The European Commission has requested EFSA to assess animal diseases according to the criteria as laid down in Articles 5, 7, 8 and Annex IV for the purpose of categorisation of diseases in accordance with Article 9 of the Regulation (EU) No 2016/429 (Animal Health Law). This scientific opinion addresses the ad hoc method developed for assessing any animal disease for the listing and categorisation of diseases within the Animal Health Law (AHL) framework. The assessment of individual diseases is addressed in distinct scientific opinions that are published separately. The assessment of Articles 5, 8 and 9 criteria is performed on the basis of the information collected according to Article 7 criteria. For that purpose, Article 7 criteria were structured into parameters and the information was collected at parameter level. The resulting fact sheets on the profile and impact of each disease were compiled by disease scientists. A mapping was developed to identify which parameters from Article 7 were needed to inform each Article 5, 8 and 9 criterion. Specifically, for Articles 5 and 9 criteria, a categorical assessment was performed, by applying an expert judgement procedure, based on the mapped information. The judgement was performed by EFSA Panel experts on Animal Health and Welfare in two rounds, individual and collective judgement. The output of the expert judgement on the criteria of Articles 5 and 9 for each disease is composed by the categorical answer, and for the questions where no consensus was reached, the different supporting views are reported.

Impact• Dromedary camels are the only animal species for which there is convincing evidence that it is a host species for MERS-CoV and hence a potential source of human infections.• Direct contact with dromedary camels can only explain a small proportion of the primary cases. Other possible sources and vehicles of infection include food-borne transmission through consumption of unpasteurized camel milk and raw meat, medicinal use of camel urine and zoonotic transmission from other species.• In the Arabian Peninsula, dromedary camel production has intensified and is nowadays concentrated around cities. This may have facilitated the zoonotic 'spillover' infections from camels to humans, explaining the emergence of the virus in the human population in the Arabian Peninsula. SummaryMiddle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) cases without documented contact with another human MERS-CoV case make up 61% (517/853) of all reported cases. These primary cases are of particular interest for understanding the source(s) and route(s) of transmission and for designing long-term disease control measures. Dromedary camels are the only animal species for which there is convincing evidence that it is a host species for MERS-CoV and hence a potential source of human infections. However, only a small proportion of the primary cases have reported contact with camels. Other possible sources and vehicles of infection include food-borne transmission through consumption of unpasteurized camel milk and raw meat, medicinal use of camel urine and zoonotic transmission from other species. There are critical knowledge gaps around this new disease which can only be closed through traditional field epidemiological investigations and studies designed to test hypothesis regarding sources of infection and risk factors for disease. Since the 1960s, there has been a radical change in dromedary camel farming practices in the Arabian Peninsula with an intensification of the production and a concentration of the production around cities. It is possible that the recent intensification of camel herding in the Arabian Peninsula has increased the virus' reproductive number and attack rate in camel herds while the 'urbanization' of camel herding increased the frequency of zoonotic 'spillover' infections from camels to humans. It is reasonable to assume, although difficult to measure, that the sensitivity of public health surveillance to detect previously

This article uses the experience of five European countries to review the integrated approaches (human, animal and vector) for surveillance and monitoring of West Nile virus (WNV) at national and European levels. The epidemiological situation of West Nile fever in Europe is heterogeneous. No model of surveillance and monitoring fits all, hence this article merely encourages countries to implement the integrated approach that meets their needs. Integration of surveillance and monitoring activities conducted by the public health authorities, the animal health authorities and the authorities in charge of vector surveillance and control should improve efficiency and save resources by implementing targeted measures. The creation of a formal interagency working group is identified as a crucial step towards integration. Blood safety is a key incentive for public health authorities to allocate sufficient resources for WNV surveillance, while the facts that an effective vaccine is available for horses and that most infected animals remain asymptomatic make the disease a lesser priority for animal health authorities. The examples described here can support other European countries wishing to strengthen their WNV surveillance or preparedness, and also serve as a model for surveillance and monitoring of other (vector-borne) zoonotic infections.

This opinion describes outdoor farming of pigs in the EU, assesses the risk of African swine fewer (ASF) introduction and spread associated with outdoor pig farms and proposes biosecurity and control measures for outdoor pig farms in ASF‐affected areas of the EU. Evidence was collected from Member States (MSs) veterinary authorities, farmers’ associations, literature and legislative documents. An Expert knowledge elicitation (EKE) was carried out to group outdoor pig farms according to their risk of introduction and spread of ASF, to rank biosecurity measures regarding their effectiveness with regard to ASF and propose improvements of biosecurity for outdoor pig farming and accompanying control measures. Outdoor pig farming is common and various farm types are present throughout the EU. As there is no legislation at European level for categorising outdoor pig farms in the EU, information is limited, not harmonised and needs to be interpreted with care. The baseline risk of outdoor pig farms for ASFV introduction and its spread is high but with considerable uncertainty. The Panel is 66–90% certain that, if single solid or double fences were fully and properly implemented on all outdoor pig farms in areas of the EU where ASF is present in wild boar and in domestic pigs in indoor farms and outdoor farms (worst case scenario not considering different restriction zones or particular situations), without requiring any other outdoor‐specific biosecurity measures or control measures, this would reduce the number of new ASF outbreaks occurring in these farms within a year by more than 50% compared to the baseline risk. The Panel concludes that the regular implementation of independent and objective on‐farm biosecurity assessments using comprehensive standard protocols and approving outdoor pig farms on the basis of their biosecurity risk in an official system managed by competent authorities will further reduce the risk of ASF introduction and spread related to outdoor pig farms.

African swine fever virus (ASFV) has been notified in the Baltic countries and the eastern part of Poland from the beginning of 2014 up to now. In collaboration with the ASF‐affected Member States (MS), EFSA is updating the epidemiological analysis of ASF in the European Union which was carried out in 2015. For this purpose, the latest epidemiological and laboratory data were analysed in order to identify the spatial–temporal pattern of the epidemic and a risk factors facilitating its spread. Currently, the ASF outbreaks in wild boar in the Baltic countries and Poland can be defined as a small‐scale epidemic with a slow average spatial spread in wild boar subpopulations (approximately from 1 in Lithuania and Poland to 2 km/month in Estonia and Latvia). The number of positive samples in hunted wild boar peaks in winter which can be explained by human activity patterns (significant hunting activity over winter). The number of positive samples in wild boar found dead peaks in summer. This could be related to the epidemiology of the disease and/or the biology of wild boar; however, this needs further investigation. Virus prevalence in hunted wild boar is very low (0.04–3%), without any apparent trend over time. Apparent virus prevalence at country level in wild boar found dead in affected countries ranges from 60% to 86%, with the exception of Poland, where values between 0.5% and 1.42%, were observed. Since the beginning of the epidemic, the apparent antibody prevalence in hunted wild boar has always been lower than the apparent virus prevalence, indicating an unchanged epidemiological/immunological situation. The risk factor analysis shows an association between the number of settlements, human and domestic pigs population size or wild boar population density and the presence of ASF in wild boar for Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.