African swine fever and outdoor farming of pigs
2021; Wiley; Volume: 19; Issue: 6 Linguagem: Inglês
10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6639
ISSN1831-4732
AutoresSøren Saxmose Nielsen, Julio Álvarez, Dominique Bicout, Paolo Calistri, Elisabetta Canali, Julian Ashley Drewe, Bruno Garin‐Bastuji, José Luis Gonzales Rojas, Mette Herskin, Miguel Ángel Miranda Chueca, Virginie Michel, Barbara Padalino, Paolo Pasquali, Helen Clare Roberts, Liisa Sihvonen, H.A.M. Spoolder, Karl Ståhl, Antonio Velarde, Arvo Viltrop, Christoph Winckler, Sandra Blome, Simon J. More, Andrea Gervelmeyer, Sotiria‐Eleni Antoniou, Christian Gortázar,
Tópico(s)Zoonotic diseases and public health
ResumoEFSA JournalVolume 19, Issue 6 e06639 Scientific OpinionOpen Access African swine fever and outdoor farming of pigs EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW), Corresponding Author EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) alpha@efsa.europa.eu Correspondence:alpha@efsa.europa.euSearch for more papers by this authorSøren Saxmose Nielsen, Søren Saxmose NielsenSearch for more papers by this authorJulio Alvarez, Julio AlvarezSearch for more papers by this authorDominique Joseph Bicout, Dominique Joseph BicoutSearch for more papers by this authorPaolo Calistri, Paolo CalistriSearch for more papers by this authorElisabetta Canali, Elisabetta CanaliSearch for more papers by this authorJulian Ashley Drewe, Julian Ashley DreweSearch for more papers by this authorBruno Garin-Bastuji, Bruno Garin-BastujiSearch for more papers by this authorJose Luis Gonzales Rojas, Jose Luis Gonzales RojasSearch for more papers by this authorMette Herskin, Mette HerskinSearch for more papers by this authorMiguel Ángel Miranda Chueca, Miguel Ángel Miranda ChuecaSearch for more papers by this authorVirginie Michel, Virginie MichelSearch for more papers by this authorBarbara Padalino, Barbara PadalinoSearch for more papers by this authorPaolo Pasquali, Paolo PasqualiSearch for more papers by this authorHelen Clare Roberts, Helen Clare RobertsSearch for more papers by this authorLiisa Helena Sihvonen, Liisa Helena SihvonenSearch for more papers by this authorHans Spoolder, Hans SpoolderSearch for more papers by this authorKarl Stahl, Karl StahlSearch for more papers by this authorAntonio Velarde, Antonio VelardeSearch for more papers by this authorArvo Viltrop, Arvo ViltropSearch for more papers by this authorChristoph Winckler, Christoph WincklerSearch for more papers by this authorSandra Blome, Sandra BlomeSearch for more papers by this authorSimon More, Simon MoreSearch for more papers by this authorAndrea Gervelmeyer, Andrea GervelmeyerSearch for more papers by this authorSotiria-Eleni Antoniou, Sotiria-Eleni AntoniouSearch for more papers by this authorChristian Gortázar Schmidt, Christian Gortázar SchmidtSearch for more papers by this author EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW), Corresponding Author EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) alpha@efsa.europa.eu Correspondence:alpha@efsa.europa.euSearch for more papers by this authorSøren Saxmose Nielsen, Søren Saxmose NielsenSearch for more papers by this authorJulio Alvarez, Julio AlvarezSearch for more papers by this authorDominique Joseph Bicout, Dominique Joseph BicoutSearch for more papers by this authorPaolo Calistri, Paolo CalistriSearch for more papers by this authorElisabetta Canali, Elisabetta CanaliSearch for more papers by this authorJulian Ashley Drewe, Julian Ashley DreweSearch for more papers by this authorBruno Garin-Bastuji, Bruno Garin-BastujiSearch for more papers by this authorJose Luis Gonzales Rojas, Jose Luis Gonzales RojasSearch for more papers by this authorMette Herskin, Mette HerskinSearch for more papers by this authorMiguel Ángel Miranda Chueca, Miguel Ángel Miranda ChuecaSearch for more papers by this authorVirginie Michel, Virginie MichelSearch for more papers by this authorBarbara Padalino, Barbara PadalinoSearch for more papers by this authorPaolo Pasquali, Paolo PasqualiSearch for more papers by this authorHelen Clare Roberts, Helen Clare RobertsSearch for more papers by this authorLiisa Helena Sihvonen, Liisa Helena SihvonenSearch for more papers by this authorHans Spoolder, Hans SpoolderSearch for more papers by this authorKarl Stahl, Karl StahlSearch for more papers by this authorAntonio Velarde, Antonio VelardeSearch for more papers by this authorArvo Viltrop, Arvo ViltropSearch for more papers by this authorChristoph Winckler, Christoph WincklerSearch for more papers by this authorSandra Blome, Sandra BlomeSearch for more papers by this authorSimon More, Simon MoreSearch for more papers by this authorAndrea Gervelmeyer, Andrea GervelmeyerSearch for more papers by this authorSotiria-Eleni Antoniou, Sotiria-Eleni AntoniouSearch for more papers by this authorChristian Gortázar Schmidt, Christian Gortázar SchmidtSearch for more papers by this author First published: 09 June 2021 https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6639Citations: 1 Requestor: European Commission Question number: EFSA-Q-2020-00425 Panel members: Julio Alvarez, Dominique Joseph Bicout, Paolo Calistri, Elisabetta Canali, Julian Ashley Drewe, Bruno Garin-Bastuji, Jose Luis Gonzales Rojas, Christian Gortázar Schmidt, Mette Herskin, Miguel Ángel Miranda Chueca, Virginie Michel, Barbara Padalino, Paolo Pasquali, Søren Saxmose Nielsen, Helen Clare Roberts, Liisa Helena Sihvonen, Hans Spoolder, Karl Stahl, Antonio Velarde, Arvo Viltrop and Christoph Winckler. Declarations of interest: The declarations of interest of all scientific experts active in EFSA's work are available at https://ess.efsa.europa.eu/doi/doiweb/doisearch. Acknowledgements: The Panel wishes to thank the following for the support provided to this scientific output: Georgi Chobanov, Federica Loi, Merel Postma, Saúl Jiménez Ruiz and Corina Ivanciu. The Panel wishes to acknowledge the veterinary authorities of the Member States and the farmers' associations that provided data for this scientific output. Reproduction of the images listed below is prohibited and permission must be sought directly from the copyright holder: Figure 1: © CSIC, Jason Thomas, Christian Wucherpfennig, BAT e.V. Adopted: 6 May 2021 This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2021.EN-6595/full AboutSectionsPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Abstract This opinion describes outdoor farming of pigs in the EU, assesses the risk of African swine fewer (ASF) introduction and spread associated with outdoor pig farms and proposes biosecurity and control measures for outdoor pig farms in ASF-affected areas of the EU. Evidence was collected from Member States (MSs) veterinary authorities, farmers' associations, literature and legislative documents. An Expert knowledge elicitation (EKE) was carried out to group outdoor pig farms according to their risk of introduction and spread of ASF, to rank biosecurity measures regarding their effectiveness with regard to ASF and propose improvements of biosecurity for outdoor pig farming and accompanying control measures. Outdoor pig farming is common and various farm types are present throughout the EU. As there is no legislation at European level for categorising outdoor pig farms in the EU, information is limited, not harmonised and needs to be interpreted with care. The baseline risk of outdoor pig farms for ASFV introduction and its spread is high but with considerable uncertainty. The Panel is 66–90% certain that, if single solid or double fences were fully and properly implemented on all outdoor pig farms in areas of the EU where ASF is present in wild boar and in domestic pigs in indoor farms and outdoor farms (worst case scenario not considering different restriction zones or particular situations), without requiring any other outdoor-specific biosecurity measures or control measures, this would reduce the number of new ASF outbreaks occurring in these farms within a year by more than 50% compared to the baseline risk. The Panel concludes that the regular implementation of independent and objective on-farm biosecurity assessments using comprehensive standard protocols and approving outdoor pig farms on the basis of their biosecurity risk in an official system managed by competent authorities will further reduce the risk of ASF introduction and spread related to outdoor pig farms. Summary Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) was asked for a scientific opinion on two terms of reference (TORs) relating to African Swine Fever (ASF) and outdoor pig production (Section 1.1), focusing on: TOR1: risk factors for introduction and spread, an evaluation of the sustainability of outdoor farming under different management and risk mitigation measures, the effectiveness of banning outdoor farming in affected or at-risk areas and an assessment of risks linked to possible options for derogation to prohibition of keeping of pigs outdoors in affected areas, and TOR2: characterisation and categorisation of current systems for keeping pigs outdoors in the EU, description of application of biosecurity measures for keeping of pigs outdoors, evaluation of the effectiveness of these practices to mitigate the risk of ASF virus (ASFV) introduction in different environments and evaluation of the effectiveness of these practices in different environments on mitigating the risk of ongoing ASF spread. A number of points were made when interpreting the TORs (Section 1.2). The request concerns outdoor farmed pigs (Sus scrofa), including farmed wild boar. Outdoor farms are defined as 'holdings in which pigs are kept temporarily or permanently outdoors. This definition does not specify the degree, the type nor the duration of the exposure of the pigs to the outdoor environment. For this assessment, an outdoor pig is defined as a suid animal (Sus scrofa) that is kept temporarily or permanently outdoors, not necessarily with means to constrain its movements and with clearly defined ownership. This definition includes kept wild boar (identified and owned) as well as suid animals that are kept for non-commercial purposes. Hunting gardens where wild boars are kept in a fenced area without a clear ownership are not part of this assessment. Further, while ASF can be introduced into and spread from pig farms in many ways, this assessment focusses only on those risk pathways that are specific for outdoor farms. In relation to biosecurity, the assessment focused on bioexclusion (also called external biosecurity) and biocontainment (internal biosecurity) measures that are related to the outdoor component. A number of methods were used to address different questions within the two TORs (Section 2). Characterisation of outdoor pig farms and current biosecurity measures in EU Member States (MSs) was undertaken using data from a questionnaire filled in by MSs, from literature review and internet searches. Similar questions were answered through a literature review. Information from the literature, from presentations to the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed (the PAFF Committee) and from a review of Animal Disease Notification System (ADNS) were used to identify potential risk factors for introduction and spread linked to outdoor pig farming. Expert knowledge elicitation (EKE) was used to categorise outdoor pig farms on their risk of ASFV introduction and spread, and to identify additional control measures to complement on-farm biosecurity. The MS questionnaire was developed to collect data from the national Veterinary Authorities, from pig farmer associations and from experts with in-depth knowledge of outdoor pig farming systems, their structures and practices and of biosecurity measures (Section 2.5). The literature review, focusing on descriptions of outdoor farming of pigs in the EU (e.g. in terms of farming structures and practices) and biosecurity measures applied on outdoor farms of pigs, was limited to relevant publications over the last 5 years (Section 2.6). The EKE was conducted with four scientists who had in-depth expertise in ASF epidemiology, biosecurity and outdoor farming practices and structures, including organic and backyard farming of pigs outdoors, in different regions of the EU. The EKE was used to elicit estimates of the risk of new ASF outbreaks in the areas of interest in the coming year for each of two types of outdoor pig farms specified by EFSA (type I farms, type II farms). In type I farms, pigs have access to an outdoor area in forest, woodlands, on agricultural land or pastures, whereas in type II farms, pigs have access to an outdoor area on farm premises (adjacent to farm buildings). Both farm types may include backyard and 'hobby' pigs (kept for personal consumption or as pets) as well as farmed wild boar. A preliminary list of biosecurity measures (BSMs) was also developed, prioritised in terms of expected effectiveness in reducing the ASF risk (introduction or spread) for each farm type, then estimates were elicited of the effectiveness, feasibility and sustainability of each BSM when applied separately. Finally, the EKE experts were asked to consider potential control measures to be used in conjunction with on-farm biosecurity measures (Section 2.7). Categorisation of outdoor pig farms According to EU and national legislation, all pig farms must be registered in national pig databases with a unique identification number, irrespective of their size, category and commercial activity. However, harmonised categorisation of different types of pig farms, or definitions of these, does not exist in EU legislation, and no standards or guidelines were found either at international level (e.g. OIE, FAO) or in published literature (Section 3.1). Classification systems for outdoor pig farms vary substantially between MSs. In those MSs where outdoor pig farms are distinguished, more than one instrument for classification (legislative documents, guidelines, standards, checklists) is generally used (Section 3.1.1). Based on the MS questionnaire (Section 3.4), a range of different types of outdoor pig farming are present throughout the EU, including fenced and unfenced areas in woodlands and forests, fenced and unfenced areas in pasture or fields, open buildings with unlimited access to fenced yards and closed buildings with controlled access to fenced yards or runs. Each of these outdoor farming types is present in several EU MSs, except unfenced areas in woodland and forests, and unfenced areas in pastures and fields. Further, there are several types of outdoor pig farms that are common across a number of MSs, including backyard farms, kept wild boar (or wild boar-domestic pig hybrids), organic pig farms, specific pig breeds, free ranging, pigs kept as pets and hobby holdings. Outdoor pig farms are not uncommon in the EU, although the percentages vary across MSs, representing a median of 8% (interquartile range of 1.5–24%) of all pig farms in those MSs (17) for which data are available. Literature on outdoor pig farming systems (Section 3.5) revealed that in several Mediterranean countries, domestic pigs may be kept in silvo-pastoral systems, where pigs have outdoor access at least during their finishing period, when they feed on chestnut and/or acorn pastures in autumn and winter. The production of Iberian pigs makes use of outdoor spaces in the finishing period in which fattening takes place between October and April on 'dehesa'' woodlands/rangeland ('montanera') or pastures/rangeland (cebo campo). In addition, most Iberian pigs have access to outdoor areas already during breeding, weaning and growing periods. In most cases, Iberian pigs are kept on private land that is usually fenced. In Sardinia, approximately half of the registered pigs are kept in small-scale (< 4 adult pigs), non-industrial farms for subsistence purposes. These small-scale farms are often characterised by little, if any, investment in farm infrastructures and equipment. In Corsica, pig breeding and production are mainly conducted in traditional free-range farming systems. In several MSs, including Bulgaria and Romania, many small-scale, non-commercial pig farms exist which keep pigs mainly for family consumption. These backyard farms often have low levels of biosecurity, and some provide their pigs with outdoor access or do not prevent wild boar incursions. Different autochthonous/native pig breeds exist in several MSs. These pigs are usually given access to outdoor areas, such as woodlands, forests, fields and pastures, at least during specific production/life stages. Biosecurity on outdoor pig farms In most MSs, there is a legal requirement to implement biosecurity measures in all pig farms, and there is an official control system to verify implementation and assess the level of compliance (Section 3.4.4). Further, most MSs run awareness campaigns about farm biosecurity. Several MSs assess and classify pig farms according to their level of biosecurity. A range of different digital tools for assessment are currently being used, including 'Biocheck.UGent' (reported by Ireland), 'BIOSEGPOR' (reported by Spain), 'ClassyFarm' (reported by Italy) and 'Smittsäkrad Besättning' (reported by Sweden). Examples of MSs best-practice have highlighted the importance of regular assessment of on-farm biosecurity, an 'official' farm categorisation system based on these assessment results, the introduction of farm-level benchmarking (the practice of establishing the relative performance of the farm against either an agreed standard or the performance of other farms; both over time on the same farm and as a means for between-farm comparison (locally, regionally and nationally), and a broadened assessment to consider other key issues such as animal welfare. Collectively, these approaches have contributed to improvements in biosecurity and broader/core animal husbandry issues. A range of biosecurity measures are implemented in outdoor pig farms in the MSs, focusing on general biosecurity and measures to address external and internal biosecurity. Non-compliance with required on-farm biosecurity measures on outdoor pig farms is a common challenge across MSs, with frequent areas of non-compliance relating to fencing, biosecurity relating to clothes and shoes, record keeping, disinfection at the farm entrance and movement and disinfection of vehicles. Potential risk factors for ASFV introduction and spread linked to outdoor pig farming Interactions between domestic pigs and wild boar, which belong to the same species (Sus scrofa), may facilitate the spread and maintenance of a range of pig pathogens (Section 3.6.1). As highlighted in the literature, there is the potential for (often substantial, though mainly indirect) contact between wild boar and domestic pigs in outdoor production settings, sufficient for transmission of ASFV and subsequent infection. In several settings, substantial spatial and temporal overlap of outdoor pigs and wild boar is found. However, direct contacts between pigs and wild boar are less frequent than indirect interactions at focal points such as watering points or feeding sites. Interactions are more frequent during specific periods of the year (e.g. during summer associated with access to water) or due to the local abundance of seasonal food resources such as acorns in autumn. Sexual wild boar-domestic pig interactions may occur where domestic pigs are not neutered. Transmission of pathogens that spread by direct contact has been shown between free-ranging pigs and wild boar that share the same habitat and food and water resources. In outdoor pig production, it is very difficult to control direct and indirect contact between wild boar and domestic pigs. This is particularly concerning in those situations where ASFV is present in contiguous wild boar populations and the environment of the outdoor farm. Nonetheless, a number of biosecurity measures for outdoor pig farms are identified with a potential to mitigate the risk of ASFV introduction and spread (Section 3.6.3). The risk of intrusion of wild boar into outdoor farms has been found to increase with increasing distance between the outdoor pen and the farm and if the pen is poorly protected (e.g. with only a simple electric fence). On outdoor farms, risk factors for introduction include the area of land on which outdoor pigs are reared, the potential for contact (both direct and indirect) with wild boar and the difficulties in adequately fencing large outdoor areas. Further, there are lessons to be learned from the successful eradication of ASF from Spain between 1985 and 1995. These included improvements to the basic sanitation and biosecurity of pig farms, such as the destruction of unsanitary animal production facilities, and the construction of metal fences with a 100-metre radius around animal facilities to avoid contact with wildlife, for which farmers obtained partial funding or low-interest loans. Categorising outdoor pig farms in EU MSs according to their risk of ASFV introduction and spread It is not possible to accurately determine the number of ASF outbreaks that have occurred in outdoor pig production in the EU based on a review of the ADNS data (Section 3.2) and results from the MS questionnaire (Section 3.4.5). Based on available data, there are considerable differences in the percentage of outbreaks that have occurred in outdoor pig farms between MSs. However, the percentage of outbreaks that have occurred in outdoor pig farms may reflect a high proportion of farms keeping pigs outdoors in certain countries, e.g. outdoor keeping of pigs is a common practice in Sardinia (Italy). With the assumption that most backyard farms allow outdoor access, this is also true for Romania, however, to which degree pigs kept in Romanian backyard farms have outdoor access has not been reported. Based on the EKE results (Section 3.7.1), the estimated baseline ASF risk for type I farms was very high, with a median of 87%. That is, an outbreak of ASF is expected in the coming year on 87 of 100 (95% probability interval of 53–99%) currently uninfected type I outdoor farms in areas of the EU where ASF infection is present in domestic pigs in indoor and outdoor farms and/or in wild boar (a scenario that does not consider different restriction zones or particular situations). The baseline ASF risk for type II farms is lower (37–42 of 100 farms) but with considerable uncertainty (95% probability interval of 4–90%). Therefore, the baseline ASF risk appears to be higher in type I farms than type II farms, but with considerable uncertainty. Effectiveness on outdoor pig farms of biosecurity measures on ASFV introduction and spread Based on the EKE results (Section 3.7.2), the use of wild boar proof fences is the biosecurity measure (BSM) considered most likely to effectively reduce the risk of ASF introduction into outdoor pig farms. These could be single solid or double fences at least 1.5 m high and properly fixed to the ground to prevent the ingression of wild boar under the fence (undercrossing). For double fences, the distance between fence rows should be at least 1.5 m. Other BSMs that seek to avoid attracting wild boar to farm premises or to improve farm hygiene are expected to be less effective, although they may still contribute to reducing the risks. For some pairs of BSMs, the Panel is over 90% certain that one is more effective than the other (e.g. double fence or single solid fence vs. no access to stored feed, water, etc.); for other pairs of BSMs, the Panel's certainty is 70–80% (e.g. simple single fence vs. double or single solid fence); and for some pairs of BSMs, the Panel considers it about equally likely that either BSM is more effective than the other (e.g. no wild boar baiting vs. no access to water). Feasibility and sustainability are important considerations for BSMs (Section 3.7.3). In the context of this assessment, feasibility has been defined as the proportion of outdoor pig farms that would start implementing this BSM if it was included as a requirement in a strategic approach to the management of ASF in the EU. Sustainability has been defined as the proportion of outdoor farms that would continue implementing a BSM for at least 2 years following initial implementation. In general, the feasibility of BSMs was higher on type II compared to type I outdoor farms. A single solid or double fence (the BSMs that were considered most effective) had medium to high feasibility for farm type II (implemented by 40–80% of farms), but very low to low feasibility for farm type I (0–40%), mainly due to costs incurred by their construction. The sustainability of single solid or double fences was considered better than their feasibility. A simple single fence was judged most likely to have medium to high feasibility (40–80% implementation) on type I farms and medium to very high (40–100%) on type II farms. The Panel highlighted the lack of quantitative, field-based evidence regarding the effectiveness of BSMs to reduce the risk of ASFV introduction and spread on outdoor pig farms, including preventing the contact between domestic pigs and wild boar. This area urgently requires research. Control measures to complement improved biosecurity of outdoor pig farms A number of control measures have been identified to complement improved on-farm biosecurity (Section 4.2.7). Systems for farm categorisation are needed, clearly distinguishing different types of outdoor pig production. With respect to registration of outdoor pig farms, data should be collected in national electronic databases, including production type (including categories for pet pigs [companion animals], pigs kept for personal consumption, hybrid farms) and number of animals. This information needs to be regularly updated (annually or at least every second year), with the potential to allow BSMs or other control measures to be applied differentially. Further, regular, independent and objective on-farm biosecurity assessments should be implemented, using a standard protocol/tool (Biocheck UGent or similar) designed to promote continuous improvement of biosecurity practices, with these assessment results being used in an official system managed by competent authorities to categorise and approve outdoor pig farms on the basis of their biosecurity risk. The concept of farm-level benchmarking, both to assess changes in biosecurity risk over time and to allow between-farm comparison (at a local, regional and national level), should be introduced to encourage ongoing improvement in on-farm biosecurity. Enhanced passive surveillance is important, requiring notification and investigation of wild boar presence, wild boar carcasses and dead domestic pigs (i.e. factors related to potential ASF identification). Animal movement controls and awareness programmes are also proposed. Possible options for keeping pigs outdoors in affected areas Specific quantitative information on the effectiveness of on-farm BSMs to minimise ASF introduction into and spread from pigs kept outdoors is lacking. However, the Panel rates double fences and single solid fences highest in terms of effectiveness for both outdoor farm types and is 66–90% certain that their correct implementation would reduce the baseline risk of outdoor pig farms by more than 50%. The Panel concludes that the regular implementation of independent and objective on-farm biosecurity assessments using comprehensive standard protocols, and approving outdoor pig farms on the basis of their biosecurity risk in an official system managed by competent authorities, will further reduce the risk of ASF introduction and spread related to outdoor pig farms. Therefore, the Panel recommends that the restriction of outdoor pig farming in ASF-affected areas and any derogations from such a restriction should be made on a case-by-case basis considering the implementation of the measures indicated above. 1 Introduction 1.1 Background and Terms of Reference as provided by the requestor 1.1.1 Background African swine fever (ASF) is an infectious lethal disease affecting domestic pigs and wild boar. It can be transmitted via direct animal contact or via dissemination of contaminated food or equipment. This disease has serious economic implications for the pig meat and related sectors, including indirect costs related to trade restrictions. The persistence of the disease in wild boar and the limited number of control measures available represents a challenge for the whole EU agricultural sector, in particular the pig farming industry. There is no vaccine or cure despite active ongoing research. From the beginning of 2014 up to now, Genotype II of ASF has been notified in Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Slovakia11 Update: Genotype II is present in Germany since September 2020, and Belgium was recognized as free in November 2020. and Genotype I has been present in Italy (Sardinia only) since 1978. The disease has also been reported in Belarus, Moldova, Serbia, Russia and Ukraine, which creates a constant risk for all the Member States that share a border with these third countries. There is knowledge, legislation, scientific, technical and financial tools in the EU to effectively tackle ASF. In addition, Member States and the Commission are continuously updating the 'Strategic approach to the management of African Swine Fever for the EU' and the related legislation. Currently the Strategic approach provides for a general recommendation for a prohibition of outdoor keeping of pigs at least in the areas covered by Decision 2014/709/EU22 Commission Implementing Decision 2014/709/EU laying down animal health control measures in relation to African swine fever in the Member States applied unti
Referência(s)