Health and Consumers Health and Consumers Observations from FVO audits of monitoring and eradication programmes for diseases affecting wildlife Lena Englund Unit F6 Animal Health & Animal Welfare Food and Veterinary Office European Commission Nordic Baltic Veterinary Contingency Group 2-3 October 2013, Gdansk

Health and Consumers Health and Consumers DG SANCO Directorate F = Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) FVO staff carry out audits to verify compliance with EU standards for animal health and welfare, food safety and plant health The office is in Ireland and has 160+ staff (50% inspectors) DG Health and Consumers (DG SANCO)

Health and Consumers Health and Consumers FVO structure Seven units: F1: Country Profiles, co-ordination of follow-up F2: Food of animal origin: Mammals F3: Food of animal origin: Birds and fish F4: Plant health, Food of plant origin and Food quality F5: Animal Nutrition, Import Controls and Health Protection F6: Animal Health and Welfare F7: Operational and Administrative Service

Health and Consumers Health and Consumers Recent audits covering wildlife aspects (in EU Member States) Foot-and-mouth disease: Bulgaria Classical/African swine fever: Germany Bulgaria Lithuania Bulgaria Italy Rabies: Latvia Lithuania Bulgaria Poland Romania FVO reports are published here:

Health and Consumers Health and Consumers Assessing wildlife populations – why is it so important? - Competent Authority & Expert Group are required to: Determine the number of meta-populations Determine the number of susceptible animals Base assessments on living animals (not hunting bag) Understand the age distribution & seasonality Understand animal movements Define risks of spread of disease through animal contacts Define infected area(s) Determine hunting restrictions or targeted activities Basis for eradication, vaccination & monitoring plans

Health and Consumers Health and Consumers Interfaces between authorities, farmers and hunters Time-consuming and difficult to start cooperation in a crisis Purpose of population assessments may vary: objective vs. biased (wish for increase of hunting bag or wish for increase of population) Considering changes in populations over time due to vaccination, hunting, disease? Regional variations within the country? Assessing wildlife populations - FVO observations -

Health and Consumers Health and Consumers Meta-populations, natural boundaries & movements vs. administrative boundaries How are data collected? Geography and topography OR man-made invisible borders between hunting grounds, properties, villages, municipalities, regions, countries? Timing? Populations are not static during the year Assessing wildlife populations - FVO observations (2) -

Health and Consumers Health and Consumers Examples for FMD, CSF, ASF

Health and Consumers Health and Consumers Suspicion of infection in wildlife Immediately investigate all animals of susceptible species shot or found dead, including laboratory testing Authorities to take all appropriate measures to confirm or rule out presence of disease Inform hunters and owners of susceptible species Official veterinarian to inspect all feral pigs shot or found dead - Diagnostic competence? Training? What if outside of hunting season? Decision to hunt? Decision to capture and sample?

Health and Consumers Health and Consumers "Found dead" requires that someone is looking for such animals – this is often a problem: Who? Information? Costs? Biosecurity Transport to official veterinarian? At sampling Other wildlife & farm animals While waiting for results If infection is confirmed - carcass & organs must be processed under official supervision Suspicion of infection in wildlife (2)

Health and Consumers Health and Consumers Confirmed infection in wildlife Photo from the Bulgarian authorities

Health and Consumers Health and Consumers Confirmed infection in wildlife (2) Competent authority shall: Establish expert group: veterinarians, hunters, wildlife biologists, epidemiologists Study epidemiology, define infected area Establish appropriate measures (population data! Hunting? Feeding?) Draw up an eradication plan - to EU Commission for approval within 90d No potentially contaminated material to farms with susceptible species (hunters) All susceptible animals (shot or dead) examined to officially rule out or confirm disease

Health and Consumers Health and Consumers An eradication plan shall include: Authority responsible for coordination and supervision Results of epidemiological investigations Animal population(s), area, movement obstacles Cooperation for animal health & public health Information campaigns Investigations in wild animals (epidemiological data collection; age-stratified testing; tests applied) Methods to prevent spread of disease due to animal movement Methods to reduce young susceptible animal population Biosecurity for hunters; removal of carcasses Criteria for lifting measures Review procedures

Health and Consumers Health and Consumers Start 12 months after last confirmed case - continue at least another 12 months To verify that the disease is no longer occurring in wildlife Results may be useless unless sampling was epidemiologically sound Supervision and correction/adjustment important factors Competent authority needs to evaluate/interpret the results Results and epidemiological analysis form the basis for lifting national and EU restrictions & for financial support Serological/virological monitoring - to re-establish freedom -

Health and Consumers Health and Consumers Classical Swine fever in Wild Boar Surveillance Database University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover (TiHo Hannover, EU reference laboratory for CSF) and Federal Research Institute for Animal Health (FLI, Wusterhausen) Results from serological and virological tests from: Belgium, Bulgaria, Germany, France, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Slovakia, Slovenia – more MS joining

Health and Consumers Health and Consumers

Health and Consumers Health and Consumers Age distribution & sample numbers per population or geographical area; defined period CSF (Commission Decision 2002/106/EC): Target population: Known subpopulations for sample calculations OR Defined geographical areas w. movement barriers OR <200 km2 with feral pigs 5% prevalence with 95% confidence (min 59 animals) Serological/virological monitoring AgeMuch huntingNo/little huntingVir. monitoring 3-12 months50%32 pigsPrimarily this group months35%32 pigs 24+ months15%32 pigs

Health and Consumers Health and Consumers EU-financed programmes (2013) for control and monitoring of CSF: Bulgaria, Croatia, Germany, Hungary, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia EFSA Scientific opinion: CSF control and eradication in wild boar 2009: CSF will fade out in small populations Normal hunting not enough to control CSF (in larger populations) Vaccination to prevent spread Long-term monitoring of virus and antibodies (no marker vaccine for wild boar) to determine if eradicated Baits spread 3 times/year – several years to maintain immunity Min target: 40% immunity; if 60% CSF will be eradicated CSF Vaccination

Health and Consumers Health and Consumers Photos from the Bulgarian authorities

Health and Consumers Health and Consumers Difficulties Defining areas, number of animals and meta-populations Maternal antibodies vs. vaccination in young wild boar Varying strategies and care in spreading baits Very varying quality & quantity of monitoring samples Very varying immunity – poor follow-up Analytical methods vs. ring tests and accreditation Supervision to ensure epidemiologically sound sampling? Results reported to the Commission and other Member States are sometimes not detailed enough and a critical analysis by the competent authority is sometimes missing in the report CSF Vaccination - FVO observations -

Health and Consumers Health and Consumers Age classTotal countnegativepositive < 1 year years >2 years Total Monitoring of immunity in one vaccination zone Table from a presentation to SCFCAH, October 2012 Effect of the vaccination campaigns:

Health and Consumers Health and Consumers Age classTotal sampled% seropositive < 1 year376 (31%)15% 1-2 years417 (35%)41% >2 years411 (34%)43% total120434% Monitoring of immunity in one vaccination zone (2) Modified from a presentation to SCFCAH, October 2012 Remember the EFSA Scientific opinion 2009: Minimum target 40% immunity; if 60% CSF will be eradicated

Health and Consumers Health and Consumers Age classTotal sampled (orange zone) % seropositive < 1 year376 (31%)15% 1-2 years417 (35%)41% >2 years411 (34%)43% total120434% Monitoring of immunity in one vaccination zone (3) Map and data from a presentation to SCFCAH, October 2012 Vaccination started in 2005 CSF cases in wild boar: 2005 (88 cases) 2009 (6 cases)

Health and Consumers Health and Consumers Age classTotal sampled (orange zone) % seropositive < 1 year376 (31%)15% 1-2 years417 (35%)41% >2 years411 (34%)43% total120434% Monitoring of immunity in one vaccination zone (4) Vaccination started in 2005 CSF cases in wild boar: 2005 (88 cases) 2009 (6 cases) When has CSF been eradicated?

Health and Consumers Health and Consumers Rabies

Health and Consumers Health and Consumers Rabies No specific EU legislation for rabies control in wildlife General requirements for national eradication, control and monitoring programmes in Commission Decision 2008/341/EC: Disease must be notifiable under national legislation Objective; duration; target; measures; tests; resources Monitoring effectiveness (successful) and efficiency (cost effective) Commission Decisions stipulate rules for programme submissions and for reporting

Health and Consumers Health and Consumers Rabies vaccination programmes Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare (before EFSA) scientific report to COM in 2002: Monitoring rabies incidence (virus detection), bait uptake (marker 50-80%) and immunity (antibodies 30-80%) Vaccine titer: before spread & after 7d at 25 degrees Bait spread methods; cold chain; 2/year baits per sqKm and/or 10 per den Foxes found dead should be investigated for rabies Typing of rabies isolates (field vs vaccine strains) Standardised lab methods

Health and Consumers Health and Consumers Rabies vaccination programmes 2013 Programmes approved under Council Decision 2009/470/EC (expenditure in the veterinary field) Bulgaria, Finland, Greece, Estonia, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia ( – EUR) 5 EUR per sampled wild animal 75% of costs for analyses, vaccine, vaccine distribution

Health and Consumers Health and Consumers Rabies vaccination - FVO observations - Uncertain population data; assumed constant? Very little passive surveillance (foxes, other species) Samples (numbers, age, spatial distribution, quality) Analytical methods vs poor quality samples External borders – cooperation with other countries inside and outside the EU

Health and Consumers Health and Consumers Rabies vaccination - FVO observations (2) - Variable marker uptake and sero-conversion - regional differences Poor uptake: Vaccine distribution; bait competition; young foxes no access Uptake > immunity: vaccine quality; storage; analytical problems Immunity > uptake: analytical problems; other factors? Recurrence of rabies in spite of years of vaccination, 80% uptake and 75% sero-conversion. Why?

Health and Consumers Health and Consumers Questions?