### “If [a keeper] is only going to get 25% of their cost, they're not going to report it.” (Pig keeper)

Animal keepers favoured a system based on bonuses due to the positive connotations and emphasised the importance of rewarding good behaviour, but tailored interventions or systems may be required. The concept of earned recognition was noted as preferable, whereby those with a strong track record of adherence to standards should avoid additional auditing and inspections. Despite the general consensus among animal keepers that a bonus system would be a more popular approach, there were mixed reactions in terms of whether such a system might actually influence behaviour, especially from animal keepers who are already engaged in good practice:

“I'd always go bonuses first, definitely. Your carrots are much more likely to see good behaviour than sticks… you need to come at it in a positive way in order for people to see it as a positive thing, rather than the government just dictating what we need to do.” (Pig keeper)

Surveyed veterinarians felt that a system based on penalties would be more likely to influence animal keeper behaviour; in this regard, veterinarians noted the success of cross-compliance penalties (particularly relating to non-compliance with bovine tuberculosis testing) in encouraging compliant behaviour:

### “You can get farmers to do whatever you want, if you make the financial penalties hard enough, there are many examples of that…” (Private cattle vet)

“I think unfortunately there's a part of our human population that will only react to being punished and that the carrot doesn't work so it has to be a stick.” (Private equine vet)

The idea of a tailored approach was discussed by veterinarians and animal keepers as a means of influencing a variety of individuals:

“It depends on the farmer. The progressive ones, I think probably would go for the bonuses. The ones that were not quite so business orientated, I think they would wait and get penalised fairly heavily before it would make any difference with them.” (APHA vet)

Furthermore, it was suggested that some keepers undertaking particularly poor practice would not be influenced by either system. The preference for a bonus system by animal keepers and the preference for a penalty system by veterinarians is the most significant difference between the two groups.

## Views on the influence of a levy compensation system (cost sharing)

Study participants were asked to discuss how the source of compensation may influence the likely disease management behaviour of animal keepers. Participants were presented with a case study based on a system of industry levies. Animal keepers are required to pay levies to industry boards, in the form of annual payments, but payments do not reflect individual livestock keeper risk nor risks associated with particular production systems. Economic sanctions are used where there is proof that the cause of an outbreak is the fault of a producer, or where hygiene and prevention standards have not been met. The levy approach was cautiously welcomed by interviewees and, if made voluntary, participants felt that most animal keepers would pay the levy if it was affordable and in line with levies that have been paid in the past in certain sectors. To have the potential to influence animal keepers who are less engaged in the industry and likely to pose highest risk (e.g. lifestyle keepers or those with poor