Skip to main content Accessibility help

Active animal health surveillance in European Union Member States: gaps and opportunities

  • B. BISDORFF (a1), B. SCHAUER (a2) (a3), N. TAYLOR (a1) (a4), V. RODRÍGUEZ-PRIETO (a5), A. COMIN (a6), A. BROUWER (a7), F. DÓREA (a6), J. DREWE (a1), L. HOINVILLE (a1), A. LINDBERG (a6), M. MARTINEZ AVILÉS (a5), B. MARTÍNEZ-LÓPEZ (a5) (a8), M. PEYRE (a9), J. PINTO FERREIRA (a10), J. RUSHTON (a1), G. VAN SCHAIK (a11), K. D. C. STÄRK (a10), C. STAUBACH (a2), M. VICENTE-RUBIANO (a5), G. WITTEVEEN (a11), D. PFEIFFER (a1) and B. HÄSLER (a1) (a12)...


Animal health surveillance enables the detection and control of animal diseases including zoonoses. Under the EU-FP7 project RISKSUR, a survey was conducted in 11 EU Member States and Switzerland to describe active surveillance components in 2011 managed by the public or private sector and identify gaps and opportunities. Information was collected about hazard, target population, geographical focus, legal obligation, management, surveillance design, risk-based sampling, and multi-hazard surveillance. Two countries were excluded due to incompleteness of data. Most of the 664 components targeted cattle (26·7%), pigs (17·5%) or poultry (16·0%). The most common surveillance objectives were demonstrating freedom from disease (43·8%) and case detection (26·8%). Over half of components applied risk-based sampling (57·1%), but mainly focused on a single population stratum (targeted risk-based) rather than differentiating between risk levels of different strata (stratified risk-based). About a third of components were multi-hazard (37·3%). Both risk-based sampling and multi-hazard surveillance were used more frequently in privately funded components. The study identified several gaps (e.g. lack of systematic documentation, inconsistent application of terminology) and opportunities (e.g. stratified risk-based sampling). The greater flexibility provided by the new EU Animal Health Law means that systematic evaluation of surveillance alternatives will be required to optimize cost-effectiveness.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Active animal health surveillance in European Union Member States: gaps and opportunities
      Available formats

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Active animal health surveillance in European Union Member States: gaps and opportunities
      Available formats

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Active animal health surveillance in European Union Member States: gaps and opportunities
      Available formats


Corresponding author

*Author for correspondence: Dr B. Schauer, Institute for Community Medicine, University Medicine Greifswald, Walther-Rathenau-Strasse 48, 17487 Greifswald, Germany. (Email:


Hide All
† These authors contributed equally to this work.



Hide All
1. Anonymous. Impact assessment accompanying the document ‘Proposal for a regulation of the European Parlament and of the Council on animal health’. In SWD(2013) 161 final, Csw document, 2013. Brussels, p. 183 (
2. Hoinville, LJ, et al. Proposed terms and concepts for describing and evaluating animal-health surveillance systems. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 2013; 112: 112.
3. Haesler, B, Howe, KS, Staerk, KDC. Conceptualising the technical relationship of animal disease surveillance to intervention and mitigation as a basis for economic analysis. Bmc Health Services Research 2011; 11.
4. Hoinville, LJ, et al. Animal health surveillance terminology. In Final Report from Pre-ICAHS Workshop, 2013 (
5. European Communities. A new animal health strategy for the European Union (2007–2013) where ‘Prevention is better than cure’. In COM(2007) final. 2007. Office for Official Publications of the European Community: Luxembourg (
6. Van Asselt, ED, et al. Overview of available methods for risk based control within the European Union. Trends in Food Science & Technology 2012; 23: 5158.
7. European Union. Regulation (EU) 2016/429 of the European Parliament and of the Council on transmissible animal diseases and amending and repealing certain acts in the area of animal health (‘Animal Health Law’), 2016 (
8. Cameron, AR. The consequences of risk-based surveillance: Developing output-based standards for surveillance to demonstrate freedom from disease. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 2012; 105: 280286.
9. De Massis, F, Petrini, A, Giovannini, A. Reliability evaluation of sampling plan fixed by Council Directive 91/68/EEC for the maintenance of officially brucellosis-free flock status. Journal of Veterinary Medicine. B, Infectious Diseases and Veterinary Public Health 2005; 52: 284290.
10. Alban, L, et al. Towards a risk-based surveillance for Trichinella spp. in Danish pig production. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 2008; 87: 340357.
11. Martin, PAJ. Current value of historical and ongoing surveillance for disease freedom: surveillance for bovine Johne's disease in Western Australia. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 2008; 84: 291309.
12. Greiner, M, Dekker, A. On the surveillance for animal diseases in small herds. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 2005; 70: 223234.
13. Reist, M, Jemmi, T, Stärk, KDC. Policy-driven development of cost-effective, risk-based surveillance strategies. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 2012; 105: 176484.
14. Alban, L, et al. Towards a standardised surveillance for Trichinella in the European Union. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 2011; 99: 148160.
15. Schuppers, ME, et al. Implementing a probabilistic definition of freedom from infection to facilitate trade of livestock: putting theory into praxis for the example of bovine herpes virus-1. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 2012; 105: 195201.
16. Alba, A, et al. Assessment of different surveillance systems for avian influenza in commercial poultry in Catalonia (North-Eastern Spain). Preventive Veterinary Medicine 2010; 97: 107118.
17. Böhning, D, Greiner, M. Modelling cumulative evidence for freedom from disease with applications to BSE surveillance trials. Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Statistics 2006; 11: 280295.
18. Martinez, M-J, et al. Methodological approach for substantiating disease freedom in a heterogeneous small population. Application to ovine scrapie, a disease with a strong genetic susceptibility. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 2010; 95: 108114.
19. Foddai, A, et al. Comparison of output-based approaches used to substantiate bovine tuberculosis free status in Danish cattle herds. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 2015; 121: 2129.
20. More, SJ, et al. Defining output-based standards to achieve and maintain tuberculosis freedom in farmed deer, with reference to member states of the European Union. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 2009; 90: 254267.
21. Riviere, J, et al. Sensitivity of bovine tuberculosis surveillance in wildlife in France: a scenario tree approach. PloS ONE 2015; 10.
22. Wahlström, H, et al. Demonstrating freedom from Mycobacterium bovis infection in Swedish farmed deer using non-survey data sources. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 2010; 94: 108118.
23. Frössling, J, et al. Surveillance system sensitivities and probability of freedom from Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis infection in Swedish cattle. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 2013; 108: 4762.
24. More, SJ, et al. The effect of alternative testing strategies and bio-exclusion practices on Johne's disease risk in test-negative herds. Journal of Dairy Science 2013; 96: 15811590.
25. Martin, PAJ, et al. Demonstrating freedom from disease using multiple complex data sources 2: Case study – classical swine fever in Denmark. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 2007; 79: 98115.
26. Welby, S, et al. Bluetongue surveillance system in Belgium: a stochastic evaluation of its risk-based approach effectiveness. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 2013; 112: 4857.
27. Alban, L, et al. Comparison of risk-based versus random sampling in the monitoring of antimicrobial residues in Danish finishing pigs. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 2016; 128: 8794.
28. Riviere, J, et al. Bovine tuberculosis surveillance in cattle and free-ranging wildlife in EU Member States in 2013: a survey-based review. Veterinary Microbiology 2014; 173: 323331.
29. Rodriguez-Prieto, V, et al. Systematic review of surveillance systems and methods for early detection of exotic, new and re-emerging diseases in animal populations. Epidemiology and Infection 2015; 143: 20182042.
30. Binder, S, et al. Emerging infectious diseases: Public health issues for the 21st century. Science 1999; 284: 13111313.
31. Schauer, B, et al. ‘Surveillance is a public good’ – but how public is it? in EPIZONE 8th Annual Meeting, 2014. Copenhagen, Denmark (
32. Anonymous. Terminology: frequently asked questions, 2015 (
33. Sharpe, D. Your chi-square test is statistically significant: now what? In Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 2015, p. 110 (
34. Schauer, B, et al. Data collection protocols and guidelines. In Deliverable No. 1·5, 2013, p. 33 (·5.pdf).
35. Welby, S, et al. Effectiveness and cost efficiency of different surveillance components for proving freedom and early detection of disease: bluetongue serotype 8 in cattle as case study for Belgium, France and the Netherlands. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases. doi:10.1111/tbed.12564. Published online: 26 September 2016.
36. Hadorn, DC, Haracic, SS, Stärk, KDC. Comparative assessment of passive surveillance in disease-free and endemic situation: example of Brucella melitensis surveillance in Switzerland and in Bosnia and Herzegovina. BMC Veterinary Research 2008; 4: 19.
37. Schulz, K, et al. Hunters' acceptability of the surveillance system and alternative surveillance strategies for classical swine fever in wild boar – a participatory approach. BMC Veterinary Research 2016; 12.
38. Calba, C, et al. The added-value of using participatory approaches to assess the acceptability of surveillance systems: the case of bovine tuberculosis in Belgium. PLoS ONE 2016; 11.
39. Brugere, C, Onuigbo, DM, Morgan, KL. People matter in animal disease surveillance: challenges and opportunities for the aquaculture sector. Aquaculture. doi:·1016/j.aquaculture.2016·04·012. Published online: 16 April 2016.
40. Dorea, FC, Sanchez, J, Revie, CW. Veterinary syndromic surveillance: current initiatives and potential for development. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 2011; 101: 117.
41. Dorea, FC, et al. Syndromic surveillance using veterinary laboratory data: algorithm combination and customization of alerts. PLoS ONE 2013; 8.
42. Cameron, A, Manual of basic animal disease surveillance, 2012. African Union: Interafrican Bureau for Animal Resources: Nairobi, Kenya (
43. Schwermer, H, Reding, I, Hadorn, DC. Risk-based sample size calculation for consecutive surveys to document freedom from animal diseases. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 2009; 92: 366372.
44. Paolotti, D, et al. Web-based participatory surveillance of infectious diseases: the Influenzanet participatory surveillance experience. Clinical Microbiology and Infection 2014; 20: 1721.
45. Gossner, CM, et al. , Event-based surveillance of food- and waterborne diseases in Europe: ‘urgent inquiries’ (outbreak alerts) during 2008 to 2013. Eurosurveillance. 2015; 1928.
46. The World Bank. People, pathogens and our planet, 2010 (
47. WHO. Taking a Participatory Approach to Development and Better Health: Examples from the Regions for Health Network. Gravesen, N, ed. 2015 (
48. Stark, KDC, et al. One Health surveillance – more than a buzz word? Preventive Veterinary Medicine 2015; 120: 124130.
49. Binot, A, et al. A framework to promote collective action within the One Health community of practice: using participatory modelling to enable interdisciplinary, cross-sectoral and multi-level integration. One Health 2015; 1: 4448.
50. EFSA. Scientific and technical assistance on Echinococcus multilocularis infection in animals. EFSA Journal 2012, p. 2973. European Food Safety Authority: Parma, Italy.
51. FAO. Challenges of animal health information systems and surveillance for animal diseases and zoonoses. In Proceedings of the International Workshop organized by FAO, 2011. Rome, Italy (
52. Staerk, KDC, Haesler, B. The value of information: current challenges in surveillance implementation. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 2015; 122: 229234.


Type Description Title
Supplementary materials

Bisdorff supplementary material
Bisdorff supplementary material 1

 Word (99 KB)
99 KB
Supplementary materials

Bisdorff supplementary material
Figure S1

 Unknown (1.4 MB)
1.4 MB


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed