones after the disease has already entered in the area.

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

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 for category A diseases of Animal Health Law: Lumpy Skin Disease.

EFSA received a mandate from the EC 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 are assessed, with this opinion covering the assessment of control measures for Lumpy Skin Disease (LSD). In this opinion, EFSA and the AHAW Panel of experts review the effectiveness of: i) clinical and laboratory sampling procedures, ii) monitoring period and iii) the minimum radius of the protection and surveillance zones, and the minimum length of time that measures should be applied in these zones. The general methodology used for this series of opinions has been published elsewhere; nonetheless, the transmission kernels used for the assessment of the minimum radius of the protection and surveillance zones are shown. Several scenarios for which these control measures had to be assessed were designed and agreed prior to the start of the assessment. The monitoring period was assessed as effective, and based on the transmission kernels available, it was concluded that the protection zone of 20 km radius and the surveillance zone of 50 km radius would comprise > 99% of the transmission from an affected establishment if transmission occurred. Recommendations provided for each of the assessed scenarios 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 LSD.

Assessment of the control measures of the category A diseases of Animal Health Law: Burkholderia mallei (Glanders).

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 glanders. In this opinion, EFSA and the AHAW Panel of experts review the effectiveness of: (i) clinical and laboratory sampling procedures, (ii) monitoring period and (iii) the minimum radius of the protection and surveillance zone, and 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. Considering the epidemiology and distribution of glanders, it was foreseen that three different situations could lead to a suspicion of the disease. Sampling procedures were defined for each of the three different suspicion types, which can also be applied in most of the other scenarios assessed. The monitoring period (6 months) was assessed as effective in all scenarios. The AHAW Panel of experts considered the minimum radius and duration of the existing protection and surveillance zone, set at the establishment level, effective. 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 glanders.

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

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 Bovine Pleuropneumonia (CBPP). 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 not effective and at least 90 days (3 months) is recommended in affected areas where high awareness is expected; 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, the effectiveness of surveillance and protection zones for CBPP was based on expert knowledge. A surveillance zone of 3 km was considered effective, while a protection zone including establishments adjacent to affected ones is recommended. 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 CBPP.

Assessment of the control measures of the category A diseases of Animal Health Law: Newcastle disease.

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 Newcastle disease (ND). In this opinion, EFSA and the AHAW Panel of experts review the effectiveness of: (i) clinical and laboratory sampling procedures, (ii) monitoring period and (iii) the minimum radius of the protection and surveillance zone, and 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. The monitoring period (21 days) was assessed as effective in non-vaccinated chicken and turkey flocks, although large uncertainty remains surrounding the effectiveness of this period in vaccinated galliform flocks and flocks of other bird species. It was also concluded that the protection (3 km radius) and the surveillance (10 km radius) zones contain 99% of the infections from an infectious establishment. 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 ND.

Annual assessment of Echinococcus multilocularis surveillance reports submitted in 2021 in the context of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/772.

This report is part of the Echinococcus multilocularis surveillance scientific reports which are presented annually by EFSA to the European Commission and are intended to assess the sampling strategy, data collection and detection methods used by Finland, Ireland, United Kingdom (Northern Ireland) and Norway in their respective surveillance programmes. The surveillance programmes of these four countries were evaluated by checking the information submitted by each of them and verifying that the technical requirements were fulfilled as laid down in Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/772 of 21 November 2017 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 576/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to preventive health measures for the control of Echinococcus multilocularis infection in dogs, and repealing Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1152/2011. The information was divided in four different categories for assessment: the type and sensitivity of the detection method, the selection of the target population, the sampling strategy and the methodology. For each category, the main aspects that need to be considered in order to accomplish the technical requirements of the legislation were checked against compliance of several criteria. Three of the countries participating in this surveillance (Finland, Ireland and Norway (mainland)) succeeded in the fulfilment of the technical legal requirements foreseen in Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/772 concerning these four different categories. Northern Ireland did not fulfil those requirements, not even assuming a diagnostic test sensitivity value of 0.99 (value provided by the national reference laboratory, higher than the conservative sensitivity value suggested by EFSA, i.e. 0.78). None of the four countries recorded positive samples in the 12-month reporting period.

Assessment of the control measures of the category A diseases of Animal Health Law: Classical Swine Fever.

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 Classical swine fever (CSF). In this opinion, EFSA and the AHAW Panel of experts review the effectiveness of: (i) clinical and laboratory sampling procedures, (ii) monitoring period and (iii) the minimum radii of the protection and surveillance zones, and 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; nonetheless, details of the model used for answering these questions are presented in this opinion as well as the transmission kernels used for the assessment of the minimum radius of the protection and surveillance zones. Several scenarios for which these control measures had to be assessed were designed and agreed prior to the start of the assessment. Here, several recommendations are given on how to increase the effectiveness of some of the sampling procedures. Based on the average length of the period between virus introduction and the reporting of a CSF suspicion, the monitoring period was assessed as non-effective. In a similar way, it was recommended that the length of the measures in the protection and surveillance zones were increased from 15 to 25 days in the protection zone and from 30 to 40 days in the surveillance zone. Finally, the analysis of existing Kernels for CSF suggested that the radius of the protection and the surveillance zones comprise 99% of the infections from an affected establishment if transmission occurred. 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 CSF.

Scientific Opinion on the assessment of the control measures for category A diseases of Animal Health Law: Foot and Mouth Disease.

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 foot and mouth disease (FMD). In this opinion, EFSA and the AHAW Panel of experts review the effectiveness of: i) clinical and laboratory sampling procedures, ii) monitoring period and iii) the minimum radius of the protection and surveillance zones, and 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; nonetheless, the transmission kernels used for the assessment of the minimum radius of the protection zone of 3 km and of the surveillance zone of 10 km are shown. Several scenarios for which these control measures had to be assessed were designed and agreed prior to the start of the assessment. The monitoring period of 21 days was assessed as effective, and it was concluded that the protection and the surveillance zones comprise > 99% of the infections from an affected establishment if transmission occurred. 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 FMD.

Annual assessment of Echinococcus multilocularis surveillance reports submitted in 2020 in the context of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/772.

This report is part of the Echinococcus multilocularis surveillance scientific reports which are presented annually by EFSA to the European Commission and are intended to assess the sampling strategy, data collection and detection methods used by Finland, Ireland, the UK and Norway in their respective surveillance programmes. The surveillance programmes of these four countries were evaluated by checking the information submitted by each of them and verifying that the technical requirements were fulfilled as laid down in Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/772 of 21 November 2017 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 576/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to preventive health measures for the control of E. multilocularis infection in dogs, and repealing Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1152/2011. Due to the UK exiting the European Union and under the Withdrawal Act, the data submitted by the UK after the 31 January 2020 are excluded from this assessment. The information was divided in four different categories for assessment: the type and sensitivity of the detection method, the selection of the target population, the sampling strategy and the methodology. For each category, the main aspects that need to be considered in order to accomplish the technical requirements of the legislation were checked against compliance of several criteria. All the countries participating in this surveillance (Finland, the UK, Ireland and Norway) succeeded in the fulfilment of the technical legal requirements foreseen in Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/772 concerning these four different categories. Within the UK, Northern Ireland fulfils those requirements only when assuming a diagnostic test sensitivity value of 0.99, provided by the national reference laboratory, which is higher than the sensitivity value suggested by EFSA (conservative value of 0.78) and not supported by adequate scientific evidence. None of the four countries recorded positive samples in the 12-month reporting period.

Scientific Opinion on the assessment of the control measures of the category A diseases of Animal Health Law: African Swine Fever.

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 African Swine Fever (ASF). In this opinion, EFSA and the AHAW Panel of experts reviewed the effectiveness of: (i) clinical and laboratory sampling procedures, (ii) monitoring period and (iii) the minimum radius of the protection and surveillance zone, and 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; nonetheless, specific details of the model used for the assessment of the laboratory sampling procedures for ASF are presented here. Here, also, the transmission kernels used for the assessment of the minimum radius of the protection and surveillance zones are shown. Several scenarios for which these control measures had to be assessed were designed and agreed prior to the start of the assessment. In summary, several sampling procedures as described in the diagnostic manual for ASF were considered ineffective and a suggestion to exclude, or to substitute with more effective procedures was made. The monitoring period was assessed as non-effective for several scenarios and a longer monitoring period was suggested to ensure detection of potentially infected herds. It was demonstrated that the surveillance zone comprises 95% of the infections from an affected establishment, and therefore is considered effective. 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 ASF.

Scientific Opinion on the assessment of the control measures of the category A diseases of Animal Health Law: African Horse Sickness.

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 African Horse Sickness (AHS). In this opinion, EFSA and the AHAW Panel of experts review the effectiveness of: (i) clinical and laboratory sampling procedures, (ii) monitoring period and (iii) the minimum radius of the protection and surveillance zone, and the minimum duration of measures in these zones. The general methodology used for this series of opinions has been published elsewhere; nonetheless, specific details of the transmission kernels used for the assessment of the minimum radius of the protection and surveillance zones are shown. Several scenarios for which these control measures were assessed were designed and agreed prior to the start of the assessment. In summary, sampling procedures described in the diagnostic manual for AHS were considered efficient for all Equidae considering the high case fatality rate expected. The monitoring period (14 days) was assessed as effective in every scenario, except for those relating to the epidemiological enquiry where the risk manager should consider increasing the monitoring period, based on the awareness of keepers, environmental conditions and the vector abundance in the region. The current protection zone (100 km) comprises more than 95% of the infections from an affected establishment. Both the radius and duration of the zones could be reduced, based on local environmental conditions and the time of year of the first index case. Recommendations provided for each of the scenarios assessed aim to support the European Commission in the drafting of further pieces of legislation relating to AHS.

Scientific Opinion on the assessment of the control measures of the category A diseases of Animal Health Law: Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza.

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 Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI). In this opinion, EFSA and the AHAW Panel of experts review the effectiveness of: (i) clinical and laboratory sampling procedures, (ii) monitoring period and (iii) the minimum radius of the protection and surveillance zone, and 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; nonetheless, specific details of the model used for the assessment of the laboratory sampling procedures for HPAI are presented here. Here, also, the transmission kernels used for the assessment of the minimum radius of the protection and surveillance zones are shown. Several scenarios for which these control measures had to be assessed were designed and agreed prior to the start of the assessment. In summary, sampling procedures as described in the diagnostic manual for HPAI were considered efficient for gallinaceous poultry, whereas additional sampling is advised for Anseriformes. The monitoring period was assessed as effective, and it was demonstrated that the surveillance zone comprises 95% of the infections from an affected establishment. 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 HPAI.

Rift Valley Fever - epidemiological update and risk of introduction into Europe.

Rift Valley fever (RVF) is a vector-borne disease transmitted by a broad spectrum of mosquito species, especially Aedes and Culex genus, to animals (domestic and wild ruminants and camels) and humans. Rift Valley fever is endemic in sub-Saharan Africa and in the Arabian Peninsula, with periodic epidemics characterised by 5-15 years of inter-epizootic periods. In the last two decades, RVF was notified in new African regions (e.g. Sahel), RVF epidemics occurred more frequently and low-level enzootic virus circulation has been demonstrated in livestock in various areas. Recent outbreaks in a French overseas department and some seropositive cases detected in Turkey, Tunisia and Libya raised the attention of the EU for a possible incursion into neighbouring countries. The movement of live animals is the most important pathway for RVF spread from the African endemic areas to North Africa and the Middle East. The movement of infected animals and infected vectors when shipped by flights, containers or road transport is considered as other plausible pathways of introduction into Europe. The overall risk of introduction of RVF into EU through the movement of infected animals is very low in all the EU regions and in all MSs (less than one epidemic every 500 years), given the strict EU animal import policy. The same level of risk of introduction in all the EU regions was estimated also considering the movement of infected vectors, with the highest level for Belgium, Greece, Malta, the Netherlands (one epidemic every 228-700 years), mainly linked to the number of connections by air and sea transports with African RVF infected countries. Although the EU territory does not seem to be directly exposed to an imminent risk of RVFV introduction, the risk of further spread into countries neighbouring the EU and the risks of possible introduction of infected vectors, suggest that EU authorities need to strengthen their surveillance and response capacities, as well as the collaboration with North African and Middle Eastern countries.

SIGMA Animal Disease Data Model: A comprehensive approach for the collection of standardised data on animal diseases.

The European Commission is routinely asking EFSA for scientific and technical support in the epidemiological analysis of animal disease outbreaks (i.e. African swine fever, lumpy skin disease and avian influenza) and to report or assess surveillance data (i.e. Echinococcus multilocularis and avian influenza). For this purpose, EFSA has over the last years carried out several data collections and gathered specific information on outbreaks, surveillance activities and concerned animal populations (i.e. poultry, domestic pigs, cattle and wildlife such as wild boar). EFSA aims to work together closely with Member States in order to (i) reduce the Member States' manual input of the data to be submitted to EFSA; (ii) avoid double reporting to EFSA; (iii) provide the Member States with tools to produce automatically their own draft national reports on animal health and surveillance in a protected environment to ensure data protection; (iv) increase the quality of the data received from the Member States; and (v) shorten the time to retrieve up-to-date data, relevant for risk assessment purposes. With this purpose, EFSA launched a project called SIGMA. It is important to highlight that the SIGMA - Animal Disease Data Model (σ-ADM) focuses on data which are known to be already collected by several Member States under different legal frameworks and for different purposes. The version presented in this report, will be subject to modifications and updates derived from the feedback during the implementation phase.