Implementation of WOAH standards: the Second Observatory Monitoring Report
©WLDavies/E+/via Getty Images
Required citation: WOAH (2025). Implementation of WOAH standards: the Second Observatory Monitoring Report. Paris, WOAH, 116 pp., https://doi.org/10.20506/woah.3635. Licence: CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO.
The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on behalf of the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by WOAH in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.
The responsibility for the interpretation and use of the material lies with the reader, and in no event shall WOAH be liable for damages arising from such interpretation or use. The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of WOAH.
© WOAH, 2025
Some rights reserved. This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO licence (CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/igo/legalcode). Under the terms of this licence, this work may be copied, redistributed and adapted, provided that the work is appropriately cited. In any use of this work, there should be no suggestion that WOAH endorses any specific organisation, product or service. The use of the WOAH logo is not permitted. If the work is adapted, then it must be licensed under the same or equivalent Creative Commons licence. If a translation of this work is created, it must include the following disclaimer along with the required citation: ‘This translation was not created by the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH). WOAH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of this translation. The original English edition shall be the authoritative edition.’
Disputes arising under the licence that cannot be settled amicably will be resolved by mediation and arbitration as described in Article 8 of the licence except as otherwise provided herein. The applicable mediation rules will be the mediation rules of the World Intellectual Property Organization (https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/mediation/rules) and any arbitration will be in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL).
Third-party materials. Users wishing to reuse material from this work that is attributed to a third party, such as tables, figures or images, are responsible for determining whether permission is needed for that reuse and for obtaining permission from the copyright holder. The risk of claims resulting from infringement of any third-party-owned component in the work rests solely with the user.
Sales, rights and licensing. WOAH information products are available on the WOAH website (www.woah.org) and can be purchased through www.woah.org/en/ebookshop/.
Abbreviations, acronyms and terms
| AGP | antimicrobial growth promoters |
| AHS | African horse sickness |
| AI | avian influenza |
| AMR | antimicrobial resistance |
| AMU | antimicrobial use |
| ANIMUSE | global database on ANImal antiMicrobial USE |
| ASF | African swine fever |
| BO | Bonamia ostreae |
| BSE | bovine spongiform encephalopathy |
| CBPP | contagious bovine pleuropneumonia |
| CC | Critical Competencies |
| CSF | classical swine fever |
| CVV | candidate vaccine viruses |
| EMPRES | Emergency Prevention System |
| FAO | Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations |
| FMD | foot and mouth disease |
| GISAID | Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data |
| GISRS | Global Influenza Surveillance and Response System |
| HPAI | high pathogenicity avian influenza |
| HPCIA | highest priority critically important antimicrobials |
| ID | identifier |
| IHR | International Health Regulations |
| IPPC | International Plant Protection Convention |
| JEE | Joint External Evaluations |
| OH JPA | One Health Joint Plan of Action |
| LoA | Level of Advancement |
| LPAI | low pathogenicity avian influenza |
| NAP | national action plans |
| NBW | National Bridging Workshop |
| OFFLU | WOAH-FAO Network of Expertise on Animal Influenza |
| OHHLEP | One Health High Level Expert Panel |
| PPR | peste des petits ruminants |
| PVS | Performance of Veterinary Services |
| SGP | sheep pox and goat pox |
| SOP | standard operating procedures |
| SPS | sanitary and phytosanitary |
| VCIA | veterinary critically important antimicrobial agents |
| VS | Veterinary Services |
| WAHIS | World Animal Health Information System |
| WHO | World Health Organization |
| WOAH | World Organisation for Animal Health |
| WSSV | white spot syndrome virus |
| WTO | World Trade Organization |
Foreword
The international standards of the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) provide a common framework for improving animal health and welfare in a globalised world. They support national Animal Health Services across regions by strengthening veterinary public health and ensuring the safe trade of animals and animal products. The usefulness of WOAH standards depends on a clear understanding of how they are applied within national systems and the challenges that may hinder their implementation. The WOAH Observatory plays a key role in deepening our understanding through systematic analysis of information on the global implementation of WOAH standards. In doing so, it contributes to maintaining the excellence of the standard-setting process and provides enhanced support to our Members.
This second WOAH Observatory Monitoring Report offers insights into the use of WOAH standards by Members and identifies existing gaps. It benefits from WOAH’s growing expertise, a more integrated approach and valuable feedback from Members and partners following the publication of the first report – particularly regarding its format, methodology and the inclusion of success stories. Starting with this iteration, the report will be published every five years in alignment with the cycles of WOAH’s Strategic Plans. It will serve as a key element of the Organisation’s digital transformation and sets a baseline for the ongoing development of the 8th Strategic Plan.
This report presents several recommendations for both WOAH and national Competent Authorities involved in animal health, based on the analysis of indicators, the highlights of which were published earlier this year as a preview. I encourage all stakeholders to give them careful consideration.
I look forward to engaging in dialogue on this report and to the continued, active engagement of our network in WOAH’s data collection efforts. We remain committed to improving our understanding of the global implementation of WOAH standards and to providing tailored support to our Members.
Dr Emmanuelle Soubeyran
Director General
Acknowledgements
The WOAH Observatory acknowledges the technical contributions to the drafting of this report from the following WOAH departments: the Antimicrobial Resistance and Veterinary Product Department, the Capacity Building Department, the Digital Transformation and Information System Department, the One Health Unit, the Science Department, the Standards Department, the Status Department and the World Animal Health and Analysis Department. The publication of this report would not have been possible without their transversal and collaborative efforts.
The progress made since the first report, Implementation of WOAH standards: the Observatory Annual Report – reflected in the development of this second iteration – is due in large part to the valuable feedback and guidance provided by WOAH Members, including, but not limited to, the members of the Observatory Consultation Group.
The Observatory extends its sincere thanks to all WOAH Members, Delegates, National Focal Points and other governmental officials who contributed data via WOAH platforms and surveys, including the World Animal Health Information System (WAHIS) and global database on ANImal antiMicrobial USE (ANIMUSE). Without these contributions, the knowledge and insights presented in this report on the global implementation of WOAH standards would not have been possible.
The Observatory is grateful to the World Trade Organization for its support in interpreting trade-related data, and to the Secretariats of the Codex Alimentarius Commission and the International Plant Protection Convention for sharing experiences in supporting their members with the implementation of international standards.
This publication was made possible, in part, by financial assistance from Australia, Canada, Spain, Paraguay and the United States of America, via the Australian Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry; the Canadian Food Inspection Agency; the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; the Animal Health Services Foundation (FUNDASSA) of the Government of Paraguay; and the United States Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). The views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the official policies and views of these entities.
Executive summary
The World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) standards provide a framework for improving animal health and welfare globally. The Observatory programme monitors the uptake of these standards by WOAH Members. Among other deliverables, its flagship publication is the Monitoring Report, which enhances understanding of how Members implement WOAH standards, highlights existing gaps and offers recommendations for improvement. This second iteration of the Monitoring Report, published every five years starting from this edition, draws on existing data regularly collected by WOAH or external sources. The internal and external data are cleaned and transformed for quantitative analysis, indicators are calculated to measure the extent to which WOAH standards are used by Members, and results are interpreted to develop recommendations for both WOAH and its Members. This report is structured into six technical sections, each covering a specific topic.
Trade and sanitary measures
In relation to trade and sanitary measures, the report analysed Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) notifications, SPS-specific trade concerns and international harmonisation issues related to WOAH standards. Among the SPS notifications submitted to the World Trade Organization (WTO) between 2007 and 2023, 62.5% related to avian influenza. Of the 162 SPS-specific trade concerns raised at the SPS Committee referencing WOAH standards between 1995 and 2023, 88% likely referred to the Terrestrial Animal Health Codes or Manuals, while only 12% were likely related to the Aquatic Animal Health Codes and Manuals. Between 1999 and 2023, 48 international harmonisation issues were raised at the WTO, of which 19 were relevant to WOAH standards.
Self-declaration and official status for animal diseases
WOAH Members can self-declare freedom from certain diseases or apply for official recognition of disease-free status. Between 2018 and 2023, 151 self-declarations by 54 Members were published, mostly for terrestrial diseases. Notably, 51% of these declarations were for high pathogenicity avian influenza. From 2016 to 2023, 103 Members held an official disease status at least once at the country level. The proportion of Members with official status varied by region and depended on the specific disease. A new indicator revealed that 59% of Members without official freedom from contagious bovine pleuropneumonia were likely eligible to apply.
Movement control inside countries/territories and border precautions
Movement control within territories and border precautions are key disease control measures. For most terrestrial diseases, the percentage of affected Members reporting movement control for the given disease remained stable or slightly increased over the years. In contrast, reporting for aquatic diseases fluctuated over the years. Regarding border precautions, over 80% of Members reported implementing such measures in 2021 when the disease was absent. However, percentages varied and generally declined for aquatic diseases.
Zoning and compartmentalisation
Zoning and compartmentalisation help control diseases while facilitating trade. In 2021, 67% of Members reported using zoning as a control measure, compared to 40% in 2005. While reporting on compartmentalisation has increased since 2017, fewer Members reported its use compared to zoning. Reporting gaps were observed: only some affected Members with zonally limited diseases reported using zoning as a control measure.
Antimicrobial use and antimicrobial resistance
WOAH deems the monitoring of antimicrobial use (AMU) as crucial for its Members to combat antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in animal and public health sectors. The number of Members submitting the most detailed quantitative AMU data nearly tripled in the eighth round compared to the first round of WOAH’s data collection programme. In 2022, 36 Members reported using antimicrobial agents as growth promoters, with 58% having used Highest Priority Critically Important Antimicrobials (as listed by the World Health Organization) and 69% using Veterinary Critically Important Antimicrobials (as listed by WOAH), often implying there were no preliminary risk analysis. Significant gaps persist in these indicators between terrestrial and aquatic sectors.
Implementation of the One Health approach
To address public health challenges within a One Health approach, this report developed and analysed new indicators. Between 2005 and 2023, 47% of immediate notifications for listed diseases and 68% for emerging diseases reported to WOAH by Members had zoonotic potential. During 2021–2023, 80% of Members affected by high pathogenicity avian influenza shared virus sequence data on publicly accessible international platforms – an action encouraged by WOAH and its partners. This practice supports disease surveillance, tracking viral evolution and spread across different species, and contributes to vaccine development. According to the Performance of Veterinary Services (PVS) evaluation and follow-up missions conducted up to 2023, three-quarters of Members’ Veterinary Services had formal external coordination mechanisms – with clearly defined procedures or agreements for some activities and/or sectors – at the national level or higher for external coordination.
In conclusion, this report highlights both progress in the use of WOAH standards and identifies areas for improvement. Overall recommendations include strengthening data collection on Member capacities, such as workforce availability, simulation exercises and contingency planning – data which was unavailable or outdated during the preparation of this report. The quantitative analysis presented here can serve as a basis for future Observatory thematic studies, which will incorporate more qualitative approaches to identify success factors or persistent challenges faced by Members in the implementation of WOAH standards.
Introduction to the Second WOAH Observatory Monitoring Report
This is the second comprehensive monitoring report of the Observatory of the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH), following the first publication entitled Implementation of WOAH standards: the Observatory Annual Report, First Edition 2022 (WOAH, 2022b) (hereafter referred to as the First WOAH Observatory Report). Since then, it has been decided that the report will no longer be published annually, but every five years. One reason for this change is the limited variation observed in results from year to year, meaning that annual analysis and the consequent development of indicators would not yield significant new insights. A five-year interval, by contrast, allows sufficient time for meaningful changes to emerge and enables the integration of Observatory recommendations into the development of WOAH’s Strategic Plans, which also follow a five-year cycle.
Building on its first report, it is important for the Observatory to continue refining existing indicators and developing new ones to broaden the scope of its work. Equally essential is the continued development of data visualisation tools that present findings clearly and securely, respecting confidentiality and WOAH’s commitment to providing stakeholders with access to animal health information in line with data protection and sensitivity requirements. To support this, the Observatory has launched an initiative to create its own digital platform, through which all Observatory outputs, including country-level Monitoring Indicators, will be made available to relevant stakeholders via secure access.
As in the first report, this iteration draws on existing data collected by WOAH and publicly available data from international organisations, covering up to the year 2023. Its objective is to provide a global overview of the adoption of WOAH international standards for animal health and welfare. Additionally, it offers practical recommendations for WOAH and its Members to enhance the standard-setting process, strengthen capacity building activities and improve WOAH services. The Observatory’s monitoring exercise also aids the Organisation in enhancing its data management practices. In particular, the data integration pillar will benefit from the Observatory’s efforts, as it pilots new mechanisms during WOAH’s ongoing digital transformation.
This report differs from the previous iteration in several key ways. Notable changes include a revised structure, the relocation of some content to annexes or separate documents, the addition of a dedicated methodology section, and the clear distinction between recommendations addressed to Members and those directed at WOAH Headquarters and its Regional and Sub-regional Representations. Furthermore, the report incorporates new datasets, such as WOAH’s officially recognised animal disease status and SPS-specific trade concerns submitted to the World Trade Organization (WTO). Some sections also include success stories shared by Members that have applied WOAH standards and related guidelines in their activities.
The current report contains six technical sections, selected as priorities from the twelve sections included in the first report. These are:
- Trade and sanitary measures
- Self-declaration and official status for animal diseases
- Zoning and compartmentalisation
- Movement control within territories and border precautions
- Antimicrobial use (AMU) and antimicrobial resistance (AMR)
- Implementation of the One Health approach.
The reason for this prioritisation is that these six sections include many newly developed indicators since the last publication. As a result, the analyses have led to updated and newly formulated recommendations, addressed to WOAH and its Members. Six other sections from the previous iteration have been excluded from the written report due to limited updates to the previously published indicators or datasets. The indicators grouped in the other sections will be reviewed and, depending on their validity, may be published separately as online dashboards.
Each technical section within this report is accompanied by the following resources:
- An interactive dashboard, offering a range of disaggregation options by region, disease, group of diseases or time period. The figures shown in the report are static snapshots taken from these dashboards to illustrate specific ideas or indicators. Users are encouraged to explore the dashboards for access to the full set of available information.
- A fact sheet, summarising the key highlights and analysis findings for quick reference.
In addition, the following supplementary materials are also available:
- The indicator matrix, which provides a standardised description of each indicator, including how it is calculated.
- The data catalogue, which offers an organised inventory of the data assets used.
All additional files mentioned above can be accessed at Implementation of standards: the Observatory Monitoring report – WOAH.
About the Observatory
What is the WOAH Observatory?
The WOAH Observatory programme was established following Resolution No. 36 of the 86th General Session of WOAH (2018). It is a transversal, data-driven initiative that provides an overview of how WOAH Members are adopting international standards related to animal health, animal welfare and veterinary public health.
The programme delivers two main types of deliverables. The Monitoring Reports compile existing internal and external data sources to present a systematic overview of the implementation of a broad selection of WOAH standards at the global or regional level. The Thematic studies focus on specific topics that have been prioritised by WOAH and its Members. These studies gather and analyse new data to offer a more detailed understanding on the implementation of one or more standards, with particular attention to the challenges Members face in applying them. Through these two key outputs, the Observatory aims to improve the effectiveness and uptake of WOAH standards. For more information, visit the WOAH Observatory website.
What does ‘implementation of WOAH standards’ mean?
A previous study conducted by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2020) was designed to lay the groundwork for establishing the WOAH Observatory. The concept of WOAH standard implementation by its Members was analysed and described comprehensively. Below is a summary of key points from the dedicated chapter.
The chapter discusses the voluntary nature of WOAH standards. The only mandatory requirement for Members is to report their disease status and control measures. All other guidance or recommendations – such as those found in WOAH standards, resolutions, guidelines, and other services and tools – are non-mandatory and may be adopted based on each Member’s specific conditions, such as their animal disease situation and domestic regulations. Members may also apply higher levels of protection than those outlined in WOAH standards, provided such measures are scientifically justified, as recognised by WTO’s Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement. The WOAH Codes provide methodologies for risk analysis to support this.
While the WOAH Codes and Manuals offer technical guidance for implementing standards, they do not prescribe a defined implementation process. This means that the standards should be interpreted and incorporated into national laws, regulations or other official documents, thereby providing a basis for Competent Authorities to develop sanitary measures. In practice, the way international standards are integrated into domestic legislations depends on each Member’s constitutional system, resulting in diverse implementation methods among Members (OECD, 2020).
It is also important to highlight that, despite their voluntary nature, the implementation of WOAH standards is strongly incentivised by the SPS Agreement adopted by WTO Members (of which 94% are WOAH members, as of 2023). In this context, the Observatory seeks to assess the extent to which Competent Authorities of WOAH Members adapt and apply international standards, guidelines, Standard Operation Procedures (SOPs) and recommendations in their national systems.
What does the Observatory measure?
Monitoring the implementation of a given standard or policy requires examining activities at different levels: the inputs, outputs and outcomes.
Inputs refer to the key success factors or the capacity of WOAH Members to implement WOAH standards. Examples include funding, laboratory infrastructure, workforce availability, legal frameworks and national information systems.
Monitoring outputs involves measuring the actions taken by Members that support the implementation of WOAH standards. These may include national programmes, policies or notifications on disease diagnosis, surveillance, disease prevention and control, international trade, control of antimicrobial resistance and animal welfare. The majority of the analyses in this report fall under this category.
Outcomes of implementing WOAH standards may include improvements in animal disease situations or facilitated opportunities for safe international trade. Evaluating the achievement of specific strategies or the contribution of Members’ implementation of WOAH standards to global goals remains an important ambition of the Observatory. However, it is out of the scope of this report, as it would require the development of additional data collection and analytical methods.
Methodology
This section outlines the general methods and processes used to produce the Observatory outputs for this Monitoring Report. These methods were developed, tested and refined during the design and pilot phases of the Observatory, which included the production of prototype reports. Each step is described in detail, and the entire process involved close collaboration with relevant technical teams within WOAH.
Selecting, collecting, extracting data
As previously described, the Observatory identified both in-house and external sources of information relevant to WOAH standards (Weber-Vintzel & Avendano-Perez, 2023). These data sources are regularly collected through established channels and typically provided by Members for purposes other than those of the Observatory. Efforts were made to select the data most suitable for monitoring the implementation of WOAH standards by Members. In selecting these sources, the Observatory prioritised data that were reliable, high in quality and validated either by WOAH or WOAH Delegates. The data also needed to be analysable – that is, presented in a format that allowed for effective extraction and scrutiny. Additionally, preference was given to information that is regularly collected and kept up to date. For each of the six technical sections, the Observatory evaluated whether the available data could be updated. All primary datasets used, whether collected internally or extracted from external sources, are listed in the data catalogue.
Cleaning and transformation of data
Once selected, all datasets were cleaned using tools such as Excel, R, and Power BI. Where applicable, duplicates and irrelevant data were removed. Data formats were checked for consistency and, where possible, standardised to enable cross-analysis between datasets from different sources.
While preparing this second iteration of the Monitoring Report, a key data-standardisation effort within WOAH focused on the harmonisation of animal disease names, including zoonoses. As part of WOAH’s digital transformation, a master dataset of disease names was established through the codification of disease names that appear in WOAH internal datasets. This master data provides a consistent, uniform set of identifiers and attributes core information critical to WOAH’s operations. It is used across all units within the Organisation and has enabled the Observatory to map and align disease names across different data sources of varying time periods, thus improving the consistency and usability of data during transformation.
[↩]Identifying data limitations
Identifying limitations in the data is essential to ensuring accurate interpretation of results. In each technical section, the indicator matrix documents any potential biases – such as small sample sizes or regional limitations – as well as potential data gaps, including low reporting rates and missing information. The impact of these limitations on the interpretation of indicators was assessed, and recommendations were made on how future studies might mitigate these weaknesses.
Selecting and calculating indicators
In the Observatory’s Monitoring Reports, an indicator is a measure or snapshot of data that represents a specific situation during a defined time period. A cluster of indicators collectively illustrates the extent to which WOAH Members are applying international standards in the field of animal health and welfare. These indicators are based on observed facts and are designed to enable comparisons (e.g. over time, regions, etc.), although they may not capture every aspect of a given issue. The purpose of the indicators is to support WOAH and its Members in setting targets and guiding their activities with evidence-based insights. Some indicators are considered essential for monitoring progress in the implementation of WOAH standards, while others provide important contextual information.
The most meaningful indicators were selected from a long list derived from the available data. Their calculation methods were defined, and these included timeframes, sample sizes and levels of aggregation or disaggregation. Indicators were then calculated using Power BI, and appropriate visual formats, such as pie charts, bar charts or time-series plots, were selected to best convey the information. In the indicator matrix, each indicator has been given a unique identifier (ID) (e.g. Trade_01), which links the matrix to the Power BI dashboards. In the dashboards, these IDs appear in the descriptions of the corresponding calculations.
Interpreting the results
After the indicators were calculated, their results were interpreted in relation to geographical areas (regions), disease types or trends over time, taking into account known data limitations. Regional classifications of WOAH Members followed the same structure used by WOAH Regional Representations. A full list of Members in each of the five WOAH Regions – Africa, the Americas, Asia and the Pacific, Europe and the Middle East – is available in the Annex.
It should be noted that some indicators in this report may differ from those in the first iteration, even when based on the same historical time periods. This variation can be attributed to several factors, depending on the indicator or dataset. For example, retrospective submission of reports to systems such as the World Animal Health Information System (WAHIS) or the ANIMUSE global database on animal antimicrobial use may result in a higher number of reports for those same years. Additionally, changes in the data cleaning and transformation process, including the adoption of the WOAH master data of disease names, were made in some cases to enable broader disease coverage.
Drawing conclusions and recommendations
Each technical section concludes with identified areas for improvement. These apply both for WOAH Headquarters and Regional and Sub-regional Representations, particularly in data management, capacity-building activities and the standard-setting process. For Members, improvements were identified in data submission, reporting quality, resources and training, and standard implementation. Recommendations were formulated at the global level, with the understanding that individual Members should determine which recommendations are most relevant and urgent in their specific contexts.
1 Trade and sanitary measures
1.1 Introduction
As Members of WOAH, national Veterinary Services are responsible for implementing the Organisation’s international standards to protect and improve the health and welfare of their animals. These standards also aim to support the safe and transparent trade of animals and animal products, while ensuring effective control of animal diseases, including zoonoses.
WTO plays a key role in facilitating global trade and maintaining an international system of trade rules that its members are obliged to follow. Its Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement, WTO), defines the basic rules for applying animal health, food safety and plant health measures in international trade. The Agreement aims to balance WTO Members’ right to protect human, animal and plant life with their obligation not to restrict trade more than is necessary. It also recognises WOAH as the reference organisation for international standards relating to animal health and zoonoses (WOAH, 2019). Accordingly, WTO Members are required to base their sanitary measures on WOAH standards, guidelines and recommendations – unless a relevant scientific justification exists or a risk assessment demonstrates the need for alternative measures to meet a Member’s appropriate level of protection.
Given the significant membership overlap between the two organisations – of the 164 WTO Members, 94% are WOAH Members; of the 183 WOAH Members, 84% are WTO Members – the datasets collected through WTO mechanisms are considered relevant for assessing the implementation of trade-related WOAH standards by its Members.
Due to the broad scope of WOAH standards, all chapters are in some way connected to the WTO SPS Agreement. However, several important WOAH standards focus on the trade of animals and animal products, and these are listed in Table 1.
| Terrestrial Code | Aquatic Code | Topic/content |
|---|---|---|
| Section 5. ‘Trade measures, import/export procedures and veterinary certification’ | Section 5. ‘Trade measures, import/export procedures and health certification’ | Chapters in Section 5 are designed for the implementation of general sanitary measures for trade |
| Section 8. Multiple species | Section 8. Diseases of amphibians | The disease-specific chapters within these sections contain recommendations for safe trade of animal commodities Other relevant chapters may be cross-referenced. |
| Section 9. Apidae | Section 9. Diseases of crustaceans | |
| Section 10. Aves | Section 10. Diseases of fish | |
| Section 11. Bovidae | Section 11. Diseases of molluscs | |
| Section 12. Equidae | ||
| Section 13. Leporidae | ||
| Section 14. Capridae | ||
| Section 15. Suidae |
All sections are accessible here: Codes and Manuals - WOAH - World Organisation for Animal Health.
The objective of this section is to assess to what degree specific trade-focused standards are implemented by WOAH Members. The First WOAH Observatory Report (WOAH, 2022b) recommended that WOAH explores additional indicators to assess the implementation of its trade-related standards. In response, further evaluations were undertaken, resulting in the inclusion of new indicators in this section. These indicators provide additional insights into Members’ self-reported conformity with WOAH standards and incorporate other WTO mechanisms relevant to implementation of WOAH standards. Additionally, Critical Competencies (CC) and their corresponding Levels of Advancement (LoA) – which relate to WOAH Members’ capacity to facilitate trade – have been updated and are also included as part of the indicator set.
The WTO SPS Committee operates a procedure to monitor international harmonisation and the use of international standards, guidelines and recommendations. According to WTO, the purpose of this procedure is to:
‘… identify where there is a major impact on trade resulting from the non-use of those international standards, guidelines or recommendations and to determine the reasons for the non-use of the standard, guideline or recommendation concerned… help to identify, for the benefit of the relevant international organizations, where a standard, guideline or recommendation was needed or was not appropriate for its purpose and use.’
(WTO, 2004).
WOAH actively participates in this procedure, alongside the Codex Alimentarius Commission and the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC). WOAH routinely considers the feedback provided by its Members in this forum, responds to issues raised under the procedure and provides updates on its work.
The SPS notification procedure allows WTO Members that may be affected by another Member’s new or revised sanitary regulations relevant to the SPS Agreement to review those regulations and provide feedback to the notifying member(s). Notifying WTO Members are asked to indicate whether a relevant international standard exists, to identify that standard if applicable and state whether their regulation conforms to or is substantially similar to it. If the regulation does not conform, Members are invited to explain how and why it deviates from the international standard. SPS notifications can be classified as either ‘regular/routine’ or ‘emergency’. Emergency SPS notifications are submitted by a country in response to emergency measures implemented in cases ‘where urgent problems of health protection arise or threaten to arise’, as stated in the SPS Agreement (WTO). It is important to note that the information provided in these notifications is self-declared by WTO Members and is not validated by WTO or WOAH. As such, there are inherent limitations in the interpretation and analysis of this data.
In addition to notifications, WTO Members can raise specific trade concerns in the SPS Committee regarding another Member’s sanitary measures that may affect their trade. Specific trade concerns can be raised for many reasons, including to seek clarification, request further information about a particular measure, express concern about the trade impact a measure has or may have, or question its alignment with WOAH standards. Some specific trade concerns have been raised repeatedly over different years.
Datasets retrieved from previous Performance of Veterinary Services (PVS) mission reports were also considered in this section. In PVS Evaluation and Follow-up missions, each CC is assigned a LoA on a scale from one to five. Five CCs under the categories of ‘interaction with stakeholders’ and ‘access to markets’ were identified as the most relevant to this trade-related section. These are:
- III-3 Official representation and international collaboration
- IV-1.B Implementation and compliance
- IV-2 International harmonisation
- IV-3 International certification
- IV-5 Transparency
These are based on the 2019 version of the Terrestrial PVS Tool (WOAH, 2023a). The LoA scores of these CCs from the most recent PVS missions conducted in 2017–2023 are presented in this section to reflect the latest capacities of Veterinary Services (VS). Where possible, comparisons are made between the LoA scores from the latest and previous two missions in the same WOAH Member country/territory to illustrate progress over time.
For additional information, please access the corresponding interactive dashboard for this chapter by clicking here. Detailed information about the datasets can be found in the Data Catalogue v1.0. Limitations for each indicator, where applicable, are described in the Indicator Matrix v1.0.
1.2 Analysis
How to read this section
Questions (in bold) introduce the topic examined, followed by indicators (in bold italic) that have been monitored. Indicator IDs are used throughout the online Indicator Matrix for ease of reference.
1.2.1 SPS notifications – context and breakdown by disease
To what extent do WTO Members reference WOAH standards when submitting a change or new sanitary regulations to WTO?
Number of WTO SPS notifications related to WOAH standards (Indicator ID: Trade_02)
Percentage of SPS notifications related to WOAH standards among all submitted to WTO (Indicator ID: Trade_03)
From 2007 to 2023, 3,249 SPS notifications were submitted to WTO that referenced WOAH as the relevant international standard. This represents 17% of all SPS notifications submitted to WTO during that period. As shown in Figure 1, the number of WOAH-related SPS notifications peaked at 446 in 2022, before returning to previous levels in 2023. Over the past five years, more than half of these notifications were related to avian influenza (AI), including high pathogenicity avian influenza (HPAI).
Of the 3,249 SPS Notifications, 87% were likely to be related to the Terrestrial Animal Health Code (Terrestrial Code) or Manual of Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines for Terrestrial Animals (Terrestrial Manual), while only 13% were associated with the Aquatic Animal Health Code (Aquatic Code) or Manual of Diagnostic Tests for Aquatic Animals (Aquatic Manual). By region, WTO Members in Asia and the Pacific submitted the highest number of SPS notifications (n = 1,240), followed by Europe (n = 688), the Americas (n = 660), and the Middle East (n = 550). A relatively small number of SPS notifications (n = 111) were submitted by WTO Members in Africa.
Number of WTO Members that submitted at least one WTO SPS notification related to WOAH standards (Indicator ID: Trade_04)
Percentage of WTO Members that submitted at least one WTO SPS notification related to WOAH standards (Indicator ID: Trade_05)
Number of countries/territories affected by WOAH-related WTO SPS notifications (Indicator ID: Trade_06)
Percentage of WOAH-related WTO SPS notifications filed by the top 10 WTO Members (Indicator ID: Trade_07)
From 2007 to 2023, 80 WTO Members (49% of all WTO Members) submitted at least one SPS notification referencing WOAH as the relevant international standard. These notifications potentially affected at least 198 countries, territories or areas. However, the distribution of notifications submitted per Member was uneven: just ten WTO Members were responsible for 67% of all SPS notifications that referenced WOAH standards.
Number of WOAH-related WTO SPS notifications that specified animal disease names (Indicator ID: Trade_09)
A key limitation of this indicator is that many trade-relevant animal diseases, such as rabies and lumpy skin disease, do not appear as keywords in the dataset, nor do any aquatic animal diseases. The data extraction method and its associated limitations are detailed in the Indicator Matrix.
For the subset of WOAH-related SPS notifications that include a disease name as a keyword, the percentage distribution of these keywords is displayed in Figure 2 Avian influenza was the most frequently cited, accounting for 62.5% of all disease name keywords.
HIGHLIGHT
Since 2007, 17% of all SPS notifications submitted to WTO have referenced a WOAH standard.
Avian influenza was the most commonly cited terrestrial animal disease keyword for SPS notifications related to WOAH standards.
1.2.2 SPS notifications – conformity
To what extent do WTO Members state that the notified SPS regulations conform to WOAH standards?
Percentage of WOAH-related WTO SPS notifications by their conformity status (Indicator ID: Trade_15)
For SPS notifications filed between 1 December 2008 and 31 December 2023 that referenced WOAH as the relevant international standard, 94% (n = 2,807) stated that the notified regulation conformed to the relevant standard (Figure 3). Note that this percentage is much higher than that reported in the First WOAH Observatory Report (WOAH, 2022b), as the indicator has since been refined to only include notifications filed after 1 December 2008, when the SPS notification template was updated to include a specific question about conformity with international standards.
Only 2% of notifications (n = 57) stated that the regulation did not conform to the relevant WOAH standard, while 4% (n = 124) did not answer the question.
There was little difference in reported conformity to WOAH standards between regular notifications (93%, n = 1,064) and emergency notifications (95%, n = 1,743). This suggests that, according to notifying Members, emergency trade-related regulations are just as likely to conform to WOAH standards as those introduced through the regular process.
Differences in the percentage of notifications reported as conforming to WOAH standards were identified for different animal diseases (Figure 4). Notifications that included the keyword African swine fever (ASF) reported conformity with the relevant WOAH standard 99% of the time (n = 248). Similarly, 97% of notifications for AI (n = 1,086) reported conformity, while this was lower for foot and mouth disease (FMD) at 83% (n = 160). The lower conformity percentages for diseases such as FMD and classical swine fever (CSF) are primarily attributed to a higher proportion of notifications that did not respond to the question about conformity with WOAH standards.
Number of WTO SPS notifications declaring that the new or modified legislation does not conform with WOAH standards (Indicator ID: Trade_16)
Percentage of WOAH-related WTO SPS notifications declaring that the new or modified legislation does not conform with WOAH standards, by reason (Indicator ID: Trade_17)
The majority of the WOAH-related SPS notifications that declared non-conformity with WOAH standards concerned areas covered by the Terrestrial Code (n = 46). A smaller number (n = 6) related to aquatic animal health.
Figure 5 presents the distribution of these non-conforming notifications by the stated reason for not conforming. Of these 57 notifications, only 36% (n = 20) provided a clear justification. The reasons included:
- Reference to a risk assessment or risk analysis conducted by the Member that recommended deviating from the WOAH standard (category ‘risk assessment’) (n = 9);
- A scientific basis for the legislation not conforming with WOAH standards (category ‘scientific evidence’) (n = 6);
- The assertion that no relevant WOAH standard exists (category ‘No relevant standard’) (n = 5).
Among the 57 SPS notifications that reported non-conformity with WOAH standards, 18 cases involved new or modified regulations adopted in response to emergency situations, such as disease outbreaks. Notably, none of these 18 emergency cases provided a clear justification for not conforming with the existing WOAH standards.
HIGHLIGHT
The vast majority of WOAH-related WTO SPS notifications (94%) claimed that the regulation referenced in the notification conformed to the relevant WOAH standard. In contrast, among the notifications that declared non-conformity to the relevant WOAH standard, 65% did not provide a clear explanation of how or why it did not conform.
1.2.3 SPS-specific trade concerns
Do WTO Members reference WOAH and WOAH standards when raising specific trade concerns about the sanitary measures of their trading partners at the WTO SPS Committee?
Total number of WTO SPS trade concerns (Indicator ID: Trade_18)
Number of WTO SPS trade concerns that reference OIE/WOAH (Indicator ID: Trade_19)
Percentage of WTO SPS trade concerns that reference OIE/WOAH that were raised by the top 5 (Indicator ID: Trade_23)
Between 1995 and 2023, 162 SPS-specific trade concerns referencing the OIE (Office International des Epizooties1) or WOAH were raised by 36 WTO Members (22% of all WTO Members). In addition, 77% of the SPS-specific trade concerns were raised by just five WTO Members.
Number of WTO Members that have responded to at least one WOAH-related specific trade concern (Indicator ID: Trade_24)
The above-mentioned SPS-specific trade concerns related to WOAH (n = 162) were addressed or responded by 50 WTO Members.
Percentage of WTO SPS trade concerns that reference OIE/WOAH, by type of standard (Indicator ID: Trade_25)
Only 12% (n = 19) of the WOAH-related SPS-specific trade concerns (n = 162) were identified as relevant to the aquatic animal health sector. The remaining concerns were related to terrestrial animal health. It is important to note a key limitation in the methodology used to categorise each trade concern as ‘Terrestrial’ or ‘Aquatic’. Specifically, WOAH-related SPS-specific trade concerns that appeared in search results using the keyword ‘aquatic’ in the WTO e-Ping database were classified as ‘Aquatic’, while others were assumed to be ‘Terrestrial’.
In addition, as shown in Figure 6, the distribution of trade concerns raised by WTO Members varied significantly by WOAH Region. WTO Members in the Americas raised the highest number of SPS-specific trade concerns (n = 92), followed by Europe (n = 61) and Asia and the Pacific (n = 24). Only a few trade concerns were raised by WTO Members in Africa (n = 2) and the Middle East (n = 1).
Percentage of WTO SPS trade concerns that reference OIE/WOAH, by disease (Indicator ID: Trade_27)
The numerator of this indicator is the number of WOAH-related SPS-specific trade concerns that mention a given disease name, while the denominator is the total number of WOAH-related SPS-specific trade concerns that specify any animal disease name. Because specific trade concerns can refer to one or multiple animal diseases, the sum percentage of all bars in the online dashboard may exceed 100%. The top nine most commonly mentioned animal diseases in OIE or WOAH-related SPS-specific trade concerns are displayed in Figure 7. The top three diseases were bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) (38.3%; n = 54), FMD (31.9%; n = 45) and AI (19.1%; n = 27).
HIGHLIGHT
The majority of SPS-specific trade concerns were raised by WTO Members from the Americas and Europe.
BSE, FMD and AI were the most frequently mentioned animal diseases in specific trade concerns referencing WOAH or OIE. This may reflect the significant impact of these diseases on the trade of animals and animal products, as well as their prominence in relevant WOAH standards.
1.2.4 International harmonisation
In which areas do WTO Members face challenges when implementing WOAH standards within the context of trade?
Total number of international harmonisation issues raised (Indicator ID: Trade_31)
Number of international harmonisation issues raised related to WOAH as a total and by reason for raising (Indicator ID: Trade_34)
Number of WTO Members that raised international harmonisation issues that related to WOAH (Indicator ID: Trade_38)
Percentage of WTO Members that raised international harmonisation issues that related to WOAH (Indicator ID: Trade_39)
Number of WOAH-related harmonisation issues specifying animal disease name (Indicator ID: Trade_47)
Between 1999 and 2023, a total of 48 issues were discussed under the WTO SPS Committee’s procedure to monitor the process of international harmonisation of standards in cases where there is major impact on trade. Of these, 19 issues (40%) were related to WOAH, and were each raised by 19 different WTO Members, with some issues co-sponsored or supported by multiple Members.
Five of the WOAH-related issues did not reference specific animal diseases but instead addressed cross-cutting topics. Among the 14 WOAH-related issues that did refer to specific animal diseases, 12 different animal diseases were mentioned, with one issue citing multiple animal diseases. The most frequently mentioned where AI including HPAI, BSE and FMD, each of which appeared in more than one issue (Figure 8).
As Figure 9 illustrates, most WOAH-related international harmonisation issues were raised due to concerns about the use of an existing standard (n = 12). A smaller number of concerns were raised to call for the revision of an existing standard (n = 3) or to request a new standard (n = 3).
HIGHLIGHT
Between 1999 and 2023, 48 issues were raised by WTO Members on international harmonisation. Of these, 19 were related to WOAH standards. Among the WOAH-related issues, five did not specify an animal disease, focusing instead on cross-cutting or horizontal issues. The remaining 14 issues explicitly mentioned animal diseases, with AI, BSE and FMD being cited multiple times.
Among all 48 issues raised, the most common reason was concern over the use of existing standards (n = 12). This was followed by requests for new standards (n = 3) and calls for the revision of existing standards (n = 3).
1.2.5 Capacities of Veterinary Services and their evolutions
What are the levels of advancement (LoA) of WOAH Members regarding Critical Competencies relevant to trade?
Number of Members that filed at least one SPS notification in the past AND that have been assessed for Critical Competencies directly relevant to trade (Indicator ID: Trade_40)
Number of Members that have been assessed with LoA for at least one of the five PVS Critical Competencies directly relevant to trade (Indicator ID: Trade_45)
Number of Members that have been assessed for PVS Critical Competencies directly relevant to trade but submitted no SPS notifications in the past (Indicator ID: Trade_48)
From 2017 to 2023, a total of 36 Members underwent PVS Evaluations or Follow-up Evaluations and were assessed for the five CCs relevant to trade using the Terrestrial PVS Tool (WOAH, 2023a). These CCs are:
- CC IV-1.B: Veterinary legislation – implementation and compliance
- CC III-3: Official representation and international collaboration
- CC IV-5: Transparency
- CC IV-2: International harmonisation
- CC IV-3: International certification
(Texts based on the 2019 version of the PVS Tool).
All 36 of these WOAH Members are also WTO Members. Of this group, 15 Members have submitted at least one SPS notification related to WOAH standards to WTO, while 21 Members had never filed any SPS notifications in the past. Only four Members were evaluated for equivalent CCs using the Aquatic PVS Tool (WOAH, 2023b). To maintain confidentiality, LoA scores from these aquatic Evaluations are not presented in this section.
Members assessed with higher LoAs (4 or 5) are considered to have greater capacity, while those with lower LoAs (1 or 2) have limited capacity. The capacity levels of mutual WOAH and WTO Members that received a PVS Evaluation or Follow-up Evaluation from 2017 to 2023 for CCs relevant to trade varied greatly depending on the specific CC (Figure 10). For the CC related to veterinary legislation implementation and compliance, 31% of Members reached at least a minimum threshold of capacity (LoA of 3 or above). For the CC related to transparency, the proportion was higher, with 78% of Members achieving an LoA of 3 or above.
Percentage of WOAH Members that have been assessed with a Level of Advancement of 3 or more for ALL the five PVS Critical Competencies directly relevant to access to trade (Indicator ID: Trade_46)
Among the 36 WOAH Members that underwent PVS Evaluations or Follow-up Evaluations assessing their CCs relevant to trade, 25% scored as having minimal capacity or above in all five CCs.
Percentage distribution of WOAH Members by the change to a Critical Competency’s LoA in the second Terrestrial PVS Evaluation (Indicator ID: Trade_43)
Magnitude of change to a Critical Competency’s LoA in the second Terrestrial PVS Evaluation (Indicator ID: Trade_44)
A number of WOAH Members have undergone both an initial PVS Evaluation and one or more PVS Follow-up Evaluations, resulting in at least two, if not multiple assessments of their CCs related to trade and interaction with stakeholders. These data provide an opportunity to evaluate whether Members’ capacities for these CCs have increased over time.
Taking the CC IV-2: International harmonisation (as defined in the Terrestrial PVS Tool 2019 [WOAH, 2023a]) as an example, 58 Members were assessed for this CC in at least two separate Evaluations. Among the 58 Members:
- 22 Members (37%) showed an increase in their LoA for international harmonisation in their second Evaluation;
- 8 Members (14%) experienced a decrease in their LoA;
- and 28 Members (48%) maintained the same LoA across both Evaluations.
Similar trends were observed for the four other trade- and stakeholder-related CCs. The percentage of Members that improved their LoA for these CCs over time was 29% for international certification; 32% for official representation; 33% for implementation compliance; and 35% for transparency.
HIGHLIGHT
The capacity of WOAH–WTO mutual Members that underwent PVS Evaluations or Follow-up Evaluations between 2017 and 2023 for CCs relevant to trade varied depending on the specific CC. For the CC related to the implementation of legislation and compliance, 31% of assessed Members were found to have reached at least the minimum threshold of capacity or above. For the CC related to transparency, 78% of Members achieved a LoA of 3 or above.
In terms of capacity evolution, a comparison of LoA scores between earlier and most recent PVS Evaluations shows that the majority of Members either maintained or improved their capacity levels for CCs relevant to trade.
1.3 Conclusions and recommendations for improvement
1.3.1 Conclusions
WTO data as a source for monitoring WOAH standard implementation
WTO data serves as a valuable source for monitoring the uptake of WOAH standards related to trade, especially considering the significant overlap between WTO and WOAH Members. WTO Members frequently reference WOAH and its standards when submitting SPS notifications, raising trade concerns or engaging in the WTO procedure for monitoring international harmonisation. However, the data shared through WTO mechanisms is disproportionally contributed by a small subset of WTO members, which introduces a bias to the results of the indicator analysis. Nevertheless, WTO datasets and the newly developed indicators reveal a sustained interest among mutual Members of WTO and WOAH in using subsets of WOAH standards, particularly those linked to AI, ASF, BSE or FMD – diseases with substantial trade implications.
Underutilisation of WTO’s international harmonisation procedure
The WTO’s international harmonisation monitoring procedure is of mutual interest to both organisations. Although fewer than 50 international harmonisation issues were raised to WTO between 1999 and 2023 (including those referring to Codex, IPPC, and WOAH standards), these discussions provide insight into challenging areas of WOAH standards and highlight those with the greatest impact on trade. The analysis suggests that this WTO SPS Committee procedure may be underused by WTO Members for raising issues related to the use – or non-use – of WOAH standards that have a major impact on trade. In addition to WTO forums, WOAH encourages its Members to reengage in its standard-setting process by providing their information on international harmonisation.
New insights from SPS notifications and non-conformity cases
Following the First WOAH Observatory Report (WOAH, 2022b), a new analysis of the SPS notification dataset was undertaken to explore the reasons why SPS notifications on new or modified SPS regulations related to animal health did not conform with WOAH standards. Alarmingly, in 65% of non-conforming cases, no justification or clear explanation was provided for why a Member’s regulations did not comply with WOAH standards. Only around one-third offered a scientific basis, cited a risk assessment or reported the absence of a relevant WOAH standard (see Figure 5).
These findings call for further investigation, especially into the variation by disease (see Figure 4). One explanation may be that national SPS enquiry points struggle to assess whether a regulation conforms with certain WOAH standards compared with others. Indeed, this was echoed in a 2015 WTO survey about transparency under the SPS Agreement (n = 108) (Secretariat to the WTO SPS Committee, 2015). Over a third of the respondents (39%) cited difficulty identifying whether the notified SPS regulation conforms with the relevant international standard when completing SPS notification forms.
Improving data quality and transparency on SPS regulation
Improving data quality for these SPS notification indicators would benefit multiple stakeholders. For WOAH, it would offer a clearer picture of when and how its standards are applied. For trading partners, it would enhance transparency, helping them better understand the content and rationale of the notified regulation, their alignment to WOAH standards and their potential impacts on trade. These improvements also align with the goals of the Fifth Review of the Operation and Implementation of the SPS Agreement, adopted on 31 July 2020 (Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, 2020).
New indicators on trade concerns and disease focus
After the publication of the First WOAH Observatory Report (WOAH, 2022b), new indicators using the WTO dataset on SPS-specific trade concerns were introduced and added to the dashboard. As with SPS notifications, the same animal diseases – AI, FMD and BSE – dominate the trade concern datasets. This underscores their importance to international trade in animals and animal products, and indicates that these diseases are common sources of regulatory concerns or questions among WTO Members about non-conformity with WOAH standards. These indicators may provide insights on how WOAH can further support its Members in exploring regulatory differences regarding animal and animal products, before they become a trade concern.
PVS Evaluation data shows gradual capacity improvement
Data from PVS Evaluations and Follow-up Evaluations suggest that WOAH Members are gradually improving their capacity in CCs relevant to trade and interaction with stakeholders. Most Members were found to have maintained or improved their LoA for these CCs in their second Evaluations. However, among Members that underwent PVS Evaluations in recent years (2017–2023), only 15 Members had ever submitted SPS notifications to WTO. The remaining 21 Members had never submitted any SPS notifications in the past. This may imply a need for targeted support to Members that were unable to engage with WTO SPS mechanisms. The gap is especially relevant for the CC on implementation of veterinary legislation and compliance, where only 31% of mutual WOAH–WTO Members reached at least minimal or above capacity. By contrast, 60–78% met this threshold in the other four CCs, as shown in the analysis presented in this section.
Based on these conclusions, the following recommendations are proposed for WOAH and its Members.
1.3.2 Recommendations for WOAH
Build on the work conducted in this report by continuing to identify additional indicators to assess the implementation of WOAH standards related to trade.
Consider conducting a thematic study to explore the use of WOAH standards in trade more deeply. This could include analysing publicly available data on trade volumes and values for specific animal commodities, as well as performing qualitative analysis of the regulations referenced in SPS notifications and the subjects of specific trade concerns.
Continue to collect and analyse relevant SPS data related to WOAH standards, such as specific trade concerns and the procedure for monitoring the process of international harmonisation, as an additional source of information to understand how Members are using WOAH standards and to inform the standard-setting process.
Maintain active engagement with WTO, including participation as an observer in the WTO SPS Committee, and consider collaborating with WTO to provide training for SPS National Notification Authorities. This training could focus on relevant aspects of WOAH standards and the SPS notification process to support the submission of accurate and complete notifications.
Evaluate the mechanisms by which WOAH can further support its members to resolve regulatory differences before they become an SPS-specific trade concern.
1.3.3 Recommendations for WOAH Members
WOAH Members that are also WTO Members should ensure coordination between the SPS National Notification Authority and the Veterinary Authority. This coordination is essential to ensure that SPS notifications include detailed information – particularly in fields related to identifying the relevant WOAH standard, indicating whether the regulation conforms to that standard, and explaining how and why the regulation deviates from it, if applicable.
Engage in the process for the elaboration of WOAH standards and the standard-setting process by providing input into the WOAH Specialist Commission’s work programmes and submitting comments on new or revised draft chapters of WOAH standards.
WOAH Members that are also WTO Members should participate in WTO SPS Committee mechanisms, such as raising specific trade concerns, or engaging in the procedure for monitoring the process of international harmonisation.
2 Self-declarations and official status
2.1 Introduction
In accordance with the provisions of Article 1.6.3 of the Terrestrial Code and Article 1.4.4 of the Aquatic Code, WOAH Members can self-declare freedom of their country, zone(s) or compartment(s) from any WOAH-listed aquatic animal diseases, or any terrestrial animal disease, infection or infestation, except for those diseases for which WOAH grants official status recognition. As defined in Article 1.6.1 of the Terrestrial Code, these diseases include African horse sickness (AHS), BSE, CSF, contagious bovine pleuropneumonia (CBPP), FMD and peste des petits ruminants (PPR).
WOAH grants official recognition of animal health status for entire countries or zone(s). In addition, WOAH endorses official control programmes for CBPP, FMD, PPR and dog-mediated rabies. The overall objective of these endorsed programmes is to help Members progressively improve their animal health situation, ultimately aiming for either official recognition of freedom or a valid self-declaration of animal health status.
All the processes mentioned above – publication of self-declarations, official recognition of animal health status and endorsement of official control programmes – must be requested by Members in accordance with the relevant Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) (available online) and the applicable Chapters or Articles of the Terrestrial or Aquatic Codes, as outlined in Table 2.
| Terrestrial Code | Aquatic Code | Topic/content |
|---|---|---|
| Article 1.6.3 | Article 1.4.4 | Publication by WOAH of a self-declaration of animal health status |
| Article 1.6.1–2 | – | Application and maintenance for official recognition of animal health status and endorsement of official control programmes by WOAH |
| Chapters 1.7–1.12 | – | Applications for official recognition of free status |
| Disease specific chapters | Disease specific chapters | Publication of self-declaration of animal health status |
All sections are accessible here: Codes and Manuals - WOAH - World Organisation for Animal Health.
For additional information, please access the corresponding interactive dashboard to this chapter by clicking here. Detailed information about datasets can be found in the Data Catalogue v1.0. Limitations for each indicator, where applicable, are described in the Indicator Matrix v1.0.
2.2 Analysis
How to read this section
Questions (in bold) introduce the topic examined, followed by indicators (in bold italic) that have been monitored. Indicator IDs are used throughout the online Indicator Matrix for ease of reference.
2.2.1 Self-declarations
How many Members requested WOAH to publish their self-declarations for which animal diseases?
Total number of self-declarations (Indicator ID: Self declaration_01)
Number of Members that have a self-declaration (Indicator ID: Self declaration_02)
Number of self-declarations for a zone (Indicator ID: Self declaration_03)
Number of self-declarations for the entire country (Indicator ID: Self declaration_04)
Number of self-declarations for a compartment (Indicator ID: Self declaration_05)
Between 2018 and 2023, 151 self-declarations from 54 WOAH Members were published. These declarations covered either the entire territory (i.e. country-wide declaration, n = 124), a zone (n = 20), or a compartment (n = 7). The breakdown of these figures by terrestrial or aquatic diseases are provided in Table 3 The vast majority (92%) of these self-declarations concerned terrestrial animal diseases, while the remaining declarations related to aquatic animal diseases. It is important to note that the definitions of country-wide self-declarations, zones and compartments have evolved over time – separately for the terrestrial and aquatic animal health sectors – since 2000. As such, annual comparison may not accurately reflect differences in capacities or interest among Members across the two sectors.
| Terrestrial | Aquatic |
|---|---|
53 Members |
3 Members |
139 self-declarations |
12 self-declarations |
117 country-wide self-declarations |
7 country-wide self-declarations |
15 self-declarations for a zone |
5 self-declarations for a zone |
7 self-declarations for a compartment |
0 self-declarations for a compartment |
Figure 11 shows the top diseases for which Members self-declared freedom between 2018 and 2023. Of the 151 self-declarations, 77 were for AI, including HPAI in poultry, followed by 11 for ASF, 7 each for infection with bluetongue virus and rabies, and 6 each for equine disease-free zones and infection with Newcastle disease virus.
HIGHLIGHT
Between 2018 and 2023, WOAH published more self-declarations of freedom from terrestrial animal diseases than for aquatic animal diseases.
For terrestrial diseases, the majority of declarations covered entire territories, whereas just over half of declarations for aquatic diseases covered entire territories, with just under half covering zones. Very few self-declarations were submitted for compartments.
HPAI was the disease that Members most frequently self-declared freedom from.
2.2.2 Recognition of official status
How many Members hold officially recognised animal health status?
Number of Members with an officially recognised status at country level (Indicator ID: Official status_01)
Percentage of Members with an officially recognised status at country level (Indicator ID: Official status_02)
Number of Members with at least one officially recognised status at zone level (Indicator ID: Official status_03)
Number of Members with an officially recognised status at zone level (Indicator ID: Official status_04)
In calculating these indicators, Members with multiple zonal statuses that cover their entire territory are counted only as having zonal statuses and are not included in the count of Members with country-level status. Between 2016 and 2023, 103 Members (representing 56.3% of WOAH membership as of 2023) held at least one country-level official disease status, while 18 Members (9.8% of WOAH membership) held at least one zonal official disease status. It is plausible that fewer Members applied for zonal status rather than country-level status as the movement control between zones requires investment. Thus, their inclination and readiness to apply zoning may be limited. In some cases, a country’s small geographical territory may make a zoning application impractical, or zoning may not be a strategic priority for the administration.
Figure 12 presents the numbers of Members with an officially recognised country-level status for each of the six diseases as of December 2023, disaggregated by WOAH Region. The highest numbers of official status were for AHS (n = 70) and FMD (n = 69), followed by PPR (n = 59) and BSE (n = 57). Fewer status recognitions were issued for CSF (n = 37) and CBPP (n = 25). More than half of the official status recognitions for AHS, FMD, PPR, BSE and CSF were held by Members in the Europe region.
To support interpretation of this indicator, Table 4 provides the total number of WOAH Members by region. Taken together, Table 4 and Figure 12 show that the proportion of Members with official status varies by disease and region. In Europe, more than half of Members obtained at least one status for AHS, FMD, PPR, BSE or CSF. In the Middle East, while no Members hold official status for other diseases, almost half have achieved AHS-free status. In the Americas, 19 Members hold official FMD-free status, and five additional Members hold zonal FMD-free status covering the entire territory. This results in 75% of Members in the Americas having their territories officially recognised by WOAH as FMD-free.
| WOAH Region | Number of Members as of 2023 |
|---|---|
| Africa | 54 |
| Americas | 32 |
| Asia and the Pacific | 32 |
| Europe | 53 |
| Middle East | 12 |
| Total | 183 |
HIGHLIGHT
Between 2016 and 2023, 103 Members held at least one country-level official status.
The proportion of Members holding an official status varies by disease and region. For example, in the case of FMD, three quarters of the Members in Europe and the Americas held official FMD-free status covering their entire territories. In the Middle East, nearly half of all Members achieved AHS-free status.
2.2.3 Official status loss
What causes the loss of official status?
Number of official statuses that were lost (Indicator ID: Official status_07)
Number of Members that have lost their official status (Indicator ID: Official status_08)
Percentage of official statuses that were lost due to an outbreak or other non-compliance with WOAH standards (Indicator ID: Official status_09)
This set of indicators considers only country-level status losses, excluding downgraded cases of BSE status. Between 2016 and 2023, a total of ten officially recognised animal health statuses were lost. Of these, six losses resulted from non-compliance with WOAH standards, while four losses were due to disease reoccurrence. Regionally, seven of the ten losses occurred in Asia and the Pacific, while the remaining three were in Europe.
HIGHLIGHT
Relative to the total number of official statuses between 2016 and 2023, only a small proportion were lost.
Of the ten losses recorded during this period (excluding zonal statuses and downgraded cases for BSE), four were due to disease reoccurrence, and six were caused by other forms of non-compliances with WOAH standards.
2.2.4 Official control programmes
How many Members use endorsed official control programmes?
Number of endorsed official control programmes (Indicator ID: Official status_10)
Number of Members with endorsed official control programme (Indicator ID: Official status_11)
Number of official control programmes with withdrawn endorsement (Indicator ID: Official status_12)
Percentage of Members that have an endorsed official control programme (Indicator ID: Official status_13)
Between 2016 and 2023, WOAH endorsed 15 official control programmes (from 12 Members). However, as of 2023, 12 programmes (from nine Members) remained endorsed, as three had been withdrawn by the Scientific Commission in accordance with the Terrestrial Code.
Figure 13 presents the numbers and percentages of Members with at least one endorsed official control programmes between 2016 and 2023, disaggregated by WOAH Region. Among the 12 Members that had at least one endorsed official control programme, five were from Asia and the Pacific, four from Africa, two from Europe and one from the Americas. There were no endorsed official control programmes from Middle East Members during this period.
HIGHLIGHT
Since 2016, 15 official control programmes from 12 Members have been endorsed, with 12 programmes remaining active as of 2023. Among these 12 Members, the majority were from Asia and the Pacific (n = 5) and Africa (n = 4), followed by Europe and the Americas. No Members from the Middle East have had disease control programmes endorsed by WOAH.
2.2.5 Official status or self-declaration during disease absence
What proportion of potential Members could apply for official status or self-declaration?
Percentage of Members likely free from CBPP but that do not have an official status for the disease (Indicator ID: Official status_14)
Between 2020 and 2021, 91 (59%) Members reported to WOAH that CBPP had been ‘absent’ or ‘never reported’ in two consecutive years, through six-monthly reports submitted via the World Animal Health Information System (WAHIS). These Members did not hold official CBPP-free status from WOAH or have an officially endorsed control programme for the disease at that time. Only Members with complete six-monthly reports for 2020–2021 at the time of data extraction (March 2024) were included in the analysis. Official CBPP status was confirmed as of January 2024.
HIGHLIGHT
Among Members without officially recognised CBPP-free status, 91 (59%) Members may be potentially eligible to apply for official status, based on the continuous absence of the disease over two or more years, as submitted to WAHIS in six-monthly reports between 2020 and 2021.
2.3 Conclusions and recommendations for improvement
2.3.1 Conclusions
Summary of findings in the context of previous recommendations
The findings from the analysis of self-declaration indicators align with those reported in the First WOAH Observatory Report (WOAH, 2022b). Thus, the recommendations for WOAH made in the previous report remain unchanged. Some have already been implemented by the Organisation, while others are still ongoing. Conversely, this Second WOAH Observatory Monitoring Report introduces a new set of indicators focused on official animal health statuses and official control programmes. These new indicators have produced fresh insights, leading to a new set of recommendations presented at the end of this section.
High number of self-declarations for avian influenza
A key highlight is that of the 151 self-declarations published between 2018 and 2023, more than half (77) were for AI, including HPAI, in poultry. This may reflect the significant impact of the disease on trade. The high number of self-declarations may also be influenced by the shortened recovery period in the updated Terrestrial Code (Article 10.4.6).
Regional disparities in the number of officially recognised status
The analysis reveals an uneven distribution of Members with officially recognised animal health statuses across WOAH Regions. While the number of withdrawn statuses was limited – representing just 0.8% of all active official statuses, at time of publication – these withdrawals were attributed to either disease outbreak or other non-compliance with WOAH standards, as stated in relevant chapters of the Terrestrial Code, including Articles 12.1 (AHS), 11.4 (BSE), 15.2 (CSF), 11.5 (CBPP), 8.8 (FMD) and 14.7 (PPR). This underscores the need for enhanced support for some Members to fully understand how to implement these standards.
Low uptake of endorsed official control programmes
WOAH’s endorsement mechanism for official control programmes for CBPP, FMD, PPR and dog-mediated rabies is designed to be used by Members that are not yet able to immediately eradicate a disease or apply for official recognition of freedom status (for CBPP, FMD and PPR) or self-declaration of freedom (for dog-mediated rabies), as defined in Article 1.6.1 of the Terrestrial Code. However, uptake of this support mechanism has been low: since 2016, only 12 Members globally have received WOAH endorsement for official disease control programmes. To better monitor progress, future reports could calculate the proportion of Members with endorsed control programmes among those lacking official disease-free status and assess whether this leads to future official recognition of zonal or country-level status.
Potential eligibility to apply for officially recognised status based on WAHIS data
Members reporting a disease absence through WAHIS six-monthly reports over the previous consecutive years may be eligible to apply for official recognition of animal health status, as per the defined procedures within the disease-specific chapters of the Terrestrial Code. The present analysis shows that at least 91 Members (59%) of those that did not have CBPP-free status were potentially eligible to apply for it. Similar assessments for other diseases could raise awareness, encourage eligible Members to participate in the WOAH recognition procedure, and identify obstacles faced by Members.
Opportunities in utilising zoning and compartmentalisation
Self-declarations for zones and compartments and official statuses for zones remain rare throughout the studied period. This presents an opportunity for WOAH and its Members to further strengthen and benefit from these WOAH processes. Zoning and compartmentalisation aim to control disease, facilitate trade and provide assurance on the safety of such trade by applying measures to separate animal subpopulations. As highlighted in the Observatory’s thematic study Uses, challenges and impact of zoning: Part 2 (WOAH, 2025), utilisation of WOAH processes such as self-declarations or official status recognition can facilitate the acceptance of zones by trade partners. In addition, indicators presented in Chapter 4 of this report, ‘Zoning and Compartmentalisation’, show that Members have already reported zoning as a control measure while the diseases in question were absent from their territories. This demonstrates their potential eligibility to apply for official status or self-declarations.
Based on these conclusions, the following recommendations are proposed for WOAH and its Members.
2.3.2 Recommendations for WOAH
Identify and address the challenges preventing Members from using the self-declaration service.
Explore the relationship between recent changes in aquatic animal health standards and SOP.
Continue improving the management, storage, display and tracking of self-declarations through the Disease Status Management Platform.
Conduct similar comparisons between WAHIS reporting and official status recognition for other diseases, as done for CBPP in this report.
Promote the benefits of obtaining official status recognition from WOAH, as well as WOAH endorsement of official control programmes for FMD, CBPP, PPR and dog-mediated rabies.
Based on the causes of official statuses being lost, develop targeted training to strengthen Members capacities in disease prevention and control that are part of the official status recognition procedure.
In future monitoring cycles, calculate the proportion of Members with endorsed control programmes among those without official status of the given diseases, and assess the outcomes.
2.3.3 Recommendations for WOAH Members
Engage with stakeholders and policymakers to carry out the procedure for official recognition of animal health status and increase the use of self-declarations.
Consider applying for official disease status recognition from WOAH by demonstrating compliance with the freedom provisions (or provisions for negligible or controlled risk for BSE) as outlined in the Terrestrial Code.
Consider submitting self-declarations for diseases that are absent from the territory, including aquatic animal diseases.
Consider submitting self-declarations for disease-free zones and compartments.
3 Movement control inside countries/territories and border precautions
3.1 Introduction
The movement of animals and animal products plays a significant role in addressing animal health (including zoonoses) and food safety issues. Effective management of these movements can be improved through animal identification and traceability systems, as defined by Article 4.2.1 of the Terrestrial Code and Chapter 4.1 of the Aquatic Code. WOAH has also developed international standards for quarantine and border security measures. These subsets of standards are crucial for controlling the spread of diseases both within a territory and across borders, while still facilitating production and trade. Key WOAH standards relating to movement control and border precautions are summarised in Table 5.
To be effective, movement controls must be backed by robust animal identification and traceability systems, veterinary legislation and Veterinary Services, as described in the Terrestrial Code (Chapters 3.2, 3.4, 4.2 and 4.3) and the Aquatic Code (Chapter 3.1).
Members can officially report their use of preventive and control measures such as ‘movement control’ and ‘precautions at borders’ for specific diseases and species in their six-monthly WAHIS reports submitted to WOAH.
In these six-monthly reports:
Movement control is defined as ‘measures aimed at avoiding the spread of the disease, infection or infestation within a country/zone/compartment due to the movement of animals or their products’2 (WOAH, 2023c).
Precautions at borders are defined as ‘measures applied at airports, ports, railway stations or road check-points open to international movement of animals, animal products and other related commodities, where import inspections are performed to prevent introduction of the disease, infection or infestation into a country/territory or zone’ (WOAH, 2023c).
| Terrestrial Code | Aquatic Code | Topic/content |
|---|---|---|
| Article 4.2.1 | How to improve movement control by Veterinary Services activities such as animal identification systems and traceability | |
| Chapter 4.19. | Movement controls as a component of official control programmes for listed and emerging diseases | |
| Chapter 4.1. | The movements of aquatic animals, products and fomites into and between aquaculture establishments | |
| Chapter 5.6. | Chapter 5.8. | Border posts, frontier posts and quarantine stations in importing countries |
| Chapter 5.7. | Chapter 5.9. | Animal health measures applicable on arrival for animals and animal products |
| Section 8., Section 9., Section 10., Section 11., Section 12., Section 13., Section 14., Section 15. | Section 8., Section 9., Section 10., Section 11. | Precautions at borders for specific diseases and commodities |
All sections are accessible here: Codes and Manuals - WOAH - World Organisation for Animal Health.
This section assesses the extent to which WOAH Members adhere to standards related to movement control and border precautions.
For additional information, please access the corresponding interactive dashboard for this chapter by clicking here. Detailed information about the datasets can be found in the Data Catalogue v1.0. Limitations for each indicator, where applicable, are described in the Indicator Matrix v1.0.
3.2 Analysis
How to read this section
Questions (in bold) introduce the topic examined, followed by indicators (in bold italic) that have been monitored. Indicator IDs are used throughout the online Indicator Matrix for ease of reference.
3.2.1 Movement controls
Do Members use movement control as a control measure for diseases that are present or suspected within their territory?
Percentage of affected Members reporting using movement control inside their territory (Indicator ID: Movement_01)
The percentage of affected Members reporting the use of movement control inside their territory in their WAHIS six-monthly reports varies greatly depending on the disease. As shown in Figure 14, an increasing proportion of Members affected by ASF and PPR reported using movement control for these diseases in at least one domestic animal species. For FMD (between 2005 and 2021) and HPAI in poultry (between 2005 and 2023), the trend remained stable.
Figure 15 presents the percentage of affected Members reporting the use of movement control for two aquatic diseases: bonamia ostreae (BO) and white spot syndrome virus (WSSV). As with other aquatic diseases, the percentages fluctuated over time, and no clear trend was observed.
For those interested in the potential differences in indicator performance based on Members’ economic status, the interactive dashboard allows users to filter results by World Bank income groups – high-income, upper-middle-income, lower-middle-income or low-income countries.
It is important to note that only a limited number of six-monthly reports from 2022 and 2023 had been validated in WAHIS at the time of analysis (conducted in 2024). Consequently, only partial data are available for these years and may not accurately represent the broader WOAH Membership. For example, Figure 14 shows an apparent spike in the percentage of FMD-affected Members applying movement control between 2021 and 2023. However, this may reflect a reporting bias due to a sharp decrease in the number of FMD-affected Members submitting their six-monthly reports for 2023 as of the data extraction date (between 1 February and 15 March 2024). Only 20 FMD-affected Members submitted reports for 2023, much lower than the average 55 per year between 2005 and 2022. This has likely inflated the percentage, and the figures should be interpreted with caution.
To assist with interpreting the indicator, the interactive dashboard provides the number of affected Members per disease and per year. For the diseases presented in Figure 14 and Figure 15, the number of Members affected by ASF was 14–43; FMD, 20–65; HPAI in poultry, 9–52; and PPR, 14-52. For Figure 15, the number of Members affected by disease per year ranged was 4–7 for BO and 6–23 for WSSV.
HIGHLIGHT
The percentage of affected Members reporting the use of movement control to manage disease tended to increase for ASF and PPR. In contrast, the figures for FMD (up to 2021) and HPAI in poultry (up to 2023) appeared stable. For FMD, an apparent rapid increase was observed during 2022–2023; however, this should be interpreted with caution, as not all six-monthly reports had been submitted or validated at the time of data extraction and analysis, potentially skewing the indicator results.
For aquatic diseases such as BO and WSSV, the percentage of affected Members reporting the use of movement control of relevant aquatic animals fluctuated throughout the reporting period, with no clear trend.
3.2.2 Border precautions
Do Members use border precautions to prevent the introduction of diseases into their territory and/or disease spread within their territory?
Percentage of Members reporting using border precautions (Indicator ID: Movement_02)
According to the WAHIS Notification Procedures (WOAH, 2023c), border precautions may be reported to WOAH through WAHIS six-monthly reports either as a control measure or part of a preventive measure, regardless of the sanitary situation (present, suspected or absent) of a disease within a Member’s territory. The figures show the percentage of Members reporting this measure along with submitting six-monthly reports for ASF, FMD, HPAI in poultry and PPR (Figure 16) and for infection with BO and WSSV (Figure 17).
As Table 6 demonstrates, 76% of Members that submitted six-monthly reports for ASF in 20213 (89 of 117 Members that submitted six-monthly reports) reported implementing border precautions regardless of the disease situation within their territories as shown in Figure 16 Likewise, for HPAI in poultry in 2021, 80% (89 of 117 Members) reported border precautions.
In general, for terrestrial diseases, the vast majority of Members (over 80%) that reported absence of the given disease still applied border precautions, presumably as a preventive measure (see Table 6). In contrast, a smaller percentage of Members reported using such measures for aquatic animal diseases, with 58% of Members reporting border precautions for BO and 63% for WSSV in 2021.
| Disease name | % Members that reported border precautions, among all that submitted six-monthly report for the disease (2021) | % Members that reported border precautions, among those that reported the disease as absent (2021) | % Members that reported border precautions, among those that reported the disease as present or suspected (2021) |
|---|---|---|---|
| African swine fever | 76% | 80% | 71% |
| Foot and mouth disease | 92% | 97% | 82% |
| High pathogenicity avian influenza in poultry | 80% | 83% | 77% |
| Peste de petits ruminants | 89% | 89% | 85% |
| Bonamia ostreae | 60% | 58% | 80% |
| White spot syndrome virus | 64% | 63% | 76% |
HIGHLIGHT
For terrestrial diseases, the vast majority of Members (over 80%) that reported the absence of a given disease also applied border precautions, presumably as a preventive measure.
A smaller percentage of Members reported applying such measures for aquatic animal diseases when the disease was absent from their territories – for example, 58% for BO and 63% for WSSV in 2021.
3.2.3 Combined measures to control sanitary situations
Do Members use the combination of movement control and border precautions to control diseases present or suspected within their territory?
Percentage of affected Members that use border precautions without movement control, movement control without border precautions, both measures at the same time, and neither (Indicator ID: Movement_03)
Movement control and border precautions are two key measures that can aid disease control and minimise its spread. While they are designed to address different scenarios – movement control aims to contain disease within the location where it occurred, and border precautions aim to prevent cross-border spread – some Members may apply both control measures together in certain situations. For example, in 2021, 40 Members reported FMD as present or suspected within their territory through WAHIS six-monthly reports. Among these, 63% reported using both movement control and border precautions (Figure 18). However, one-third of affected Members did not report the use of movement control despite the presence or suspicion of FMD in their territories. This situation has remained stable over time.
Rabies is another example of this indicator’s trend (Figure 19). In 2021, among the Members affected by rabies, 40% reported using both movement control and border precautions, 19% used neither and the rest applied only one of the two. There was no clear change or trend over time in the use of combined measures for rabies control.
The trends from 2022 and 2023 should be interpreted with caution as not all six-monthly reports for these years had been submitted and validated at the time of data extraction. Thus, the yearly evolution graph may not accurately reflect the overall situation.
It is important to note that the proportion of Members applying combined or none of the control measures varied greatly by disease. ASF and HPAI in poultry showed patterns similar to FMD, with higher combined use. In contrast, for terrestrial or aquatic diseases such as CSF, rabies, BO or WSSV, the percentage of affected Members using combined measures dropped to 30–40%, while the proportion using only one or neither increased. When all relevant diseases are aggregated, the 2021 data show that 39% of Members used both control measures, 25% used only border precautions, 13% used only movement control, and 23% used neither.
Note: in the First WOAH Observatory Report (WOAH, 2022b), the percentages of movement control and/or border precautions were calculated using the total number of Members that submitted six-monthly reports, regardless of their disease situation at the time of reporting. Conversely, the current indicator uses only the Members that reported the given disease as present or suspected in their territory as the denominator, providing a more accurate reflection of measures taken in response to disease occurrence.
HIGHLIGHT
More than half of Members applied a combination of movement control and border precautions to control FMD in their territory between 2005 and 2023. In contrast, only a limited proportion of Members affected by rabies reported using combined measures to control the disease, with 17–33% unable to implement either. While the proportion varied by disease, the trends remained stable throughout the studied period.
3.2.4 Capacities of Veterinary Services and their evolutions
What are the capacities of Veterinary Services for movement control?
Number of Members reporting movement control and that have been assessed with a Level of Advancement of 3 or more for the relevant PVS Critical Competency (Indicator ID: Movement_06)
Number of Members reporting border precautions and that have been assessed with a Level of Advancement of 3 or more for the relevant PVS Critical Competency (Indicator ID: Movement_07)
The CCs most relevant to this section, as outlined in the 2019 version of the PVS Tool for the Evaluation of Veterinary Services (WOAH, 2023a), are based on the Terrestrial Code and Manual:
- CC II-3 Quarantine and Border Security: assesses the authority and capability of Veterinary Services (VS) to prevent the entry and spread of diseases and other hazards through animals and animal products4;
- CC II-12.A Animal identification and movement control: assesses the authority and capability of VS – typically in coordination with producers and other stakeholders – to identify animals under their mandate and trace their history, location and distribution for the purpose of animal disease control, food safety, trade or any other legal requirement5.
Between 2017 and 2023, 37 Members that reported using border precautions as a control or prevention measure for a disease via WAHIS underwent PVS Evaluations and were assessed for CC II-12.A, which relates to movement control for both terrestrial and aquatic diseases. As shown in Figure 20, 15 of these Members were assessed as having at least minimum capacity (i.e. LoA of 3 or above) for CC II.12.A on premises, herd, batch and animal identification, tracing and movement control.
Figure 21 shows that 21 Members were assessed as having minimal capacity or above for CC II-3, out of the 39 Members that underwent the PVS Evaluations while reporting the implementation of border precautions via WAHIS.
Number of Members assessed at least twice for a Critical Competency (Indicator ID: Movement_09)
Percentage distribution of Members by change in a Critical Competency’s LoA in the second mission (Indicator ID: Movement_10)
Magnitude of change in a Critical Competency’s LoA in the second mission (Indicator ID: Movement_11)
Measuring change requires at least two assessments: a baseline (i.e. PVS Evaluation) and a follow-up (i.e. PVS Follow-up Evaluation). As new CCs have been added to the PVS Tool over time, not all Members with two or more missions were assessed for the same CCs twice. In addition, since the PVS Tool is based on WOAH’s ever evolving international standards, descriptions of the CCs and LoAs in the PVS Tool have changed over time. Thus, not all LoAs for a certain CC can be compared if the CC or LoA description has changed significantly. As such, the number of Members that have been assessed at least twice varies according to the CC in question. Where a Member had three evaluations for a CC, only the two most recent mission LoAs were used for these indicators.
Between 2006 and 2023, 60 Members were assessed at least twice for a CC relevant to border precautions in the terrestrial animal health sector (CC II-3: Quarantine and border security), as per the 2019 version of the Terrestrial PVS Tool (WOAH, 2023a), through PVS Evaluations or follow-up missions. Of these, 50% showed no change in their LoAs, 42% demonstrated progress and 8% showed regression.
3.3 Conclusions and recommendations for improvement
3.3.1 Conclusions
Importance of movement control and border precautions
The use of movement control and associated measures is critical to improving the control of many important animal diseases. These measures are essential tools for achieving eradication goals for priority diseases such as PPR and dog-mediated rabies by 2030, and they are specifically referenced in Chapter 4.19 of the Terrestrial Code, which defines official control programmes. Movement control is also a core component of biosecurity, as described in the Aquatic Code Chapter 4.1, and serves as a prerequisite for other control measures such as zoning (Terrestrial Code Chapter 4.4 and Aquatic Code Chapter 4.2), which can facilitate safe trade.
Integrated implementation of control measures
To effectively implement movement control to prevent the spread of animal disease within a territory, Members are encouraged to apply it alongside other complementary control measures. For example, Article 4.2.1 of the Terrestrial Code highlights the importance of integrated approaches. Supporting measures such as animal identification and traceability systems are also essential and require strong central and ground-level capacities, which may vary across local contexts (see Terrestrial Code Chapters 3.2, 3.4, 4.2, 4.3 and Aquatic Code Chapter 3.1 for detailed descriptions of supporting elements for movement control). Logical combinations of measures must be identified and monitored together to evaluate the overall level of movement control implementation.
Interpretation of border precautions and reporting dynamics
Border precautions are often reported by Members to WOAH regardless of whether a disease/infection/infestation is present, suspected or absent. This indicates that Members may use such measures not only to prevent diseases from entering their territories but also to support the containment of an existing disease that has been reported in the country. Disaggregating different cases is critical for meaningful analysis when Members do or do not report movement control and border precautions at the same time. For example, a country may apply movement control for a suspected disease to protect a free zone while continuing to apply border precautions. This calls for further consideration of the indicators related to border precautions alongside additional aspects, such as importing and exporting.
Patterns of combined measure-use across diseases
The current indicator shows that more than half of Members applied both border precautions and movement control measures at the same time to control certain terrestrial diseases of global concern, such as ASF, FMD and HPAI in poultry. However, for other diseases both terrestrial and aquatic – such as CSF, rabies, BO and WSSV – the percentage of affected Members using combined measures dropped to 30–40%. This disparity may reflect various underlying factors faced by Members:
- lack (or presence) of legal bases to apply the measures, such as having officially endorsed control programmes;
- lack of technical or financial capacity to implement the measure for other combined diseases;
- risk assumptions associated with the local epidemic situation and/or types of disease;
- different priorities on investments to control the different diseases; and/or
- lack of understanding about the links between different measures to effectively control sanitary situations.
Capacity assessment of Veterinary Services
Between 2017 and 2023, approximately half of the Members that underwent a PVS Evaluation or Follow-up mission and reported using movement control or border precautions via WAHIS had minimal capacity or above to implement the disease control measures (Figure 20 and Figure 21, respectively). This implies a need for targeted support for the remaining Members to strengthen their ability to implement these two fundamental measures to control the local and global sanitary situation. It may also reflect a partial or inconsistent understanding of these measures among reporting Members through WAHIS, and/or incomplete implementation in practice.
Monitoring progress in capacity building
Following recommendations from the First WOAH Observatory Report (WOAH, 2022b), WOAH developed a new set of indicators (Indicator IDs: Movement_09, _10, and _11) to monitor Members’ progress in implementing the two control measures discussed in this section. The new indicators revealed that only a limited number of Members have shown improvement in their capacities since measurement began in 2006. In addition, a half of Members have experienced no change in their capacity to implement control measures.
The findings described above lead to a revised and more detailed set of recommendations for WOAH and its Members, which are listed below. While most of these recommendations build on those from the previous report (WOAH, 2022b), they have been further specified based on the new analysis and updated indicators.
3.3.2 Recommendations for WOAH
Strengthen the link between PVS findings and WAHIS data to identify global and regional gaps and improve data quality.
Consider developing and delivering tailored capacity-building activities based on the specific needs of Members, especially to enhance understanding of the interconnections between movement control of animals and other disease control measures, such as border precautions, zoning, animal identification systems, certification systems, etc.
Promote performance monitoring through PVS Evaluations, especially in regions with less engagement and for Members that have not yet undergone a PVS Follow-up Evaluation.
Continue monitoring Members’ progress on Critical Competencies over time as an indicator of the impact of WOAH’s support, including through impact evaluation of PVS Recommendations.
Continue monitoring the evolution of Members’ implementation of movement control and border precautions, especially for diseases covered by official control programmes and other priority diseases.
Improve the clarity of how control measures are described to thereby improve their reporting via WAHIS, including the interrelationships between them (e.g. movement control as a prerequisite to zoning). This could involve the engagement of Specialist Commissions and the WAHIS key users group. Suggested steps include:
- Clarifying links between control measures reported in WAHIS and relevant chapters of the WOAH Terrestrial and Aquatic Codes.
- Defining the minimum expected activities implemented in the field when the control measure is reported in WAHIS.
- Enhancing understanding of the links between complementary control measures (e.g. zoning and movement control).
- Promoting more systematic use of PVS Reports and data.
3.3.3 Recommendations for WOAH Members
Further implement WOAH standards on movement control to improve disease containment and enhanced reporting.
Combine multiple control measures for higher efficiency (e.g. zoning and movement control) and ensure their appropriate reporting via WAHIS, in line with WOAH standards.
Participate in the PVS Recommendations Impact Evaluation to better understand actions taken by Members in this area.
Engage in the PVS Monitoring Cycle by renewing PVS Evaluations every five years to strengthen coordination and leverage improvement opportunities.
4 Zoning and compartmentalisation
4.1 Introduction
Zoning and compartmentalisation are important tools that can help mitigate the impact of animal diseases and support effective disease control. Further, these measures can facilitate international trade or reduce trade disruptions if a disease is introduced into a given population.
Zones and compartments should be established by the national Veterinary or Competent Authority and may be recognised through bilateral agreements between trading partners to support international trade. WOAH provides procedures for its Members to acquire and maintain official recognition of animal health status for an entire territory or specific zones for six WOAH-listed diseases. Members may also publish self-declarations of animal disease freedom at the country-, zone- or compartment-level for other listed diseases.
Key WOAH standards and guidelines related to zoning and compartmentalisation are summarised in Table 7.
| Terrestrial Code | Aquatic Code | Topic/content |
|---|---|---|
| Chapter 1.4 | Chapter 1.4 | Animal health surveillance in a country, zone or compartment |
| Chapter 3.2 | Chapter 3.1 | Roles of Veterinary Services or aquatic animal health services in maintenance of zones, compartments or other high health status subpopulations of animals |
| Chapter 3.4 | - | Veterinary legislations and relations to SPS Agreements |
| Chapter 4.2 | - | Animal identification and traceability for a country, zone or compartment |
| Chapter 4.3 | - | Design and implementation of animal identification and traceability |
| - | Chapter 4.1 | Biosecurity for a country, zone, compartment or aquaculture establishment |
| Chapter 4.4. | Chapter 4.2. | Zoning and compartmentalisation. These chapters specifically describe a free zone, infected zone, protection zone and containment zone, whilst acknowledging that other types of zones may be established |
| Chapter 4.5. | Chapter 4.3. | Application of compartmentalisation |
| Chapter 4.19 | - | Official control programmes for listed diseases |
| - | - | Notification procedure for the six-monthly report on listed diseases |
| Compartmentalisation Guidelines – African swine fever |
All sections are accessible here: Codes and Manuals - WOAH - World Organisation for Animal Health.
In addition to the Codes, the WAHIS Notification Procedures (WOAH, 2023c) explain how Members are expected to notify WOAH about the implementation of zoning and compartmentalisation. The documents are accessible for WOAH Delegates via the Delegates Portal – Notification procedure for the six-monthly report on terrestrial animal diseases and aquatic animal diseases.
The concept of zoning is also recognised in Article 6 of the WTO SPS Agreement (WTO). In WTO terminology, the SPS Agreement uses disease-free area to refer to a country, part of a country, or parts of several countries that are free from a particular disease. This includes disease-free zones as defined in WOAH’s Codes. Similarly, the WTO term regionalisation can correspond to zoning in the context of animal diseases, when it is used to refer to area(s) within a country/territory. The SPS Committee regularly monitors the implementation of regionalisation under a standing agenda item at its meetings. WTO Members are encouraged to inform the SPS Committee about their experiences in the implementation of regionalisation. Based on the information provided by Members, the Secretariat of the SPS Committee prepares an annual report on the implementation of regionalisation.
This section assesses the extent to which WOAH Members implement standards related to zoning and compartmentalisation. The analysis uses data collected by WOAH, the WTO and selected various indicators, as detailed below.
For additional information, please access the corresponding interactive dashboard for this chapter by clicking here. Detailed information about datasets can be found in the Data Catalogue v1.0. Limitations for each indicator, where applicable, are described in the Indicator Matrix v1.0.
4.2 Analysis
How to read this section
Questions (in bold) introduce the topic examined, followed by indicators (in bold italic) that have been monitored. Indicator IDs are used throughout the online Indicator Matrix for ease of reference.
4.2.1 Zoning as a control measure
What is the current state of zoning use and are there possible gaps in the reporting of zoning through WAHIS?
Percentage of Members that have reported presence/suspicion of a given disease/infection/ infestation limited to one or more zones (Indicator ID: Z and C_01)
There is a contextual indicator designed to describe the current state of reporting on zoning by Members through WOAH systems as of 2023. It is not intended to monitor the level of implementation of zoning as defined by the relevant Code chapters. As shown in Table 8, during the example year of 20216, 85% of ASF-affected Members reported that ASF was limited to one or more zones in their territories. This figure was 67% for CSF, 49% for FMD and 100% for HPAI in poultry.
These percentages may reflect instances where:
- the diseases were reported by Members in line with the Glossary text of the Codes, which summarises the definition of zones;
- certain areas are not necessarily defined as zones per WOAH Codes’ relevant chapters (e.g. Chapter 4.4 of the Terrestrial Code);
- some diseases naturally occur in these areas regardless of specific measures taken (or not taken) by veterinary authorities.
To better understand the actual level of zoning implementation by Members as a disease control measure, additional indicators were calculated (presented below).
Percentage of affected Members that reported applying zoning as a control measure (Indicator ID: Z and C_02)
Number of Members that reported a disease/infection/infestation, present or suspected (Indicator ID: Z and C_03)
Number of Members that reported applying zoning as a control measure for a given disease/infection/infestation, present or suspected (Indicator ID: Z and C_04)
The percentage of Members reporting the use of zoning as a control measure for present or suspected disease increased from 41% in 2005 to 67% in 2021. Figure 22 illustrates the trends in the percentage of affected Members reporting the use of zoning as a control measure in their six-monthly reports between 2005 and 2023, for major domestic animal species or types: cattle, pigs, poultry and aquatic animals. The trends varied by disease, both for terrestrial and aquatic animal diseases:
- CSF: a gradual decline in zoning usage among CSF-affected Members, from a peak of 46% in 2008 to 11% in 2023.
- FMD: usage remained relatively stable over the years for FMD-affected Members, between 35% and 50%.
- HPAI: among HPAI-affected Members, the percentage fluctuated between 45% and 85%.
- Koi herpesvirus disease: zoning was reported as a control measure by 11–38% of affected Members between 2005 and 2023.
The most recent figures include only the six-monthly reports that have already been validated and filed at the time of analysis, and should be interpreted with caution. These may not represent the full global picture and should be monitored over time.
The current indicator differs from the previously presented indicator in the First WOAH Observatory Report (WOAH, 2022b). Previously, the indicator measured the percentage of Members that reported applying zoning as a control measure at least once during the studied period, either for terrestrial or aquatic animal diseases. The denominator included all Members that submitted six-monthly reports of any animal category (domestic or wild) at least once in the studied period. Among those, the numerator includes those that reported zoning as a control measure. In contrast, the current indicator uses a denominator that includes Members that reported a specific disease, infection or infestation as present or suspected. Among those, the numerator represents the number of Members that reported zoning to control the given disease/infection/infestation. Due to this methodological refinement, figures from the current indicator may differ from those presented in the First WOAH Observatory Report (WOAH, 2022b), even for the same disease and same year.