%0 Journal Article %J EFSA Journal %D 2021 %T Assessment of the control measures of the category A diseases of Animal Health Law: sheep and goat pox %A Søren Saxmose Nielsen %A Julio Alvarez %A Dominique Joseph Bicout %A Paolo Calistri %A Elisabetta Canali %A Julian Ashley Drewe %A Bruno Garin‐Bastuji %A José Luis Gonzalez Rojas %A Christian Gortázar %A Mette Herskin %A Virginie Michel %A Miguel Ángel Miranda Chueca %A Barbara Padalino %A Paolo Pasquali %A Liisa Helena Sihvonen %A Hans Spoolder %A Ståhl, Karl %A Antonio Velarde %A Arvo Viltrop %A Christoph Winckler %A Kris De Clercq %A Gubbins, Simon %A Inma Aznar %A Alessandro Broglia %K monitoring period %K protection zone %K sampling procedures %K SPP/GTP %K surveillance zone %X

EFSA received a mandate from the European Commission to assess the effectiveness of some of thecontrol measures against diseases included in the Category A list according to Regulation (EU) 2016/429on transmissible animal diseases (‘Animal Health Law’). This opinion belongs to a series of opinions wherethese control measures will be assessed, with this opinion covering the assessment of control measuresfor sheep and goat pox. 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 theprotection and surveillance zones, and the minimum length of time the measures should be applied inthese 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 radii of the protectionand surveillance zones are shown. Several scenarios for which these control measures had to beassessed were designed and agreed prior to the start of the assessment. Different risk-based samplingprocedures based on clinical visits and laboratory testing are assessed in case of outbreak suspicion,granting animal movements and for repopulation purposes. The monitoring period of 21 days wasassessed as effective. The estimated probability of transmission beyond the protection zone of 3 kmradius from an infectious establishment is 9.6% (95% CI: 3.1–25.8%) and 2.3% (95% CI: 1–5.5%) forthe surveillance zone of 10 km radius. This may be considered sufficient to contain the disease spread(95% probability of containing transmission corresponds to 5.3 Km). To contain 99% of the spread, theradius should be increased to 19.4 km (95% CI: 9.8–26.8). This may increase the number of farms in thesurveillance zone, since the area would increase fourfold.

%B EFSA Journal %V 19 %8 Jan-12-2021 %G eng %N 12 %R 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6933