Special Report Eradication, control and 
monitoring programmes  
to contain animal diseasesEN 2016  NO 06
EUROPEAN
COURT
OF AUDITORS
EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS  
12, rue Alcide De Gasperi  
1615 Luxembourg  
LUXEMBOURG
Tel. +352 4398-1
Enquiries: eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/ContactForm.aspx  
Website: eca.europa.eu
Twitter: @EUAuditorsECA
More information on the European Union is available on the internet ( http://europa.eu ).
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2016
Print ISBN 978-92-872-4457-4 ISSN 1831-0834 doi:10.2865/954631 QJ-AB-16-006-EN-C
PDF ISBN 978-92-872-4476-5 ISSN 1977-5679 doi:10.2865/219439 QJ-AB-16-006-EN-N
EPUB ISBN 978-92-872-4450-5 ISSN 1977-5679 doi:10.2865/356535 QJ-AB-16-006-EN-E
© European Union, 2016
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
Eradication, control and 
monitoring programmes  
to contain animal diseases
(pursuant to Article 287(4), second subparagraph, TFEU)Special ReportEN 2016  NO 06
02
 Audit team
The ECA’s special reports set out the results of its performance and compliance audits of specific budgetary areas or 
management topics. The ECA selects and designs these audit tasks to be of maximum impact by considering the risks 
to performance or compliance, the level of income or spending involved, forthcoming developments and political and 
public interest.
This performance audit was produced by Audit Chamber I — headed by ECA Member Augustyn Kubik — which special -
ises in preservation and management of natural resources spending areas. The audit was led by ECA Member  
Bettina Jakobsen, supported by the Head of her private office, Katja Mattfolk, and Kim Storup, Attaché; Colm Friel,  
Principal Manager; Armando do Jogo, Head of Task; Xavier Demarche, Manuel Dias, Andreas Dürrwanger, Oana  
Dumitrescu, Laure Gatter, Mary Kerrigan, Joanna Kokot, Michela Lanzutti, Joachim Otto, Lucia Rosca and Anna Zalega, 
auditors.
From left to right: K. Mattfolk, A. do Jogo, C. Friel, B. Jakobsen, X. Demarche.

03
 Contents
Paragraph
 Glossary and abbreviations
I–X Executive summary
1–17  Introduction
1–2 Treatment of animal diseases
3–4 The EU’s animal health strategy
5–9 Animal disease eradication, control and monitoring programmes
10–12  Cooperation with countries outside the EU
13–17  Main roles and responsibilities
18–23  Audit scope and approach
24–60  Audit observations
26–33  While the Commission’s approach for the eradication, control and monitoring of animal diseases 
has generally been sound,
34–36  and Member State programmes were generally well designed and implemented,
37–47  the cost‑effectiveness of the programmes is difficult to determine,
48–60 and there remains scope for improvement.
61–72  Conclusions and recommendations
 Annex I  — Animal disease information
 Annex II — Main responsibilities
 Reply of the Commission
04
 Glossary and  
abbreviations
ADNS : Animal Disease Notification System
BSE : Bovine spongiform encephalopathy
BT: Bluetongue
CAC : Codex Alimentarius Commission
ECDC : European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control
EFSA : European Food Safety Authority
FAO : Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations
FVO : Food and Veterinary Office
Incidence and prevalence : The incidence of a disease is the disease occurrence in a defined population over 
a designated time period (number of new cases). The prevalence of a disease is the disease presence in a defined 
population in a designated time (actual number of cases).
OIE : World Organisation for Animal Health
PAFF : Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed
TB: Bovine tuberculosis
Traces : TRAde Control and Expert System
TSE : Transmissible spongiform encephalopathies
WAHIS : World Animal Health Information System
WHO : World Health Organisation
Zoonosis : Disease or infection that can be transmitted directly or indirectly between animals and humans.
05
 Executive  
summary
I
Animal health has a direct impact on public health, because of food safety issues, and because some animal-borne 
diseases are transmissible to humans. Furthermore animal disease outbreaks can trigger significant economic costs, 
through loss of internal EU and export markets, and the direct cost of disease control on the EU and Member State 
budgets.
II
Animal diseases can spread rapidly, and across borders. The EU has an active animal health policy and finances 
Member States’ programmes to eradicate, control, and monitor certain animal diseases. These programmes 
involved EU funding of 1.3 billion euro between 2009 and 2014 and cover actions such as animal vaccination, test -
ing, and compensation for slaughtered animals. Depending on the type of disease, eradication is a complex exercise 
and can take many years. Therefore, there needs to be a sound approach at EU level, with appropriate programmes 
implemented by the Member States.
III
The Court examined whether the eradication, control and monitoring programmes adequately contained animal 
diseases, by assessing the approach taken by the Commission, and Member States’ programme design and imple -
mentation. The Court also examined whether the cost -effectiveness of programmes was adequately considered.
IV
Overall the Court concluded that the animal disease programmes we examined adequately contained animal dis -
eases. However, as disease outbreaks can always occur the Commission and the Member States should continue to 
be vigilant.
V
We concluded that the approach taken by the Commission was generally sound, and was supported by good tech -
nical advice, risk analysis, and a mechanism for prioritising resources. The Commission provided guidance and facili -
tated coordination of Member States’ efforts, and established minimum performance criteria to be met by Member 
State programmes. There have been some notable successes, for example, decreases in cases of bovine spongiform 
encephalopathy (BSE) in cattle, salmonella in poultry, and rabies in wildlife.
VI
We concluded that Member State programmes we examined were generally well designed and implemented, and 
that Member States had adequate systems to identify animal disease outbreaks and facilitate their eradication.
06 Executive summary  
VII
Nevertheless, the cost -effectiveness of programmes is difficult to determine, due 
to the lack of available models for such analysis. There were examples of insuf -
ficiently controlled programmes by the Member States or unreasonably high 
costs. In some cases in Italy, the amounts paid in compensation to farmers, or the 
payment reduction imposed by the Commission, provided limited incentive to 
encourage effective biosecurity measures and the implementation of corrective 
measures.
VIII
We noted some specific areas with scope for improvement. The exchange of epi -
demiological information and the ready access to historic results could be better 
supported by the relevant information systems, but was in the process of being 
improved. The audit also found that some programmes should better specify the 
actions and controls to be implemented.
IX
While our assessment of the implementation of specific veterinary programmes 
was overall positive, the eradication of bovine brucellosis and tuberculosis, and 
ovine and caprine brucellosis, posed continuing challenges in some Member 
States. We found that the EU approach for considering diseases in wildlife should 
be complemented, notably for tuberculosis, and that the lack of certain vaccines 
can be detrimental to programme effectiveness.
X
The Court recommends that the Commission should:
(a) facilitate the exchange of epidemiological information between Member 
States;
(b) examine whether the existing set of indicators should be updated to provide 
better information on veterinary control activities and the cost -effectiveness 
of programmes;
(c) systematically include, when relevant, the wildlife aspect in the veterinary 
programmes;
(d) support the availability of vaccines for use by the Member States when epi -
demically justified.
07
 Introduction
Treatment of animal diseases
01 
Animal health directly impacts public health, because some animal diseases are 
transmissible to humans, and because of food safety issues. Good animal health 
is also a basic requirement for the EU’s food industry. For many years therefore, 
the EU has enforced an extensive set of measures to protect animal health. 
The cost of dealing with emergencies and diseases, if existing measures do not 
function correctly, can be significant, with loss of internal EU and export mar -
kets, costs of disease control on the EU and Member State budgets, and costs to 
Member State health systems for treating zoonotic diseases (diseases transmis -
sible to humans). The foot and mouth disease outbreak of 2001 which started in 
the UK but spread to other countries, is estimated to have cost up to 12 billion eu -
ros. The BSE crisis of the 1990s, which was also concentrated in the UK, cost over 
3 billion euros in the UK alone and significantly decreased both the volumes and 
prices of EU beef exports. In recent years, no outbreak has arisen which has led to 
such significant costs.
02 
The type and incidence of animal diseases vary across the EU, depending on fac -
tors which include climate, farm types, veterinary practices, and animal move -
ments. Some of the main animal diseases are described in Annex I . Moreover, 
recent outbreaks of African swine fever (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland), 
avian influenza (Germany and Netherlands) or bluetongue (spreading from North 
Africa and affecting mainly Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal) all spread quickly across 
borders. Some animal diseases can spread rapidly (see for example the case of 
bluetongue in Figure 1 ) if not quickly detected and effectively treated. Effec -
tive veterinary measures contribute to the prevention of such highly contagious 
diseases, and the avoidance of the necessity for emergency measures.
The EU’s animal health strategy
03 
The EU’s animal health legislative framework is complex. It involves hundreds 
of pieces of legislation, some of them adopted as far back as 1964. A systematic 
EU approach to animal disease eradication, control and monitoring was first 
introduced for some diseases in 19771. From 2009, the Council’s Decision2 on 
expenditure in the veterinary field, replaced in 20143, sets out the framework for 
these programmes. The EU’s Animal Health Strategy4 established goals related 
to health, economic issues, and farming practices as well as an action plan to 
achieve them. See Box 1  for details.1 Council Directive 77/391/EEC 
of 17 May 1977 introducing 
Community measures for the 
eradication of brucellosis, 
tuberculosis and leucosis in 
cattle (OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, 
p. 44).
2 Council Decision 2009/470/EC 
of 25 May 2009 on 
expenditure in the veterinary 
field (OJ L 155, 18.6.2009, 
p. 30).
3 Regulation (EU) No 652/2014 
of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 
15 May 2014 laying down 
provisions for the 
management of expenditure 
relating to the food chain, 
animal health and animal 
welfare, and relating to plant 
health and plant reproductive 
material, amending Council 
Directives 98/56/EC, 2000/29/
EC and 2008/90/EC, 
Regulations (EC) No 178/2002, 
(EC) No 882/2004 and (EC) 
No 396/2005 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council, 
Directive 2009/128/EC of the 
European Parliament and of 
the Council and Regulation 
(EC) No 1107/2009 of the 
European Parliament and of 
the Council and repealing 
Council Decisions 66/399/EEC, 
76/894/EEC and 2009/470/EC 
(OJ L 189, 27.6.2014, p. 1).
4 COM(2007) 539 final of 
19 September 2007 ‘A new 
Animal Health Strategy for the 
European Union (2007-2013) 
where “prevention is better 
than cure” ‘.
08 Introduction 
EU Animal Health Strategy
The EU Animal Health Strategy 2007-2013 sets out EU goals and actions. This strategy has four main goals: 
1. To ensure a high level of public health and food safety by minimising the incidence of biological and 
chemical risks to humans.
2. To promote animal health by preventing/reducing the incidence of animal diseases, and in this way to 
support farming and the rural economy.
3. To improve economic growth/cohesion/competitiveness, assuring free circulation of goods and propor -
tionate animal movements.
4. To promote farming practices and animal welfare which prevent animal health-related threats and mini -
mise environmental impacts in support of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy.
These goals were implemented by an action plan of four pillars:
1. Prioritisation of EU intervention.
2. The EU animal health framework.
3. Prevention, surveillance and preparedness.
4. Science, innovation and research.Box 1 Figure 1Number of outbreaks of bluetongue serotype BTV ‑1  
in the EU
2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 20097 000
6 000
5 000
4 000
3 000
2 000
1 000
01 3266 002
121 8 96564
Source:  European Commission, DG Health and Food Safety.
09 Introduction 
04 
The Commission (DG Health and Food Safety) is responsible for risk management 
concerning animal diseases. Member States and EU specialised agencies — the 
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Centre for Disease 
Prevention and Control (ECDC) — are responsible for risk assessment. Since 1982, 
the EU has had a notification system to prevent the spread of certain contagious 
diseases. Member States are required to notify the Commission of an outbreak 
using the Animal Disease Notification System5 (ADNS) as well as its eradication 
for certain contagious diseases, so as to prevent their spread in EU livestock.
Animal disease eradication, control and monitoring 
programmes
05 
The cost of dealing with previous disease outbreaks, together with the risk of 
dealing with future outbreaks of existing or emerging diseases, demonstrate the 
importance of the EU’s veterinary measures. The EU funds Member State veteri -
nary programmes for a number of diseases and zoonoses (see Box 2 ), under the 
first pillar of the Animal Health Strategy. The objectives of these programmes are:
— to progressively eliminate animal diseases and to implement disease moni -
toring measures in the Member States and the EU as a whole;
— to ensure a high level of animal health, public health and consumer 
protection;
— to guarantee a high level of protection of both animal health and public 
health, to encourage the improvement of the productivity of the livestock 
sector and to contribute to the economic sustainability of the sectors directly 
or indirectly affected by an animal disease outbreak.5 Introduced by Council 
Directive 82/894/EEC of 
21 December 1982 on the 
notification of animal diseases 
within the Community 
(OJ L 378, 31.12.1982, p. 58).
Eradication, control and monitoring programmes
Eradication programmes : The aim is the biological extinction of an animal disease or zoonosis, finally result -
ing in a free or ‘officially free’ status of the territory according to Union legislation (e.g. bovine tuberculosis).
Control programmes : The aim is to maintain the prevalence of an animal disease or zoonosis below sanitary 
acceptable levels (e.g. salmonella).
Surveillance/monitoring : The aim is to collect and record data in defined populations in order to assess the 
epidemiological evolution of the disease (e.g. avian influenza).
Source: Commission Decision 2008/341/EC.Box 2
10 Introduction 
06 
These programmes are categorised as eradication, control, or surveillance pro -
grammes, and cover a wide range of measures including vaccination, testing of 
animals and compensation for slaughtering or culling.
07 
Over the period 2009-2014, the EU budget dedicated 1.3 billion euros for these 
programmes (see Table 1 ), which forms the bulk of expenditure under the EU 
food safety budget. The EU financial contribution is usually at the rate of 50 % 
of the cost incurred by the Member States, up to a maximum amount. Animal 
diseases and zoonoses which are eligible for EU financial contribution are listed 
in Annex I to Council’s 2009 Decision and from 2014 in Annex II to Regulation (EU) 
No 652/2014. Table 1EU commitments to programme costs for the period 2009 ‑2014 by disease 
(million euro)
Programme 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2009-2014 %
African swine fever 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.9 1.1 0.1 2.3 0.2 %
Aujesky's disease 2.8 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.2 0.4 %
Avian influenza 4.9 4.9 3.5 2.7 2.7 2.6 21.3 1.6 %
Bluetongue 112.0 68.2 13.4 3.7 2.5 3.8 203.5 15.4  %
Bovine brucellosis 11.8 8.6 10.1 8.0 7. 3 10.3 56.0 4.2 %
Bovine tuberculosis 26.3 53.4 67.9 70.7 63.9 64.2 346.4 26.2  %
Brucellosis melitensis 9.0 7.7 15.9 15.4 15.3 16.2 79.4 6.0 %
Classical swine fever 5.1 4.3 3.7 3.4 3.0 2.6 22.1 1.7 %
Leucosis (EBL) 3.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.4 %
Rabies 11.7 15.7 20.9 23.4 19.9 20.4 112.0 8.5 %
Salmonellosis 18.6 24.4 25.1 19.2 19.2 21.2 127. 8 9.7 %
Swine vesicular disease 0.5 0.3 0.7 0.9 1.1 0.8 4.3 0.3 %
TSE, BSE and scrapie 61.5 81.8 74.6 54.3 38.9 24.0 335.0 25.4  %
Total 267.4 274.1 236.0 202.3 174.9 166.1 1 320.8 100.0  %
Annual budget as percentage of total 
budget for the period20.2  % 20.8  % 17.9  % 15.3  % 13.2  % 12.6  % 100.0  %
Source:  DG Health and Food Safety.
11 Introduction 
08 
Over 50 % of costs are concentrated in four countries (Spain, France, Italy and the 
United Kingdom) (see Figure 2 ).
09 
In practice, it can be very difficult to eradicate animal diseases. For example, 
bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis have not yet been eradicated in several 
Member States, although efforts to control or eradicate them have been in place 
for more than 50 years. The EU started funding programmes to eradicate these 
diseases in the 1970s, at which time some Member States already had their own 
national programmes for many years. Table 2  shows that it can take decades to 
acquire an ‘officially disease free’ status, despite the efforts of Member States and 
the Commission, and continuing scientific and technical advances. Some coun -
tries have however been quicker than others. The continuing presence of such 
diseases leads to recurring expenditure from the EU budget on the eradication 
programmes. Figure 2Level of programme costs for the period 2009 ‑2014  
by Member State
Poland; 7 %
Ireland; 8 %Germany; 6 %All others; 25 %
Italy; 10 %UK; 14 %France; 14 %Spain; 17 %
Source:  DG Health and Food Safety.
12 Introduction 
Cooperation with countries outside the EU
10 
The OIE, the World Organisation for Animal Health, in its 2014 guidelines for ani -
mal disease control, highlights the importance of international cooperation and 
indicates that where possible, countries should act on a regional basis to harmo -
nise disease control programmes. This is important as diseases can be carried 
across borders, particularly by wildlife. There is no provision in the regulations for 
the Commission to directly finance veterinary programmes outside the EU. How -
ever, Member States can agree veterinary actions (such as vaccination campaigns 
in a border strip) directly with neighbouring non-EU countries and include the 
related costs as sub -programmes of their veterinary programmes financed by the 
Commission. Table 2The eradication of diseases is a lengthy process
Bovine tuberculosis Bovine brucellosis
Member 
StateFirst EU-funded 
programmeRecognition of 
disease officially 
free status Number of 
years to be -
come officially 
disease freeaFirst EU-funded 
programmeRecognition of 
disease officially 
free statusNumber of 
years to be -
come officially 
disease freea
Ireland 1978bStill not disease free 1978 2009 31
Spain 1987 Still not disease free 1987 Still not disease free
France 1978 2001 23 1978 2005 27
Italy 1980 Still not disease freec1980 Still not disease freec
Poland 2004 2009 5d2004 2009 5d
RomaniaNo EU-funded 
programmesStill not disease freee No EU-funded programmes, and recognised disease free in 
2014
UK 2000fStill not disease free 1978 2015 37
a  Not counting previous national programmes, which have been implemented in most countries for decades before EU funding was first 
received.
b First EU-funded programme is in 1978, but EU funding stopped in 2004, and started again in 2009.
c Many of the regions are now officially free.
d When the EU co -funded programmes started in 2004, the herd prevalence rate was only 0.052 % for TB, and 0.005 % for bovine brucellosis.
e Herd prevalence is insignificant.
f First EU-funded programme is in 2000, but EU funding stopped in 2004, and started again in 2010.
Source: Commission decisions to fund eradication programmes, and to recognise officially free status, for the audited Member States.
13 Introduction 
11 
Concerning the rabies programmes, in 2015 there were four sub -programmes 
performed in non-EU countries: Russia (part of the Finnish programme), Belarus 
(part of the Latvian and Lithuanian programmes) and Ukraine (part of the Polish 
programme since 2012). A further five were at the planning stage: Russia (part of 
the Estonian programme), Ukraine (part of the Hungarian programme), Moldavia 
(part of the Romanian programme), Bosnia and Herzegovina (part of the Croatian 
programme) and Belarus (part of the Polish programme). Given the complexity of 
the various bilateral relationships, ensuring sufficient cooperation for effective 
implementation of sub -programmes outside the EU can be a challenge.
12 
The Commission has taken other measures to harmonise disease control pro -
grammes with non-EU countries. DG Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotia -
tions and DG Health and Food Safety launched an Instrument for Pre Accession 
project in 2011 to provide support for the control and eradication of animal dis -
eases (e.g. rabies and classical swine fever) in seven beneficiary countries of the 
western Balkans: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the Former Yugoslav 
Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Kosovo. Approximately 100 mil -
lion euros were available for the project.
Main roles and responsibilities
13 
The Commission (DG Health and Food Safety) manages the ADNS and coordi -
nates emergency measures in the event of an outbreak of a contagious animal 
disease. The Commission implements veterinary programme expenditures under 
direct management. DG Health and Food Safety’s Food and Veterinary Office 
(FVO) verifies that EU requirements for the safety and quality of food, and veteri -
nary measures are being satisfied.
14 
A Commission Decision from 20086 sets out the criteria for Member State pro -
grammes in order to be approved for EU funding. It provides that in the Mem -
ber States, the programmes shall be under the control of the central veterinary 
authority. Programmes should contain targets, with yearly interim targets if the 
programme is multiannual; and appropriate indicators (such as incidence and 
prevalence) should be established and reported on. The detailed implementation 
and management of the programmes, including any sharing of responsibilities 
between the public and private sector, is a Member State competence.6 Commission 
Decision 2008/341/EC of 
25 April 2008 laying down 
Community criteria for 
national programmes for the 
eradication, control and 
monitoring of certain animal 
diseases and zoonoses  
(OJ L 115, 29.4.2008, p. 44).
14 Introduction 
15 
Member States may submit their proposals for programmes to the Commission 
by 31 May7 of the previous year. These programmes can be set up as annual or 
multiannual programmes. The majority of programmes are annual.
16 
The Commission assesses the quality of Member States’ proposed programmes 
using established criteria, and, when epidemically justified, encourages coordina -
tion between bordering Member States. Since 2013, the Commission has used ex -
pert assistance for this assessment process. The list of programmes is presented 
to the Member States at the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and 
Feed (PAFF). The Commission adjusts the funding allocation for different diseases 
and Member States each year based on its assessment of evolving needs. Any 
changes are discussed with the Member States through the PAFF. The Commis -
sion’s assessment is based on data submitted by Member States, FVO reports, 
financial audit reports, and results of a specific Task Force composed of Member 
State experts. More details of the main responsibilities are set out in Annex II .
17 
A Commission Decision from 20088 defines standard reporting requirements, in -
cluding templates and reporting schedules, to be used by the Member States for 
reporting to the Commission. During the implementation of the programmes the 
Member States send an intermediate report which is assessed by the Commission 
and may result in an amendment of the programme targets and costs, and a real -
location of financial resources between programmes. Final reports and payment 
applications have to be submitted to the Commission by 30 April of the following 
year including the assessment of the results achieved and a detailed account of 
expenditure incurred.7 Article 12 of Regulation (EU) 
No 652/2014.
8 Commission 
Decision 2008/940/EC of 
21 October 2008 laying down 
standard reporting 
requirements for national 
programmes for the 
eradication, control and 
monitoring of certain animal 
diseases and zoonoses 
co-financed by the 
Community (OJ L 335, 
13.12.2008, p. 61).
15
 Audit scope  
and approach
18 
The audit examined whether the animal disease eradication, control and moni -
toring programmes adequately contain animal diseases.
19 
The detailed questions were:
(i) Did the Commission have an appropriate approach for the eradication, con -
trol and monitoring of animal diseases?
(ii) Did Member States design and implement appropriate programmes to eradi -
cate, control and monitor animal diseases?
(iii) Did the programmes adequately consider cost -effectiveness?
20 
The audit work was performed at the Commission (DG Health and Food Safety) 
and in seven Member States (Ireland, Spain, France, Italy, Poland9, Romania and 
the United Kingdom), which together represent 72 % of total expenditure, and 
a variety of different diseases10. The views of the organisations of the main stake -
holder groups (farmers, veterinary services and laboratories), and an expert panel 
organised by the Court, were also obtained.
21 
The audit examined the Commission’s procedures used to define the strategy 
and to approve annual and multiannual national programmes submitted by the 
Member States. This included an examination of relevant opinions and commu -
nications from the Commission services (including the FVO), regulatory com -
mittees (PAFF, Task Force) agencies (EFSA), and expert reviews initiated by the 
Commission.
22 
In addition to the above programmes, the EU also funds emergency measures to 
deal with serious outbreaks of animal diseases. The audit did not examine these 
measures as expenditure represents around 10 % of expenditure on the eradica -
tion, control and monitoring programmes.9 In Poland, the audit work was 
carried out jointly with the 
Polish Supreme Audit Office.
10 A total of 24 Member State 
programmes were examined 
for the following diseases: 
Bovine tuberculosis, bovine 
brucellosis, ovine and caprine 
brucellosis, transmissible 
spongiform encephalopathies, 
bluetongue, rabies, classical 
and African swine fever, avian 
influenza, and zoonotic 
salmonella. Background 
information on these diseases 
is included in Annex I .
16 Audit scope and approach  
23 
The audit at Member State level examined national strategies for the eradication, 
control and monitoring of animal diseases, the criteria used by Member States 
to develop programmes, and how the programmes are implemented in practice. 
Member States’ competent veterinary authorities, and relevant regional authori -
ties, were visited. The audit included substantive testing in order to check if the 
funded actions were carried out as planned and costs were reasonable.
17
 Audit  
observations
24 
According to the OIE11, the desired goal of a disease control programme should 
be defined from the outset. While eradication has traditionally been the goal 
for many disease control programmes, this is not always achievable. Specific 
objectives and indicators leading to the success of the programme should be 
established. Figure 3  presents steps for the establishment of a disease control 
programme.11 OIE, ‘Guidelines for Animal 
Disease Control’, 2014.Figure 3Steps for establishing a disease control programme
ImplementationProgramme
planningStrategic goal
and objectives
Monitoring, evaluation and reviewEstablishing
rationale
Source:  OIE Guidelines for Animal Disease Control, 2014.
25 
Given the complex and heterogeneous situation concerning animal diseases in 
the EU, it is important that the Commission applies a sound framework for prior -
itising its funding efforts, coordinating Member State efforts, providing guid -
ance and facilitating best practices. This should include appropriate reporting on 
performance.
18 Audit observations  
While the Commission’s approach for the eradication, 
control and monitoring of animal diseases has 
generally been sound,
26 
The audit identified that the Commission’s approach for the eradication, control 
and monitoring of zoonoses and other animal diseases was generally sound and 
was supported by appropriate technical advice and risk analysis to deal with 
evolving risks/outbreaks.
27 
The EU’s animal health policy is well developed, with rules for identification, 
traceability, welfare, outbreaks and sanitary checks. This is also essential for 
facilitating trade. However, the current EU animal health legislative framework in -
volves almost 50 basic directives and regulations and some 400 items of second -
ary legislation, some of them adopted as early as 1964. This complex legislative 
tapestry is scheduled to be consolidated and replaced by a new Animal Health 
Law12, for which a political agreement was reached in June 2015. From 2007, EU 
eradication, monitoring and control programmes were part of the EU Animal 
Health Strategy, which expired in 2013 and has not yet been replaced — pending 
the adoption of the new Animal Health Law.
28 
Overall, we considered the Commission’s approach based on funding of priority 
eradication, control and monitoring programmes at Member State level reason -
able. The framework for directing resources to animal disease programmes is 
based on annual assessments by the Commission of funding priorities (consid -
ering issues such as public health impact, production losses, and trade issues), 
which were discussed with Member State experts. The Commission also has 
a sound system for assessing the quality of the programmes proposed by Mem -
ber States, which involves the use of comprehensive assessment criteria cover -
ing such aspects as the clarity of programme objectives and management, the 
historical evolution of the targeted disease, the scientific justification and the 
efficiency of proposed measures. The criteria for prioritising resources between 
diseases were not sufficiently developed for the audited programmes. However, 
with the adoption of an approach to multiannual work programmes for 2016-
2017 and the related Commission guidance, this prioritisation is being gradually 
improved.12 COM(2013) 260 final of 
6 May 2013 ‘Proposal for 
a regulation of the European 
Parliament and of the Council 
on Animal Health’. The 
proposal covers terrestrial and 
aquatic animals and consists 
of requirements for disease 
prevention; disease 
awareness; biosecurity; 
traceability of animals; 
surveillance and disease 
control and eradication; and 
emergency measures. It 
foresees a review of the 
current identification rules for 
horses and others species for 
which specific requirements 
do not currently exist. It also 
plans for a coherent 
vaccination policy in the EU, 
with a framework for antigen, 
vaccine and diagnostics banks 
at EU level. On 1 June 2015, the 
European Parliament and the 
Council reached political 
agreement on this proposal.
19 Audit observations  
29 
Animal diseases are not restricted by country borders. Disease can be spread 
by movements of both farmed and wild animals, as well as other vectors. Pro -
grammes would therefore be strengthened by good coordination between 
countries when epidemically justified. There is, however, no legal requirement for 
Member States to submit coordinated programmes, nor to work together in their 
implementation.
30 
We found that overall, the Commission provides appropriate guidance to, and 
facilitates coordination between Member States:
— There are regular contacts between the Commission and Member States at 
the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed13 and meetings of 
Member State Chief Veterinary Officers.
— Task Forces14 bring together Member State experts in specific diseases and 
make recommendations to improve veterinary programmes.
— The Commission uses external experts to review proposed programmes on 
the basis of comprehensive assessment criteria.
— The Commission’s Food and Veterinary Office performs audits in Member 
States.
— The Animal Disease Notification System enables disease outbreaks to be 
quickly notified.
— EU reference laboratories15 work to standardise and improve methodologies.
— The Commission provides training courses16 to Member State officials.
— From 2014, DG Health and Food Safety provided guidance on the use of 
a new online application, and the standard formats to be used by Member 
States, required by the regulations, ensure a certain harmonisation and 
quality.13 At least one meeting of the 
Standing Committee on 
Plants, Animals, Food and 
Feed (PAFF Committee) is 
organised every month, where 
the Member States and the 
Commission discuss veterinary 
issues, including the outcome 
of the veterinary programmes.
14 A plenary meeting of the Task 
Force on the eradication of 
animal diseases is held once 
a year, where all the Member 
States are invited to 
participate; additional specific 
working groups on specific 
diseases are organised 
regularly and meet several 
times every year (e.g. 
sub-group on salmonella).
15 The mission of each EU 
reference laboratory is to 
standardise methodologies at 
EU level, to coordinate with 
Member States as regards 
diagnostic methods, to 
organise comparative trials, 
and to organise annual 
workshops for national 
reference laboratories where 
the experts of the Member 
States can network, update 
their knowledge and share 
information and best 
practices.
16 Better training for safer food 
(BTSF).
20 Audit observations  
31 
The existence of an EU co -financing framework provides added incentives for 
the Member States to eradicate animal diseases including zoonosis and there 
have been some notable successes. It has also led to a positive impact on the 
human health situation, with resulting cost savings. For example, EFSA estimat -
ed17 in 2012 that the overall economic burden of human salmonellosis could be as 
high as 3 billion euros a year. In recent years the number of cases has decreased 
significantly, as shown in Figure 4 . EFSA has concluded18 that this reduction is 
mainly the result of successful Member State salmonella disease control pro -
grammes in fowl ( Gallus gallus ), which have reduced the occurrence of salmonella 
in eggs.17 Source:  EFSA factsheet on 
salmonella.
18 EFSA/ECDC EU summary 
report on zoonoses, zoonotic 
agents and food-borne 
outbreaks, 2012. The amount 
of 3 billion euros is the upper 
level of the estimate.Figure 4Zoonotic salmonella — Number of human cases in the EU 
and audited Member States
Cases in the audited Member StatesCases in the EU
2013 2012 2011 2010 2009120 000
100 000
80 000
60 000
40 000
20 000
020 000
18 000
16 000
14 000
12 000
10 000
8 000
6 000
4 000
2 000
0UK
RomaniaPoland
ItalySpainFrance
IrelandEU83 94890 88396 682101 589110 179
Source:  DG Health and Food Safety.
21 Audit observations  
32 
Another example is rabies where between 2005 and 2014, the total number of 
rabies cases at EU level has decreased very significantly from 3 708 cases to 305 
in the EU-28.
33 
The measures implemented by the Commission to eradicate BSE in the EU has 
been particularly successful. The number of BSE cases reduced from more than 
2 000 cases in 2001, to 10 in 2014, as indicated in Figure 5 . The main measures 
taken include the removal of Specified Risk Material19 from feed and food chains; 
a ban on feeding mammalian meat and bone meal to cattle, sheep and goats; 
and the testing of millions of cattle each year. The frequent updates of legislation 
in the latest years and research funding have led to a more limited and better tar -
geted testing for BSE. The Commission coordinates well at international level and 
in particular with the OIE, concerning the categorisation of Member States on the 
geographical BSE risk level. The programmes for the eradication of bovine tuber -
culosis also follow a long-term approach, with the trend of disease prevalence 
decreasing in most Member States. These two diseases represent approximately 
half of EU programme expenditure (see Table 1 ).19 These are the animal tissues 
most at risk of harbouring the 
infectious agent, and include 
for example brains and the 
spinal cord. See Annex I  for 
more details on BSE.Figure 5Number of BSE cases in the EU
2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 20012 500
2 000
1 500
1 000
500
010 7 11 28 45 67 125 1753205618641 3762 137 2 175
Source:  DG Health and Food Safety.
22 Audit observations  
and Member State programmes were generally well 
designed and implemented,
34 
Member States are responsible for preparing their eradication, control and moni -
toring programmes, which address their specific priorities concerning animal 
diseases based on appropriate indicators. In most cases, Member States have 
years of experience in dealing with the different animal diseases. The Commis -
sion can request, but not force, Member States to propose programmes as well 
as to change their strategy. Furthermore, when an outbreak posing a risk of 
cross -border infection occurs, Member States are obliged to implement specific 
measures provided by the sectorial legislation, whether or not these measures 
are co -financed by the EU.
35 
Member State programmes must meet the minimum criteria established20 by the 
Commission in order to be eligible for Community funding. These criteria re -
quire the programmes to contain information on, inter alia, objectives, duration, 
targets, indicators (e.g. disease incidence and prevalence), animal testing, vac -
cination, and administration. The complexity of the programmes is closely linked 
to the epidemiological characteristic of the disease concerned. Programmes 
can comprise a wide range of measures such as: a comprehensive surveil -
lance regime, blood sampling, specific measures for identification of reactors21, 
post -mortem examination, laboratory analysis, compensation schemes for farm -
ers, wildlife surveillance, and computerised systems for the testing and disease 
management.
36 
The Court found that Member States’ programmes we examined are generally 
well designed and adapted to the epidemiological situation. Approved pro -
grammes complied with the required criteria, usually described well the meas -
ures to be taken, followed the Commission’s standard templates, and generally 
led to positive results (see Box 3 ). The Member States have adequate systems in 
place to identify animal disease outbreaks in livestock and to facilitate their eradi -
cation. The EU TRAde Control and Expert System (Traces) for animal identification 
and movement control is well -developed and facilitates disease control.20 Decision 2008/341/EC.
21 A reactor is an infected animal 
that responds positively to 
a test for the disease.
23 Audit observations  
the cost‑effectiveness of the programmes is difficult to 
determine,
37 
The Council Decision22 on veterinary expenditure required the Commission to 
report to the European Parliament and the Council every 4 years, on the animal 
health situation and cost -effectiveness of the implementation of veterinary 
programmes.
38 
OIE23 guidance provides that the decision on the most appropriate intervention 
options should take into account cost–benefit considerations as well as zoonotic 
potential and the likelihood of success of a particular set of disease control 
measures.22 Article 41 Decision 2009/470/
EC.
23 OIE, ‘Guidelines for animal 
disease control’, May 2014.A good performance by a Member State programme
TSE programmes are implemented and co -funded by the EU in all Member States and received a large part of 
the EU funding for veterinary programmes during the audited period (see Table 1 ).
In Ireland, the programme received a total of 17 million euros from 2009 to 2014. While EU funds have been 
reduced from 4.7 million euros in 2010 to 0.8 million euros in 2014, good performance has been achieved, in 
particular due to:
 οActive and passive surveillance systems aimed at detecting BSE cases.
 οIf a case of the disease is identified, epidemiological investigations are carried out and cohort and progeny 
animals are slaughtered.
 οProhibition of feeding products of animal origin to farmed animals.
In 2014, there were no cases of BSE in Ireland. This compares with three cases in 2012 and 2011, and the peak 
of over 400 cases in the 1990s.Box 3
24 Audit observations  
39 
As indicated in Table 1 , the yearly direct cost to the EU budget of veterinary 
programmes is of the order of 200 million euros per year. In addition to this, 
Member States spend a greater amount, to cover both their share of the costs of 
the funded programmes, and other veterinary action they have determined to be 
necessary. Furthermore farmers and the food sector bear costs linked to veteri -
nary expenses, herd replacement, reduced production, animal movement restric -
tions, and lost markets. The potential benefits of programmes can be grouped in 
two main categories24:
— The improvement of both public and animal health: reducing disease preva -
lence/incidence; safeguarding public health (in the case of zoonosis); and ful -
filling their role as a key disease prevention/management tool in the context 
of the EU Animal Health Strategy.
— Benefits in economic terms for the EU as whole: protecting the value of the 
sector; contributing to market stability; ensuring safe trade; increasing extra- 
EU trade; and reducing human health costs.
40 
In implementing the EU budget, the Commission has to follow the principles of 
sound financial management25, and funded actions should be economical, ef -
ficient and effective. This implies that the programme results should be justifi -
able related to their costs. The Court recognises that it is very difficult in practice 
to monetise the health benefits deriving from animal health policy, particularly 
for zoonoses, where the main benefit is the avoidance of human infection and in 
some cases the saving of lives.
There is a lack of available models to assess the 
cost‑effectiveness of eradication programmes
41 
The audit noted a lack of available models and economic indicators to allow the 
Commission to perform a cost -effectiveness analysis of proposed programmes, 
and consequently the Commission does not perform such an analysis. In its most 
recent report (2014) on the animal health situation and cost -effectiveness of vet -
erinary programmes, which was required by the underlying Council Decision, the 
Commission provided information on costs and results. The Commission recog -
nised in this report that there was a need to better demonstrate the cost -effec -
tiveness of veterinary expenditure.24 From conclusions of 2014 
Report from the Commission 
to the European Parliament 
and the Council on the 
outcome of the EU 
co-financed programmes.
25 Article 30 of Regulation (EC, 
Euratom) No 966/2012 of the 
European Parliament and of 
the Council of 25 October 2012 
on the financial rules 
applicable to the general 
budget of the Union and 
repealing Council Regulation 
(EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 
(OJ L 298 of 26.10.2012, p. 1).
25 Audit observations  
42 
In practice, the information contained in the approved programmes and subse -
quent implementation reports provide detailed information on costs, and also in -
dicators related to activities and performance. While most of the costs (sampling, 
labs analysis, salary of veterinarians, costs for compensation, etc.) and the qualita -
tive benefit (public health, enhanced export opportunity, etc.) were indicated 
in programmes, there was a lack of available models and information to assess 
the cost -effectiveness of financed activities. For example, the EU reaction to the 
BSE crisis saved lives, contributed to better food safety, improved the quality of 
controls, and restored consumer confidence  — but the cost -effectiveness of the 
programme cannot be assessed.
43 
We also examined whether there was evidence that the costs incurred by the 
audited programmes were reasonable. The audit noted certain cases, previously 
identified by the Commission, where some costs were unreasonably high, or not 
sufficiently controlled by Member States, as illustrated in Box 4 . In these cases 
remedial action has been taken by the Commission.
Insufficiently controlled actions or high costs
1. In Poland, the vaccines used in the annual rabies eradication programmes were purchased at regional 
level. Between 2002 and 2009 the number of detected cases of rabies in the fox population reduced very 
significantly, from 884 to 6. However, in 2010 and 2011 the number of detected cases rose rapidly again, 
to 117 and 103 respectively. These were concentrated in the Małopolska and Podkarpackie regions. The 
average price of one of the vaccines purchased in Poland for use on wild foxes from 2011 to 2013 was 
significantly higher than the average price paid in the EU, although the volumes of vaccines supplied to 
Poland were also the highest in the EU (over 10 million doses each year). Given the economies of scale this 
does not appear logical. The Commission applied financial reductions and requested the Polish authori -
ties to take action to reduce excessive vaccine prices, notably by organising a single national call for 
tenders.
2. In Romania, the national authorities did not correctly control the implementation of the contracts for the 
aerial distribution of rabies vaccines for use on wild foxes in 2013 and an insufficient number of vaccines 
were distributed. Furthermore, the national authorities did not take sufficient samples to test the effec -
tiveness of the vaccination campaign (procedures were improved in 2014). As a consequence, the Com -
mission did not reimburse the vaccination campaign.Box 4
26 Audit observations  
In some cases amounts paid in compensation or payment 
reductions imposed had limited incentive effect
44 
The compensation payable to farmers for animals destroyed under disease eradi -
cation programmes is required by the legislation not to exceed the market value 
for healthy animals26. This aims at setting a fair compensation level; discouraging 
fraud; and encouraging the participation of farmers in the programme. However, 
the EU legislation does not specify how market prices should determine compen -
sation payable; this is determined by Member States in the specific legislation. 
For example, there is no requirement for Member States to base compensation 
amounts on the Community scales for the classification of carcasses and their 
associated prices27. Overcompensation may discourage the effective implementa -
tion of biosecurity measures.
45 
In Italy, the levels of compensation paid for animals destroyed under veterinary 
programmes were sometimes higher than market prices for healthy animals. For 
example, in 2012, farmers received an average of 87 euros and up to 111 euros for 
each sheep destroyed under eradication programmes; but the average market 
price for carcasses from healthy slaughtered sheep at the time was less than 
60 euros28. In cases where compensation exceeded the market price, the detec -
tion of animal diseases on a farm can be regarded as a windfall opportunity to 
restock the herd. Furthermore, farmers who might otherwise have valued a ‘dis -
ease free’ status may be discouraged from implementing effective biosecurity 
measures.
46 
In the UK, compensation payable for cattle in England is based on average mar -
ket prices from the previous month. Compensation for cattle in Northern Ireland 
and Wales is based on individual valuations which generally lead to higher levels 
of compensation than in England, and which may discourage farmers from imple -
menting effective biosecurity measures.
47 
Following an unfavourable assessment of the technical results of the bovine 
and ovine brucellosis eradication programmes in a region of Italy (Sicily), the 
Commission imposed payment reductions of over 7 million euros for the years 
2005 to 2012. In 2011, the entire brucellosis programme in Sicily was declared 
ineligible because of non -performance of a vaccination plan. However, by apply -
ing the national system of allocation of resources between the regions, the Italian 
authorities did not pass on this level of reduction to the regional authorities in 
Sicily, but rather shared it across all Italian regions (the majority of which had 
implemented the eradication programme properly). Thus, there was a limited 
incentive for the authorities in Sicily to improve veterinary measures.26 Article 11 of Regulation (EU) 
No 652/2014.
27 Commission Regulation (EC) 
No 1249/2008 of 
10 December 2008 laying 
down detailed rules on the 
implementation of the 
Community scales for the 
classification of beef, pig and 
sheep carcases and the 
reporting of prices thereof  
(OJ L 337, 16.12.2008, p. 3).
28 European Commission (DG 
Agriculture and Rural 
Development, Statistics on 
agricultural markets 2014: 
http://ec.europa.eu/
agriculture/
markets -and -prices/
market -statistics/
index_en.htm ).
27 Audit observations  
and there remains scope for improvement.
48 
The following paragraphs set out areas where we consider that there is scope 
for improvement to the Commission’s approach and to the Member State 
programmes.
Animal disease notification and exchange of related 
information
49 
Europe’s Animal Disease Notification System (ADNS) is designed to notify stand -
ard information on disease outbreaks. It was not designed to have epidemiologi -
cal management features or to provide historical information and analyse data. 
It therefore provides little added value when compared with the OIE’s World Ani -
mal Health Information System (WAHIS), which all Member States are required to 
use. These two systems both provide information about the number and location 
of new outbreaks, but there is no interface between them allowing for an auto -
matic exchange of information. In order to better manage animal health threats, 
Member States have developed their own information systems dealing with 
epidemiological data. There is, however, not a common system to facilitate the 
exchange of information and a better coordination of control activities between 
Member States.
50 
Since 2012, a joint project between the Commission and OIE has worked on link -
ing the ADNS and WAHIS systems with a common interface called Animal Disease 
Information System (ADIS)29.29 Report on the analysis of 
ADNS (version 1.4) in the 
framework of the 
development of the 
informatics prototype of an 
Animal Disease Information 
System (ADIS) for the 
European Union aligned with 
the OIE -WAHIS/WAHID 
interface: ‘For more in depth 
analysis, reference data such 
as the number of holdings and 
animals present in a region are 
lacking. For more in depth 
spatial and temporal analysis, 
additional data, such as the 
location of all epidemiological 
units present would be 
necessary. In order to be more 
relevant tool for disease 
management or as a decision 
tool, additional information 
would be necessary on 
disease management 
measures … The list of 
‘Species’ values in ADNS 
contains the major farming 
animal species and only the 
generic denomination ‘wild 
species’. It seems reasonable 
to extend the request for data 
on the method of diagnosis to 
all diseases …’
28 Audit observations  
Performance and management information
51 
A Commission Decision from 200830 sets programme output indicators, which 
Member States are obliged to report on. In addition, the Commission established 
a methodology to set performance indicators, which requires Member States to 
improve their performance in terms of disease prevalence/incidence by a mini -
mum percentage over a specified period. Furthermore, the Commission devel -
oped an extensive set of indicators31 (over 100) which Member States should 
use. These include output or activity-related indicators, such as the number of 
animals vaccinated and tests carried out; and also indicators linked to results 
such as changes in rates of incidence or prevalence. While recognising that there 
is already an extensive set of indicators, we consider that there is some scope for 
further improvement, particularly relating to the technical implementation of the 
programmes32. No economic indicators are included that would allow an analysis 
of the cost -effectiveness of proposed programmes (see paragraphs 41 and 42).
52 
The Commission requires Member States to follow a standard template when 
drafting their veterinary programmes. This includes information on the evolu -
tion of the disease in recent years. In addition one of the criteria used by the 
Commission (see paragraph 28) to assess draft programmes concerns the qual -
ity of the data on disease evolution over the last 5 years. We noted that while 
such historical data was available in most cases, for three of the 24 Member State 
programmes concerned by the audit, the Commission’s independent evaluators 
identified that recent draft programmes did not contain enough satisfactory 
historical information33. In these cases, the relevant information was requested 
by the Commission and provided by the Member States concerned. At the time 
of the audit the Commission was developing an information system to allow the 
ready retrieval and analysis of historical information from previous Member State 
programmes, and introduced a standard electronic reporting system for Member 
States to send key documents34 relating to their veterinary programmes35. These 
developments should facilitate the future analysis of programmes.30 Commission 
Decision 2008/940/EC, 
replaced by Commission 
Implementing 
Decision 2014/288/EU of 
12 May 2014 as regards the 
standard reporting 
requirements for national 
programmes for the 
eradication, control and 
monitoring of certain animal 
diseases and zoonoses 
co-financed by the Union and 
repealing Decision 2008/940/
EC (OJ L 147, 17.5.2014, p. 88).
31 Commission document WD 
SANCO/12915/2012.
32 For example, time intervals 
between testing, the 
proportion of outbreaks 
where the source of the 
infection was identified; for 
brucellosis, tracking of herds 
without a herd test, 
percentage of vaccinated 
animals within farms and 
proportion of vaccinated 
farms; indicators related to 
training, cost and capacity of 
veterinary services; for ovine 
and caprine brucellosis, 
genotyping results of the 
strain of brucella.
33 This was the case for the 
proposed UK bovine 
tuberculosis programme 2015; 
the proposed Spanish 
bluetongue programme 2015, 
and the proposed Italian 
bluetongue programme 2014.
34 Notably draft programmes, 
intermediate reports, final 
reports and payment 
requests.
35 Commission Implementing 
Decision 2014/288/EU.
29 Audit observations  
Presentation of veterinary controls in programmes
53 
Overall most programmes justified the measures to be taken and the results to 
be achieved. However, we consider that veterinary measures would benefit from 
being better described in some programmes as well as the actions taken follow -
ing FVO recommendations and Task Force advice. In two of the 24 Member State 
programmes concerned by the audit, the Commission’s independent evaluators 
made similar remarks36.
Programmes where progress is slow
54 
The eradication programmes for some diseases in certain Member States last 
decades (see paragraph 9). While decreasing, the prevalence of bovine tubercu -
losis in the UK and Ireland is still relatively high (see Figure 6 ) compared to other 
Member States37. In the UK, an increase since 2013 of the tuberculosis testing 
frequency in low incidence areas from once every 4 years to once a year has led 
to a higher detection of cases. However, there are still significant challenges 
inherent to the tuberculosis eradication programme in the UK, with a very high 
incidence in some regions.36 Italy bluetongue programme 
for 2014; Ireland bovine 
tuberculosis 2014.
37 In 2014, the herd prevalence of 
bovine tuberculosis in the UK, 
Ireland, Spain and Italy was 
9.04 %, 3.8 %, 1.72 % and 
0.81 % respectively. France 
and Poland are officially free of 
the disease, and prevalence in 
Romania is insignificant.Figure 6Bovine tuberculosis in Ireland and UK
Herd prevalence Ireland %Herd prevalence UK %
2014 2013 2012 2011 201020
15
10
5
03.80 4.07 4.45 4.37 4.849.0410.1116.20
14.05
11.61
Source:  DG Health and Food Safety.
30 Audit observations  
55 
In Italy, ovine and caprine brucellosis are difficult to eradicate due to a lack of full 
cooperation from farmers in some regions. The generous compensation scheme 
(see paragraph 45) may also be a factor. However, prevalence at national level 
is falling, and had reached 1.2 % in 2014, compared with 3.7 % in 2008. Over the 
same period, prevalence in Sicily decreased from 11.9 % to 3.4 %.
56 
We note that the Commission, in its 2014 report38 to Parliament and Council 
on the outcome of EU co -financed veterinary programmes, also noted that the 
results achieved by the UK bovine tuberculosis programme and the Italian brucel -
losis programmes were a cause of concern. The Court also recognises that the 
Commission encourages Member States to take action in such cases through the 
follow up of recommendations made by the Task Force and the FVO.
The approach to treating wildlife
57 
Direct or indirect contacts between wildlife and domesticated animals can lead 
to the spread of disease, or complicate the effective implementation of animal 
disease programmes. For example, rabies can be spread from wild foxes, and 
bovine tuberculosis can be spread by badgers, boar and deer. There are several 
OIE publications39 on the monitoring of wildlife diseases, as well as a related 
international agreement on disease notification. While the purchase of rabies 
vaccines for wildlife is included in Member State programmes, the EU does not 
have a specific approach to combat tuberculosis in wildlife.
58 
There are no legislative provisions at EU level for tuberculosis eradication in ani -
mal species other than cattle (e.g. wild goats, and other wildlife). In particular, in 
the UK, badgers are protected by national legislation which may complicate the 
effective implementation of the bovine tuberculosis eradication programme.38 COM(2014) 115 final of 
5 March 2014 ‘Report from the 
Commission to the European 
Parliament and the Council on 
the outcome of the EU 
co-financed programmes for 
the eradication, control and 
monitoring of animal diseases 
and zoonosis over the period 
of 2005-2011’, section 3.3.
39 OIE, ‘Training manual on 
wildlife diseases and 
surveillance’, 2010.
31 Audit observations  
The availability of certain vaccines
59 
According to the OIE40, the ready availability of suitable veterinary vaccines and 
antigens is essential for animal health programmes41. There are a number of 
EU initiatives and research projects aimed at detecting emerging viruses and 
promoting the availability of vaccines42. Depending on the disease, there may be 
very few, if any, suitable vaccines available for use in the EU. However, vaccina -
tion is one of the essential tools available to implement an effective ‘prevention 
is better than cure’ approach. The reasons why vaccines are not always available 
are complex. Recent research has tended to show that43 besides the technical 
difficulties in their development, there is insufficient financial interest for the 
pharmaceutical industry to seek authorisation to use certain vaccines in the EU. 
Box  5 illustrates some practical difficulties caused by a lack of suitable vaccines.
60 
At European level, there is no legal framework for the joint procurement of vac -
cines, nor a general bank of vaccine stocks. The process to purchase vaccines 
following a call for tenders by Member States can take several months, and in the 
meantime the virus may continue to spread into the animal population. We noted 
that the new Animal Health Law currently under discussion by the legislative 
authorities would widen the Commission’s capacity to establish vaccine banks.40 OIE, ‘Manual of diagnostic 
tests and vaccines for 
terrestrial animals’, 2014.
41 OIE, ‘Guidelines for animal 
disease control’, May 2014.
42 For example, the EU’s research 
funds have supported projects 
for the development of 
vaccines against tuberculosis 
(NEWTBVAC), brucellosis 
(BRU -VAC) and classical swine 
fever (CSFV -GODIVA).
43 Videnova, K. and Mackay, 
D.K.J., ‘Availability of vaccines 
against major animal diseases 
in the European Union’.
Difficulties caused by a lack of suitable vaccines
There are over 20 variants (serotypes) of the bluetongue virus (an insect-borne, viral disease of ruminants).
In Italy, six variants have been identified. No polyvalent vaccines (effective against several strains of the virus) 
are currently recognised in the EU. It is therefore difficult in such cases to envisage the use of vaccines.
In France, during the bluetongue crisis of 2008, there were limited stocks of the vaccine. The French authori -
ties therefore had to procure extra supplies urgently. This was both expensive and time consuming, and the 
national authorities considered that the 520 cases of bluetongue detected in Ile et Villaine may have been 
avoided if vaccines had been available sooner.
At the time of the first bluetongue outbreak serotype S4 in Spain (Extremadura region), not enough vaccine 
against this serotype was available. Hence, the vaccination campaign was postponed to the following year in 
order to restrain the disease during the next possible viral propagation period.Box 5
32
 Conclusions and 
recommendations
61 
Animal diseases cause significant economic costs and are a risk to both animal 
and human health. Diseases can spread across borders, and previous disease out -
breaks have cost billions of euros. The EU therefore aims to protect animal health 
and funds Member States’ programmes to eradicate, control and monitor specific 
animal diseases. These programmes cover actions such as sampling, labora -
tory analysis, compensation payments for destroyed animals, and vaccination 
campaigns. EU expenditure has been decreasing in recent years, and no major 
crisis comparable to the foot and mouth disease outbreak of 2001 has occurred 
recently. However, the EU needs to be prepared to deal with future crises, and it 
can take many years for eradication programmes to result in a disease-free status.
62 
The audit examined whether the animal disease eradication, control and moni -
toring programmes adequately contain animal diseases. This involved examining 
whether the Commission’s approach was appropriate; whether Member States 
designed and implemented appropriate programmes, and whether the cost -ef-
fectiveness of programmes was adequately considered.
63 
Overall the Court concluded that the animal disease programmes we examined 
adequately contained animal diseases. However, as disease outbreaks can always 
occur the Commission and the Member States should continue to be vigilant.
64 
The Commission’s strategy for the animal disease programmes was generally 
sound: Commission actions were supported by good technical advice; there was 
a well -developed policy for animal health; and there was an established frame -
work for prioritising budget resources on priority programmes. The approach 
taken to eradicate BSE has been particularly successful. Other good examples are 
the reduction in cases of zoonotic salmonella and rabies. The underlying legisla -
tion remained complex, and the prioritisation of funding between diseases was 
being gradually improved (paragraphs 26 to 33).
65 
We found that Member States programmes were generally well designed and 
implemented. Programmes met the required criteria, and Member States had ad -
equate systems to identify animal disease outbreaks and facilitate their eradica -
tion (paragraphs 34 to 36).
33 Conclusions and recommendations 
66 
We found that while the Commission was required to report on the cost -effec -
tiveness of veterinary programmes to the European Parliament and Council, there 
is a lack of suitable models to do so. Approved programmes and subsequent 
implementation reports provide information on costs and results, but the cost -ef-
fectiveness of programmes is difficult to determine (paragraphs 37 to 42).
67 
Concerning costs, the audit noted examples of insufficiently controlled or unrea -
sonably high costs, which were previously identified by the Commission. In some 
cases in Italy, the amounts paid in compensation to farmers, or the payment re -
duction imposed by the Commission, had a limited incentive effect to encourage 
effective biosecurity measures and the implementation of corrective measures 
(paragraphs 43 to 47).
68 
We identified some specific areas with scope for improvement. The exchange of 
epidemiological information between Member States could be better supported 
by information systems (paragraphs 49 and 50).
69 
The Commission established a detailed set of minimum programme output indi -
cators to be used by the Member States. We found that the information relating 
to veterinary measures, as well as follow-up action to earlier recommendations 
by the FVO and Task Force could be better described in some Member State pro -
grammes. At the time of the audit, there was not always sufficient readily avail -
able historical information on the evolution of diseases. However, a database to 
record technical programme indicators was being developed, and the Commis -
sion had introduced a new electronic reporting system (paragraphs 51 to 53).
70 
We noted some programmes where progress was slow: notably the eradication 
of bovine tuberculosis in the UK and Ireland, and ovine and caprine brucellosis in 
the south of Italy (paragraphs 54 to 56).
34 Conclusions and recommendations 
71 
Wildlife can spread disease in domestic animals (and indeed people) and there -
fore needs to be considered when developing an approach to animal health and 
the funding of animal disease programmes. We found that the EU approach for 
considering diseases in wildlife should be complemented, notably for tuberculo -
sis (paragraphs 57 and 58).
72 
Vaccines are a key tool for certain eradication programmes. The Court noted that 
depending on the disease, there may be few, if any, suitable vaccines. In particu -
lar, we found that the lack of vaccines to treat bluetongue adversely affected pro -
grammes in Italy, France and Spain. Furthermore, at the time of the audit, there 
was no legal framework for the joint procurement of vaccines, nor a general bank 
of vaccine stocks at European level (paragraphs 59 and 60).
Recommendations
In order to further improve the eradication, control and monitoring of animal 
diseases, the Commission should:
(a) facilitate the exchange of epidemiological information between Member 
States;
(b) examine whether the existing set of indicators should be updated to provide 
better information on veterinary control activities and the cost -effectiveness 
of programmes;
(c) systematically include, when relevant, the wildlife aspect in the veterinary 
programmes;
(d) support the availability of vaccines for use by the Member States when epi -
demically justified.
This report was adopted by Chamber I, headed by Mr Augustyn KUBIK, Member 
of the Court of Auditors, in Luxembourg at its meeting of 3 February 2016.
 For the Court of Auditors
 Vítor Manuel da SILVA CALDEIRA
 President

35
 Annexes Annex IAnimal disease information
What is it? How does it spread?What is the public 
health risk?What are the clinical 
signs?How is it 
diagnosed?How can it be prevented or 
controlled?
Avian 
influenzaAvian influenza (AI), 
caused by the influenza 
virus Type‘A’, can affect 
several species of 
food producing birds 
(chickens, turkeys, 
quails, guinea fowl, 
etc.), as well as pet birds 
and wild birds with 
some strains result -
ing in high mortality 
rates. The virus has also 
been isolated from 
mammalian species 
including humans, rats 
and mice, weasels and 
ferrets, pigs, cats, tigers 
and dogs.Several factors can contribute 
to the spread of AI viruses 
including globalisation and 
international trade (le -
gally and illegally), marketing 
practices (live bird markets), 
farming practices and the 
presence of the viruses in 
wild birds. AI viruses can be 
spread through direct contact 
with secretions from infected 
birds, especially faeces or 
through contaminated feed, 
water, equipment and 
clothing.While AI is primarily 
a bird disease, it can 
cross from birds to 
humans. AI viruses are 
highly species -specif -
ic, but have, on rare 
occasions, crossed 
the species barrier to 
infect humans. Trans -
mission to humans 
has occurred when 
there is close contact 
with infected birds or 
heavily contaminated 
environments.In the mild form, signs 
of illness may be ex -
pressed only as ruffled 
feathers, reduced egg 
production, or mild ef -
fects on the respiratory 
system. In the severe 
form of the disease, the 
virus not only affects 
the respiratory tract, as 
in the mild form, but 
also invades multiple 
organs and tissues that 
can result in massive 
internal haemorrhaging.AI may be suspected 
on the basis of 
clinical signs and 
events leading 
to the disease. 
Laboratory tests are 
required to confirm 
the diagnosis.Around the world, surveil -
lance measures have been put 
in place to detect the pres -
ence of infection in poultry 
according to OIE standards for 
the surveillance of AI.
African swine 
feverAfrican swine 
fever (ASF) is a highly 
contagious haemor -
rhagic disease of pigs, 
warthogs, European 
wild boar and American 
wild pigs. All age groups 
are equally susceptible. 
With high virulence 
forms of the virus, ASF 
is characterised by high 
fever, loss of appetite, 
haemorrhages in the 
skin and internal organs, 
and death in 2-10 days 
on average. Mortality 
rates may be as high as 
100 %.The warthog can serve as 
a natural reservoir of the 
virus without sign of disease. 
Spread from this reservoir is 
via the soft tick Ornithodoros 
moubata. The tick will ingest 
the virus when taking a blood 
meal and then pass it on 
when feeding on susceptible 
animals. Biting flies and ticks, 
contaminated premises, 
vehicles, equipment or cloth -
ing can also spread the virus 
to susceptible animals.ASF is not a human 
health threat.The severity and dis -
tribution of the lesions 
also vary according to 
virulence of the virus. 
Severe cases of the dis -
ease are characterised 
by high fever and death 
in 2-10 days on average. 
The mortality rate can 
be as high as 100 %. 
Other clinical signs may 
include loss of appetite, 
depression, redness 
of the skin of the ears, 
abdomen, and legs, 
respiratory distress, 
vomiting, bleeding from 
the nose or rectum and 
sometimes diarrhoea. 
Abortion may be the 
first event seen in an 
outbreak.ASF may be 
suspected based on 
clinical signs and 
confirmation must 
be made through 
prescribed labora -
tory tests, particu -
larly to differentiate 
this disease from 
classical swine fever 
(CSF).There is no published treat -
ment or vaccine for ASF. 
All successful eradication 
programmes have involved 
the rapid diagnosis, slaughter 
and disposal of all animals on 
infected premises, thorough 
cleaning and disinfection, 
disinsectisation, movement 
controls and surveillance.
36 Annexes 
What is it? How does it spread?What is the public 
health risk?What are the clinical 
signs?How is it 
diagnosed?How can it be prevented or 
controlled?
BrucellosisBrucellosis is a conta -
gious disease of live -
stock with significant 
economic impact. The 
disease is caused by 
various bacteria of the 
family brucella, which 
tend to infect a spe -
cific animal species. 
However, most species 
of brucella are able to 
infect other animal 
species as well. It affects 
cattle, swine, sheep and 
goats, camels, equines, 
and dogs. It may also 
infect other ruminants, 
some marine mammals 
and humans.Brucellosis is typically spread 
when the animal aborts or 
gives birth. High levels of 
bacteria are found in the 
birth fluids of an infected 
animal. The bacteria can 
survive outside the animal in 
the environment for several 
months, particularly in cool 
moist conditions. They re -
main infectious to other ani -
mals which become infected 
by ingesting the bacteria. 
The bacteria also colonise 
the udder and contaminate 
the milk. Brucellosis is an 
important disease in wildlife, 
infecting feral pigs, bison, 
elk and European hares. The 
reservoir of disease in wildlife 
complicates eradication 
efforts.Brucellosis is 
a zoonosis highly 
infectious for humans 
causing a disease 
often called undulant 
fever or Malta fever. 
Symptoms in humans 
include intermittent 
or irregular fever, 
headache, weakness, 
profuse sweating, 
chills, weight loss 
and general aching. 
Infections of organs 
including the liver 
and spleen may also 
occur. Veterinarians, 
farmers, and abattoir 
workers are vulner -
able to infection as 
they handle infected 
animals and aborted 
foetuses or placentae. 
The disease can also 
spread to people 
through consumption 
of unpasteurised milk 
coming from infected 
animals.Typically the disease is 
mild, with the infected 
animal showing few 
signs until she aborts. 
There may be swelling 
of the testicles in males, 
and occasionally the 
bacteria localises in the 
joints causing arthritis. 
The importance of 
brucellosis is that it 
causes poor reproduc -
tive performance, due 
to abortions, infertility, 
retention of placenta, 
stillbirth or birth of 
weak offspring. It re -
sults in huge economic 
losses to dairy, sheep, 
goat and pig farmers.The disease may be 
suspected based 
on clinical signs 
such as abortions, 
but confirmation is 
made through se -
rological tests, then 
with prescribed 
laboratory tests to 
isolate and identify 
the bacteria.Surveillance using serological 
tests, as well as tests on milk 
like the milk ring test, can be 
used for screening and play an 
important role in campaigns 
to eliminate the disease. As 
well, individual animal testing 
both for trade and for disease 
control purposes is practiced.Annex I
37 Annexes 
What is it? How does it spread?What is the public 
health risk?What are the clinical 
signs?How is it 
diagnosed?How can it be prevented or 
controlled?
BluetongueBluetongue (BT) is 
a non -contagious, 
viral disease affecting 
domestic and wild rumi -
nants (primarily sheep 
and including cattle, 
goats, buffalo, antelope, 
deer, elk and camels) 
that is transmitted by 
insects, particularly 
biting midges of the 
Culicoides species. The 
virus which causes BT is 
identified as a  member 
of the Reoviridae family. 
Twenty -four (24) dif -
ferent serotypes have 
been identified and the 
ability of each strain 
to cause disease varies 
considerably. In highly 
susceptible sheep, 
morbidity can be as 
high as 100 %.The insect vector is the key 
to transmission of BT virus 
between animals. Vectors 
are infected with BT virus 
after ingesting blood from 
infected animals. Without 
the vector, the disease can -
not spread from animal to 
animal.There is no public 
health risk associated 
with BT.In infected sheep, clini -
cal signs vary and can 
include fever; haemor -
rhages and ulcerations 
of the oral and nasal tis -
sue; profuse diarrhoea, 
vomiting, pneumonia; 
‘blue’ tongue as a  result 
of cyanosis (rare); preg -
nant ewes may abort.BT may be 
suspected based 
on typical clinical 
signs, prevalence of 
required insect vec -
tors and particularly 
in areas where the 
disease is endemic. 
Laboratory tests are 
required to confirm 
the diagnosis.In endemic areas, sentinel 
monitoring programmes 
actively sample animals in 
sentinel herds to monitor 
for presence of the virus. 
Vaccination is used as the 
most effective and practical 
measure to minimise losses 
related to the disease and 
to potentially interrupt the 
cycle from infected animal to 
vector. It is essential to use 
a vaccine designed to provide 
protection against the specific 
strain (or strains) of virus of 
concern in a particular area.
Bovine 
tuberculosisBovine tuberculosis 
(TB) is a chronic disease 
of animals caused 
by a bacteria called 
Mycobacterium bovis, 
(M.bovis) which is close -
ly related to the bacteria 
that cause human and 
avian tuberculosis. 
This disease can affect 
practically all mammals, 
causing a general state 
of illness, coughing and 
eventual death.The disease is contagious 
and spread by contact with 
infected domestic and wild 
animals. The usual route 
of infection is by inhaling 
infected droplets which are 
expelled from the lungs by 
coughing. Calves and humans 
can also become infected 
by ingesting raw milk from 
infected cows.Humans can be infect -
ed both by drinking 
raw milk from infected 
cattle, or by inhaling 
infective droplets. It 
is estimated in some 
countries that up to 
10 percent of human 
tuberculosis is due to 
bovine TB.TB usually has a pro -
longed course, and 
symptoms take months 
or years to appear. 
The usual clinical signs 
include: weakness, loss 
of appetite, weight -loss, 
fluctuating fever, 
intermittent hack -
ing cough, diarrhoea, 
large prominent lymph 
nodes.The standard 
method for detec -
tion of TB is the tu -
berculin test, where 
a small amount of 
antigen is injected 
into the skin, and 
the immune reac -
tion is measured. 
Definitive diagnosis 
is made by growing 
the bacteria in the 
laboratory, a process 
that takes at least    
8 weeks.The standard control measure 
applied to TB is test and 
slaughter. Disease eradication 
programmes consisting of 
post mortem meat inspection, 
intensive surveillance includ -
ing on -farm visits, systematic 
individual testing of cattle 
and removal of infected and 
incontact animals as well as 
movement controls have been 
very successful in reducing or 
eliminating the disease.
Pasteurisation of milk of 
infected animals to a tem -
perature sufficient to kill the 
bacteria has prevented the 
spread of disease in humans.Annex I
38 Annexes 
What is it? How does it spread?What is the public 
health risk?What are the clinical 
signs?How is it 
diagnosed?How can it be prevented or 
controlled?
Bovine 
spongiform 
encephalopa -
thy (BSE)BSE is a progressive, 
fatal disease of the 
nervous system of 
cattle. The disease 
has a long incubation 
period of 4 to 5 years 
and there is currently no 
treatment or vaccine for 
the disease. BSE is one 
of a group of diseases 
known as transmissible 
spongiform encephalop -
athy (TSE). Other TSEs 
include scrapie in sheep, 
chronic wasting disease 
(CWD) in deer and elk, 
and Creutzfeldt -Jakob 
disease in humans. 
BSE, like other TSEs, is 
characterised by the 
presence of an abnormal 
infectious protein called 
a prion in nervous 
tissue. The subsequent 
spongy degeneration 
of the brain results 
in severe and fatal 
neurological signs and 
symptoms.Scientists believe that the 
spread of this disease in cat -
tle is caused by feeding ren -
dered material from infected 
cattle or sheep back to other 
cattle. The prion is resistant 
to commercial inactivation 
procedures such as heat, 
which means that it may not 
be completely destroyed in 
the rendering process. There are indica -
tions that variant 
Creutzfeldt -Jakob 
disease in humans 
could be caused by the 
consumption of beef 
products contaminat -
ed by infected nervous 
tissue or medical 
devices manufactured 
from infected animal 
tissues.
Milk and milk products 
are considered safe.Since the average time 
between an animal’s 
infection with the 
prion and the onset of 
clinical signs normally 
ranges from 4 to 5 years, 
clinical signs of BSE are 
found in adult animals. 
Symptoms may last 
for a period of 2 to 
6 months before the 
animal dies.BSE may be suspect -
ed based on clinical 
signs. Diagnosis can 
only be confirmed 
by microscopic 
examination of 
brain tissues.Targeted surveillance of 
occurrences of clinical neuro -
logical disease; transparency 
in reporting findings of BSE; 
safeguards on importation 
of live ruminant species and 
their products, in accordance 
with the OIE Terrestrial Code; 
removal of specified risk 
material (SRM) (brain, spinal 
column) during slaughter 
and processing of carcasses; 
prohibit the inclusion of SRM 
in animal feeds, thus remov -
ing potentially contaminated 
material from the food chain; 
humane destruction of all 
suspected and susceptible 
animals exposed to con -
taminated feed; appropriate 
disposal of carcasses and all 
animal products; livestock 
identification to enable effec -
tive surveillance and tracing 
of suspected livestock.Annex I
39 Annexes 
What is it? How does it spread?What is the public 
health risk?What are the clinical 
signs?How is it 
diagnosed?How can it be prevented or 
controlled?
Classical 
swine FeverClassical swine fever 
(CSF), also known as hog 
cholera, is a contagious 
viral disease of domestic 
and wild swine. It is 
caused by a virus of 
the genus Pestivirus of 
the family Flaviviridae, 
which is closely related 
to the viruses that cause 
bovine viral diarrhoea 
in cattle and border 
disease in sheep. There 
is only one serotype of 
CSF virus (CSFV).The most common method 
of transmission is through 
direct contact between 
healthy swine and those 
infected with CSF virus. The 
virus is shed in saliva, nasal 
secretions, urine, and faeces. 
Contact with contaminated 
vehicles, pens, feed, or cloth -
ing may spread the disease. 
Animals that are chronic 
carriers of the disease (per -
sistently infected) may show 
no clinical signs of illness but 
may shed the virus in their 
feces. Offspring of infected 
sows can become infected 
in the uterus, and can shed 
the virus for months. It has 
been proven that in parts 
of Europe, the wild boar 
population may play a role 
in the epidemiology of the 
disease.Humans are not 
affected by this virus. 
Swine are the only 
species known to be 
susceptible.In the acute form of 
the disease, in all age 
groups, there is fever, 
huddling of sick ani -
mals, loss of appetite, 
dullness, weakness, con -
junctivitis, constipation 
followed by diarrhoea, 
and an unsteady gait. 
Several days after the 
onset of clinical signs, 
the ears, abdomen and 
inner thighs may show 
a purple discoloration. 
Animals with acute 
disease die within 
1-2 weeks. Severe cases 
of the disease appear 
very similar to African 
swine fever.Because the clinical 
signs are not exclu -
sive to CSF, and vary 
widely, laboratory 
tests are required to 
detect antibodies or 
the virus itself.Treatment is not attempted. 
In areas where the disease 
is endemic, vaccination can 
prevent the spread of the 
disease. As the disease is 
brought under control, vacci -
nation ceases, with continued 
surveillance.
In disease -free areas, 
a stamping out policy is ap -
plied consisting of early 
detection, movement control, 
proper disposal of carcasses, 
and cleaning and disinfec -
tion. This policy has led to 
the elimination of CSF from 
North America, and much of 
western Europe.Annex I
40 Annexes 
What is it? How does it spread?What is the public 
health risk?What are the clinical 
signs?How is it 
diagnosed?How can it be prevented or 
controlled?
RabiesRabies is a viral disease 
that affects the central 
nervous system of 
warm -blooded animals, 
including humans. 
The disease has a long 
incubation period (6 
months) and symp -
toms may take several 
weeks to appear after 
infection. However, 
once symptoms appear, 
rabies is always fatal in 
animals.Rabies is transmitted through 
the saliva of an infected 
animal. Infection occurs 
primarily via bite wounds, or 
infected saliva entering an 
open cut or wound or mucous 
membrane, such as those in 
the mouth, nasal cavity or 
eyes. Infection through inha -
lation of the virus has been 
documented, for example, in 
the environment of a  densely 
populated bat cave. The virus 
will generally remain at the 
entry site for a period of time 
before travelling along the 
nerves to the brain. In the 
brain, the virus multiplies 
quickly, resulting in clinical 
signs. The virus then moves 
from the brain along nerves 
to the salivary glands. The 
period of time before clinical 
signs appear in an infected 
animal can vary depending 
on the strain of virus and en -
try point. It is thus important 
to realise that the disease can 
be transmitted via the saliva 
of an infected animal to other 
animals and humans before 
the onset of clinical signs of 
the disease in the infected 
animal.Rabies is regarded 
as one of the most 
important zoonotic 
diseases in the world 
(a disease which 
primarily affects 
animals, but can cause 
disease in humans). 
Any encounter with 
a domestic or wild 
animal where a bite 
is received must be 
investigated. Rabid 
wild animals lose 
their natural fear of 
humans, increasing 
the risk of encounter. 
Clinical signs in ani -
mals such as excessive 
salivation, choking 
or gagging can lead 
humans to unknow -
ingly risk infection 
while examining 
inside the mouth of 
dogs and livestock 
searching for a foreign 
body or attempting to 
administer medica -
tion with bare hands. 
It is important to 
immediately wash any 
bite wound or exposed 
surface with soap and 
water and report the 
incident to a doctor or 
hospital emergency 
department.Clinical signs of rabies 
in animals will vary 
depending on the effect 
of the virus on the brain. 
Typical signs include 
sudden behavioural 
changes and progres -
sive paralysis leading 
to death. In some 
cases, however, an 
animal may die rapidly 
without demonstrat -
ing significant clinical 
signs. In humans, early 
signs can include fever 
or headache. As the 
disease progresses, 
symptoms may include 
confusion, depression, 
sleepiness, agitation 
or paralysis of the face, 
throat and neck. Death 
generally results from 
progressive paralysis.The disease may be 
suspected based 
on clinical signs, 
however, laboratory 
tests are required 
to confirm the 
diagnosis. Samples 
taken from dead 
animals must be 
sent to competent 
laboratories for 
diagnosis.In countries where the disease 
is endemic, measures are 
implemented to address and 
reduce the risk of infection 
in susceptible populations 
(wildlife, stray and domestic 
animals) and create a buffer 
between the animal source 
of the disease and humans: 
Vaccination programmes for 
domestic animals, wildlife 
rabies control programmes 
including vaccination (trap/
vaccinate/release or delivery 
of oral vaccines).Annex I
41 Annexes 
What is it? How does it spread?What is the public 
health risk?What are the clinical 
signs?How is it 
diagnosed?How can it be prevented or 
controlled?
SalmonellaSalmonella is a  bacte -
rium that can cause an 
illness called salmonel -
losis in humans.
Salmonella is commonly 
found in the intestines 
of healthy birds and 
mammals. In foods, it is 
most frequently found 
in eggs and raw meat 
from pigs, turkeys and 
chickens.It can spread to humans 
through contaminated foods. 
Safe handling of raw meat 
and other raw food ingredi -
ents, thorough cooking and 
good kitchen hygiene can 
prevent or reduce the risk 
posed by contaminated food.Salmonellosis is 
a zoonosis: a disease 
or infection that 
can be transmitted 
directly or indirectly 
between animals and 
humans. If it infects 
the bloodstream it can 
be life -threatening.The usual symptoms of 
human salmonellosis 
include fever, diarrhoea 
and abdominal cramps.
The symptoms of sal -
monella in fowl include 
ruffled feathers, thirst, 
reluctance to move, and 
yellow diarrhoea.The disease in fowl 
may be suspected 
based on clinical 
signs, however 
laboratory tests are 
required to confirm 
the diagnosis.A coordinated approach by all 
EU actors on zoonotic diseases 
have helped reduce human 
cases of salmonellosis in the 
EU by almost one half over      
5 years (2004-2009). In 2003, 
the EU set up an extended 
control programme for zoon -
oses, considering Salmonella 
as a priority. Enhanced salmo -
nella control programmes in 
poultry were implemented in 
all EU Member States. Targets 
were set for the reduction of 
salmonella in poultry flocks 
(e.g. laying hens, broilers, 
turkeys) and pigs. Restric -
tions were also imposed on 
the trade of products from 
infected flocks.
Source:  OIE and EFSA.Annex I
42 Annexes 
Main responsibilities
01 
The Commission (DG Health and Food Safety) is responsible for coordinating, assessing and approving Mem -
ber States’ draft national programmes and providing the financial support for them under direct manage -
ment. The responsible directorate for veterinary measures is Directorate G — Veterinary and International 
affairs.
02 
A Task Force, operating since 2000, provides expert guidance for disease eradication to the Member States. 
It is composed of representatives from Member States and the Commission, and has subgroups for the main 
animal diseases. The Task Force and its subgroups provide an opportunity to share best practice between 
Member State experts and the Commission. Following subgroup meetings, the Task Force makes specific rec -
ommendations to improve Member State programmes. The Task Force meets in plenary session each year.
03 
DG Health and Food Safety manages the Animal Disease Notification System (‘ADNS’) and coordinates 
emergency measures in the event of an outbreak of a contagious animal disease. In addition, DG Health and 
Food Safety manages the ‘Traces’ system which notifies, certifies and monitors imports, exports and intra -EU 
cross- border trade in animals and certain animal products.
04 
The ADNS is an electronic notification system designed to register and document the evolution of the situa -
tion of important infectious animal diseases. It aims to ensure the immediate notification of ‘alert’ messages 
as well as detailed information about outbreaks of animal diseases in Member States and other countries 
that are connected to the system. Data is input at country level. The Commission correlates data and trans -
mits the information on primary and secondary outbreaks to the veterinary authorities of the Member States 
on a daily basis. This enables the veterinary authorities in Member States to assess risks and take necessary 
actions.
05 
The FVO is Directorate F of DG Health and Food Safety. Its main task is to verify that the requirements of 
Community legislation on the safety and quality of food, veterinary and phytosanitary products are being 
satisfied. It performs audits in the 28 Member States and in third countries exporting or seeking to export 
to the EU. It is composed of veterinary professionals, and its inspection/audit tasks are part of an annual 
work programme that is drawn up on the basis of risk analysis. Its work includes systems evaluations and 
substantive testing. Each audit results in a report that contains conclusions and recommendations. Auditees 
are invited to submit an action plan covering all findings of deficiencies. The implementation of this plan is 
evaluated and monitored. The FVO publishes its audit reports and a summary annual report on DG Health 
and Food Safety’s website.Annex II
43 Annexes 
06 
Member States carry out the actual administration and implementation of the programmes through the 
relevant national authority. In case of federal or decentralised states, the implementation may be devolved 
to local level (e.g. in Great Britain responsibility is at county level; in Germany responsibility lies with the 
Länder ). A single application for reimbursement and the final report are presented by each Member State to 
the Commission.
07 
Member States are responsible for the management of their programmes, and the Commission is formally 
informed of actions taken in the annual report and cost claim.
08 
The PAFF is composed of representatives from EU governments. The Committee’s mandate covers general 
animal health risks and the entire food supply chain from the farm to fork. It is chaired by a European Com -
mission representative. The Commission may consult the relevant committee on measures it is planning to 
adopt. The Committee can then deliver an opinion on the Commission’s work.
09 
EFSA is responsible for evaluating food safety risks and notifying them to the Commission. It is not responsi -
ble for risk management. It works closely with national authorities and provides scientific advice on matters 
linked to food safety. Its scientific advice is an important source of information about risks and an essential 
element in designing the Commission’s approach to risk management. In terms of animal diseases it is main -
ly involved in the scientific studies of the disease eradication. Furthermore, it might be consulted in case of 
emergency measures during a serious outbreak.
10 
Other organisations, notably the ECDC, the OIE and the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC), set up by the 
Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Health Organisation (WHO) 
assess matters related to human and animal health.Annex II
44 Reply of the  
Commission
Executive summary
VII
The Commission wishes to point to the vast amount of evidence of the overall cost–benefit of veterinary pro -
grammes, for example, the avoidance of human infection and in some cases the saving of lives. No models are avail -
able, not even at international level, to analyse cost-effectiveness of the programmes due to their specific nature. 
The Commission agrees that overcompensation by a Member State might limit the incentive to apply effective 
biosecurity measures. However, the Commission does not consider that there is evidence that such cases actually 
occurred extensively.
As regards the payment reduction imposed by the Commission, the Commission wishes to clarify that it falls solely 
under the competence of the Member State to share, according to the national rules, the financial penalties applied 
by the Commission.
VIII
The Commission continues to further develop its existing IT tools to better support the Member States' 
programmes.
IX
The Commission has a specific approach adapted to each disease. Wildlife is included when epidemically justified, 
as it is the case for avian influenza, classical swine fever, African swine fever, rabies. The Commission agrees that 
more consideration is needed for bovine tuberculosis with targeted measures for wildlife, taking into account the 
environment (for example, badger population which is an issue in the UK but not on the continent); other species 
maybe relevant in other Member States, such as deer.
X (a)
The Commission accepts this recommendation.
X (b)
The Commission accepts this recommendation.
X (c)
The Commission accepts to ensure that Member States systematically include, when relevant, the wildlife aspect in 
their veterinary programmes. 
X (d)
The Commission accepts this recommendation.
Reply of the Commission 45
Introduction
05
From 2007, EU veterinary programmes were considered one of the possible policy instruments to be employed 
under the comprehensive EU Animal Health Strategy.
09
For some animal diseases, eradication can be a lengthy process due to the specificity of the disease. However, 
bovine tuberculosis and bovine brucellosis had been eradicated in most of the Member States. In those Member 
States where the disease is still present, several regions are already officially free. The difficulty to eradicate some 
animal diseases entails recurring expenditure from the EU budget for the veterinary programmes.
Audit observations
27
From 2007, EU veterinary programmes were considered one of the possible policy instruments to be employed 
under the comprehensive EU Animal Health Strategy.
41
The Commission underlines that models to analyse the cost-effectiveness of the measures taken have not yet been 
developed, not even at international level. At the same time, the Commission points to the vast amount of evidence 
of the overall cost–benefit of veterinary programmes, for example, the avoidance of human infection and in some 
cases the saving of lives.
Box 4 — Insufficiently controlled actions or high costs
1. The first single national call for tender launched by the Polish authorities for 2015 at the request of the Commission 
showed the desired effect: average vaccine prices dropped by half.
2. The issue in Romania is an example where the Commission detected the non-compliance and reacted immediately 
by refusing to reimburse the costs of the programme. The Commission requested Romania to take a number of 
remedial actions. In order to verify that the Romanian authorities had taken appropriate measures, the Food Vet -
erinary Office (a Directorate of DG Health and Food Safety) carried out an audit on the 2014 rabies programme in 
Romania. Since then, Romania has implemented corrective actions as requested by the Commission.
44
The Commission agrees that there is ‘no requirement for Member States to base compensation amounts on the 
Community scales for the classification of carcasses’. This is due to the fact that the grid only refers to meat animals 
ready for commercial slaughtering. The animals slaughtered during veterinary programmes are quite often breed -
ing animals or animals too young for commercial slaughtering. Thus, a grid is often not applicable.
The Commission underlines that farmers face a variety of consequences when not applying proper biosecurity 
measures. In case of an outbreak, a farmer has to bear costs that are not compensated, such as economic disadvan -
tages due to animal movement restrictions, loss of animal production, loss of commercial reputation, additional 
cost for restocking, cleaning and disinfection. These costs could outweigh a possible overcompensation.
Reply of the Commission 46
45
The Commission points to the difficulties in comparing market prices with compensation values (see Commission’s 
reply to paragraph 44). In Italy compensation rates in case of diseases are regulated in detail by law1. 
Moreover, the statistics on agricultural markets quoted by the Court do not refer to market prices of healthy live 
animals but to market prices for sheep meat.
Financial audits carried out by the Commission on veterinary programmes in Italy concluded that the compensation 
rates were in line with the eligible value.
46
The Food Veterinary Office carried out an audit on the tuberculosis eradication programme of the UK2 and found 
that in Wales the Tuberculosis (Wales) Order includes measures to link compensation to best farming practice, 
including appropriate biosecurity measures.
47
The Commission is of the opinion that it applied the appropriate corrective measures taking into account the 
detected deficiencies in the national programme. It falls solely under the competence of the Member State to share, 
according to the national rules, the financial penalties applied by the Commission.
51
The Commission agrees and intends to review together with the Member States which additional indicators could 
be useful for the assessment of the technical implementation of the programmes. However, as regards cost effec -
tiveness the Commission will, together with the Member States, examine the possibility of identifying suitable 
indicators in relation to cost-effectiveness specific to the veterinary programmes.
55
The Commission points to its financial audits carried out on veterinary programmes in Italy, which concluded 
that the compensation paid by Italy was eligible, and that its recommendation on compensation levels was being 
addressed (see also Commission’s replies to paragraphs 44 and 45). There is no evidence that there was a link 
between compensation and delays in eradication in Italy.
57
The Commission has a strategy for surveillance, monitoring and control adapted to each disease. Wildlife is included 
when epidemically justified, for example, avian influenza, classical swine fever, African swine fever, rabies. The 
Commission agrees that more consideration is needed for bovine tuberculosis with targeted measures for wildlife, 
taking into account the environment (for example, badger population which is an issue in the UK but not on the 
continent); other species might be relevant in other Member States, such as deer.
1 Reference; ‘art.6 della legge 28 maggio 1981, n. 296 e’ (last modification decree 11 August 2015).
2 DG Health and Food Safety, FVO audit report ‘United Kingdom 2011-6057’, http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/audit_reports/index.cfm
Reply of the Commission 47
Common Commission’s reply to paragraphs 59 and 60
The Commission underlines that vaccine/antigen banks have already been put in place for two diseases, namely 
foot and mouth disease and classical swine fever. This was done based — where relevant — on a risk analysis of the 
strains most likely to occur in Europe.
Conclusions and recommendations
66
While no models are available, not even at international level, to analyse cost-effectiveness of the programmes, the 
Commission wishes to point to the vast amount of evidence of the overall cost–benefit of veterinary programmes, 
for example, the avoidance of human infection and in some cases the saving of lives.
67
The Commission agrees that overcompensation by a Member State might limit the incentive to apply effective 
biosecurity measures. However, the Commission does not consider that there is evidence that such cases actually 
occurred extensively. The Commission is of the opinion that it applied the appropriate corrective measures tak -
ing into account the detected deficiencies in the national programmes. It falls solely under the competence of the 
Member State to share, according to the national rules, the financial penalties applied by the Commission.
69
The Commission underlines that the information was available before the end of the Commission’s evaluation exer -
cise as the three Member States concerned provided the missing historical information further to the Commission's 
request. Given that only three out of 24 Member States were concerned, the Commission considers this an isolated 
case.
70
For some animal diseases, eradication can be a lengthy process due to the specificity of the disease. This is typically 
the case for tuberculosis and brucellosis.
71
The Commission has a strategy for surveillance, monitoring and control adapted to each disease. Wildlife is included 
when epidemically justified, for example, avian influenza, classical swine fever, African swine fever, rabies. The 
Commission agrees that more consideration is needed for bovine tuberculosis with targeted measures for wildlife, 
taking into account the environment (for example, badger population which is an issue in the UK but not on the 
continent); other species might be relevant in other Member States, such as deer.
72
The Commission underlines that vaccine/antigen banks have already been put in place for two diseases, namely 
foot and mouth disease and classical swine fever. This was done based — where relevant — on a risk analysis of the 
strains most likely to occur in Europe.
Reply of the Commission 48
Recommendations
(a) The Commission accepts this recommendation.
(b) The Commission accepts this recommendation.
(c) The Commission accepts to ensure that Member States systematically include, when relevant, the wildlife aspect 
in their veterinary programmes.
(d) The Commission accepts this recommendation.
HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS
Free publications:
 one copy:  
 via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);
  more than one copy or posters/maps:  
from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);  
from the delegations in non-EU countries (http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);  
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or  
calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*).
(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).
Priced publications:
 via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).
Animal diseases can spread rapidly, causing significant 
economic costs and are a risk to both animal and human 
health. The EU has an active animal health policy and 
finances Member States’ programmes to eradicate, 
control, and monitor certain animal diseases. The Court 
examined these programmes and concluded that the 
Commission’s approach and Member State programmes 
were generally sound. There have been several success 
stories but eradication is a complex exercise and can take 
many years. However, there remains scope for 
improvement. We make recommendations to the 
Commission concerning the exchange of epidemiological 
information between Member States; the indicators used 
for veterinary control activities and cost-effectiveness; 
how wildlife is treated and the availability of vaccines.
EUROPEAN
COURTOF AUDITORS