1. Allow vaccination to be rolled out as quickly as possible, as vaccine is delivered;
2. Reduce the cost of vaccination to a minimum by using existing delivery chains and reducing regulatory burdens; and
3. Give farmers the freedom to take business decisions based on knowledge of the potential costs of the disease and significant benefits that vaccination offers.

The likely overall costs involved in such a programme in England could total around £19 million, an average of around £330 per vaccinating farm. As individual farmers will be responsible for the costs of vaccination, it is important to keep costs as low as possible to encourage maximum participation.

On the other hand, a compulsory programme would involve increased regulatory burdens and a level of enforcement to check compliance. Based on some assumptions on the costs involved with this, coupled with other administration costs, makes it over 50% more expensive overall than voluntary vaccination (at around £30 million) and about 40% more costly per vaccinating farm (at around £470).

The Commission has announced that EU co-funding will be available for some costs associated with emergency vaccination programmes. This can include up to 100% of the cost of the vaccine but only 50% of the costs of delivery, up to a certain ceiling.

However, any funding would –

• Only be available for 2008
• Is likely to require high levels of official supervision (increasing costs and reducing speed of delivery) and
• Could only be claimed some time after the programme, subject to satisfactory audits.

However, even taking into account the effect of any possible co-funding, the costs of a compulsory programme still significantly outweigh the costs of a voluntary one. This is mainly due to the additional enforcement and administration costs involved in a compulsory scheme. Also, because of the long-standing abatement arrangements with the EU, which greatly benefit the UK as a whole, the real value of any co-funding is only around one-third of anything awarded.*

We will seek any co-funding available, provided it is not tied to conditions that are inconsistent with the aims for controlling disease or would increase the overall costs of vaccination to farmers. If a voluntary scheme is tied to Commission requirements which will increase overall costs or slow down the speed of vaccine delivery, then it may be better to forego such funding in favour of a simple, voluntary vaccination programme which is able to deliver the benefits listed above.

* The abatement refunds to the UK approximately two-thirds the difference between its contribution to the EC Budget and the money it receives from the EC Budget. Any increase in Budget receipts reduces the deficit that the abatement is designed to correct for and, consequently, the value of the abatement. This means that the real value to the UK of any co-funding is only around one-third of anything awarded.