Assessment of Echinococcus multilocularis surveillance reports submitted in 2017 in the context of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1152/2011

Abstract

This report is part of the 'Echinococcus multilocularis surveillance' scientific reports which are presented annually by EFSA to the European Commission and are intended to assess the sampling strategy, data collection and detection methods used by Finland, Ireland, Malta, the UK and Norway in their respective surveillance programmes. The surveillance programmes of these five countries were evaluated by checking the information submitted by each of them and verifying that the technical requirements laid down in Regulation (EU) No 1152/2011 were complied. The information was divided into four different categories for assessment: the type and sensitivity of the detection method, the selection of the target population, the sampling strategy and the methodology. For each category, the main aspects that need to be taken into account in order to accomplish the technical requirements of the legislation were checked against compliance of several criteria. All of the territories participating in this surveillance (Finland, the UK, Norway, Malta and Ireland) succeeded in the fulfilment of the technical legal requirements foreseen in Regulation (EU) No 1152/2011 concerning these four different categories. However, both Malta and Northern Ireland (UK) fulfil those requirements only assuming a diagnostic test sensitivity value higher than the one suggested by EFSA (conservative value of 0.78). None of the five countries recorded positive samples in 2016.

Keywords: Echinococcus multilocularis; absence of infection; freedom from disease; surveillance.

Figure 1

Finland – raccoon dog densities (left) and red fox densities (right) according to Kahuala (2007) (Yks./km²  = individuals/km²)

1. Legend: the density values range from 0 to 1. Decimal values are indicated after the comma.

Figure 2

Finland – annual hunting bag of foxes and racoon dogs (2007–2015) (Source: OSF Natural Resources Institute Finland)

Figure 3

Finland – geographical distribution of samples

Figure 4

Finland – temporal distribution of samples

Figure 5

Finland – test sensitivity of the PCR 12S rRNA method (according to Isaksson et al., 2014) based on internal trials performed from 2014 to 2016

Figure 6

Finland – sampling activity and intensity by NUTS 3 region

Figure 7

Ireland – probability of the presence per 1 km² from the final Maxent species distribution model (Phillips et al., 2006) for red fox (Vulpes vulpes). Source: data provided by Dr. Tomás Murray, from National Biodiversity Data Centre (Ireland)

Figure 8

Ireland – sampling activity by regions

Figure 9

Ireland – temporal distribution of samples

Figure 10

Ireland – sampling activity and intensity by NUTS 3 region

Figure 11

Malta – sample distribution by locality

Figure 12

Malta – temporal distribution of samples

Figure 13

Malta – test sensitivity estimation based on Mathis et al. (1996)

Figure 14

Great Britain – map estimating fox density in the UK. This is a systematic approach using NBN presence data and published density data and provides a confidence interval of 120–280,000 foxes. Some areas have few data as permission was not given to use the records. For more information, see Croft et al. (2017)

Figure 15

Great Britain – geographical distribution of samples

Figure 16

Northern Ireland – geographical distribution of samples

Figure 17

Great Britain – temporal distribution of samples

Figure 18

Northern Ireland – temporal distribution of samples from NI

Figure 19

United Kingdom – sampling activity and intensity by NUTS 3 region

Figure 20

Norway – geographical distribution of samples in 2016

Figure 21

Norway – temporal distribution of samples in 2016

Figure 22

Norway ‐ Sampling activity and intensity by NUTS 3 region in 2016