## Views on the influence of a penalty or bonus compensation system

All study participants were presented with a penalty and bonus system scenario (see below) and asked for their views on how these alternative compensation systems may influence disease management response, including the implementation of recommended biosecurity practices, the speed of reporting and the speed of secondary cleansing and disinfecting (C&D). Scenario 1 represents a penalty system whereby compensation for exotic disease is only paid in full to keepers who have a regularly audited biosecurity plan in place; in other words, individuals are penalised if found to be demonstrating ‘poor disease management practice’. Scenario 2 represents a bonus system, whereby keepers must demonstrate ‘good disease management practice’ to qualify for a bonus payment, thereby topping up their payment to full compensation.

### Scenario 1

There has not been an outbreak of [exotic disease] in the UK for 20 years. The Government announces that it has changed the way that compensation will be paid. Instead of receiving compensation for all animals culled to control the, disease, you will only get compensated for culled animals if you have a regularly audited biosecurity plan in place.

### Scenario 2

You hear that the government is planning to change the way that they pay compensation for [exotic disease]. They will pay 25% of the costs in compensation, plus bonuses for good practice including prompt reporting, the presence of a regularly audited biosecurity plan and prompt implementation of secondary cleansing and disinfecting (C&D) (where relevant). Animal keepers could therefore receive full compensation if they are eligible for all available bonus payments.

Whilst animal keepers and veterinarians felt that a compensation system based on either penalties or bonuses would encourage animal keepers to draw up a biosecurity plan, significant concerns were shared about the feasibility of linking compensation to disease management practices; with animal keepers emphasising that biosecurity requirements would need to be realistic and tailored to their situation, and balanced against financial losses and perceived exotic disease risk. The main area of concern raised by participants was the limited ability to monitor and audit biosecurity plans, and the potential complications of evidencing eligibility for payment. In relation to reporting disease suspicion (e.g. suspicion of a potential exotic disease would be required to be reported within 24 hours to avoid penalties or to be eligible for bonus payments), participants felt that a bonus or penalty system may increase the speed of reporting. However, concerns were raised about how the speed of reporting could be accurately assessed. Unease was also expressed over the idea that animal keepers may report all disease concerns on a precautionary basis, which may impact upon veterinary capacity. This concern was particularly evident from discussions with veterinarians. Alternatively, it was suggested that if keepers knew that they would not receive full compensation (due to penalties for poor biosecurity management practices), they would not report disease suspicion promptly and thus such a system may potentially discourage good exotic disease management practice:

“The compensation was put there for [keepers] to come forward in good time and report anything that's a bit suspicious or you're a bit worried about. If you remove that we're not going to be quite so keen to open the door (Cattle keeper)