Research and analysis

Defra and APHIS comments on the 'Draft report of an audit to the United States of America between 10 and 17 February 2023 to review poultry compartments providing assurances of freedom from avian influenza and Newcastle disease', November 2023

Published 9 February 2026

Comments from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), the competent authority for the United Kingdom, and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the competent authority for the United States of America (US).

Comments on the report

Section: Executive summary

“Whilst the framework exists within the US Compartment Program Standards for the establishment of a ‘ND Clean Compartment’, the ND Clean Compartment programme has not yet been implemented.”

APHIS response

The US Newcastle Disease Virus Clean Compartment programme, that was formally incorporated into Chapter 9 of the US Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and Compartment Program Standards in 2020, first requires participation in the US Newcastle Disease Virus Clean programme.

Presently, the APHIS National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP) cannot enrol participants into the US Newcastle Disease Virus Clean programme as written because the certification programme is not yet formalised. Therefore, the US Newcastle Disease Virus Clean Compartment programme, is also not available to participants.

The US Avian Influenza (AI) Clean Compartment programme does not currently include audits specifically addressing Newcastle disease (ND).

Presently, NPIP asks auditors to fill in ‘not applicable (N/A)’ for the ND checklist items. There are on-going discussions between NPIP and the poultry industry to work toward formalising a US Newcastle Disease Virus Clean programme and a US Newcastle Disease Virus Clean Compartment programme.

Great Britain response

Thank you for providing this information. During our visit, we understood that although the Newcastle Disease Virus Clean Compartment programme is not yet available to participants, the two approved compartment companies vaccinate flocks against ND.

Our current understanding is that vaccinating or testing for ND is not a requirement to be approved as an AI clean compartment. Additionally, auditors do not assess ND requirements and mark them as N/A in the checklist. 

Please confirm if our understanding is accurate.

This will mean that the US Poultry Compartments scheme is only equivalent to the Great Britain Compartment Scheme for highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI). Equivalence for ND will have to be reassessed once the ND Clean Compartment programme has been implemented. However, if flocks on compartment sites are required to be vaccinated against and/or tested for ND as part of the AI Clean Compartment programme and that this is verified during recertification audits then equivalence for ND could also be considered.

APHIS response

Defra has the correct understanding about the Newcastle Disease Virus Clean Compartment programme. 

 NPIP will be submitting a proposal to the Biennial Conference in August 2024. We hope ND can be formalised and included as part of the AI Clean Compartment programme.

Results from Biennial Conference, APHIS

The NPIP delegation voted to pass formalising and embedding the ND programme within the AI Clean Compartment programmes and not create a separate ND programme. The programme will include auditable ND surveillance and vaccination programmes within the AI Compartment programme.

Section: Conclusions

“There are minor differences between Great Britain’s and the US compartment schemes in the initial AI testing regime for flocks and in the requirements regarding the timing and number of samples collected for routine testing to maintain compartment approval.

Both schemes appear to require a continuous and thorough active and passive surveillance to sufficiently demonstrate freedom from AI and ND.

Differences in testing requirements during AI high-risk periods were more significant between Great Britain’s and the US scheme and consideration should be given to assess whether the current requirement guarantees early detection and provide guarantees for continued freedom from AI.

Compartment companies in Great Britain and the US regularly go beyond the requirements of the programme standards and monitor the health of their compartments through additional voluntary testing. The recommendations in this report address this by recommending that some of the voluntary testing currently carried out is formalised into the Compartment Program Standards.”

APHIS response

The US AI Clean programme is a prerequisite to the US AI Clean Compartment programme. The US AI Clean programme already requires active AI surveillance and testing. In addition to the US AI Clean Compartment programme standard requirements, the compartment poultry companies have additional procedures and protocols they implement during a period of high risk. 

Under 9 CFR 145 Subpart H routine testing is required for primary meat-type chicken breeders, via serology. 

The US AI Clean programme requires that a sample of at least 30 birds must test negative at intervals of 90 days; or a sample of fewer than 30 birds may be tested, and found to be negative, at any one time if all pens are equally represented and a total of 30 birds is tested within each 90- day period; or the flock is tested as provided in 145.14(d) at intervals of 30 days or less and found to be negative, and a total of 30 samples are collected and tested withing each 90 day period. During each 90-day period, all primary spent fowl, up to a maximum of 30, must be tested serologically and found negative for antibodies for avian influenza within 21 days prior to movement to slaughter. 

The above testing requirements and options were written in such a way to allow for participation of different business models. 

Upon development of the US AI Clean and US AI Clean Compartment programmes, the NPIP and the poultry industry, stakeholders and scientists all met and held multiple discussions on testing numbers and frequency, to ensure a robust program. This on-going NPIP active surveillance has been effective during the current outbreak to detect asymptomatic AI cases on routine pre-movement and surveillance testing (non-compartment premises), which would not have otherwise been confirmed, indicating that these testing requirements are robust enough to catch detections early and give confidence of freedom from AI. 

During AI high risk periods (HRPs) there are additional testing requirements, as seen below, some of which include more frequent testing and PCR. The companies must continue to meet the testing requirements of the US AI Clean programme listed above, in addition to the HRP testing requirements below. 

During high-risk periods: flocks test negative to AI and/or NDV via RT- PCR 48 hours prior to movement during periods of high risk. Pullets, cockerels, and adult birds originating outside the compartment have 30 samples tested negative to AI and/or NDV via RT-PCR 48 hours prior to shipment during periods of high risk. Premises where birds are present must test negative for AI and/or ND via RT-PCR 48 hours prior to movement of litter or manure during periods of high risk. 

Great Britain response

Thank you for your comments. We understand the current testing requirements of the AI Clean programme. However, we consider relevant that participants of the AI Clean Compartment Program are officially required to undertake further testing during AI high-risk periods. This is only recommended for AI Clean Compartment programme participants and not for all participants of the AI Clean programme, which we appreciate accommodates a number of different business models. 

This recommendation formalises the additional serology testing that the current Compartment programme participants are already undertaking during the high-risk period.   

Differences between Great Britain and US testing during HRP are outlined in Table 3 in the audit report. The Great Britain compartment scheme requires serology testing of 20 birds per production unit every 21 days if HPAI is confirmed within 30km of the compartment premises in Great Britain. Further testing is also required if a farm is located within a restriction zone. This is required for all birds on site, not only pre-movement, as required in the US AI Clean Compartment programme.  

We perceive that testing every 90 days to ensure that the flock of origin is free does not provide sufficient assurances during AI high-risk periods. During high-risk periods enhanced testing should be required, in addition to enhanced biosecurity. This is evident given that the current pre-movement and surveillance testing have detected asymptomatic AI cases on non-compartment premises. 

APHIS response

Thank you for your clarification.  APHIS will propose this as a topic for discussion at the Biennial Conference for the consideration of stakeholders.

Results from Biennial Conference, APHIS

Testing requirements during high-risk periods for AI:

The AI Clean Compartment programmes implement a robust testing mechanism mentioned in column 2, which combines PCR and serology testing in both peace times, and during periods of high risk. The US NPIP AI Clean Compartment Program Standards defines high-risk period as ‘When AI is reported in a State or within a 30‐mile radius of a compartment facility. The high‐risk period ends when any control zones are released.’ Stakeholders considered and discussed the UK suggestion to increase serology testing for the programme but found it that it did not add quick detection of the virus prior to movement, and it would have a greater financial expense, thus the delegation did not accept the suggested change.  

As an alternative, the AI compartment programme participants are willing to do the additional serology testing for UK exports during periods of high risk. The AI Compartment could attest to the additional testing through an addendum or amendment to the export health certificate.

Response to recommendations

Recommendation 1

To include a requirement for a minimum audit frequency in future updates of the Compartment Program Standards (page 16). 

APHIS response

The US AI Clean Compartment Program Standards already requires participants to complete yearly recertification audits, in person by a NPIP trained and certified auditor. Recertification audits include 100 percent of non-farm components (Ex: feedmills, hatcheries, and egg depots) and 25 percent of the total number of farm components (i.e., area of land and housing and rearing poultry breeding stock). 

 Great Britain response

Thank you for the clarification. We understand the approach to selection of 100% of non-farm components and 25% of farm components for annual recertification audits. However, our recommendation is aimed to prevent some farm components would not be audited for many years if the selection of 25% of farm components is completely randomised. We recommend defining a maximum period of time that can elapse between recertification audits for farm components to ensure that these components are not left unaudited for many years.

APHIS response

Thank you for the clarification. APHIS now has a better understanding of Defra’s request. We will discuss this recommendation internally and with stakeholders to look for options, while keeping a randomised audit system.

Results from Biennial Conference, APHIS

NPIP delegation voted to pass adding a maximum period of time that can elapse between recertification audits, by adding ‘at least’ 25 percent of the farm components will be subject to annual audits, ‘with no components going longer than 4 years without being audited’ to Compartment Program Standards. 

Recommendation 2

To clarify the definition of ‘component’ in the Compartment Program Standards to reflect the flexibility in the approach to registration of components within compartments (page 17). 

APHIS response

In the US AI Clean Compartment Program Standards, the term ‘component’ is defined on page 13 as ‘any farm, feedmill, hatchery, or egg depot that will be included in a compartment.’ The term ‘farm’ is defined on page 14 as ‘an area of land and associated buildings dedicated to housing and rearing poultry breeding stock.’ 

Each USDA-approved compartment is different in size and model; therefore, by auditing 100 percent of the non-farm components and 25 percent of the farm components, the programme ensures that there is adequate representation of all compartment components audited each year. A percentage system allows flexibility to accommodate compartments of different sizes to be able to audit a representative and random sample of the farm. 

Poultry companies in the United States seeking approval as a compartment have different business models, thus the classification of components may be slightly different. Page 30 of the Program Standards explains how to use the compartment applications for registration of first-time applicants or certified compartment users. A chart on page 32 also provides a step-by-step graph of the process and different scenarios that may occur. Application A for the initial compartment registration, is located on pages 33-36 and application B utilised for component registration is on pages 37-43. Within these applications the companies must include information such as component specifics, site maps, people flow, vehicle and supplies flow, etc. 

Great Britain response

The term ‘component’ is currently defined as ‘any farm, feedmill, hatchery, or egg depot that will be included in a compartment.’ However, for one of the compartments, each individual poultry house in a farm is registered as an individual component.  This is different to other compartment, where a farm site with 1 to 4 houses is registered as one component.  

The definition of ‘component’ in the Compartment Program Standards does not accurately reflect these differences in the registration of components between the two participating companies in the compartment scheme, where a component may be an individual poultry house or an entire farm site. 

APHIS response

Thank you for the clarification. APHIS understands the recommendation better. We will submit a proposed change for the upcoming Biennial Conference, to clarify the definition of component and farm, to accurately reflect the allowed differences in business models of participants.

Results from Biennial Conference, APHIS

The NPIP delegation decided that to change the definition of component and farm as proposed by the UK would restrict the intended flexibility of the current definitions designed to meet different business models within the AI Clean Compartment programmes. However, it was suggested during this conference to propose at the next conference to add or modify the application with an option to register the houses of these larger farms as subcomponents of the farm component. This process would have to be evaluated to make sure it doesn’t negatively impact other areas of the programme; therefore it needs further coordination of the proposal.

If proposed and passed, there would be an option to have one large farm component, with multiple subcomponents or houses registered within it.

Recommendation 3

To add version control to the checklist within the Compartment Program Standards to ensure that the correct version is completed, and the latest compartment requirements are met. 

APHIS response

Certified compartment companies, auditors, and other representatives utilise the audit checklist posted on the NPIP website at www.poultryimprovement.org. In the case that any changes are made to the audit checklists, it would be published on the website. While adding a version identifier to the actual checklist would be challenging, NPIP is having internal discussions to inquire with website managers about adding an upload date with the website when adding new versions. 

Great Britain response

Thank you for suggesting a solution to this recommendation. However, we still consider that adding an upload date to the website does not solve the problem of knowing which version of the checklist an auditor is using when they return completed checklists to the NPIP in hard or electronic formats.

APHIS response

We appreciate the suggestion. We will submit a proposed change at the upcoming Biennial Conference to include a version and/or date on Compartment Program Standards and checklist.

Results from Biennial Conference, APHIS

NPIP delegation voted to pass the addition of a page footer, to include month and year, to Compartment Program Standards, as a method of version control, as suggested by Defra.

Recommendation 4

To include in the future version of the Compartment Program Standards a requirement to carry out more intensive surveillance during high AI risk periods to provide additional assurances that eggs or chicks exported from compartment premises are free from AI. This would formalise the additional testing already carried out by the existing compartment companies. 

APHIS response

As mentioned earlier in the document, 9 CFR 145 Subpart H formally requires routine AI testing for primary meat- type chicken breeders, via serology. 

The US AI Clean classification is a pre-requisite to be approved for the US AI Clean Compartment program. To retain this classification, a sample of at least 30 birds must test negative at intervals of 90 days; or a sample of fewer than 30 birds may be tested, and found to be negative, at any one time if all pens are equally represented an a total of 30 birds is tested within each 90-day period; or the flock is tested as provided in 9 CFR 145.14(d) at intervals of 30 days or less and found to be negative, and a total of 30 samples are collected and tested withing each 90 day period. During each 90-day period, all primary spent fowl, up to a maximum of 30, must be tested serologically and found negative for antibodies for avian influenza within 21 days prior to movement to slaughter. 

High risk periods (HRP) are defined in the Program Standards (p.14) when AI is found within a state or within a 30-mile radius of a compartment facility. During these periods the companies must implement AI HRP protocols and standard requirements (p. 29 and audit checklist). 

Although the companies are already operating at high levels of biosecurity, in order to meet the requirements of 9 CFR AI Clean programme and the Compartment Program Standards, poultry companies are required to increase biosecurity and disease testing.  

The Program Standards lay out stricter requirements for HRP on the individual audit checklist, in a light blue color. The testing requirements are based around animal and product movement. Some examples include increased number and more frequent testing prior to movement, PCR testing, increased downtime, altered driving routes, eliminating non-essential visitors, etc. 

Responses and results

For Great Britain and APHIS comments and results from Biennial Conference, see ‘Section: Conclusions’.

Recommendation 5

To include in future versions of the Compartment Program Standards a requirement that testing for AI is done on an airspace basis to ensure sufficiently representative sampling to demonstrate freedom from AI. This would formalise the additional testing already carried out by the existing compartment companies. 

APHIS response

The NPIP testing model is based on flocks rather than airspace, which is consistent with the World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH) Terrestrial Code’s surveillance standards for avian influenza. The standard operating procedure of the US AI Clean programme testing requirements in 9 CFR Subpart H allows for flexibility for different business models to enact the standards for biosecurity, sanitation, and surveillance testing. While NPIP participants voluntarily go above and beyond with additional testing, they must meet the US AI Clean Compartment programme testing requirements to be able to keep their programme certification. 

Great Britain response

The current definition of ‘flock’ in the US Compartment Program Standards may allow for birds in different poultry houses to be categorised as part of the same ‘flock’ for testing purposes. Testing on this basis does not sufficiently demonstrate freedom from AI.  

The Great Britain Compartment Schedules require testing to be done on an airspace basis. We understood from the evidence gathered during the audit that that the current US Compartment participants are already implementing additional testing taken on an airspace basis. To ensure that representative number of samples to demonstrate freedom from AI at each compartment site are taken, our recommendation is that AI Clean Compartment programme testing is also done on an airspace basis.  

While we understand that this is more than is required for AI Clean programme participants, where different business models are included, we would expect the Compartment programme participants to be required to fulfil testing requirements on an airspace basis. 

APHIS response

We appreciate the clarification. We will bring this recommendation to the Biennial Conference for further discussion with stakeholders. 

Results from Biennial Conference, APHIS

NPIP was founded based on flock testing. Companies testing based on an airspace level do so as an internal business decision not as an NPIP requirement. During the Biennial Conference it was decided that to specifically add testing based on airspace to the compartment programme would lead to confusion and inconsistencies throughout the entire NPIP program, which includes the AI Clean programme, a prerequisite to earn Compartment status. Changing testing for the Compartment participants would potentially change the testing of the AI Clean programme in 9 CFR- Part 145, which could affect all NPIP participants.  

Participants of the programme must meet the requirements in 9 CFR and programme standards. However, if they choose to add testing procedures independently, that would be a company decision. NPIP Standards were developed to be applicable to multiple business models. While it currently only has Subpart H meat type primary participants, Compartment participation is also eligible to the turkey and egg type primaries. The more specific and tailored the Standards for one sector of the industry, the less likely that the programme will continue to work as intended for other sectors of the industry.  

The selected sample numbers were historically calculated based on statistical analysis and scientific evidence to determine sample size collections, that indicate that 30 birds need to be sampled to detect disease with 95 percent confidence, assuming a 10 percent prevalence within a flock.  Based on these calculations and surveillance standards, to date, the United States has continued to protect the compartments during times of high-risk. NPIP believes it has an adequate and sound surveillance program, and feel this assertion is supported by the fact that our compartments have remained intact during the ongoing HPAI outbreak.   

Recommendation 6

To include in future versions of the audit checklists in the Compartment Program Standards a requirement for auditors to verify compliance with routine AI testing requirements. 

APHIS response

NPIP certified compartment auditors are already required to verify AI testing against the Program Standards requirements. The specific audit checklist item can be found on page 59 of the Program Standards, ‘source flocks participate in NPIP AI Clean or equivalent programme,’ to which auditors must confirm compliance. On the initial and yearly recertification audits, the auditors verify compliance by reviewing past flocks testing records to prove that the compartment companies are completing routine AI testing requirements, including test type and frequency. 

In addition, on Applications A, B, and C, found within the Program Standards, the Official State Agencies must also verify that all operations seeking certification as components within the registered compartment are located in a state which has an APHIS approved Initial State Response and Containment Plan (ISRCP) as described in 9CFR 56.10, and are in good standing with the NPIP US Avian Influenza Clean programme. 

This process has proven to be successful as the approved compartments have to date, remained in good standing as participants of the US AI Clean and US AI Clean Compartment programmes.

Great Britain response

It is not clear that the specific checklist item on page 59 fulfils the statement that during ‘recertification audits, the auditors verify compliance by reviewing past flocks testing records to prove that the compartment companies are completing routine AI testing requirements, including test type and frequency’.  

If the auditor is relying upon participation in the AI Clean programme to fulfil the AI testing requirements, how is the participation in this programme audited? Please could APHIS clarify the auditing requirements for AI Clean programme participants, including frequency of recertification audits and how adherence to the testing requirements of the AI Clean programme is verified.  

Please also clarify what would qualify as an ‘equivalent programme’, as the Standards allow for source flocks to be part of a scheme other than the AI Clean programme. 

APHIS response

Thank you. We will submit a proposed change to the Biennial Conference for the consideration of stakeholders, to include additional language to ensure that OSA’s and auditors adequately verify that, ‘source flocks participate in NPIP AI Clean or equivalent programme’. 

For Compartment companies to introduce new genetic stock from other countries the term ‘equivalent’ must be included.  

To determine equivalence, a discussion would have to take place between the OSA and NPIP, and at minimum, would have to meet the requirements of our NPIP programmes, including any, and all prerequisite programmes.

Results from Biennial Conference, APHIS

The proposal to add the specific language to audit checklist to ‘certify’ that compartment auditors are verifying that the mentioned items are ‘in compliance with’ routine AI testing requirements, was passed by NPIP delegation.  

Recommendation 7

To require that hatching eggs, day- old chicks or birds introduced into the compartment from non- compartment premises are quarantined until confirmation has been received that they have tested negative for AI. 

APHIS response

Movements into the compartments are rare. However, to ensure the integrity of the US AI Clean Compartment, there are protocols in place to ensure that all hatching eggs, day-old chicks, and birds entering the compartment must be sourced from a US AI Clean or equivalent programme. Hatching eggs must be derived from a source flock in which 30 samples have tested negative to AI using an approved NPIP assay within 21 days of the shipment. 

For live bird or hatching egg movements into compartments, source flocks are required to participate in a NPIP US AI Clean programme or equivalent. Pullets, cockerels, and adult birds originating outside the compartment tested negative to AI (30 samples via serology and 15 samples via PCR) within 21 days prior to the shipment. Flocks are inspected by an official veterinarian (that is, USDA accredited veterinarian) or designated individual 30 days prior to the movement. These requirements are included on page 19 of the Program Standards and the audit checklist. 

Quarantines are not necessary because NPIP only allows for movement of birds/hatching eggs originating from US AI Clean or flocks from an equivalent programme, with health records and testing verified before the birds/ hatching eggs move. The compartment auditors verify during the yearly recertification audits that companies are meeting these requirements for any egg or bird movements within or into the compartments. 

Great Britain response

The Great Britain Compartment Schedules require for all movements into compartments of hatching eggs, DOC and birds originating from sources outside the compartment (except from other approved compartment sites in Great Britain), to be quarantine for 21 days, commencing from the date when the last externally sourced bird was introduced, plus negative clinical findings and negative virology or serology results before release. 

If movements into the compartments are only permitted from a US AI Clean or equivalent programme, then the Compartment Program Standards need to be updated. 

This requirement is currently unclear, requirements stated on pages 19 to 20 of the Standards and in the checklists, refer to either an official veterinarian inspecting the source flock 30 days prior to movement or that birds have to be sourced from a flock participating in the US AI Clean programme.  

‘Pullets, cockerels, and adult birds originating outside the compartment tested negative to AI (30 samples via serology and 15 samples via PCR) within 21 days prior to the shipment.’

The above seems to imply that birds could be sourced from premises not part of the US AI Clean programme. 

Please also clarify what would qualify as an ‘equivalent programme’ as the Standards allow for source flocks to be part of a scheme other than the AI Clean programme. 

APHIS response 

There are different requirements for bird/egg/day old chick movement into the compartment and within the compartment. Additionally, there are specifications for each of these types of movements specifically laid out per component type:

• farm (written protocols pages 19 to 20 – checklist page 59)
• hatchery (written pages 25 to 26 – checklist page 69-70)
• egg depot (written page 28 – checklist page 74).

All movements into the compartments, birds/eggs, must be sourced from an AI Clean or equivalent source. The quoted bullet point from the standards description presented in the third column of this document does not mention the requirement. However, in the audit checklist it clearly states the requirement that day-old chicks, hatching eggs, and birds, all must come from an AI clean equivalent programme.   

These requirements all have triple asterisks *** at their side, indicating their importance as major non-compliances. If an auditor finds non-compliance in any of these categories, the companies will lose their compartment status. 

To determine equivalence, a discussion would have to take place between the OSA and NPIP, and at minimum, would have to meet the requirements of our NPIP programmes, including any, and all prerequisite programmes. 

If this remains unclear, we can propose adding language to clarify at the upcoming Biennial Conference. 

Results from Biennial Conference, APHIS

NPIP delegation voted to pass the addition of the language, ‘source flocks participate in NPIP AI Clean or equivalent programme’, to the written Farm Management Procedures, page 19 of Compartment Program Standards, in order to clarify, update, and better mirror the management guidelines and audit checklist.

Recommendation 8

To ensure that the competent authority notifies compartment companies when they enter a high- risk period and to include this requirement in future versions of the compartment programme standards    

APHIS response

The US NPIP programme agrees with this recommendation and will be drafting the proposed changes for the Program Standards alongside federal and industry partners. Changes to the Program Standards must be proposed at the next Biennial Conference for voting and approval. 

The competent authority notifies the compartment companies to implement AI HRP protocols when AI is confirmed in poultry in a state or within a 30-mile radius of a compartment facility. The compartments must operate under AI HRP guidelines until the competent authority notifies the company that the control areas of the last poultry premises have been released, and the AI HRP protocols may be discontinued. Auditors will verify compliance during the yearly recertification. 

Great Britain response

 Thank you for agreeing with this recommendation. We agree that auditors should verify compliance during the annual recertification process. 

Results from Biennial Conference, APHIS

The NPIP delegation voted to pass the addition of incorporating a formalised notification procedure during periods of high risk, within Compartment Program Standards.

Recommendation 9

To ensure that future versions of the compartment programme standards and their application is robust to prevent wildlife access to the biosecure zone. 

APHIS response

The Program Standards include definitions on page 13 (copied below) for biosecure zone, a biosecure zone barrier, and controlled access zone. The audit checklist includes several construction and management requirements to certify that buildings are designed and built to prevent and deter the entry of wildlife, pests, and companion animals. It also verifies that each entrance to the biosecure zone is locked or controlled at all times. Also, if livestock is present at the farms, it must be separated from the controlled access zone by a fence. 

Approved compartments must continue these practices to remain certified in the US AI Clean Compartments programme. When livestock are present, approved compartments have installed fencing to ensure that livestock do not have access to the control access zones. Companies also use predator decoys strategically placed throughout the controlled access zone, to deter wildlife. 

Programme standards definitions pertaining to the biosecure zone on page 13: 

• Biosecure zone: zone of the compartment premises to which high biosecurity standards apply for the disease of concern. All personnel must undergo a whole-body shower and change of clothing and footwear prior to entering the biosecure zone. A biosecure zone barrier must define the limits of the biosecure zone. The biosecure zone may include multi-age and multi-building premises in which personnel, visitors, and contractors follow all company-established procedures. 

• Biosecure zone barrier: contains all or portions of the external walls of buildings or geographic structures that discourage human and animal traffic. Permanent structures that may consist of, at minimum high, 4-foot chain link fences that form the perimeter of a totally enclosed the biosecurity zoned are adequate. 

• Controlled access zone: a procedure which may be implemented by a country to define and manage animal subpopulations of distinct health status within its territory, in accordance with the recommendations in the OIE [WOAH] Terrestrial Animal Health Code (the Code), for the purpose of disease control and/or international trade.

Great Britain response

Thank you for clarifying the Compartment Program Standards. We understand that these are the requirements outlined in the Standards. However, whilst visiting one compartment premises, auditors observed wild deer grazing on grass next to poultry sheds. The deer were in ‘the biosecure zone’; according to the definition in the Program Standards, as personnel had to undergo a whole body shower and change of clothing and footwear to enter the area in which the deer were present. The fences and natural barriers creating the ‘biosecure zone barrier’ on site had not prevented wildlife access in this instance. This is a clear biosecurity risk with the deer acting as potential fomites for transmission of HPAI and other pathogens.  

Whilst livestock must be separated from the controlled access zone by a fence, this requirement must also be extended to wildlife. Wildlife should be prevented from breaching both the perimeter fence and biosecure zone barrier of a compartment premises. 

APHIS response

Thank you for your clarification. We will submit your recommendation to stakeholders at the Biennial Conference for consideration. 

We would also like to clarify that in the particular example raised by Defra on column three, the wild deer seen during the audit, were actually located in the controlled access zone for this company. Due to the differences in the company business models, the classifications of their controlled access zones and their biosecure zones differ slightly.  

To clarify, we will submit a proposed change to the upcoming Biennial Conference to clarify the definitions of biosecure zone, biosecure zone barrier, and controlled access zone, to include the allowance for the differences in business models and compartment participants. 

Results from Biennial Conference, APHIS

The NPIP delegation voted to pass proposed edits to clarify the definitions for ‘biosecure zone barrier’ and ‘controlled access zone’.