EN    EN EN 
SANCO/4560/2009 (POOL/D1/20 09/4560/4560IA-EN.doc) 
 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 16.6.2009 
SEC(2009) 776 final 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
 
Accompanying document to the  
Proposal for a  
 
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 
 
amending Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 laying down the an imal health requirements 
applicable to the non-commerc ial movement of pet animals 
  
IMPACT ASSESSMENT 
{COM(2009) 268 final} 
{SEC(2009) 777} 
Lead DG: DG SANCO  
Other involved services: AGR I, ENTR, SG, TAXUD, TRADE 
Agenda planning: 2008/SANCO/010 The report commits only the Commission’s services involved in its prepara tion and the text is 
prepared as a basis for comment and does not pr ejudge the final form of any decision to be 
taken by the Commission. 
 
EN 2   EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1. Executive summary...................................................................................................... 7 
2. Procedural issues and consulta tion of interested parties............................................ 10 
2.1. Procedural issues........................................................................................................ 1 0 
2.2. Consultation of interested parties............................................................................... 10 2.2.1. Public consultation..................................................................................................... 10 
2.2.2. Consultation of competent authorities ....................................................................... 11 2.2.3. Consultation of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) .................................. 12 2.2.4. Consultation of EU-approve d serology laboratories.................................................. 12 
2.2.5. Consultation of the Union of European Veterinary Practitioners (UEVP)................ 12 2.2.6. Inter-Service Steering Group (ISSG)......................................................................... 13 2.2.7. Impact Assessment Board (IAB) ............................................................................... 13 3. Problem identification................................................................................................ 14 3.1. Legal background....................................................................................................... 14 3.1.1. Legal obligation to review the Regulation................................................................. 14 3.1.2. General regime.......................................................................................................... . 15 
3.1.2.1. Movements within the EU ......................................................................................... 15 3.1.2.2. Entry into the EU ..................................................................................................... .. 15 
3.1.3. Transitional regime .................................................................................................... 1 6 
3.1.3.1. Rabies................................................................................................................ ......... 16 
3.1.3.2. Echinococcus/ticks.................................................................................................... . 17 
3.1.3.3. Bilateral regime between Sweden and Denmark ....................................................... 17 3.1.4. Free movement regime between the UK and Ireland................................................. 17 3.2. Issues to tackle .......................................................................................................... . 20 
3.2.1. The current national rules are complex and place a considerable burden on pet 
owners ........................................................................................................................ 2 0 
3.2.2. Equivalence of health status for rabies, Echinococcosis (E. multilocularis) and ticks 
in the Member States.................................................................................................. 23 
3.2.2.1. Rabies................................................................................................................ ......... 23 
3.2.2.2. Echinococcosis ( Echinococcus multilocularis ).......................................................... 26 
3.2.2.3. Ticks................................................................................................................. .......... 26 
 
EN 3   EN 3.3. The principle of subsidiarity ...................................................................................... 26 
4. Objectives.................................................................................................................. . 26 
5. Key policy options ..................................................................................................... 26 6. Impact analysis........................................................................................................... 28  
6.1. Preliminary remarks................................................................................................... 28 6.1.1. Costs incurred by owners to prepare a pet ................................................................. 29 6.1.2. Administrative costs................................................................................................... 3 1 
6.2. Analysis of impacts of option 1: No action ................................................................ 31 
6.2.1. Economic impacts ...................................................................................................... 32  
6.2.1.1. Pet owners ............................................................................................................ ...... 32 
6.2.1.2. Authorised veterinarians ............................................................................................ 33  
6.2.1.3. EU-approved rabies serology laboratories................................................................. 33 6.2.1.4. Suppliers of anti-parasite treatments.......................................................................... 34 6.2.1.5. Transport companies ('carriers')................................................................................. 34 6.2.1.6. Quarantine facilities ................................................................................................. .. 34 
6.2.1.7. Competent authorities ................................................................................................ 3 5 
6.2.1.8. Third countries ....................................................................................................... .... 35 
6.2.1.9. Others ................................................................................................................ ......... 35 
6.2.2. Social impacts .......................................................................................................... .. 35 
6.2.2.1. Employ ment ............................................................................................................ ... 35 
6.2.2.2. Welfare of citizens ................................................................................................... .. 36 
6.2.2.3. Public health......................................................................................................... ...... 36 
6.2.3. Environmental impacts .............................................................................................. 38 6.3. Analysis of impacts of option 2: Extension of the transitional regime ...................... 38 
6.3.1. Economic impacts ...................................................................................................... 39  
6.3.2. Social impacts .......................................................................................................... .. 39 
6.3.3. Environmental impacts .............................................................................................. 39 6.4. Analysis of impacts of option 3: Adjustment of the current  rules applicable to all 
Member States ............................................................................................................ 39 
6.4.1. Economic impacts ...................................................................................................... 40  
6.4.1.1. Pet owners ............................................................................................................ ...... 40 
 
EN 4   EN 6.4.1.2. Authorised veterinarians ............................................................................................ 40  
6.4.1.3. EU-approved rabies serology laboratories................................................................. 40 6.4.1.4. Anti-parasite treatment suppliers ............................................................................... 41 6.4.1.5. Transport companies ('carriers')................................................................................. 41 6.4.1.6. Quarantine facilities ................................................................................................. .. 41 
6.4.1.7. Competent authorities ................................................................................................ 4 1 
6.4.1.8. Third countries ....................................................................................................... .... 41 
6.4.2. Social impacts .......................................................................................................... .. 41 
6.4.2.1. Employ ment ............................................................................................................ ... 41 
6.4.2.2. Welfare of citizens ................................................................................................... .. 42 
6.4.2.3. Public health......................................................................................................... ...... 42 
6.4.3. Environmental impacts .............................................................................................. 42 6.5. Analysis of impacts of option 4:  Continuation of the tr ansitional regime on a 
permanent basis ......................................................................................................... 42 
6.5.1. Economic impacts ...................................................................................................... 42  
6.5.1.1. Pet owners ............................................................................................................ ...... 42 
6.5.1.2. Authorised veterinarians ............................................................................................ 43  
6.5.1.3. EU-approved rabies serology laboratories................................................................. 43 6.5.1.4. Anti-parasite treatment suppliers ............................................................................... 44 6.5.1.5. Transport companies ('carriers')................................................................................. 44 6.5.1.6. Quarantine facilities ................................................................................................. .. 45 
6.5.1.7. Competent authorities ................................................................................................ 4 5 
6.5.1.8. Impact on third countries ........................................................................................... 45  
6.5.2. Social impacts .......................................................................................................... .. 45 
6.5.2.1. Employ ment ............................................................................................................ ... 45 
6.5.2.2. Welfare of citizens ................................................................................................... .. 46 
6.5.2.3. Public health......................................................................................................... ...... 46 
6.5.3. Environmental impacts .............................................................................................. 46 7. Comparison of the different options .......................................................................... 46 7.1. Comparison of impacts .............................................................................................. 46 7.2. Discussing the options ............................................................................................... 51 
 
EN 5   EN 8. Monitoring and evaluation ......................................................................................... 54 
9. Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 5 5 
ANNEX 1........................................................................................................................ ......... 57 
ANNEX 2........................................................................................................................ ......... 59 
ANNEX 3........................................................................................................................ ......... 60 
ANNEX 4........................................................................................................................ ......... 63 
ANNEX 5........................................................................................................................ ......... 65 
ANNEX 6........................................................................................................................ ......... 66 
ANNEX 7........................................................................................................................ ......... 68 
ANNEX 8........................................................................................................................ ......... 69 
ANNEX 9........................................................................................................................ ......... 73 
ANNEX 10....................................................................................................................... ........ 75 
ANNEX 11....................................................................................................................... ........ 77 
ANNEX 12....................................................................................................................... ........ 78 
ANNEX 13....................................................................................................................... ........ 81 
ANNEX 14....................................................................................................................... ........ 82 
ANNEX 15....................................................................................................................... ........ 83 
ANNEX 16....................................................................................................................... ........ 84 
ANNEX 17....................................................................................................................... ........ 85 
ANNEX 18....................................................................................................................... ........ 89 
ANNEX 19....................................................................................................................... ........ 90 
 
EN 6   EN ANNEX 20....................................................................................................................... ........ 93 
ANNEX 21....................................................................................................................... ........ 95 
ANNEX 22....................................................................................................................... ........ 99 
ANNEX 23....................................................................................................................... ...... 102 
ANNEX 24....................................................................................................................... ...... 103 
 
EN 7   EN 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  
The item is part of the Commission ag enda planning /work programme under the 
reference 2008/SANCO/010. 
Regulation (EC) No 998/20031 of the European Parliament and of the Council ('the 
Regulation') lays down harmonised animal health requirements applicable to non-
commercial movements of pet animals with in and into the Community ("general 
regime"). 
The rules established by the Regulation are the outcome of a controversial 
discussion, in particular on rabies, which re sulted in a delicate compromise granting 
certain special conditions to five Member States for a transitional period of time. 
Indeed, the Regulation grants a period of five  years starting from the date of its entry 
into force, i.e. until 3 July  2008 (extended to 30 June 20102), to Finland, Ireland, 
Malta, Sweden and the United Kingdom to ma ke the entry of pet animals into their 
territory subject to compliance with certa in additional requirements to prevent the 
risk of introducing rabies, echinococcus and ticks ("transitional regime").  
The Regulation lays down a legal obligati on to review the rules by the end of the 
transitional period  and requests  the Commission to submit to the European 
Parliament and to the Council a report ba sed on experience gained and on a risk 
evaluation together with appropriate propos als for determining the regime to be 
applied at the end of the transitional period. The Commission adopted its report3 on 
8 October 2007 together with a proposal to the Council a nd the European Parliament 
to briefly extend the transitional measures until September 2009 (further deferred to 30 June 2010
2) to allow sufficient time to cons ider all aspects and consult all 
interested parties on the options. 
In the light of its report, the outcome of  various recent consultations conducted and 
the available updated information on the diseases concerned - rabies, Echinococcosis  
and/or tick-borne diseases - in the w hole EU, the Commission s hould now assess the 
long-term options and in particular the cas e for extending the general regime to the 
Member States currently operating under the transitional regime. 
When evaluating the available options for de termining the regime to be applied after 
the end of the transitional period, the Comm ission's primary objective is to ensure a 
sufficiently high, risk–adequate  and proportionate level of protection of animal and 
public health. The operational objective is to determine the regime that will supplant the transitional regime as of 1 July 2010. These are the purposes of the current 
impact assessment. 
                                                
 
1 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/e n/consleg/2003/R/02003R0998-20081122-en.pdf . 
2 In order to take account of amendments requested by the European Parliament in relation to the 
forthcoming elections for the European Parliament in 2009, The Council and European Parliament 
eventually agreed to defer the date proposed by the Commission to 30 June 2010 by adopting Regulation (EC) No 454/2008 of 21 May 2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council. 
3 http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/liveanimals/pets/petreport_en.htm   
 
EN 8   EN The Commission has accordingly identified four policy options and impacts of an 
economic, social and environmental nature  were considered for each of them: 
Option 1 : No action  - this option means that af ter 30 June 2010, Finland, Ireland, 
Malta, Sweden and the UK will no longer ma ke the entry of pet animals into their 
territory subject to additional requirements regarding rabies, echinococcus and ticks.  
Option 2 : Extension of the transitional regime  – this option means a further 
temporary extension of the transitional period until the end of 2011, which is when 
the Commission expects to end EU suppor t to national programmes to eradicate 
sylvatic rabies in the Baltic States. A substantially improved rabies situation in those Member States would fully address the ri sks identified by EFSA and render its 
recommendations for mitigating measures obsolete. This option would require a 
Commission proposal to the European Pa rliament and the Council extending the 
transitional period for the five Member Stat es that currently apply special rules and 
clarifying the regime that woul d apply as from 1 January 2012. 
Option 3
: Adjustment of the current rules  applicable to all Member States  – this 
option means ending the specific conditions applied by the five Member States and 
implementing a harmonised regime by means of a technically reviewed Regulation 
based on a Commission pr oposal taking into account the EFSA opinions. 
Option 4: Continuation of the transitional  regime on a permanent basis  – this option 
means an indefinite extension of the transitional regime and therefore enables the Member States claiming free status, including Finland, Ir eland, Malta, Sweden and 
the UK, to systematically request additiona l guarantees. This option would require a 
Commission proposal to the European Parl iament and the Council to ensure equal 
treatment of all Member States. 
A Commission proposal to the European Parl iament and the Counc il, as per options 
2, 3 and 4, should in any case enhance le gal clarity by addres sing some unclear 
provisions of the current Regulation, in part icular concerning th e regime that would 
apply in all Member States at the end of  the transitional period. However, any such 
proposal might lead, at Council and European Parliament level, to reopening of the 
debate on some fundamental aspects of th e Regulation not covered by the present 
impact assessment and for which a delicate compromise was achieved in 2003. 
Following on from the impact assessment, preference has been given to options 1 
and 2, which are similar in principle. Eith er would entail removing, sooner or later, 
the unjustified disparities, discriminati on and burden felt by citizens including 
citizens from the five Member States w ho are affected by additional requirements 
when returning from abroad. At the same time, both options woul d maintain a high 
level of safety for pet movements within and into the EU, by applying the general 
regime, which has proved to be effective in preventing human and pet animal cases 
of rabies caused by lawful movement of pets between and into Member States.  
Both options also take into account most of the EFSA recommendations, in 
particular those related to  echinococcus and ticks. As  regards rabies, EU-supported 
national eradication programmes in Member St ates with sylvatic rabies have recently 
led to a quasi-equivalent situation in all Member States which is comparable to the 
situation in those EU-15 Me mber States where rabies in wildlife was still a 
 
EN 9   EN significant problem when Regulation (E C) No 998/2003 was adopted. The current 
situation does not justify the implementa tion of differentiated and discriminatory 
rules according to the country of orig in. Beefing up the ri sk assessment with 
elements other than those used by EFSA ha s proved to be effective in preventing the 
introduction of rabies through pet movements from listed third count ries such as the 
USA and the Russian Federation with a signifi cantly higher preval ence of rabies in 
wildlife than Member States with remaining sylvatic rabies. 
Both options would ensure that there is sufficient time for the competent authorities 
of Finland, Ireland, Malta, Sweden and the UK to provide  the public with clear and 
easily accessible information concerning the new rules.  
There is a slight advantage in selecting option 2 over option 1. In terms of lowering 
the public health risk, a reasonable exte nsion of the transitional measures would 
defer the application of the general regime throughout the EU to a point in time when 
EU-supported measures to eradi cate remaining pockets of sylvatic rabies in the EU 
will render the EFSA recomme ndations on risk mitigation redundant. Moreover, in 
accordance with the Regulation, by 2011 electr onic identification w ill be the only 
means of identifying an animal. This should ensure additional safety and security of 
the movement of pet animals since the new system in place would avoid falsifications and make the identification information easier to read. Option 2 would 
also clarify the regime that would apply at  the end of the tran sitional period in all 
Member States.  
Given the enlargement of the Schengen area and the consequent disappearance of 
control points, such a delay could be suffi cient to dispel remaining concerns and 
prejudices about the perceived risks rela ted to pet movements and thus facilitate 
acceptance of the general regime in all Member States.  
In contrast, options 3 and 4 do not appear to  contribute meaningfully to solving the 
most acute problems voiced by administrations and citizens affected by a complicated, burdensome and inconsistent system of excessive and unjustified 
animal health requirements rega rding the diseases concerned. 
Option 3 would take full account of the E FSA opinion on rabies, which recommends 
additional risk-mitigating measures for certain categories of pet animals coming from Baltic States. It would, however, not onl y increase confusion amongst travellers 
dealing with new regimes according to the country of origin, but also completely 
disregard other risk-relevant aspects consid ered in listing third countries. It would 
give those Member States an unjustifiabl e bad reputation and discriminate against 
them in favour of certain listed third count ries. This is contrary to the fundamental 
principles of the EU Treaty. It would al so disregard Member States' requests for 
simplification based on field evidence. 
Moreover, when redesigning the rules for movement of pets on technical grounds 
(option 3), the most likely scen ario would be that those Me mber States that currently 
benefit from the transitional regime woul d have no reason to depart from their 
traditionally very restrictive policy, other equally rabies-free Member States might 
well perceive the general regime as excessive, and the Baltic States, given their improved situation, might see it as discrimi natory. The result would be a compromise 
 
EN 10   EN that further diversifies the movement condi tions and dismantles an efficient and well-
tried regime without improving the overal l level of protectio n within the EU. 
Option 4 would assign to the five Member States, and possibly to other free Member 
States in the future, a particular status with  regard to the diseases concerned which is 
not supported by the relevant sc ientific EFSA opinions. It is a far cry from the desire 
of most Member States to achieve harm onisation and simplify pet movements within 
and into the EU, considering the similarity of  the animal health situation in the EU. It 
would continue to prove onerous for citi zens including those re-entering the five 
Member States and possibly other free Member  States. This option is likely to be 
opposed by most of the Member St ates as it will appear to  be granting scientifically 
unjustified privileges. 
2. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES  
2.1. Procedural issues 
The item is part of the Commission ag enda planning /work programme (reference 
2008/SANCO/010). 
This Impact Assessment ('the IA') follows the structure given in the Commission’s 
IA guidelines SEC (2005)791 of 15 June 2005.  
2.2. Consultation of interested parties 
In accordance with Article 23 of Regula tion (EC) No 998/2003 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council laying down th e animal health requirements applicable 
to the non-commercial movement of pet an imals ('the Regulation'), the Commission 
was required to submit, before 1 February 2007, a report together  with appropriate 
proposals for a revised regime, based on a risk evaluation and on experience gained 
by the Member States. 
To this end, the Commission has officia lly consulted the European Food Safety 
Authority (EFSA) and the competent author ities of Member St ates. The Commission 
Report to the European Parliament a nd the Council was adopted on 8 October 20074. 
Moreover, in order to co llect data for producing its impact assessment, the 
Commission has also consulted other interested parties. 
2.2.1.  Public consultation 
The above-mentioned Commission report has been placed on the DG SANCO 
website and interested partie s have had the opportunity to send their comments on it, 
including the last section of the report, which lists preliminary options to adapt the regime. No reaction from the public has been recorded so far. 
The Commission has also registered an in crease of Parliamentary questions in 
relation to the Regulation and mainly concerning complaints from British, Irish and 
                                                
 
4 COM(2007) 578 final. 
 
EN 11   EN Swedish citizens on the difficulties encountered in moving pets to those Member 
States under the transitional regime. 
2.2.2.  Consultation of competent authorities 
With a view to producing its report, the Commission officially requested the 
27 Member States' competent authorities in October 2006 to provide information on 
experience gained so far with the impl ementation of Articles 6, 8 and 16 of the 
Regulation (Annex 1). This drew a signi ficant response from  20 Member States5 
ranging from a detailed report based on ex ternal surveys to a short statement. 
In order to help EFSA with its opinions on echinococcosis and ticks, the Commission 
officially requested in December 2005 that the five Member States which have been 
allowed to retain their national rules according to Article 16 of the Regulation 
provide a report on the situa tion with regard to  those diseases, se tting out grounds for 
the need for additional guarantees to prevent the risk of introduction of those diseases 
(Annex 2). Except Malta, four Memb er States did provide a report. 
With a view to producing this impact assessment, on 27 September 2007 the 
Commission officially requested  the five Member States that have been allowed to 
retain their national rules to provide all th e information they c onsider relevant and 
useful for drawing up the impact assessment, in particular the impact on approved transport companies ('carriers') and quarantine facilities if national rules were to be withdrawn and the outcome of any stakeh older consultation (Annex 3). The five 
Member States did provide a detailed answer. 
In addition, on 23 November 2007 the Co mmission officially requested the 27 
Member States to provide information on the average costs of preparation of a pet animal incurred by pet owners before move ment (Annex 4). This information serves 
as a basis for any calculation of econom ic impacts of each option identified. 19 
Member States
6 did provide a detailed answer. 
In the same context, on 20 December 2007 th e Commission also officially requested 
Malta, Ireland, Sweden and the United Kingdom  ('the UK') to provide information on 
any arrangements regarding rabies which may exist between them in accordance with 
the provisions of the last paragraph of Article 6 of the Regulation (Annex 5). The 
four Member States provided a detailed answer. 
Following the initial consultations, more de tailed information was sought from the 
competent authorities of some Member Stat es (e.g. Sweden in the framework of the 
bilateral agreement existing between Sweden and Denmark established by 
Commission Decision 2004/557/EC7). 
                                                 
5 Except RO and BG who were not yet part of the EU; EE, GR, HU and MT did not respond to the 
consultation. 
6 AT, BG, DE, FR, GR, PL, SI and SK did not respond to the consultation. 
7 OJ L 249, 23.7.2004, p. 18. 
 
EN 12   EN 2.2.3.  Consultation of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) 
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA ) was requested to issue a scientific 
opinion to assist the Commi ssion in its science-based review of the Regulation. 
• The Commission asked EFSA  on 11 January 2006 to i ssue a scientific opinion 
on an assessment of the risk of rabi es introduction into the UK, Ireland, 
Sweden and Malta, as a conseque nce of abandoning serological tests 
measuring protective antibodies to rabies . The scientific opinion and its related 
press release were published on 28 February 20078. 
• The Commission also asked EFSA on 17 July 2006 to issue a scientific opinion 
on an assessment of the risk of echinoc occosis/ticks introduction into the UK, 
Ireland, Sweden, Malta and Finland as a consequence of abandoning the national rules. The scientific opinions on "echinococcosis" and "ticks" were 
respectively published on 26 January 2007
9 and 19 March 200710.  
Following its initial opinion on echinococco sis risk and in response to a special 
request from Sweden, EFSA was asked by the Commission on 30 October 2008 to 
provide scientific advice on whether r ecent additional information provided by 
Sweden would change its previous scien tific opinion on the s ubject (Annex 6). In 
response, EFSA confirmed that the inform ation provided did not add significant new 
elements and therefore would not change conclusions and recommendations made in 
the opinion (Annex 7). 
2.2.4.  Consultation of EU-approved serology laboratories 
With a view to producing this impact assessment, on 27 September 2007 the 
Commission officially requested 36 labor atories that are a pproved to perform 
serological tests, situated in the EU and Switzerland (out of the 54 worldwide 
laboratories), to monitor the e ffectiveness of rabies vaccines, to fill in a questionnaire 
aiming at evaluating the potential impact on th eir activities of a regime which may 
restrict the implementation of a test (Annex 8). 
2.2.5.  Consultation of the Union of European Veterinary Practitioners (UEVP) 
The UEVP is an organisation of 27 na tional organisations for veterinary 
practitioners. UEVP is affiliated to the Fe deration of Veterinarians of Europe (FVE) 
and the largest of FVE's sections. 
UEVP took the initiative to  call the Commission's atten tion on several occasions in 
2006 and 2007 to various issues regarding the review of th e Regulation. In response 
to the publication of the Commission's re port on its website, UEVP expressed its 
opinion on the review of the regime provi ded for in Article 23 of the Regulation 
(Annex 9). 
                                                 
8 http://www.efsa.europa.e u/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_1178620772660.htm   
9 http://www.efsa.europa.e u/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_1178620772901.htm   
10 http://www.efsa.europa.e u/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_1178620771045.htm   
 
EN 13   EN 2.2.6.  Inter-Service Steering Group (ISSG) 
Given the cross-cutting nature of the i ssues concerned, the Commission set up an 
ISSG to collect specialised  inputs and bring a wider perspective to the process 
(Annex 10). 
DGs AGRI, ENTR, SG, TAXUD and TRADE were  invited to attend meetings and to 
express comments of which account was taken as far as possible. However, it should 
be noted that the interest of the DGs was limited. 
2.2.7.  Impact Assessment Board (IAB) 
A draft impact assessment was submitted to the IAB on 20 February 2008 and 
discussed at the Board's meeting of 17 March 2008. The opinion of the IAB published on 19 March 2008 included a num ber of recommendations for improving 
the impact assessment report. The key amendments made to the impact assessment following the issuing of the Board' s initial opinion are as follows: 
• Refining the comparison of options by de fining a clear baseli ne (option 4) for 
comparing options. In addition, remark s on possible differentiation per group 
of countries (Member States currentl y under the transitional regime; Member 
States applying the general regime; th e UK/Ireland; listed third countries; non-
listed third countries) have been added in  the "analysis of impacts" section as 
much as possible.  
• Clarifying in the "problem definition" section the special regime applying to 
pet animals moved betw een the UK and Ireland. 
• Providing additional data on the rabies si tuation in EU-15 Member States at the 
time when the Regulation was adopted as well as additional data from EU-27 Member States still affected by epidemics of wildlife rabies. 
• Shortening the text to approximately  30 pages excluding annexes, executive 
summary and tables. 
The draft impact assessment report was re-submitted to the IAB. The IAB's final 
opinion published on 20 January 2009 reque sted the following amendments: 
• Refining the overview table comparing the various options for action (section 
7) to adequately address the recomm endations of the previous IAB opinion. 
• Clarifying and analysing the implicatio ns of the various options as regards 
continuation of the free movement re gime practised betw een Ireland and the 
UK. 
The revision of the impact assessment in  line with the recommendations of the IAB 
led to a change in the preferred option. 
 
EN 14   EN 3. PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION  
3.1. Legal background 
3.1.1.  Legal obligation to review the Regulation 
With a view to completion of the internal market associated with the abolition of 
veterinary checks at the Community's internal frontiers, harmonised animal health requirements were adopted by Council Directive 92/65/EEC
11 as regards intra-
Community trade in and imports from thir d countries of all animals and animal 
products, including dogs, cats and ferrets . However, as the non-commercial 
movement of pet animals was a very sensit ive issue, in particular in relation to 
rabies, rules for such movements were only adopted in 2003. 
Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 of the European  Parliament and of the Council ('the 
Regulation') lays down harmonised animal h ealth requirements applicable to the non-
commercial movement of pet animals with in and into the Community ("general 
regime"), with certain derogations being gr anted for a transitional period of time to 
five Member States ("transitional regime").  
Indeed, although measures adopted at Comm unity level were deemed necessary in 
this field, complete harm onisation was not achieved wi th the Regulation. In the 
course of the negotiations, it appeared necessary for Finland, Ireland, Malta, Sweden 
and the UK to make the entry of pet animals into their territory subject to compliance 
with certain additional requirements to prevent the risk of  introducing certain 
diseases. 
Thus the Regulation allowed those five Me mber States to maintain their national 
rules - additional pre-entry measures such  as blood testing a nd/or anti-parasite 
treatment requirements - provided that this was for a transitional period to be reviewed on scientific grounds five years on from the date of entry into force of the 
Regulation.  
Article 23 of the Regulation provides for a legal obligation to review the Regulation 
at the end of the transitional period  and requires  the Commission to submit to the 
European Parliament and to the Council, before 1 February 2007, a report based on experience gained and on a risk evaluation together with appropriate proposals for 
determining the regime to be applied for Articles 6
12, 813 and 1614 of the Regulation 
at the end of the transitional period.  
On 8 October 2007 the Commission adopt ed such a report together with  a proposal 
for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council to defer the ending of 
                                                 
11 OJ L 268, 14.9.1992, p. 52. 
12 Article 6 lays down rabies testing requirements ap plicable to the entry of dogs and cats into Ireland, 
Malta, Sweden and the UK. 
13 Article 8 lays down the animal health requirements  applicable to the entry of dogs, cats and ferrets 
originating from third countries, lis ted or not listed in part C of Annex II to the Regulation. Distinct 
conditions regarding rabies testing for pets enteri ng Ireland, Malta, Sweden and the UK and for pets 
entering the rest of the Me mber States are described. 
14 Article 16 lays down anti-paras ite pre-entry treatment requirements applicable to the entry of pet 
animals into Finland, Ireland, Malta, Sweden and the UK. 
 
EN 15   EN the transitional period to 31 August 200915. The purpose of this short extension was 
to allow enough time for collecting data, consulting all interested parties and reviewing the impacts of the different options. In order to take account of 
amendments requested by the European Parliament in connection with its 
forthcoming elections in 2009, the Council an d Parliament eventu ally agreed to 
extend the transitional peri od to 30 June 2010 by adopting Regulation (EC) No 
454/2008
16 of 21 May 2008. 
Based on this report, the outcomes of the various recent consultations conducted and 
available updated information on the situation with regard to the diseases concerned - 
rabies, Echinococcosis  and/or tick-borne diseases - in the whole EU, the Commission 
should now evaluate to what extent it is sc ientifically ju stified for the five Member 
States to retain their national rules. It s hould also assess whether an alternative less 
restrictive system could be envisaged, provide d that it can offer an equivalent level 
of safety commensurate with the risk posed by pet animal movements.  
3.1.2.  General regime 
3.1.2.1.  Movements within the EU 
The Regulation stipulates that pet animals travelling with their owner from one 
Member State to another must be iden tified and accompanied by an EU passport 
(Annex 11). 
The passport laid down in Commission Decision 2003/803/EC17 contains certain 
obligatory information about the pet, such as its identification number and the proof 
of a valid anti-rabies vacci nation certified by a veterina rian authorised for the 
purpose by the competent authority. The pa ssport is valid throughout the life of the 
pet. The veterinarian can only issue a passpor t if he has verified beforehand that the 
animal is properly identified, either with a micro-chip or until 3 July 2011 a tattoo 
(Article 4 of the Regulation). 
3.1.2.2.  Entry into the EU  
The regime applicable to pets entering th e EU from third countries depends on the 
quality of guarantees provided by the third country of origin regarding rabies. The 
Regulation established three ca tegories of third countries: 
(1) The first category  - section 2 of part B of Anne x II to the Regulation - concerns 
third countries, for example Liech tenstein, Norway, San Marino and 
Switzerland, which belong from the anim al health standpoint to the same 
geographical region as the Community. The general regime applicable to 
movements within the EU applies to pet animals coming from those third 
countries.  
                                                 
15 COM (2007) 572 final. 
16 OJ L 145, 4.6.2008, p. 238. 
17 OJ L 312, 27.11.2003, p. 1. 
 
EN 16   EN (2) The second category  - part C of Annex II to th e Regulation - concerns third 
countries conditionally named "listed third countries"18 which are either 
countries free of rabies or countries in  respect of which the risk of rabies 
entering the Community as a result of m ovements of pets from  their territories 
has been found to be no higher than the risk associated with such movements 
between Member States. The general regi me applicable to movements within 
the EU applies to pet animals comi ng from those third countries. Third 
countries listed under this part are for example Aust ralia, Belarus, Canada, 
Malaysia, Mexico, Russia and th e United States of America. 
(3) The third category  concerns third countries not lis ted in part C of Annex II to 
the Regulation, designated as "non-listed third countries"19, for example Brazil, 
India, Morocco, Republic of Korea, Se rbia and South Africa. Pet animals 
coming from those third countries must  undergo rabies antibody titration with 
favourable results, carried out by an  EU-approved labo ratory on a blood 
sample taken at least 30 days after vaccination and three months prior to movement. 
Moreover, under the general regime, paragr aph 3(b) of Article 8 of the Regulation 
provides that the movement of pet an imals (dogs, cats and ferrets) between, 
respectively, San Marino, the Vatican and Italy, Monaco and France, Andorra and France or Spain, and Norway and Sweden may continue under the conditions laid 
down by national rules in force on 3 July 2004. According to the Swedish Board of 
Agriculture website
20, there are no requirements for moving dogs and cats directly 
from Norway into Sweden, and vice versa.  
3.1.3.  Transitional regime 
The transitional regime, which has been granted to Finland, Ireland, Malta, Sweden 
and the UK, is summarised in Table 1  and consists of a combination of EU and 
national rules. This regime provides both for additional entry requirements, which vary according to the Member State of destination and the disease, and for 
exemptions between the Member St ates under the transitional regime. 
3.1.3.1.  Rabies 
Article 6(1) of the Regulati on provides for the transitiona l application of mandatory 
additional rabies-risk mitigating measures in relation to pet animals of the species 
                                                
 
18 To be listed, the competent authority of the third country concerned must submit an application 
containing detailed information demonstrating its status with regard to rabies and compliance with 
certain conditions relating to notification, monitori ng, veterinary services, prevention and control of 
rabies and regulation of vaccines. Where the appli cation is eligible, the Commission adopts a Decision 
under the Comitology procedure to include the new third country in part C of Annex II to the 
Regulation. 
19 When a third country is not listed in part C of An nex II to the Regulation, this could mean that  
 • it does not fulfil the conditions to be listed, 
 • an application is under consideration, 
 • no application has been submitted for lack of needs. Indeed, an application is usually  
 submitted by the competent authorities when needs arise from expatriated EU citizens 
returning home after a professional stay abroad. 
20 http://www2.sjv.se/webdav/files/SJV /trycksaker/Pdf_ovrigt/ovr76gb.pdf  
 
EN 17   EN listed in part A of Annex I (dogs and cats)  entering Ireland, Malta, Sweden and the 
UK from other Member States and possibl e exceptions to them. Thus, the last 
paragraph of Article 6(1) allows those f our Member States to  exempt pet dogs and 
cats moving between them from the vacci nation and antibody titration requirements 
in accordance with national rules in force on 3 July 2004. 
Article 8(1) of the Regulati on provides for the transitiona l application of mandatory 
additional rabies-risk mitigating measures in relation to pet animals of the species listed in parts A and B of Annex I (dogs, cats and ferrets) entering Ireland, Malta, 
Sweden and the UK from third countries. 
Annexes 12 and 13 provide detailed inform ation respectively on the various national 
protocols in force in the Member States concerned and on the various arrangements 
existing between those Member States.  
3.1.3.2.  Echinococcus/ticks 
Article 16 of the Regulation authorises Member States that had such requirements on 
the date on which the Regulation came into force to require pre-entry anti-parasitic 
treatment (Echinoccoccus and ticks). Various  national rules are in force in Finland, 
Ireland, Malta, Sweden and the UK, including exceptions (Annex 12). 
3.1.3.3.  Bilateral regime between Sweden and Denmark 
Commission Decision 2004/557/EC
21 provides that, by derogation from Article 6 of 
the Regulation and until the end of the tr ansitional period, transit of dogs and cats 
between the Island of Bornholm and other parts of the territory of Denmark through Sweden is permitted according to the c onditions agreed between the two Member 
States (Annex 14). 
3.1.4.  Free movement regime between the UK and Ireland 
In line with the transitional regime for dogs and cats, the UK and Ireland mutually 
derogate from the anti-rabies vaccination requirements. As a perceived consequence 
of this derogation, the UK and Ireland also apply a mutual free movement regime for 
dogs and cats without the need for pet identification (marking) or passports. 
Unlike the case highlighted in section 3.1.2.2, this free movement regime is not part 
of either the general or the transitional regime since the Regu lation does not provide 
for any derogation in regard to the identif ication rules for movements within Member 
States. 
This historically established system that is based on the anti-rabies vaccination 
waiver remained in place despite the entry into force of the Re gulation, adopted by 
the Council and European Parliament. 
During the consultations, the competent aut horities of the UK and Ireland considered 
that a significant number of people would be affected by discontinuing the free 
                                                
 
21 OJ L 249, 23.7.2004, p. 19. 
 
EN 18   EN movement regime between those countries. Some 4-5 million people22 travel 
between the two countries each year, many of whom are accompanied by their pets. 
According to the UK and Ireland, removing th is free movement regime would place 
new regulatory and cost burdens on pet ow ners whereas the Regulation is directly 
applicable in Member States. 
Ireland maintains that as in the case of a non-vaccination policy the 
identification/passport requirements serve no animal/public health purpose, and 
implementing such requirements, with the consequent significant cost and inconvenience to Ireland-UK commuters would risk bringing EU law into disrepute 
and undermine EU standards with regard to  unnecessary regulation. It concludes that 
such requirements could well be deemed  an unjustified obstacle to movement. 
The free movement regime mutually applied by the UK and Ireland for dogs and cats 
is not in line with the Regulation. Ho wever, it must be acknowledged that the 
Council and European Parliament have in  the past accepted that a free movement 
scheme applies on a permanent basis for movements of all pet species between, for example, Norway and Sweden (a s explained in section 3.1.2.2). 
A complete analysis of this issue falls out side the scope of this impact assessment. 
                                                
 
22 Those figures are estimates provided by the UK and are not included in the figures in Annex 15. 
 
EN 19   EN Table 1:Overview of the rules currently applied by Member States under the transitional regime 
Legal Nature Measures IE MT SE UK FI  
Identification by passport and microchip
or tattoo until 2011 (Article 4) x x x x x 
Valid anti-rabies vaccination (Article 5) x x x x x General Regime 
Simplified import regime for pet animals 
(Article 8(3)(b))   Norway23   
Microchip compulsory x x  x n/a
Mandatory antibody titration before entry 
into their territory to confirm a protective level of anti-rabies antibodies x x x x n/aArticle 6(1) Exemptions from the anti-rabies 
vaccination and antibody titration requirements for pet dogs and cats moving between these Member States
24 x x x x n/a
Pet animals entering from listed third 
countries must comply with same rules as pets from other EU Member States  x x x x n/aArticle 8(1) Pet animals entering from non-listed third 
countries are to be put in quarantine x x x x n/aArticle 
16 Mandatory anti-parasite treatment against 
Echinococcus/ticks x x x x x Community provisions 
Article 
21 Exemptions from the passport, anti-rabies 
vaccination and antibody titration requirements for Danish dogs and cats transiting through Sweden    Denmark
25  Article 
16 Exemptions from anti-parasite treatment 
against Echinococcus/ticks26 x x x x x Transitional regime  
National Rules 
No legal basis in 
Regulation Approved transport companies  x x  x  Free movement 
regime 
National Rules 
No legal basis 
in Regulation Exemptions from the identification and 
passport requirements for pet dogs and cats moving between Ireland and the UK x   x  
                                                 
23 EEA-agreement. 
24 See details in Annex 11. 
25 See details in Annex 12. 
26 See details in Annex 10. 
 
EN 20   EN 3.2. Issues to tackle  
3.2.1.  The current national rules are complex and place a considerable burden on pet 
owners  
Preliminary remarks on pet movements  
It is very difficult – or even impossible - to  have reliable figures on the number of pet 
animals in the EU as well as the number  of pet animals which move throughout and 
into Europe, and are consequently affect ed by any rules on movements. However, 
there are indications that pet movements are generally on the rise (in parallel with an 
increase in movements of people).  
As regards the number of pets overall in the EU, according to EFSA, the number of 
dogs and cats may be estimated from huma n population by using a formula published 
by Jones et al. 2002, i.e. 1.0 dog and 1.1 cats per 10 people.  
As regards pet movements, the number of pet passports issued does not provide an 
accurate estimation of movements as passports  are issued for the whole life of a pet 
animal, allowing multiple movements. Accord ing to the Member States' consultation, 
no statistics on pet movements are available with the exception of the UK, Ireland and Malta, as those countries are islands  accessible through a limited number of 
guarded ports of entry at which informati on on movements is partly recorded by the 
customs services. Movements may concern an imals moving within and into the EU 
but also pets re-entering a Member State after a trip abroad. For example, the UK 
competent authorities have reported that 60% of the animals entering the UK are UK 
animals returning from visits abroad. In a ddition, in the case of the UK, the figures 
on pet movements are certainly underestimated since the competent authorities acknowledge that figures whic h relate to animals ente ring the UK do not include 
animals coming from Ireland as this information is not collected. 
Despite these limitations, current available figures from these Member States, 
including very recent ones (Annex 15), s how that Ireland, Malta and the UK have 
registered an impressive increase of move ments since the entry conditions into those 
Member States were ad justed by the Regulation. 
Extra burden and practical difficulties encountered by pet owners
 
The fact that the existing national rules di ffer considerably between the five Member 
States makes it difficult for travellers to understand the applicable conditions and hampers long journeys that pass through th ese Member States: a dog fulfilling the 
requirements for travelling from Portugal to  Ireland does not automatically fulfil the 
requirements for travelling to Sweden. Overall, the system seems discriminatory, unnecessarily complex and burdensome for pet owners.  
The following elements in relation to additional animal health requirements or 
obligations on transport/routes represent a burden and difficulties for pet owners: 
 
EN 21   EN (1) Additional animal health requirements  
• Blood testing and tapeworm treatment protocols are not identical in the 
five Member States entitled to  apply their national rules.  
• Blood testing and tapeworm treatme nts create burdens since time is 
needed to accomplish all the requested procedures and therefore last-minute trips are impossible.  
• Anti-parasite treatments have strict  deadline constraints and cause extra 
problems for pet owners. High veterina ry fees related to anti-parasite 
treatment could be incurred if the serv ice together with the certification is 
provided during the weekend or on a bank holiday or if, when making 
long-distance trips, owners have  to visit another veterinarian en route  to 
the final destination to meet the deadline constraints of the anti-parasite treatment protocols. In addition, it is  evident that a market-dominating 
position in key exit ports can increas e prices for simple and routine 
application of medication to exorb itant levels, leading to consumer 
complaints. 
• Certain obligations for pets in tran sit appear to be inconsistent. For 
example, anti-parasite treatment is required in the case of transit from 
Denmark via Sweden to Bornholm (Denmark) although the animal stays in the transit country for a very shor t time, legally limited to four hours, 
and is not allowed to leave the ve hicle. Because this may become a 
serious animal welfare issue and in  order to allevi ate the burden on 
commuters travelling between Sweden and Denmark, a specific four-week certificate has been introduced by Sweden. 
(2) Transport and routes requirements
 
 Apart from the national animal health  requirements, national rules imposed by 
the UK, Ireland and Malta have establishe d a particular checking system which 
obliges pet owners to us e only certain transport companies ('carriers') and 
routes to bring in dogs, cats and ferrets,  thus ensuring in practice a 100% rate 
of checks at frontiers. 
 This obligation entailing systematic  checks on pet animals by the Member 
State of destination is ag ainst the principles of Council Directive 90/425/EEC 
of 26 June 199027, which specifically abolished checks at frontiers. 
 Because this Directive categorically doe s not apply to veterinary checks carried 
out on the movements between Member States of pets accompanied by and 
under the responsibility of a natural person, where such movements are not the subject of a commercial transaction, the provisions of Article 1 of Council 
Directive 92/65/EEC of 13 July 1992
28 assume particular importance by stating 
that "this Directive shall not affect the national rules applicable to pet animals, 
                                                 
27 OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 29. 
28 OJ L 268, 14.9.1992, p. 52. 
 
EN 22   EN although their retention may not jeopardize  the abolition of veterinary checks 
at the frontiers between Member States".  
 These requirements have led to the following practical difficulties: 
• There may be a limit to the total number of animals that a company will 
permit to travel on each boat or aircraft . It is for the pet owner to check 
with the company before booking tickets that they are prepared to carry 
pets.  
• Transport companies may have their own additional conditions of travel. 
These conditions may include a health declaration for the pet. Pets going 
to the UK and Ireland by air must travel as cargo, unless they are 
registered assistance dogs entering with an approved airline, on a route 
that permits them to travel in the cabin. In addition, as regards trains, 
travelling with Eurostar (between Belgium/France and the UK) is only 
accessible to registered assistance dogs while the non-registered ones have access only to Eurotunnel Shuttle Service. 
• The costs imposed on pet owners may be very high. To give a concrete 
example, bringing a pet into Ireland from continental Europe by plane as 
cargo costs €910 (including ' carriers' and airline co sts) compared to €70 
for a pet entering Belgium from any EU Member State via a Belgian airlines company when the pet weighs more than 6 kg. When pets weigh 6 kg or less includ ing dog bag, they are allowed to travel in the cabin and 
the cost is €30.  
• Approved routes may change and new ones may be added. Others may 
operate irregularly or seasonally. 
• Pets entering those countries by means of an unapproved transport 
company or route may be quarantined until they can be shown to comply with all the necessary rules. 
• Some companies may not wish to carry ferrets.  
• It is not possible to  bring a pet into the UK from a private boat or plane.   
 Overall, as a result of these comple x systems and measures, pet owners may 
have to use the services of pet relocation companies arranging the full door-to-door transportation of their pets, at additional cost to them. 
Although not illegal, this situat ion has given rise to complaints from individuals and 
Member States' authorities as summarised in Annex 16. 
 
EN 23   EN 3.2.2.  Equivalence of health status for rabies, Echinococcosis (E. multilocularis) and ticks 
in the Member States  
3.2.2.1.  Rabies 
Epidemiology and disease control measures 
Detailed information, including EU cont ribution to the rabies monitoring and 
eradication programmes in Member St ates and neighbouring countries, is 
summarised in Annex 17.  
Countries with a higher rate of reported rabies cases in wildlife (e.g. Baltic States) 
have made extensive efforts and have conti nued to monitor the situation. As a result, 
the situation can now be considered as roughly equivalent in all Member States of the EU-27, comparable to the situation in those EU-15 Member States where rabies 
in wildlife had still been a significant problem when Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 
was adopted. Indeed, at that time, sylvatic rabies still occurred in some remaining 
pockets in Germany (see Annexes 18-19). 
Illegal movements of animals  
In addition to the reduction of rabies in wildlife, successful c ontrol of rabies in 
domestic animals in the EU depends on the e fficiency of the control measures aiming 
at preventing and detecting illegal movement of non-e ligible domestic animals. 
Indeed, recent "imported" rabies cases in cer tain Member States were associated with 
the illegal introduction of pets , mainly non-vaccinated puppie s or pets not vaccinated 
according to the rules.  
The risk of introducing rabies into the EU  is high in places with a serious urban 
rabies problem among stray dogs, such as Moro cco or India. Theref ore, this residual 
risk should be controlled by information campaigns for the public (e.g. by means of 
posters) enlightening them about  the risks associated with contact with pet animals of 
unknown health status and appropriate penalty  systems discouraging adoption of pets 
overseas, unless they can be introduced in accordance with the law. 
Conversely, it should be emphasised that  no rabies cases caused by legal cross-
border pet movements within the EU have  been recorded for many years and 
particularly since the Regulat ion entered into force.  
 
EN 24   EN Recent data on rabies in the EU and in  neighbouring countries (from various 
sources)  
(1) EFSA  
 For its opinion referred to above, E FSA used information reported by 40 
European countries' competent author ities and available in the Rabies 
Information System of the WHO Collabo ration Centre for Rabies Surveillance 
and Research (commonly known as Rabies Bulletin Europe29). 
 The most recent data used by EFSA in  its assessment are from the year 2005. 
 EFSA concluded that the rabies situ ation in the 25 Member States varies 
greatly. Some countries are considered fr ee from rabies, while in others it is 
still prevalent at a lower or higher level. Based on estimates of pet population 
as a fraction of human population as desc ribed in section 3.2.1 (there may be 
some doubts as to whether this model can  be easily adapted to countries in 
transition), EFSA has estimated the prev alence of pet rabies  in Europe in 2005, 
with the highest prevalence being found in the Baltic States. Overall, the 
prevalence of pet rabies in the three Baltic States was about 15 per million in 2005 (or 1.5*10
-5). In Poland, Hungary and Slovakia the prevalence in 2005 
was around 10-7 (two orders of magnitude lower than in the Baltic States) while 
in the remaining Member Stat es the prevalence was nil. 
(2) WHO 'Rabies Bulletin Europe' 
 More recent figures extracted from this Bulletin show that the total number of 
rabies cases in pet animal s in the EU recorded in 2007 (27 Member States) is 
217 as compared with 389 in 2005 ( 25 Member States + Bulgaria and 
Romania). The highest figures recorded  for pet animals in EU-27 in 2007 are 
found in Lithuania (77), Romania (64) a nd Latvia (53). Estonia did not record 
any while Bulgaria (13) and Poland (8) r ecorded very few. In Europe, Ukraine 
(1164), the Russian Federation (1056) and Belarus (140) account for the 
highest prevalence. Croatia (27) record s the highest number of cases in the 
Western Balkan countries. 
 Data show a remarkable decline of rabies cases in domestic and wild animals 
in the Baltic States, in particular in L ithuania, mostly due to effects of oral 
rabies vaccination of wildlife, the imp lementation of compulsory vaccination 
of dogs and cats combined with contro l of the population of  stray and feral 
dogs and cats inducing a sufficient leve l of vaccination coverage and reducing 
the occurrence of the disease in these species.  
                                                 
29 http://www.who-rabies- bulletin.org/Queries/Distribution.aspx   
This is the main institution officially monitoring the rabies situation in wildlife, domestic animals and 
humans in the EU and in bordering countries. It publishes on a quarterly basis the information provided 
by the competent authorities . The database contains factual rabi es cases with no information on the 
origin of each case reported. That information (indigenous or imported cases) is available in the yearly 
"EFSA Community Summary Report on Zoonoses, Zoonotic Agents, Antimicrobial resistance and 
Food Borne Outbreaks in  the European Union". 
 
EN 25   EN  The latest 2008 figures newly communi cated by Member States to Rabies 
Bulletin Europe confirm this encourag ing trend in the Baltic States.  
 Bulgaria also maintains a very low rate both in pet animals and wildlife. 
 Although Romania still registers a hi gh number of cases in wildlife, the 
situation seems to be stable in pe t animals. Although the Community has 
approved the rabies eradication prog ramme for Romania and allocated the 
necessary resources, the implementation of  this programme is still hampered 
by technical difficulties. 
 In Europe, the situation in Ukraine,  the Russian Federation and Belarus is 
unchanged. 
 The situation in Croatia is comparable to the one in Romania.  Comparative data for those countries from the years 2003 to 2008 compiled by 
Rabies Bulletin Europe have been summarised in Annex 19.  
(3) FVO missions to evaluate rabies eradication programmes 
 Two missions of the Food and Veterinary  Office (FVO) took place respectively 
in May and June 2007 to evaluate the progress of rabies  eradication in 
Lithuania
30 and Latvia31 in the framework of Council Decision 90/424/EEC 
(co-financing by the Community budget).  
 Both Member States border areas that ar e still infected with  rabies and do not 
carry out any systematic vaccination. The current eradication strategy based on oral immunisation of wild life twice a year has been  applied nationwide since 
the spring campaign of 2006 and is complemented by manual distribution close 
to or into urban settlements starting fr om spring 2007. The decrease in cases is 
significant. 
 Latvia and Lithuania have adopted na tional legislation imposing compulsory 
vaccination of all dogs and cats. The last  indigenous human cases were notified 
in 2003 and 2000 respectively. 
 The peak number of rabies outbreaks  was reached in Latvia in 2003 and has 
since then steadily decreased with a 50% drop in cases from 2006 to 2007. 
 The rabies situation in Lithuania was deteriorating markedly  until May 2006 in 
the country as a whole, and, in particul ar, in the wildlife population. Since the 
start of oral vaccination in March/April 2006, the in cidence of outbreaks of 
rabies has decreased considerably, a bove expectations in wild animals. 
Equally, since October 2006 the outbreaks in  domestic animals have started to 
decrease.  
                                                
 
30 http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/act_getPDF.cfm?PDF_ID=6491  
31 http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/act_getPDF.cfm?PDF_ID=6403  
 
EN 26   EN 3.2.2.2.  Echinococcosis ( Echinococcus multilocularis ) 
EFSA provided information on the disease situation32, which has been summarised in 
Annex 20.  
3.2.2.3.  Ticks 
EFSA has provided information, in particul ar on the ticks' geographical distribution33 
(Annex 20).  
3.3. The principle of subsidiarity  
The problem is clearly of a trans-nationa l nature which cannot  be satisfactorily 
regulated by Member States acting on thei r own, as it means increasing public health 
and animal health risks as well as riskin g the introduction of di sguised barriers to 
movements. Restrictions on free circulation of pet animals must be justified in a 
proportional manner, based on solid reasons (e.g. public health) justifying the need 
for additional measures creating barriers to free circulation between countries.  
4. OBJECTIVES  
The overall objectives are to be seen in th e light of the free circulation of people (EC 
Treaty) and of the new Animal Health Strategy. 
The specific objectives are: 
• To harmonise requirements so as to remove disproportionate obstacles to the 
movement of pets for non-commercial pur poses across the EU or entering the 
EU from third countries while properly protecting public and animal health, in 
particular with regard to rabies.  
• To provide EU rules that are proportionate, avoid causing difficulties and give 
clear benefits in terms of clarity and simplification for travelling pet owners. 
The operational objective of the review is to determine the regime to be applied with 
effect from 1 July 2010 for Articles 6, 8 and 16 of the Regulation, which include 
transitional measures. 
5. KEY POLICY OPTIONS  
Accordingly, the Commission has identified four policy options entailing legal and 
administrative intervention, a ll related to Arti cles 6, 8 and 16 of the Regulation: 
                                                 
32 Based on mandatory reports sent by Finland, Ireland, the UK and Sweden and the EFSA's Community 
Summary Report on Zoonoses, Zoonotic Agents, An timicrobial resistance and Food Borne Outbreaks 
in the European Union in 2005 which are ba sed on the annual Member States' reports 
33 Based on reports sent by Ireland and on the review produced by DEFRA (the UK). 
 
EN 27   EN Option 1 : No action   
This would mean that after 30 June 2010, Finland, Ireland, Malta,  Sweden and the 
UK will no longer make entry into their territory subject to the requirements 
provided for in Article 6(1) for dogs and cats and in Article 16 for dogs, cats and 
ferrets.  
Option 2 : Extension of the transitional regime 
This would mean a further temporary extension of the transitional period until the 
end of 2011, which is when the Commission expects to end EU support to national 
programmes to eradicate sylvatic rabies in the Baltic States. A substantially improved rabies situation in  those Member States woul d fully address the risks 
identified by EFSA and render its recommendations for mitigating measures obsolete.  
This option would require a Commission pr oposal to the European Parliament and 
the Council extending the tran sitional period and clarifying the regime to be applied 
with effect from 1 January 2012 for Articles 6, 8 and 16. 
Option 3
: Adjustment  of the current rules applic able to all Member States   
This would mean ending the specific condi tions applied by the five Member States 
and proposing a technically reviewed re gime in line with EFSA recommendations34. 
This option would require a Commission pr oposal to the European Parliament and 
the Council composed of the following elements: 
(1) Application of the general regime in the EU;  (2) Withdrawal of any national measures; (3) Additional safeguard measures for cert ain categories of animals coming from 
Member States and third countries with  a less favourable rabies situation. 
Option 4
: Continuation of the transition al regime on a permanent basis 
This would mean an indefinite extension of the transitional re gime and therefore 
enable the five Member States to systematically request additional guarantees. It is not impossible that other Member States co mplying with OIE criteria for a rabies-
free country or claiming a special health stat us with regard to tic k-borne diseases and 
Echinococcosis would equally request a dditional conditions. This option would 
require a Commission proposal to  the European Parliament and the Council to ensure 
equal treatment of all Member States. This option does not assume continuation of the free movement regime between the UK and Ireland. 
                                                
 
34 EFSA highlighted a possible resi dual risk of importing rabies w ith primo-vaccinated pet animals 
coming from areas where the incidence of rabies in pets is more than one case per million pets per year. It recommends that for pets coming from those ar eas, risk mitigating measures such as waiting time 
following primo-vaccination and sero logical testing or a second in jection of vaccine should be 
introduced to take account of low responders to the classic scheme of vaccination and of the case of an animal vaccinated while incubating the disease or being exposed to the virus while building up post-
vaccination immunity. 
 
EN 28   EN NB: A Commission proposal as foreseen in options 2, 3 and 4 would, in any case, 
enhance legal clarity. However, such a pr oposal might lead, at Council and European 
Parliament level, to reopening of the deba te on aspects of the Regulation not covered 
by the present impact assessment.  
6. IMPACT ANALYSIS  
6.1. Preliminary remarks 
This impact assessment combines quantitative and qualitative approaches to ensure 
that adequate considerati on is given to a broad range  of economic, social and 
environmental impacts.  
Each option is analysed and evaluated with all elements available and where possible 
in a monetised form.  
This impact assessment is based on the evidence obtained through the various 
consultations, including data supplied by Member States' competent authorities, 
EFSA and other stakeholders  likely to be affected as  well as available updated 
information on the situation with regard to  rabies, Echinococcus and/or ticks in the 
EU territory. 
The quantification of impact s needs preliminary knowledge of some core elements 
and data, in particular deta iled costs incurred by pet owners to prepare a pet under 
the general and transitional regimes.  
The Commission collected information on those costs through the various 
consultations launched at the end of 2007. 
As already explained in s ection 3.1.4, an impact analys is on the free movement 
regime between the UK and Ireland and its fu ture should not be carried out within 
the context of this impact assessment re port. However, to better understand the 
implications of this issue, it will be furt her developed in section 7 ("comparison of 
the different options"). 
Data limitations : it should be noted that although the various consultations did 
provide extensive data, any calculation of gl obal costs needs to be based on a precise 
knowledge of the number of pet movements within and into the EU . Unfortunately, as 
mentioned in section 3.2.1, this  information is not availabl e in most of the Member 
States.  
The evaluation of likely impacts of an ec onomic, social and environmental nature 
must be directed towards the different ac tors concerned: pet owners, authorised 
veterinarians issuing passports (certificat ion), carrying out sampling and delivering 
anti-parasite treatment, suppliers of anti- rabies vaccine and anti-parasite medicinal 
products, EU-approved laborator ies performing the serologi cal tests to monitor the 
effectiveness of rabies vaccines, approved transport companies, approved quarantine facilities and compet ent authorities.  
As regards suppliers of anti-rabies vaccine, there is no need to develop any further 
calculation of impacts of whatever  nature, because EFSA recommends 
 
EN 29   EN unambiguously that the anti-rabies v accination should remain the minimum 
requirement before moving a pet an imal within and into the EU.  
6.1.1.  Costs incurred by owners to prepare a pet 
Under the Regulation, the tota l cost of preparing a pet animal for travel varies 
according to the country of origin and the Member State of destination. The average costs for a dog of average size travelling with in the EU or re-entering the EU after a 
trip abroad are detailed in Annex 21 and summarised in Table 2
.  
Those costs do not take into  account the particular arra ngements existing between the 
Member States (as explained in section 3.1.3 - transitional regime), which may lead 
to a significant reduction of preparation costs. Obligations  in the form of electronic 
identification and/or vaccination under national law are also to be considered when comparing the costs.  
Moreover, since only Member States could be asked to provide the different costs 
linked to the preparation of  a pet before movement and no figures from third 
countries are available, only costs for re -entering the EU from listed or non-listed 
third countries can be estimated. 
In addition, the costs presented in Table 2 re late to preparing a pe t animal to travel 
for the first time, meaning that identific ation (marking + passport), vaccination and 
where necessary titration must be  carried out before movement.  
The costs presented in Table 2 show that it is more expensive for an EU citizen to 
travel with a pet to Member States under the transitional regime, except Finland, than 
to return from a non-listed third country under the general regime. 
 
EN 30   EN Table 2: COMPARATIVE COSTS for a dog of average size 
 Identification 
(microchip + 
passport) Vaccination 
documented in 
the passport Sampling + 
certification test Anti-tick 
treatment Anti-
echinococcus 
treatment 'Carriers' Quarantine Total 
General regime 
Pet travelling 
within EU €42.9335 
(€15 to 95.5) €22.5 35 
(€2 to 63) - - - - - - €65.43 
Pet re-entering EU 
from listed third 
countries  €42.9335 
(€15 to 95.5) €22.535 
(€2 to 63 ) - - - - - - €65.43 
Pet re-entering EU 
from non-listed 
third countries €42.9335 
(€15 to 95.5) €22.535 
(€2 to 63 ) €29.235 
(€5 to 53) €50 
(€30 to 88) - - - - €144.63 
Transitional regime  
Pet entering/re-
entering UK, IE, 
MT from the rest of EU  €50.5 
(€15 to 107) €26.7 
(€2 to 63) €34 
(€5 to 69) €50 
(€30 to 88) €18.8 
(€5 to 56) €16.8 
(€1 to 39.3)  UK: N/A 
IE:
 ferry=€20, 
plane=€910, 
MT: €72 - €196.8 
(+'carriers' 
costs) 
Pet entering/re-
entering SE from 
the rest of EU  €50.5 
(€15 to 107) €26.7 
(€2 to 63) €34 
(€5 to 69) €50 
(€30 to 88) - €16.8 
(€1 to 39.3)  - - €178 
Pet entering/re-
entering FI from the 
rest of EU  €50.5 
(€15 to 107) €26.7 
(€2 to 63) - - - €16.8 
(€1 to 39.3)  - - €94 
Pet entering UK, 
IE, MT, SE from non-listed third 
countries  - - - - - - - UK: €3480 
IE: €2500 
MT: €1000 
SE: 3€350 €3480 
€2500 
€1000 
€3350 
                                                 
35 Figures excluding those provided by the UK, IE, MT, SE and FI. 
 
EN 31   EN 6.1.2.  Administrative costs 
Because administrative costs and compliance co sts are closely interlinked, we have not 
in many cases drawn up a distinction between  compliance and administrative costs for 
the different private parties concerned. In  any case, administrative costs are very 
marginal for operators and embedded in compliance costs.  
For example, when veterinarians give pets  an anti-rabies vacc ination for travelling 
reasons (compliance costs) they have to certify it on the passport (administrative costs). In such cases, administrative costs repres ent a very short amount of their time (1-2 
minutes) as part of a consultation and can therefore be considered as insignificant. 
As regards administrative costs for Member  States' competent authorities, these are 
mainly incurred by two types of obligations: (1 ) controls at borders that are performed 
either by competent authorities themselves or  by approved 'carriers' acting on behalf of 
the competent authorities and (2) informa tion obligations vis-à- vis the public on the 
regime and the different treatments that th ey should administer to their pets when 
travelling within the EU.  
As regards control costs, these are likely to re main more or less the same in the different 
options – the controls will stay in place whatever regime may apply to the five Member States currently under th e transitional regime.  
As regards information costs, in the current context, additional info rmation needs to be 
provided because of the complexity of the ru les applicable in each country. On the other 
hand, if the regime is simplified, it would be necessary at the beginning to inform pet 
owners adequately and therefore information costs may rise. But these costs will in the medium term be reduced as the rules will  be simpler and therefore necessitate less 
specific information on the regime. Overall, th ese information costs may slightly change 
over time but not to a substantial extent and the variation in this type of costs is expected 
to be minimal. 
Therefore, a detailed and quantified analysis of administrative costs using the Standard 
Cost Model was not carried out as it was considered disproportionate. 
6.2. Analysis of impact s of option 1: No action   
This would mean that after 30 June 2010, Finland, Ireland, Malta,  Sweden and the UK 
will no longer make entry into their territor y subject to the requirements laid down in 
Article 6(1) for dogs and cats and in  Article 16 for dogs, cats and ferrets. 
 
EN 32   EN 6.2.1.  Economic impacts 
6.2.1.1.  Pet owners 
Pet owners from the Member States other than those currently under the transitional 
regime : 
As described in section 6.1.1, the additional re quirements requested by the five Member 
States currently under the transitional regime result in additional costs for citizens. This 
option would certainly benefit trav ellers by removing those costs. 
Table 2 shows the comparative costs. Only identification and a valid anti-rabies  vaccination would remain as obligatory 
measures to be fulfilled and, for a pet properly  vaccinated according to  the specifications 
of the vaccine, a last-minute departure will always be possible. 
As already mentioned in section 6.1.1, in so me Member States anti-rabies vaccination 
for travelling may not incur additional cost s since it is already an obligation under 
national law. Combined with the mandatory identification of dogs currently applicable 
in most of the Member States, the preparatio n of a pet animal will  no longer represent a 
cost obstacle for trave llers throughout the EU. 
Pet owners from the five Member States currently under the transitional regime
: 
Bilateral arrangements are part of the transitional regime. Therefore if the latter ceases, 
those arrangements described in Annexes 12, 13 and 14 will cease with the following 
consequences:  
• Travellers from Ireland, Malta, Sweden  and the UK would be affected by the 
ending of totally liberated movement betw een some of these Member States. They 
will have to comply with the vaccination requirements and connected costs. 
• Travellers from Sweden and Denmark would be affected by the ending of the 
derogation provided for in Commission Decision 2004/557/EC . They will have to 
comply with the vaccination and passpor t requirements and connected costs.  
• Specific arrangements between the fi ve Member States  regarding anti 
E. multilocularis  treatment would not be affected as far as the general regime does 
not include such a requirement. 
NB: Specific arrangements existing between Sweden and Norway under Article 8(3)(b) 
of the Regulation would not be  affected as they are part  of the general regime, as 
explained in section 3.1.2.2.  
 
EN 33   EN Pet owners originating in or returning from  non-listed third countries and entering 
the four Member States applyi ng the quarantine placement  
This option would certainly benefit pet owners that are currently not inclined to travel 
because of the quarantine measures and linked costs.  
6.2.1.2.  Authorised veterinarians  
Overall, since the limited constraints related to anti-rabies vaccina tion and identification 
requirements may encourage pet owners to br ing their pets with them when travelling, 
veterinarians would certainly benefit from this option.  
The following elements should also be taken into account: 
• The ending of bilateral a rrangements (e.g. Ireland, Ma lta, the UK, Sweden and 
Denmark) may increase veterinarians' inco mes related to anti-rabies vaccination in 
formerly non-vaccinating Member States si nce veterinarians will have to deal with 
a new population of unvaccinated pets.  
• As animal sampling would disappear with  the general regime within the EU, 
veterinarians may initially face a minor d ecrease in their activities. This would 
apply to veterinarians both in Member States currently under the transitional 
regime and in the others. However, the impact on authorised veterinarians should 
not be considered negative in so far as  they will continue to sample animals 
departing for non-listed third countries wh ich have to meet the requirements for 
returning to the EU.  
• Delivery of anti-parasite treatment s hould not seriously decrease, as such 
preventive systematic deworming of carni vores is recommended to be applied at 
least twice a year for wi der public health reasons than travelling reasons ( Source 
UEVP recommendations ). 
6.2.1.3.  EU-approved rabies se rology laboratories 
The impact of this option on serology laboratories should be very minimal. 
Indeed, laboratory incomes generated by the en try of pet animals into the EU from non-
listed third countries or the return of EU pet animals af ter a trip to non-listed third 
countries will not be affected. 
Serology regarding pet movements accounts for between 5% and 95% of  the work of the 
rabies laboratories consulted. Economic impacts will therefore depend on the type of laboratory concerned. The im pact would be greater for those laboratories whose 
activities are geared exclusively to respondi ng to those obligations. This would concern 
only five laboratories out of the 25 that re plied to the consultati on, with staff numbers 
ranging from 3 to 13.  
 
EN 34   EN In addition, from the consu ltation, it appears that pet serology activities may have 
produced specific income which provides infras tructure, equipment and technical staff to 
further develop laboratory activities and not necessarily the serology part. However, in 
the event of a significant decrease in serology activities, most of the laboratories envisage shifting to other activ ities such as rabies research including lyssaviruses in bats 
or oral vaccination programmes in wildlife. 
Nevertheless, it should be noted that if this  option is selected, th e quarantine placement 
which applies to pets entering Ireland, Malt a, Sweden or the UK from non-listed third 
countries will be replaced by pre-testing requirements applicable under the general 
regime. A transfer of laboratory incomes to that category of pets is therefore to be 
expected. It may be high sin ce it would concern expatriate ci tizens willing to come back 
home with their newly adopted pet animal af ter a professional stay abroad or citizens 
who may wish to travel to countries that have until now been inaccessible because of the 
quarantine measures. 
6.2.1.4.  Suppliers of anti-parasite treatments 
There should be no or only marginal impact on suppliers of medicines for treating ticks 
or Echinococcus.  Indeed, it is clear that activities of suppliers will not stop since anti-
parasite treatments are not only recomme nded for travelling purposes but also for 
general animal and public health re asons as explained in section 6.2.1.2. 
6.2.1.5.  Transport companies ('carriers') 
It can be assumed that with this opti on, new business opportunities will open up for 
'carriers' to offer their servi ces to travellers with pets. 
The UK considers that this option is unlikely to have a negative impact on 'carriers' as 
the rules, including the checking system, woul d be simplified. This is also likely to 
create greater market opportunities for pet owne rs and 'carriers' as the costs for owners 
will be reduced. This would also lead to an increase in the number of pets travelling to 
the UK due to the substantially re duced cost of preparing pets.  
Ireland considers that the checking process would be simplified. However, the number 
of pets entering the country would probably increase. 
Malta envisages a reduction of the overall costs. 
6.2.1.6.  Quarantine facilities 
From the consultation, it appears that this option may have a significant impact on the 
business of quarantine facilities in Ireland, Malta, Sweden and the UK. It is envisaged 
that a number of these facilities may cease oper ations due to the likely fall in the number 
of animals being licensed into long-term quarantine. 
 
EN 35   EN However, quarantine facilities will still be used for short-term stays for reasons other 
than an anti-tick/echinococcus treatment not  properly administered, such as microchip 
failure/loss.  
6.2.1.7.  Competent authorities 
The UK reported a significant impact in the short term due to the need to publicise, 
explain and put in place new import rules and arrangements. In the longer term, certain 
obligations and administrative tasks will still have to be fulfilled in terms of ensuring 
that legislative requirements are met and enforced. But these are evaluated as not 
significant. 
Malta reported that the work involved is minor and already part of their normal duties. 
Ireland reported that this op tion would simplify the prior ap proval process, thus reducing 
the workload of headquarters staff on individua l files. However, the subsequent increase 
in numbers of pets entering the country may mean that the overall workload would not 
diminish – it is not possible to measure this aspect at this stage. This option would not 
affect the spot-checking regime  involving staff at ferry ports /airports, as the increasing 
number of pet imports would be likely to increase the workload. 
Sweden reported that direct costs will be less due to fewer administrative tasks for 
administrative staff, clinical practi tioners and customs authorities.  
As regards Finland, this option would not have any marked influence on the 
administrative tasks and costs. 
6.2.1.8.  Third countries 
This option would ease travelling with pet an imals especially for those originating in 
non-listed third countries because they  would fall under the general regime. 
6.2.1.9.  Others 
Through the consultation, Finland and Sweden  raised the need to maintain the 
transitional regime as regards E. multilocularis  and the potential associated 
consequences if that regime is discontinued. The image of Sweden and Finland as nature 
tourism countries would be seriously harm ed and the fruit and berry industry would 
suffer with regard to the production of Nord ic specialities in Sweden and the related 
export incomes in Finland. 
6.2.2.  Social impacts 
6.2.2.1.  Employment 
Activities of EU-approved serology laboratorie s may suffer if this option is selected. 
However, the impact would be very limite d. Some laboratories envisage redundancies 
due to a decrease in activities. One private UK laboratory (90% activity dedicated to 
 
EN 36   EN serology regarding pet movements) does not ru le out closure of the laboratory with 13 
full-time employees and potential difficulties of reorganisation. 
However, most of the laborator ies intend to redeploy staff to  other laboratory activities. 
The likely fall in the number of animals being licensed into quarantine may induce a 
negative impact on the business of quarantine facilities. According to Ireland, Malta and 
the UK, respectively two, nine and four to fi ve employees per facility would be affected. 
On the other hand, this option may have a pos itive effect on tourism and consequently 
on employment in so far as travellers will no longer be concerned about the additional logistic and financial requirements. 
6.2.2.2.  Welfare of citizens 
If this option is selected, the quarantine placement which applies to pet animals coming 
from non-listed third countries or  to those not in compliance with the national rules will 
be lifted.  
In so far as the general regime will be app licable to pets coming from non-listed third 
countries, social (and/or welfare) impacts s hould be considered positive since pets will 
no longer be separated from their owners. 
Indeed, experience has shown that most of the applications submitted by the competent 
authorities of newly listed third countries are supported by British expatriates, the 
quarantine measure being a serious obstacle to  their return. Impacts of this option on 
British expatriates should therefore be positive. 
Those considerations cannot determine th e level of harmonising movements of pet 
animals within the EU, as these practical difficulties are faced by almost all Member 
States.  
6.2.2.3.  Public health 
Selecting this option would mean the endi ng of rabies antibody titration requirements 
and pre-treatment requirements in regard to E. multilocularis  and ticks.  
The assessment of the risk of those diseases  of zoonotic potential being introduced into 
the five Member States concerned if nationa l rules were abandoned has been carried out 
by EFSA.  
Rabies
 
Based on figures for the year 2005, EFSA r ecommends the introduction of additional 
measures for certain categories of pets coming from Baltic States. Poland, Hungary and 
Slovakia were singled out by EFSA as not representing a particular risk. However, 
according to the figures given in Annex 19 and commented on in section 3.2.2.1, and in 
the light of additional elements, this recommendation should be graded as follows:  
 
EN 37   EN 1. The improvement of the rabies situati on in the Baltic States is remarkable: 
• The total number of rabies cases r ecorded by Estonia has decreased from 
266 in 2005 to 3 in 2008. 
• Latvia has also recorded a significant decrease, with the number of rabies 
cases in total/pets falling from 421/49 in 2005 to 110/18 in 2008.  
• Lithuania has also recorded a remark able decrease, with the number of 
rabies cases in total/pets falling from 1652/181 in 2005 to 69/11 in 2008. 
 Some of these figures are comparab le to those recorded in 2005 by Poland 
(138/12), which had the highest  number of cases in the EU, and to those recorded 
by the remaining affected Member Stat es when the Regulation was adopted 
(Annex 18). In view of these results, th e long-term strategy for eradication of 
rabies applied by the Baltic States can be considered successful and encouraging 
for the future. 
2. Since the entry into force of the Regul ation, no rabies cases imported from the 
Baltic States have been reported in the Member States applying provisions of the 
general regime. The potential risk posed by the Baltic States is therefore reduced by the high level of vaccination coverage of wildlife and domestic animals.  
3. It should be noted that th e Regulation provides for criteria
36 for the listing of a 
third country and these cr iteria, which are not the ones used by the EFSA to 
evaluate the risk posed by the Baltic States , should also be taken into account for 
this impact assessment.  
 The Community criteria so far applicable  are not built on the prevalence of rabies 
in pets but on the implementation of regul atory measures to prevent and control 
rabies, how the competent authorities guarantee the validity of the certification and the quality of the monitoring system and vaccines.  
 This approach applied since the entry into force of the Regulation could be 
considered a success since no imported cases  have been registered in the EU for 
pets originating in listed countries. Thus, third countries such as the United States 
of America and the Russian Federation, wher e the vast majority of rabies cases 
occur in wild animals like  raccoons, skunks, bats, wo lves, badgers and foxes, 
which were able to demonstrate their capac ity to control the di sease, have been 
accepted by the EU under the general regime despite having a higher incidence of rabies in wildlife th an the Baltic States.
  
 Therefore, the risk of in troducing rabies as a result of  lawful movements of pets 
from the Baltic States unde r the general regime can be estimated with a high 
                                                 
36 Article 10 of the Regulation. 
 
EN 38   EN degree of certainty to be no higher than  the risk associated with movements 
between the other Member States and from listed third countries.  
E. multilocularis   
EFSA reported that th e risk of introducing E. multilocularis  from endemic areas into 
countries where the intermediate host is presen t, but which are considered free from the 
disease on the basis of national survey s, is greater than negligible.  
However, estimation of the risk is impaired by a lack of reliable data. In addition, it is 
impossible to quantify the risk incurred by humans in so far as certain countries are more 
exposed to the risk  of introduction of E. multilocularis  through trans-boundary wildlife 
movements than through movements of  potentially infected pet animals. 
Although EFSA acknowledges the zoonotic potentia l of the parasite, it  considers that not 
only pets are responsible fo r human infection cases.  
There is a risk of humans contracting th e disease in endemic areas via accidental 
ingestion of tapeworm eggs through contact with  infected pets or with wild or cultivated 
fruits and vegetables contaminated by foxes.  Therefore, if alveolar echinoccocosis is 
considered a significant public health problem, it is  then unjustified to concentrate the 
risk-mitigating measures exclusively on pet animals travelling with their owners. No 
negative impacts on public health and in  particular on the introduction of E. 
multilocularis  will necessarily be recorded. 
Ticks  
EFSA's opinion does not correlate the we ll-known extension of the geographical 
distribution of many tick species to the increased mobility of dogs and cats but rather to 
the potential impacts of climatic changes. Therefore any measures recommended for the 
control of ticks only on pets may have a lim ited effect on preventing further introduction 
and expansion of tick species.  
No causative impacts on public health and in particular on the extension of the 
geographical distribution of tick species will necessarily be recorded. 
6.2.3.  Environmental impacts 
If this option is selected, there is likely to be an increase in the number of pet 
movements in the future as a result of fewer constraints on pet owners. 
However, environmental impacts of more  pets (and pet owners) travelling are 
impossible to assess outside the context of mobility in general.  
6.3. Analysis of impact s of option 2: Extension of the transitional regime  
This would mean a further temporary extensi on of the transitional period until the end of 
2011, which is when the Commi ssion expects to end EU supp ort to national programmes 
 
EN 39   EN to eradicate sylvatic rabies in  the Baltic States. A substan tially improved rabies situation 
in those Member States woul d fully address the risks iden tified by EFSA and render its 
recommendations for mitigating measures obsolete.  
This option would require a Commission propo sal to the European Parliament and the 
Council extending the transitiona l period and clarifying the re gime to be applied with 
effect from 1 January 2012 for Artic les 6, 8 and 16 of the Regulation. 
6.3.1.  Economic impacts 
Impacts on pet owners,  authorised veterinarians , EU-approved rabies serology 
laboratories, suppliers of  anti-parasite treatments, 'carriers', quarantine facilities and third 
countries are of the same nature as those described in section 6.5.1, but on a shorter 
timescale. 
6.3.2.  Social impacts 
In the shorter term, social impacts are of th e same nature as thos e described in section 
6.5.2. 
Nevertheless, as regards the public health impacts, by th e time this extended period 
comes to an end, rabies eradication is likely to be achieved in the Baltic States, taking 
into account the recent figures published in Rabies Bulletin Europe. This option would 
help upgrade the level of safety  of pet movements in the EU and decrease the potential 
public health risk accordingly; however, as there has been no human case of rabies 
attributable to movements of  pets, the difference is expected to be very minimal. 
6.3.3.  Environmental impacts 
On a shorter timescale, environmental  impacts are of the same na ture as those described 
in section 6.5.3. 
6.4. Analysis of impacts of option 3: Adjustment of the current rules applicable to all 
Member States  
This option would mean endi ng the specific conditions ap plied by the five Member 
States of destination and implementing a harmonised regime based on a technically 
reviewed Regulation in line with the EFSA  opinions and including differentiated rules 
according to the Member State of origin: 
• EFSA recommends applying a regime wh ere the anti-rabies vaccination is 
supplemented by certain risk-mitigating measures targeted on primo-vaccinated pet animals coming from Baltic States: a se rological test to confirm the level of 
antibodies against rabies or a second inje ction of vaccine carried out 4 to 6 weeks 
after the first injection is recommended. 
• EFSA does not demonstrate a pa rticular status of the five Member States currently 
under the transitional regime with regard to echinococcosis and tick-borne diseases 
 
EN 40   EN since no harmonised programmes are in pl ace to allow a possible comparison of 
status. The regime would therefore not include measures against those diseases.  
Main elements of the EFSA conc lusions are summarised in Annex 22.  
6.4.1.  Economic impacts 
6.4.1.1.  Pet owners 
There is a need to distinguish be tween two categorie s of pet owners: 
• Owners of primo- or multiple-vaccinated pets: they will fall under the general 
regime. 
• Owners of primo-vaccinated pets originati ng in the Baltic States: they would be 
obliged to subject their pets to a serological test or a second injection of vaccine 4 to 6 weeks after the first vaccination. 
The economic impacts on the first categor y are already described in section 6.1.1. 
The economic impacts on the second categor y depend on the option chosen: serological 
test or second injection of v accine. From a financial point of view, the preferred option 
should be the second injection of  vaccine, which is cheaper than  the test as described in 
Table 2 that must in case of insufficien t immunity anyway be supplemented by a 
subsequent booster immunisation. However, acco rding to the legislation, an anti-rabies 
vaccination is valid, and as such suitable for travelling, 21 days from the date of completion of the vaccination protocol fo r the primary vaccination (including two 
injections of vaccine). By contrast, a test can  be carried out within hours or a few days 
allowing the pet animal to be moved immedi ately upon certification of the test result. 
6.4.1.2.  Authorised veterinarians 
Veterinarians' incomes should not increase s ubstantially since the population of the pet 
animals concerned (primo-vaccinated pets origin ating in the Baltic States) is quite small. 
6.4.1.3.  EU-approved rabies se rology laboratories 
If the adjustments concerning the blood testing requirement were adopted, the activities 
of EU-approved laboratories would decrease despite the implementation of tests on 
primo-vaccinated animals from the Baltic States. This should not represent more than 10% of the current vo lume of activities. 
Therefore, the impact would be very clos e to that described in section 6.2.1.3, the loss 
for laboratories being compensated by the app lication of the general regime to pets 
entering the EU from non-listed countries th at will no longer be subject to quarantine 
measures but to testing measures wh atever the destination in the EU. 
 
EN 41   EN 6.4.1.4.  Anti-parasite treatment suppliers 
Since this option does not entail any specific requirement  with regard to anti-parasite 
treatment, impacts would be the same  as those described in section 6.2.1.4. 
6.4.1.5.  Transport companies ('carriers') 
Since this option would mean termination of the specific conditions applied by the 
five Member States, including specific check ing systems in place, impacts on 'carriers' 
would be the same as thos e described in section 6.2.1.5. 
6.4.1.6.  Quarantine facilities 
Since this option would mean termination of  the specific conditions  applied by the five 
Member States, including quarantine measur es, impacts on quarantine facilities would 
be the same as those described in section 6.2.1.6. 
6.4.1.7.  Competent authorities 
Since this option would mean termination of  the specific conditions  applied by the five 
Member States, impacts on administrative ta sks and costs for the competent authority 
would be the same as thos e described in section 6.2.1.7. 
In addition, if this option is chosen, impacts reported by the UK concerning the need to 
publicise, explain and put in  place new rules and arra ngements and ensure that 
legislative requirements are met and enfor ced should also concern all the Member 
States.  
6.4.1.8.  Third countries 
Impacts of this option are of the same natu re as those described in section 6.2.1.8 since 
the risk-mitigating measures recommended by EFSA are based on the country of origin 
and only apply to pet animals originating in the Baltic States. Rules for importing a pet 
animal will fall under the general regime whatever the destination in the EU. 
6.4.2.  Social impacts 
6.4.2.1.  Employment  
Since this option would mean termination of the specific conditions applied by the 
five Member States, impacts on employment w ould be the same as those described in 
section 6.2.2.1. Since the population of pets affect ed by specific additional measures is 
quite small, pet owners should not be grea tly inconvenienced and the impact on tourism 
should accordingly be limited. 
 
EN 42   EN 6.4.2.2.  Welfare of citizens 
Since this option would mean termination of  the specific conditions  applied by the five 
Member States, impacts on welfare of citizens are the same as those described in section 
6.2.2.2. 
6.4.2.3.  Public health 
Despite the fact that EFSA considers that the rabies risk posed by the Baltic States is not 
negligible and that risk-mitigating measures s hould therefore apply to pets originating in 
those Member States, the impact of such m easures on public health would be marginal. 
Indeed the pet population that w ould be concerned is very small and the effect of those 
additional measures could be questioned in lig ht of practical findi ngs as mentioned in 
section 6.2.2.3. 
As regards E. multilocularis and tick risks, the impacts would be the same as those 
described in section 6.2.2.3 since EFSA opinions  have highlighted the lack of sufficient 
data justifying additional guarantees. 
6.4.3.  Environmental impacts 
Environmental impacts stemming from a likely increase in the number of pet 
movements due to termination of the speci fic conditions applied by the five Member 
States are difficult to quantify. 
6.5. Analysis of impacts of option 4:  Continuation of the tr ansitional regime on a 
permanent basis  
This would mean an indefinite extension of the transitional regime and therefore enable 
the five Member States to systematically  request additional guarantees. It is not 
impossible that other Member States comp lying with OIE criteria for a rabies-free 
country or claiming a special health status  with regard to tick-borne diseases and 
Echinococcosis would equally request additi onal conditions. This option would require a 
Commission proposal to the European Parlia ment and the Council to ensure equal 
treatment of all Member States. 
6.5.1.  Economic impacts 
6.5.1.1.  Pet owners 
The additional requirements re quested by the five Member  States currently under the 
transitional regime result in continuing additional costs for travellers with pets. 
Indeed, in addition to identification and v accination costs of the general regime, pet 
owners are obliged to conduct a series of tests and /or treatments with different 
protocols, depending on the Member State of  destination. Table 2 allows a comparative 
cost evaluation. 
 
EN 43   EN Except for Finland, the costs incurred by pet owners entering the UK, Ireland, Malta and 
Sweden are at least doubled or can be multipli ed up to 10 times where carriers' costs are 
taken into account. For example, according to  the data mentioned in sections 3.2.1 and 
6.1.3, the cost for a pet of less than 6kg to enter Ire land by air from Portugal would be 
€1 100 while the cost for the same pet to en ter Belgium by air from Portugal would be 
€108.5.  
This example applies to pet owners comi ng from Member States other than those 
currently under the transitional regime and fr om listed third countries or those returning 
to one of the four Member States. 
Nevertheless, it should be noted that no fu rther blood tests are required following a 
satisfactory result as long as the animal is  revaccinated against rabies on time. This 
element must be taken into account when comparing the costs.  
Moreover, although pets' eligibilit y is, for the most part, esta blished before travel, there 
may be cases where ticks/ echinococcus  treatment has not been  properly administered, 
resulting in pet animals being temporaril y quarantined although they come from EU 
Member States, and causing unexpected expe nse likely to compromise travel plans. 
Another possible scenario is th at, owing to a lack of boxes at  the quarantine stations, pet 
owners ready to enter or re -enter one of the four Member States from non-listed 
countries may have to wait before tr avelling, with economic consequences. 
6.5.1.2.  Authorised veterinarians  
Impact on authorised veterinarians may be co nsidered positive in so  far as they will 
continue to sample animals and deliver an anti-parasite treatment for pets entering the five Member States. In a way, these a dditional requirements  may contribute to 
sustainable vets' incomes, although th ere is no way of quantifying them. 
In addition, when these se rvices are requested at th e weekend, due to protocol 
constraints, fees are higher. 
6.5.1.3.  EU-approved rabies se rology laboratories 
Measures constituting a precondition for entry such as blood testing requested by those 
Member States currently under the transitional regime involve 54 EU-approved laboratories throughout the world that are auth orised to carry out serological tests to 
monitor the effectiveness of rabies vaccines. These laboratories are situated mainly in 
Europe but also in 14 third countries. To be recognised and maintained as approved, 
laboratories must participate in annual pr oficiency tests organi sed by the Community 
reference laboratory for rabies serology located in Nancy (AFSSA-France). This 
proficiency testing scheme generates costs fo r the participating laboratories because of 
the service offered by AFSSA. 
 
EN 44   EN Maintaining the pre-testing requirements would generate sustainable incomes for 
laboratories. From the consultation responses , it appears that about 145 000 analyses are 
performed annually by the 23 laboratories th at responded (about a third are performed 
by the UK's laboratories), with an average ra te of €50 per test. Th e global annual income 
rises to about €7 250 000. It should be noted  that the above-mentioned analyses may 
concern pet animals of EU or third country origin.  
It could be assumed that, considering the current trend towards an increase of pet 
movements within or into the EU, this  global income could only increase.  
6.5.1.4.  Anti-parasite treatment suppliers 
As in the case of authorised veterinarians, impacts on suppliers of anti-tick or anti-
Echinococcus  treatment may be considered positive since they will have to further 
respond to the demand. However, as mentione d in section 6.2.1.2, activ ities of suppliers 
are not exclusively linked to pet travel but rather to general animal and public health aspects. 
6.5.1.5.  Transport companies ('carriers') 
Carriers (ferry, rail and airlin e companies) are part of the national checking system 
installed by the UK, Ireland and Malta to  monitor and control the eligibility of 
movements of pet animals into their territory. 
If the transitional regime is definitively ma intained, transport and checking activities of 
those companies officially approved by the co mpetent authorities of the three Member 
States will be maintained. From the cons ultation, it appears that the UK has approved 
114 foreign and national companies, Ireland 9 and Malta 7.  
Competent authorities from the UK, Ireland and Malta also provided information on the 
number of pets entering thei r country per year and subjec t to national rules (including 
pets returning from abroad), the number of applications handled per year by carriers and 
the cost of an operation. Limited figures are summarised in Annex 23.  
Member States were also asked to provide the cost of an operation for carriers, but were 
unable to do so because this is considered as commercial information. Therefore, a global estimation of incomes for those carriers is impossible.  
A global calculation of the costs incurred by pet owners is theoretically possible, except 
for the UK, which did not provide figures, but this will not produce any valuable 
information on the real incomes for carriers. 
Maintaining the national rules will anyway c ontribute to sustainable incomes due to the 
monopoly situation generated by th e national system in place. 
 
EN 45   EN 6.5.1.6.  Quarantine facilities 
Approved quarantine facilities are used to accommodate for a six-month period pet 
animals entering the UK, Ireland, Malta and Sw eden when coming from non-listed third 
countries.  
If the transitional regime is definitively main tained, activities of quarantine facilities will 
be kept going. From the consultation, it a ppears that the UK has approved 31 quarantine 
facilities, Ireland 1, Malta 1 and Sweden 2, with resp ectively 2 134, 71, 206 and 34 
applications relating to dogs, cats and ferrets handled in 2006. The number of 
applications may be less than the number of animals entering quarantine as a licence can 
cover more than one animal. 
Member States were asked to provide the cost of a quarantine stay for a quarantine 
facility, but either failed to do so because it was considered as commercial information 
or provided information that was incomplete or not monetised.  
Therefore, a global estimation of incomes for those quarantine facilities is impossible. 
Only the costs incurred by ow ners have been provided by Member States and figures 
which range from €1 000 to €3 480 are presented in Annex 24.  
Maintaining national rules will anyway contribute to sustainable incomes due to the 
monopoly situation generated by th e national system in place. 
6.5.1.7.  Competent authorities 
From the Member State consultation, it appe ars that the various additional guarantees 
cause extra work because it is not easy to find out what are the exact rules in each 
country. 
For those Member States which have installe d checks at the border ei ther via "carriers", 
customs or veterinary aut horities, in contradiction wi th Community law (see point 
3.2.1), maintaining the national rules will mean  no let-up in the work, on a full or part-
time basis, of these categories of operators.  
6.5.1.8.  Impact on third countries 
Under this option, the more restrictive condi tions for entering the five countries will 
remain and still apply to pets coming from th ird countries listed or  not listed. The costs 
and burden on third countries' pet owners as well as on citizens from the five Member 
States returning home after a trip ab road are explained in section 6.1.2.  
6.5.2.  Social impacts 
6.5.2.1.  Employment 
If national rules are maintained, activi ties of EU-approved se rology laboratories, 
'carriers', quarantine facilities, authorised  veterinarians and an ti-parasite treatment 
 
EN 46   EN suppliers will be kept going and there should consequently be no particular 
unemployment.  
6.5.2.2.  Welfare of citizens 
If national rules are maintain ed, the quarantine placement wh ich applies to pet animals 
coming from non-listed third countries or not  in compliance with the national rules 
(short-term quarantine st ays) will continue.  
In such cases, social (and/or welfare) imp acts should be considered where pet owners 
are more often separated from their pet for a six-month period.  
As already mentioned in sect ion 6.5.1.1, a lack of boxes at the quarantin e stations could 
lead to travel delays for pet owners wh ich may cost them money and cause them 
inconvenience. 
In extreme cases a decision may be taken to reso rt to euthanasia or re -export, with all the 
associated effects. 
6.5.2.3.  Public health 
If national rules are maintained, it can be reasonably assumed that  there will be no 
significant clear benefits in terms of pub lic health. As explained in section 6.2.2.3, no 
human case of rabies within the EU due to lawful movements of pets has been reported 
in recent years (including from Baltic States or listed third countries such as the Russian 
Federation or the USA).  
6.5.3.  Environmental impacts 
This option means no major change as regard s the situation today. Although pet travel is 
on the increase and may have implications for the environment, it is difficult to establish a correlation between the current restrictiv e regimes and the number of pets (and pet 
owners) travelling. 
7. C
OMPARISON OF THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS  
7.1. Comparison of impacts 
To better compare the four options and clarif y the magnitude of impa cts according to the 
different groups of countries, distinction is made in the following tables between those 
groups: Member States currently under the transitional regime (Finland, Ireland, Malta, 
Sweden and the UK), Member States applying the general regime (EU-22 or EU-19 + 3 Baltic States), listed third countri es and non-listed third countries.  
For options 1, 2 and 3, separate tables visu alise the impacts on the costs incurred by 
travelling pet owners accordi ng to the origin and destin ation of the movement. The 
symbols 0 (neutral), + (positive impact) and – (negative impact) value the impact in the 
 
EN 47   EN following order: marking, passport, anti-rabi es vaccination, titration, anti-echinococcus 
and anti-tick treatment. 
No table has been prepared for option 4, whic h reflects the current situation (baseline - 
all 0).  
NB: Although the free movement regime practised between Ireland and the UK is not in 
line with the Regulation, the impact assessment would be in complete without evaluating 
the consequences particularly for this as pect, when comparing the options, and in 
particular in the above-m entioned separate tables. 
 
EN 48   EN Option 1  
EU 22  
Going to EU 19 Baltic 
States FI IE MT SE UK Listed 
TC Non-
listed 
TC 
ECONOMIC IMPACTS  
EU 19 0 0 0000+037 000+++ 000+++ 000++0 000+++   EU 22 
Baltic 
States 0 0 0000+0 000+++ 000+++ 000++0 000+++   
FI 0 0  000+++ 000+++ 000++0 000+++   
IE 0 0 0  0 00-000 ---000   
MT 0 0 0000+0 0  0 0   
SE 0 0 0 0 0  0   
UK 0 0 0 ---000 0 00-000    
Listed TC 0 0 0000+0 000+++ 000+++ 000++0 000+++   Impacts on costs for travelling 
pet owners  
Coming from 
Non listed TC 0 0 0000+0 +38 +2 +2 +2   
Impacts on authorised veterinari ans 0/- 0/- + 0/- 0/- + 0/- + 
Impacts on EU-approved rabies serology labor atories -/-- -/-- -/-- -/-- -/-- -/-- -/-- -/-- 
Impacts on suppliers of anti-paras ite treatments  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Impacts on transport companie s N/A N/A 0 0 N/A 0 N/A N/A 
Impacts on quarantine facilities N/A N/A --- --- --- --- N/A N/A  
Impacts on third countries (pet owners) +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++   
Enforcement costs - -- -- -- -- --   Impacts on MS competent authorities 
Administrative 
costs + + + + + +   
SOCIAL IMPACTS  
Employment impacts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Impacts on welfare of citizens ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ +++ 
rabies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
E.multilocularis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Public health impacts 
ticks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS  
 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
                                                 
37 marking-passport-anti-rabies vaccination-titration-anti-echinococcu s treatment-anti-tick treatment. 
38 Skip the costs of quarantine stay which depends on the Member State. 
 
EN 49   EN Option 2  
EU 22  Going to 
EU 19 Baltic States FI IE MT SE UK Listed TC Non-listed TC 
ECONOMIC IMPACTS  
EU19 0 0 0 →0000+0 0 →000+++ 0 →000+++ 0 →000++0 0 →000+++   EU 22 
Baltic States 0 0 0 →0000+0 0 →000+++ 0 →000+++ 0 →000++0 0 →000+++   
FI 0 0  0 →000+++ 0 →000+++ 0 →000++0 0 →000+++   
IE 0 0 0  0 0 →00-000 0 →---000   
MT 0 0 0 →0000+0 0  0 0   
SE 0 0 0 0 0  0   
UK 0 0 0 0 →---000 0 0 →00-000    
Listed TC 0 0 0 →0000+0 0 →000+++ 0 →000+++ 0 →000++0 0 →000+++   Impacts on costs for travelling pet owners  
Coming from 
Non listed TC 0 0 0 →0000+0 0 →+39 0 →+1 0 →+1 0 →+1   
Impacts on authorised veterinari ans 0/- 0/- + 0/- 0/- + 0/- + 
Impacts on EU-approved rabies serology labor atories -/-- -/-- -/-- -/-- -/-- -/-- -/-- -/-- 
Impacts on suppliers of anti-paras ite treatments  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Impacts on transport companie s N/A N/A 0 0 N/A 0 N/A N/A 
Impacts on quarantine facilities N/A N/A --- --- --- --- N/A N/A  
Impacts on third countries (pet owners) +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++   
Enforcement costs - -- -- -- -- --   Impacts on MS competent authorities 
Administrative costs + + + + + +   
SOCIAL IMPACTS  
Employment impacts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Impacts on welfare of citizens ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ +++ 
rabies 0 0 0/+ 0/+ 0/+ 0/+ 0 0 
E.multilocularis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Public health impacts 
ticks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS  
 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
 
                                                 
39 Skip the costs of quarantine stay which depends on the Member State. 
 
EN 50   EN Option 3  
EU 22  Going to 
EU 19 Baltic States FI IE MT SE UK Listed 
TC Non-listed TC 
ECONOMIC IMPACTS  
EU 19 0 0 0000+0 000+++ 000+++ 000++0 000+++   EU 22 
Baltic States 00--00 00--00 00--+0 00--++ 00--++ 00--+0 00--++   
FI 0 0  000+++ 000+++ 000++0 000+++   
IE 0 0 0  0 00-000 ---000   
MT 0 0 0000+0 0  0 0   
SE 0 0 0 0 0  0   
UK 0 0 0 ---000 0 00-000    
Listed TC 0 0 0000+0 000+++ 000+++ 000++0 000+++   Impacts 
on costs 
for 
travelling 
pet 
owners  
Coming from 
Non listed TC 0 0 0000+0 +40 +1 +1 +1   
Impacts on authorised veterinari ans 0/- 0/- + 0/- 0/- + 0/- + 
Impacts on EU-approved rabies serology 
laboratories -/-- -/-- -/-- -/-- -/-- -/-- -/-- -/-- 
Impacts on suppliers of anti-parasite 
treatments  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Impacts on transport companie s N/A N/A 0 0 N/A 0 N/A N/A 
Impacts on quarantine facilities N/A N/A --- --- --- --- N/A N/A  
Impacts on third countries (pet owners) +++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +++   
Enforcement costs - -- -- -- -- --   Impacts on MS 
competent 
authorities Administrative costs + + + + + +   
SOCIAL IMPACTS  
Employment impacts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
Impacts on welfare of citizens ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ +++ 
rabies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
E.multilocularis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Public health 
impacts 
ticks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS  
 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
                                                 
40 Skip the costs of quarantine stay which depends on the Member State. 
 
EN 51   EN 7.2. Discussing the options 
Building on the analysis of section 6, be low is a summary of the advantages and 
disadvantages of the four options.  
Option 1  
No action 
Disadvantages  
• It would not take into account the EFSA approach to the definition of countries 
at risk with regard to rabies base d only on the prevalence in pet animals. 
• It would be likely to lead to a decrease  in laboratory incomes with associated 
effects on staff, although activities in relation to non-listed third countries 
ought to compensate for those losses.  
Advantages  
• It will lead to perfect harmonisation and simplification of the legislation 
governing non-commercial movement of pe t animals. It will respect the single 
market principles.  
• It would lead to proportionate measures that  
9 are the most advantageous to citizens who travel with their pet animals in 
terms of ease and cost-risk/benefit ratio, including citizens from the five Member States - predominantly Ireland and the UK - who are affected when returning home. 
9 at the same time, preserve and help ensure a high level of safety of pet 
movements throughout EU territory and abroad. 
• The current provisions of the genera l regime regardin g non-listed third 
countries guarantee a suffici ent level of safety which would allow the lifting of 
quarantine measures lik ely to boost tourism.  
• It would acknowledge the huge efforts ma de by the Baltic States with the 
support of the Community to combat rabies  in their territori es and would avoid 
giving them an unjustifiable bad reputa tion and treating them less favourably 
than certain liste d third countries. 
• It would take into account most of the recommendations of the EFSA opinions, 
in particular those wh ich recognise that  
9 any measures aimed only at pets for the control of ticks may have a 
limited effect on preventing further introduction and expansion of tick 
species, 
 
EN 52   EN 9 the risk of introduction of E. multilocularis  through trans-boundary 
wildlife movements is higher than through movements of infected pet 
animals. 
• It would not allow at Council and European Parliament level the reopening of 
the debate on aspects of the Regulat ion not covered by the present impact 
assessment.  
Option 2  
Extension of the transitional regime until 2011 
Disadvantages  
• They are of the same nature as those highlighted in option 4 but on a shorter 
timescale.  
• It would allow at Council and European Parliament level the reopening of the 
debate on aspects of the Regulation not covered by the present impact 
assessment. 
Advantages  
• It would pave the way for harmonising th e rules at a sufficiently high level of 
protection under the current ly established, tried and proven system at the 
earliest possible point of time when furthe r reduced or even eradicated sylvatic 
rabies in the EU makes the risk-miti gating measures recommended by EFSA 
redundant.  
• 2011 also corresponds to the end of the eight-year transitional period, not under 
review in accordance with Article 23 of the Regulation,  after which only 
electronic identification will be accepted as the means of identifying an animal 
under the Regulation. Thus , this option would cont ribute to clarity of 
Community legislation, because cha nges to two aspects of rules on pet 
movements would coincide. 
• It would give the competent authorities of the Member States under the 
transitional regime more time to provi de the public with clear and easily 
accessible information on the new rules. 
• It would enhance clarity by determining th e regime to be applied for Articles 6, 
8 and 16 as of 1 January 2012 and allow technical adaptations to be made. 
Option 3  
Adjustment of the current rules applic able to all Member States based on a 
technically reviewed Regulation 
Disadvantages  
• It would lead to the creation of two groups of countries with differentiated 
rules according to th e country of origin 
 
EN 53   EN 9 while singling out the Baltic States despite huge efforts and positive 
developments over several years. 
9 while causing extra confusion and inconvenience amongst travellers with 
new rules in place. 
• It would conflict with the current EU approach to the definition of safe 
countries with regard to rabies that has proved successful since the entry into 
force of the Regulation for third countr ies willing to be recognised as safe. 
• When redesigning the rules for the moveme nt of pets on technical grounds, the 
most likely scenario would be that those Member States that currently benefit 
from national rules would have no reason to depart from their privileged zero-
risk policy, other equally rabies-free Me mber States might well perceive the 
general regime as excessive, and the Baltic States, given their improved situation, might see it as discriminato ry. The result would be a compromise 
liable to further diversify the movement  conditions and to significantly reduce 
the overall level of protection within the EU. 
• It would be likely to lead to a drop in laboratory incomes with associated 
effects on staff, although activities in re lation to non-listed third countries and 
to young animals from Baltic States could compensate for those losses. 
Advantages
 
• It would take account of the EFSA opinion on rabies which, based on 2005 
data, singles out the Baltic St ates as countries with a re sidual rabies risk due to 
overly high prevalence in pet animals which requires the implementation of 
additional risk-mitigating measures to enhance the level of safety. 
• EFSA regime shifts the burden of risk mitigation to the Member State of origin 
of the risk and thus sets incentives for improvement. 
Option 4  
Continuation of the tr ansitional regime on a permanent basis  
Disadvantages  
• It will not take account of the scient ific opinions provided by EFSA, according 
to which the five Member States have no particular status with regard to the 
diseases concerned, and w ould appear disproportionate  in the light of our 
current knowledge of the risk posed in  particular by ticks  and echinococcus. 
• It would not remove the confusion and disruption experienced by some 
travellers and would continue to be costly for pet owners (cost multiplied by 2 to 10) including citizens from the five Member States – predominantly Ireland and the UK - who are affected when returning home. 
• It is far removed from the desire of most Member St ates to achieve 
harmonisation and simplification, cons idering the similar animal health 
situation in Europe with regard to th e diseases concerned. Keeping different 
 
EN 54   EN sanitary requirements in place in the EU is not supported by the evidence and 
experience gained so far. 
Advantages  
• Apart from the financial aspect, the ava ilability of a quarantine regime may be 
beneficial for those that n eed to depart wit hout delay due to professional or 
personal reasons. 
• In a quarantine regime, checks are perfor med post-arrival on the travelling pet 
by the competent authorities of th e Member State of destination.  
8. MONITORING AND EVALUATION  
To ensure that the new regime achieves the objectives set in section 4, the 
Commission will regularly monitor several indicators to assess its performance. 
Data on indicators will be collected through di fferent existing sources of information 
as summarised in the table on page 52. Add itional data may be generated, especially 
by means of surveys and/or interviews, to measure the level of satisfaction among 
the population/pet owners. Data from Member  States' authorities (on pet movements 
and on public health) will be collected regularly at EU level as part of reinforced cooperation processes with Member Stat es by the Standing Committee on the Food 
Chain and Animal Health (SCoFCAH).  
The Commission will closely monitor the situ ation, especially as regards animal and 
public health. After consulting our internal evaluation office and assessing DG SANCO's multi-annual evaluation programme, it was decided not to plan external 
evaluations at this stage as it was d eemed disproportionate . In our view, the 
monitoring mechanisms will provide suffici ent information to assess the case for 
revising the Regulation at a later stage (in 5-10 years). However, if the situation 
changes and animal and public health risks increase, we will consider conducting an 
external evaluation on animal and public health issues, whic h would cover this 
Regulation. 
 
EN 55   EN Issues to be 
monitored Indicators Source Frequency of data 
collection 
Incidence/prevalen
ce of rabies cases 
in pets per 
Member State WHO Rabies 
Bulletin Europe 
   
 
FVO inspections Quarterly data 
available 
(distinction per country and per type of domestic 
animal) 
periodically 
Incidence/prevalen
ce of ticks in pet 
population Existing WHO 
monitoring  periodically Animal and public 
health situation 
(equivalent in all 
MS) 
Incidence/Prevalen
ce of E. 
multilocularis  in 
pet population EFSA Annual 
report on zoonoses (based on Member 
States' data) yearly 
Difficulties, 
complexity and burden for pet 
owners Change in 
perception of the complexity amongst pet owners / level of satisfaction of pet 
owners Number of 
consumer complaints (via 
letters)  
Number of 
European 
Parliament 
questions 
Survey amongst 
pet owners  n/a 
  
 
n/a 
 
 
 
3-5 years after 
entry into force of 
new regime in all 
MS 
Implementation of the regime Level of 
implementation Information via the 
SCoFCAH (questionnaires to 
Member States) 
Number of 
consumer 
complaints (via 
letters)  1-2 years after the 
ending of the transitional period – and after that 
periodically 
 
9. CONCLUSION  
Following the analysis of the avai lable options it appears that options 3 and 4  do not 
contribute meaningfully to solving the most acute problems voiced by administrations and citizens affected by a complicated, burdensome and inconsistent 
system of excessive and unjustified anim al health requiremen ts, in particular 
regarding rabies. 
 
EN 56   EN Moreover, when redesigning th e rules for the movement of  pets on technical grounds 
(option 3), the most likely scen ario would be that those Me mber States that currently 
benefit from national rules would have no reason to de part from their privileged 
zero-risk policy, wh ile other equally rabies-free Memb er States might well perceive 
the general regime as excessive, and the Balt ic States, given their improved situation, 
might see it as discriminatory especially  in comparison with certain listed third 
countries. The result would be a compromise liable to further diversify the movement 
conditions and to dismantle an efficient a nd well-tried regime and thus significantly 
reduce the overall level of protection within the EU. 
Options 1 and 2 are similar in principle and eith er would entail removing sooner or 
later the unjustified dispar ities and discriminations by implementing throughout the 
EU the harmonised rules of the general re gime, whose high level of protection has 
proven to be effectiv e in preventing human and pet animal cases of rabies caused by 
lawful movement of pets between and into Member States. 
Both options would ensure that there is su fficient time for the competent authorities 
of Finland, Ireland, Malta, Sweden and the UK to provide  the public with clear and 
easily accessible information concerning the new rules.  
Option 2 has a slight advantage over option 1. In terms of lowering the public health 
risk, a reasonable extension of the transitional measures would defer the application 
of the general regime throughout the EU to a point in time when EU-supported 
measures to eradicate remaining pockets of sylvatic rabies in the EU have rendered 
EFSA recommendations on risk mitigation obsolete.  
Moreover, in accordance with the Regulati on, in 2011 electronic identification will 
be the only means of identifying an animal . This would ensure additional safety and 
security of the movement of pet animals since the new system in place would avoid 
falsifications and enhance legibility  of the identification information.  
Option 2 would also clarify th e regime that would apply at the end of the transitional 
period in all Member States. 
Given the enlargement of the Schengen area  and the likely disa ppearance of control 
points, such a delay could be sufficient to dispel remaining concerns and prejudices 
about the perceived risks rela ted to pet movements and thus  facilitate acceptance of 
the general regime in all Member States. 
 
EN 57   EN ANNEX 1  
Member State consultation on experience gained  with the implementation of Article 6, 8 
and 16 of the Regulation 

 
EN 58   EN 

 
EN 59   EN ANNEX 2  
Commission request to Ireland, Malta, Sw eden and the UK to provide a report 
according to Article 16 of the Regulation 

 
EN 60   EN ANNEX 3  
Five Member States consultation on the im pacts on approved transport companies and 
quarantine facilities if national  rules were to be withdrawn 

 
EN 61   EN 

 
EN 62   EN 

 
EN 63   EN ANNEX 4  
Member State consultation on the prepar ation costs incurred by pet owners 

 
EN 64   EN 

 
EN 65   EN ANNEX 5  
Member States consultation on bilateral arra ngements between Ireland, Malta, Sweden 
and the UK 
 
 
EN 66   EN ANNEX 6  
Commission's request to EFSA for a scie ntific advice on the fox tapeworm  

 
EN 67   EN 
 
 
EN 68   EN ANNEX 7  
Scientific advice from EF SA on the fox tapeworm 
  
 
EN 69   EN ANNEX 8  
Consultation of EU-approved serology labora tories on potential impacts of a regime 
which may restrict the impl ementation of a test 

 
EN 70   EN 

 
EN 71   EN 

 
EN 72   EN 

 
EN 73   EN ANNEX 9  
UEVP's opinion on the review of the Regulation 

 
EN 74   EN 

 
EN 75   EN ANNEX 10  
Setting up of an Inter Service Steering Group 

 
EN 76   EN 

 
EN 77   EN ANNEX 11  
Pet passport 
(Commission Decision 2003/803/EC)  

 
EN 78   EN ANNEX 12  
Transitional regime 
Summary of the different national animal health requirements in force in Finland, 
Ireland, Malta, Sweden and the UK 
(Source: Websites' competent authorities) 
FI 
Information extracted from  
http://www.evira.fi/portal/en/animals_and_h ealth/import_and_export/dogs__cats_and_ferrets
_and_import_of_canine_semen/   
Mandatory anti-parasite 
treatment against echinococcus Dogs and cats must be given not more than 30 days before 
it arrives to Finland an appr opriate dosage of medicine 
containing praziquantel or ep siprantel against tapeworm 
causing echinococcosis approved for the species concerned. 
The medication against echinococ cosis is entered to the pet 
passport by veterinarian.  
Medication against echinococcosi s is not required if the 
animal is imported directly from Sweden, Norway (other 
parts than Spitsbergen), the United Kingdom or Ireland, or 
if the animal is brought back to Finland within 24 hours from leaving the country. Medication against echinococcosis is also not re quired for animals which are 
less than three months old.  
IE 
Information extracted from  
http://www.agricultu re.gov.ie/index.jsp?f ile=pets/travel.xml  
Mandatory blood testing 
before entry into their territory to confirm a protective level of anti-rabies antibodies Subsequent to the first rabies  vaccination (usually about a 
month later but your veterinarian  will advise) your pet must 
be blood tested to confirm a ne utralising antibody titration at 
least equal to 0.5 IU/ml. The te st must be carried out in a 
laboratory approved for this pur pose. If you keep your rabies 
vaccinations up to date you will only have to do this blood-test once. However if there is any break in vaccination the test must be repeated. Bl ood sampling must have been 
carried out in an eligible c ountry. Your pet may enter Ireland 
only when at least six months has expired since a successful 
blood-test. This provision is to ensure that your pet is not 
incubating rabies.  
If your pet has had a break in it s vaccinations and has had to 
repeat the blood-test, six months must pass from the date of 
 
EN 79   EN the most recent test before  your pet can enter Ireland. 
Mandatory anti-parasite 
treatment against echinococcus Between 24 and 48 hours before you check-in for travel you 
must bring your pet to a register ed veterinarian to be treated 
against tapeworm. This is to prevent a risk of potentially serious disease entering Ireland. The tapeworm (echinococcus multilocularis) treatment must contain praziquantal as an active ingredient. 
Mandatory anti-parasite 
treatment against ticks Between 24 and 48 hours before you check-in for travel you 
must bring your pet to a register ed veterinarian to be treated 
against tick. This is to preven t a risk of potentially serious 
disease entering Irela nd. The tick treatment must be other 
than by a collar impregnated with acaricide.  
MT 
Information extracted from  
http://www.veterinary.gov.mt/page.asp?p=6107&l=1  
Mandatory blood testing 
before entry into their territory to confirm a protective level of anti-rabies antibodies The pet owner must refer to his/her Veterinarian in order to 
have a blood sample taken at least 30 days after the rabies vaccination, and then sent to an  authorised laboratory where 
a seroneutralization titre test is carried out in order to determine the antibody titre. Pe t animals cannot enter Malta 
until at least six calendar months after the date that the Veterinarian took a blood sample that give a successful seroneutralization ti tre test result. 
Mandatory anti-parasite 
treatment against echinococcus 24-48 hours prior before starting the journey for Malta, it 
must be treated with praz iquantel for tapeworm. The 
treatment must be carried out  by a Veterinarian, who will 
then issue a certificat e indicating the products  used as well as 
the date and the time (in 24-hour system) when the treatment was carried out. 
Mandatory anti-parasite treatment against ticks 24-48 hours prior before starting the journey for Malta, it 
must be treated with fiprinol fo r ticks. The treatment must be 
carried out by a Veterinarian, who will then issue a certificate indicating the products used as well as the date 
and the time (in 24-hour system) when the treatment was carried out. 
SE 
Information extracted from  
http://www2.sjv.se/webdav/files/ SJV/trycksaker/Pdf_ovrigt/ovr76gb.pdf   
Mandatory blood testing 
before entry into their territory No sooner than 120 days and no more than 365 days after 
the basic vaccination against rabi es, a veterinarian shall take 
 
EN 80   EN to confirm a protective level of 
anti-rabies antibodies a blood sample of the animal in order to verify the level of 
rabies antibodies. 
Mandatory anti-parasite treatment against echinococcus A veterinarian shall deworm your animal against tapeworm 
(Echinococcus) 1-10 days before you bring it to Sweden. 
There is no requirement for deworming a cat or a dog that 
are to be imported into Sweden and that have only stayed in Finland and Norway at least one year prior to import. 
Four-week certificate for comm uting between Sweden and 
Denmark: by derogation, animal s that live in Sweden or 
Denmark and that accompany commuters between these two countries, are allowed to be dewormed every 28 days by a veterinarian  
UK 
Information extracted from 
http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/quarant ine/pets/procedures/vets_proc.htm   
Mandatory blood testing 
before entry into their territory to confirm a protective level of anti-rabies antibodies To be carried out after vacc ination against rabies by an 
approved laboratory six m onths prior to travel 
Mandatory anti-parasite 
treatment against echinococcus The treatment must be carried out not less than 24 hours and 
not more than 48 hours before the pet is checked-in with the approved transport company to tr avel on the return journey 
to the UK. The treatment must be given every time a pet enters the UK. 
The tapeworm treatment must contain praziquantel and be 
administered in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. 
Mandatory anti-parasite treatment against ticks The treatment must be carried out not less than 24 hours and 
not more than 48 hours before the pet is checked-in with the approved transport company to tr avel on the return journey 
to the UK. The treatment must be given every time a pet enters the UK. 
The tick treatment must be a veterinary product which has 
marketing authorisation in the country of use and is licensed 
for use against ticks. A tick collar is not acceptable.  
 
EN 81   EN ANNEX 13  
Transitional regime 
Exemptions existing between Ireland, Malt a, Sweden and the UK, as regard anti-rabies 
vaccination and antibody titration requirements  
in the context of Article 6(1) of the Regulation 
(Source: Member States' competent authorities' consultation ) 
IE • Ireland currently exempts pets enteri ng from the UK from vaccination and 
antibody titration requirements. 
MT • Malta exempts UK, IE and SE from  the antibody titration but not from 
vaccination. 
SE • Pets coming directly from the UK a nd Ireland: no rabies vaccination and no 
antibody titration 
• Pets coming directly from Malta: Rabi es vaccination + an tibody titration at 
120 days post vaccination, at  the earliest (Sweden is currently performing a 
review of the national regulation complementing Regulation 998/2003, and 
is considering abolishing the vaccination and titration requirement for pets from Malta.)  
UK • The UK currently exempts pets enteri ng from Ireland from vaccination and 
antibody titration requirements. 
• No exemption from vaccination and anti body titration requirements for pets 
entering the UK from Sweden and Malta 
 
EN 82   EN ANNEX 14  
Transitional regime 
Exemptions existing between Sweden and Denmark 
in the context of Article 21 of the Regulation 
(Source : Commission Decision 2004/557/EC and MS consultation)  
SE/DK By way of derogation of  Article 6 of the Regulation, Sweden exempts the Danish 
dogs and cats travelling to the Danish island of Bornholm via Sweden from the passport, rabies vaccination or antibody titration requirements, as long as the 
animals  
• are marked either by tattoo or transponder,  
• travel directly along one of two give n routes from Sealand through Sweden 
to Bornholm either way (maximum of 4 hours drive) and,  
• have a ticket for the ferry trip,  
• do not leave the car/truck/bus /train when in Sweden,  
• are not in contact with  any other animals, 
• are de-wormed according to Swedish ru les. De-worming has to take place 
either within 10 days before entry or  continuously every 28 days according 
to the four-week certificate. 
 
EN 83   EN ANNEX 15  
Figures on pet movements 
(Source: Member States' competent authorities' consultation ) 
  IE MT UK 
2002   41137 
2003   55516 
2004  289 65656 
2005 955 330 79923 
2006 1295 N/A 84767 
2007 127841 528 99307 Number of pets entering 
the country per year (including pets returning from abroad) 
2008    104031
42 
                                                 
41 Last update 1/11/2007. 
42 Figures extracted from http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/quarantine/pets/procedures/stats.htm  (Figures 
exclude animals entering quarantine and do not include animals entering UK from the Republic of Ireland as this information is not collected.). 
 
EN 84   EN ANNEX 16  
Complaints 
Complaints from individuals  Since the entry into fo rce of the Regulation, the Commissi on has registered many complaints 
from British, Irish and Swedish citizens submitted either directly or through their Member of 
the European Parliament. It is certainly the ca se that national rules affect primarily citizens 
from those five Member States upon their return  from a trip abroad. Complaints are mainly 
about: 
(1) exorbitant cargo rates charge d by international air carriers to transport pets due to the 
monopoly situation as a result  of the obligation to tran sport pets as "cargo",  
(2) limited number and inequitable geographi cal distribution of entry points where 
necessary checks are performed, 
(3) different protocols in place in these Member States leading to unfortunate 
misunderstandings, 
(4) high fees requested by veterinarians situated  in the proximity of exit ports to the UK, 
in particular the area of Calais, for the certification and treatment required for pets accompanying UK citizens regularly holidaying outside the UK (stays of more than 48 hours and during bank holidays/weekends ma y lead to additional costs in relation 
to the pre-entry anti-parasite treatment). 
Complaints from competent authorities of Member States  
Although the Member States consider the gene ral regime under the Regulation to be an 
improvement overall compared to the previous  situation in which the individual Member 
States applied their own import rules, the follo wing shortcomings of the current transitional 
regime have been singled out:  
– the reinforced protection measures between rabies-free Member States (most of the 
western parts of the EU according to OIE) and those with a long history of rabies 
freedom (UK or Ireland) are considered outdated and discriminatory. OIE does not 
justify such differences as there are two ways of achieving rabies freedom; 
– the transitional regime is unfair in comp arison with the general regime that has 
proved to be efficient, as no rabies cases have been reported in Member States other 
than the UK, Ireland, Malta and Sweden alt hough they allow entry of pets coming 
from non-rabies-free Member States w ithout prior testi ng for antibodies; 
– differences in sanitary requirements, in cluding amongst the five Member States 
concerned, lead to a lengthening of the time  required before pets are authorised to 
travel and hamper subsequent journe ys through those five Member States, 
– Denmark raised the specific issue of the Swedish national transit requirements, 
which cause serious inco nvenience to pet owners travelling frequently. 
 
EN 85   EN ANNEX 17  
Rabies epidemiology and cont rol measures in the EU 
Rabies is one of the first diseases to be id entified as a zoonosis. It causes encephalomyelitis 
and can affect all mammals including humans. Virus transmission occurs when there is 
contact with infectious saliva, i.e. bites, scra tches, broken skin. In the absence of timely and 
appropriate treatment the di sease is always fatal. 
Although rabies is a vaccine-preventable, com pulsorily notifiable disease, it is still 
widespread throughout the world, responsible for about 55 000 human deaths every year 
(99% occur in Asia and Africa), most often following an infection tr ansmitted by a rabid dog 
(urban rabies). Each year, around 10 million pe ople receive treatment after exposure to 
animals in which rabies is suspected. The World Heath Organisatio n (WHO) has developed 
strategies to promote wider access to appropriate post-exposure treatment to prevent human rabies cases and to support dog rabies c ontrol by mass vaccination campaigns and dog 
population management.  
I. Rabies eradication strategy in the EU 
With wildlife species accounting for appr oximately 80% of all rabies cases in 
Europe, rabies is predominately of a sylvat ic nature. More than 80% of wildlife cases 
are recorded in red foxes ( Vulpes vulpes ). Rabies transmission within animal 
populations is largely density dependent. In  the past, conventional methods of fox 
rabies control such as intensive culling or trapping have generally failed to reduce 
and maintain the fox population below a certa in level to extinguish rabies, not least 
because such measures also affect the soci al structure and behavi oural patterns of the 
fox population.  
The oral vaccination of foxes against rabies  via aerial bait distribution, which was 
introduced some 25 years ago, opened up a new avenue of rabies co ntrol in wildlife. 
Since then this method has proved to be the only effective way to eliminate rabies in 
foxes and other terrestrial reservoir species , such as raccoon dogs . Great progress has 
been made in the eradication of rabies in  the EU with the optim isation of vaccination 
strategies: aerial bait distribution sche mes using GPS (Global Positioning System) 
technology, size of vaccination areas, timing and duration of vaccination campaigns, 
surveillance and monitoring (follow-up of bait uptake and immunity of foxes).  
Field evidence has demonstrated that with th e elimination of sylvatic rabies in the 
EU, occurrence of the disease is di minishing in domestic animals.  
II. Community contribution to the rabies  monitoring and eradication programmes 
The results obtained with EU-wide oral vaccination of foxes, financed by the 
Community in the framework of rabies er adication and monito ring programmes, are 
outstanding. Over a ten-year period more than €80 000 000 has gone towards eradicating rabies with a vi ew to protecting the health of humans and facilitating 
movements of susceptible species within the EU. 
Therefore, in most parts of  Western and Central Europe, rabies has been successfully 
controlled and eradicated. So  far between 1991 and 2008, as a result of effective oral 
 
EN 86   EN vaccination programmes, nine Member Stat es (Finland, the Netherlands, Italy, 
France, Luxembourg, Belgium, Czech Republic, Austria and Germany) have declared compliance with the criteria to be  considered free of rabies in accordance 
with the relevant Chapter
43 of the Terrestrial Animal Health Code of the World 
Organisation for Animal Health (OIE). 
Experience has shown that rabies eradic ation is successful when eradication 
programmes are properly defined, resourced and implemented. Member States with 
positive findings in their wild carnivore popul ation have eradication programmes in 
progress or planned. In orde r to eradicate rabies throughout the EU, and to avoid 
reintroduction of rabies from neighbouri ng countries east of the EU, continuous 
vaccination programmes are impor tant in high-risk areas. 
Council Decision 90/424/ EEC of 26 June 199044 on expenditure in the veterinary 
field provides for the possibi lity of a financial contribution by the Community in the 
rabies eradication and monitoring programmes.  
The Commission has intensified excha nges of views between Member States 
involved in co-financed eradication programmes by creating a task force45 dedicated 
to rabies and aiming at improving the effectiveness of its eradication. The rabies subgroup, which meets regularly, provides te chnical expertise and advice for the 
Member States and the Commission. 
Concerned by the residual risks arising from potentially infected wildlife in Eastern 
Europe and from the presence of rabies in neighbouring countri es, the Commission 
also increased its financial contributions  to cross-border programmes for the oral 
vaccination of wildlife along the Community 's external borders. The appropriate 
financial contributions were committed for the 2007 rabies eradication programme
46 
to be implemented by Lithuania, incl uding vaccination along th e border with the 
Kaliningrad Region of the Russian Federation.  
Legal constraints hampered the implemen tation of that programme, for which a 
solution was found by adopting Council Decision 2006/965/EC47 providing a legal 
basis for direct Community support of dis ease control measures outside the EU.  
Subsequently the Russian Federation submitted a multi-annual rabies eradication 
plan in the Kaliningrad Region for th e period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 
2011, providing for anti-rabies vaccination of  wildlife in the en tire region. A draft 
Commission Decision necessary to provi de the required Co mmunity funding is 
currently under consideration. 
A programme on the territory of the Russian  Federation at the border with Finland 
has been in place since 2000. Similarly, disc ussions are under way with Ukraine and 
are at a less advanced stage with Belarus about joint efforts to tackle this disease 
within their territories. 
                                                 
43 http://www.oie.int/eng/normes/mcode/en_chapitre_2.2.5.htm   
44 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/e n/consleg/1990/D/01990D0424-20070101-en.pdf   
45 http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/dis eases/eradication/taskforce_en.htm   
46 Commission Decisions 2006/687/EC and 2006/875/EC. 
47 OJ L 397, 30.12.2006, p. 22. 
 
EN 87   EN In 2007 the Commission initia ted discussions with the Western Balkan countries 
(that have candidate or potential candidate  status) aiming at s upporting their efforts 
to combat animal diseases including rabies in order to limit the risk to animal and 
human health, not only in the countries themse lves but also in regard to the Member 
States. The Commission's intention is to give  financial aid to those countries via IPA 
funds (the instrument for pre-accession a ssistance), through the buying of vaccines 
and the possibility to drop bait from airpla nes. All Western Balk an countries have 
submitted their national disease eradication programmes for financing under the IPA 
2008 budget.  
III. The role of the Community Reference Laboratory for rabies 
In mid 2007, the Commission decided to la unch a procedure fo r designation of a 
Community Reference Laborat ory (CRL) for rabies. The existing CRL for rabies 
serology only conducts serological tests to monitor the effectiveness of vaccinations 
against rabies for movements of pets and has very limited competence as regards the 
main tasks related to rabies control and erad ication. There is indeed a need to have an 
EU laboratory with special expertise on analys is relevant to the detection of rabies 
which could provide advice on: 
(1) the latest methods for combating rabies via the use of vaccines which are based 
on the results of epidemiological investigations; 
(2) harmonising and coordinating the use of methods to monitor vaccination 
efficacy;  
(3) making it easier to obtain comparable  data collected in  countries with 
eradication programmes;  
(4) analysing the data collect ed and sharing experience. 
This reference laboratory should also offe r training and advice on rabies eradication. 
These tasks could be dealt with in close cooperation with the European Food Safety 
Authority (EFSA) or other relevant bodies. 
By Commission Regulation (EC) No 737/2008, the Laboratoire d'ét udes sur la rage 
et la pathologie des animaux sauvages of the Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire 
des Aliments (AFSSA), Nancy, France, was designated as CRL for rabies from 1 
July 2008 until 30 June 2013. AFSSA-Nancy is also the existing CRL for rabies 
serology, operative since 2000. 
 
EN 88   EN IV. Community financial contribution to rabies eradication programmes since 1995 

 
EN 89   EN ANNEX 18  
Rabies data in EU-15 when the Regulation was adopted 
(Source 'Rabies Bulletin Europe'- years 2002/2003) 
2002 
domestic animals 
 total number wildlife dogs cats others 
AT 24 22 1 1 0 
BE 0 0 0 0 0 
DK 3 0 0 0 1 
FI 0 0 0 0 0 
FR 3 0 1 0 0 
DE 43 33 1 1 0 
GR 0 0 0 0 0 
IE 0 0 0 0 0 
IT 0 0 0 0 0 
LU 0 0 0 0 0 
NL 3 0 0 0 0 
PT 0 0 0 0 0 
ES 8 0 4 0 3 
SE 0 0 0 0 0 
UK 2 0 0 0 0 
2003 
domestic animals  total number wildlife dogs cats others 
AT 1 0 0 0 1 
BE 0 0 0 0 0 
DK 3 0 0 0 0 
FI 1 0 0 0 1 
FR 2 0 0 0 0 
DE 37 24 0 0 0 
GR 0 0 0 0 0 
IE 0 0 0 0 0 
IT 0 0 0 0 0 
LU 0 0 0 0 0 
NL 7 0 0 0 0 
PT 0 0 0 0 0 
ES 1 0 1 0 0 
SE 0 0 0 0 0 
UK 1 0 0 0 0 
 
EN 90   EN ANNEX 19  
Comparative rabies data from 2003 to 2008 in Bulgaria, Belarus, Estonia, Croatia, 
Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Romania, the Russian Federation and Ukraine  
(Source 'Rabies Bulletin Europe')  
BULGARIA 
domestic animals 
 total 
number wildlife dogs cats others 
2003 19 15 2 0 2 
2004 11 4 0 2 5 
2005 8 4 1 0 3 
2006 10 4 1 4 1 
2007 40 27 7 6 0 
2008 51 41 5 4 1 
BELARUS 
domestic animals 
 total 
number wildlife dogs cats others 
2003 1077 761 133 119 64 
2004 211 135 27 28 21 
2005 591 442 63 41 45 
2006 1499 1136 136 129 98 
2007 823 603 61 79 80 
2008  964 735 79 75  75 
ESTONIA 
domestic animals 
 total 
number wildlife dogs cats others 
2003 814 697 34 28 55 
2004 314 254 24 20 16 
2005 266 229 6 8 23 
2006 114 101 5 4 4 
2007 4 2 0 0 2 
2008  3 1 1 0  1 
 
EN 91   EN CROATIA 
domestic animals 
 total 
number wildlife dogs cats others 
2003 633 590 21 14 8 
2004 504 471 13 15  5 
2005 557 525 11 14  7 
2006 565 516 24 12  13 
2007 635 596 15 12  12 
2008  1061 982 29 30  20 
LITHUANIA 
domestic animals 
 total 
number wildlife dogs cats others 
2003 1108 796 56 81 175 
2004 553 408 39 34 72 
2005 1652 1312 89 92 159 
2006 2232 1883 111 88 150 
2007 432 313 34 43 42 
2008  69 47 5 6  11 
LATVIA 
domestic animals 
 total 
number wildlife dogs cats others 
2003 964 282 62 52 21 
2004 443 350 33 35 25 
2005 421 353 20 29 19 
2006 472 384 31 44 13 
2007 203 145 26 27 5 
2008  110 90 8 10  2 
POLAND 
domestic animals 
 total 
number wildlife dogs cats others 
2003 388 310 19 27 26 
2004 136 103 4 10  9 
2005 138 98 5 7  24 
2006 82 59 4 6  9 
2007 70 52 2 6  7 
2008 29 21 1 1  3 
 
EN 92   EN ROMANIA 
domestic animals 
 total 
number wildlife dogs cats others 
2003 95 67 8 5 15 
2004 187 119 28 18 22 
2005 530 354 64 61 51 
2006 293 219 34 17 23 
2007 378 269 40 24 44 
2008  1089 906 79 47  57 
RUSSIA 
domestic animals 
 total 
number wildlife dogs cats others 
2003 2866 1360 624 347 531 
2004 1549 563 361 282 330 
2005 3087 1306 647 493 633 
2006 1349 579 261 227 280 
2007 3471 1610 539 517 798 
2008  3353 1628 758 501  454 
UKRAINE 
domestic animals 
 total 
number wildlife dogs cats others 
2003 2031 924 369 442 293 
2004 907 425 132 221 128 
2005 2113 959 358 470 324 
2006 2020 982 376 400 262 
2007 2932 1348 495 669 417 
2008  2164 822 545 628 106 
 
EN 93   EN ANNEX 20  
Information on alveolar echinococ cosis and tick borne diseases 
(Source EFSA opinion) 
Alveolar echinococcosis  
Alveolar echinococcosis, caused by the tapeworm E. multilocularis , is a rare zoonotic chronic 
cancer-like disease with a fa tality rate of up to 10 0% in untreated patients.  It is considered one 
of the most severe human parasitoses in non tropical regions and has received considerable 
attention in recent years part icularly in Europe, Japan and most recently China.  
E. multilocularis  occurs throughout the northern hemisphe re although its scale of distribution 
and frequency is not completely known. The ta peworm can be found in foxes in central 
Europe, to the north of Denmark, the Netherlands and Belgium, in the east to the Baltic States and Slovakia, in the south to north eastern It aly and Hungary and in the west to central 
France. Although the parasite has an extensive geographic distri bution in most of Europe, it 
has never been recorded in the British Isles,  Fennoscandia, and the Iberian Peninsula.  
A number of isolated surveys in wildlife show great variations from one country to another 
and even between regions in the same country. Therefore it is extremely difficult to compare 
epidemiological situations and any evaluation of the epidemiology can only be an 
approximation. 
Risk factors are still incompletely known.  The typical transmission cycle in Europe is wildlife-based, involving re d foxes as final hosts 
and rodents as intermediate hosts. Domestic dogs and cats can be infested but they appear to 
be of secondary importance for the lifecycles' pe rsistence. As potential definitive hosts they 
may, however, play a role in transmission to humans. 
There is evidence that prevalen ce rates in foxes have risen in  many agriculturally dominated 
landscapes of France, the Neth erlands, Germany, Austria, Sl ovakia and Poland, but the life 
cycle is now also established in many urba n areas, where red foxes occur with high 
population densities. According to EFSA and more recent da ta collected by the Member 
States, with the increasing popula tion of foxes in the Community  and the migration of those 
animals into urban areas, there may be an increased risk of humans becoming infected 
through accidental ingestion of fox faeces c ontaminating fruits and vegetables. Trans-
boundary wildlife movements can also constitute  an important route for the introduction of 
the disease in certain countries. 
Very few data on the infection rates of pets (dog s and cats) are available, and existing data are 
difficult to interpret due to a lack of information on the sampling strategies. Surveys conducted in Finland to detect E. multilocularis  in dogs have so far yielded negative results. 
Ireland, Malta, Sweden and the UK have not provided any information on surveillance in 
domestic dogs. From the limited number of publis hed surveys on infection in pets in Europe, 
it seems that tapeworm infection rates in domestic carnivores are low, most likely due to low exposure to the intermediate stages of the parasite and to routine deworming. 
In humans, data from the year 2005 point to an  apparent increase of cases. However, as it 
typically takes an infected pe rson 10 to 15 years to develop the disease, it is difficult to 
determine the origin of the infection which is  often not reported by Me mber States. Imported 
 
EN 94   EN cases have been reported in non-endemic areas. Th is shows that the risk of people travelling 
to endemic areas (whether or not from non en demic areas) and contracting the disease by 
accidentally ingesting tapeworm eggs through contact  with infected pets or contaminated wild 
or cultivated fruits and vegetables cannot be excluded.  
The risk for humans in non endemic areas cannot  therefore be limited  to hazards from 
infected pets introduced from endemic areas.  
Tick borne diseases  
Ticks as hematophagous parasites are known to transmit serious zoonoti c diseases. They are 
also considered a major burden in livestock pro duction due to their ability to transmit several 
diseases as well as causing significant irr itation to animals that can influence their 
productivity. 
Out of the 866 tick species identified, approxima tely 54 affect pets. Pets can suffer from tick-
borne diseases but can also be a vehicle to transmit ticks to humans and to new environments and countries. 
Ticks together with fleas, ar e the most widespread ectopara sites affecting pets. They are 
indiscriminate feeders as they parasitize a large range of small mammals, companion and 
economic animals and humans.  
Tick species harboured by pets  are widespread in Europe, including in the UK, Ireland and 
probably Malta. Surveillance systems for tick species and tick-transmitted diseases are limited and incomplete. The current available data indica te a lack of systematic specimen collection, 
epidemiological background and effective c ontrol measures. Some of the available 
information is either anecdotal or outdated. 
 
EN 95   EN ANNEX 21  
Costs incurred by pet owners to p repare a pet under the different regimes 
(Source: Member State consultation) 
1. COSTS INCURRED BY PET OWNERS TO PREPARE A PET UNDER THE GENERAL REGIME  
1.1. Movement within, and entry from lis ted third countries into, the EU 
Preparation costs include those incurred fo r identification and v accination of the pet 
animal. 
(1) Identification costs48 
 According to the Regulation, a pet animal  (cat, dog or ferret ) is regarded as 
identified when it bears either a cl early readable tattoo or a microchip 
(transponder) and when it is accompanied by a passport. After 3 July 2011, tattooing will no longer be accepted. 
 As part of the consultation, Member Stat es were asked to pr ovide the cost of 
both a tattoo and implantation of a microc hip and the cost of issuing a passport, 
including service fees. With a view to comparing costs between Member 
States, the information was requested for a pet of average size and if necessary 
with distinction of the species. 
 From the consultation, it appears that th e cost of a tattoo is no longer relevant 
since most Member States have alr eady banned it. Where tattooing is still 
authorised, the cost provided by 8 ou t of 18 Member States ranges from €1.95 
(Czech Republic) to €72 (Denmark), with  an average cost of €25.5, including 
where necessary the sedation of the animal.  
 The cost of a microchip, which may in clude the vet's charge to the owner to 
cover issuing of a passpo rt, ranges from €5 (Romania ) to €64 (Finland), with 
an average cost of €34.3. A microchip is usually more expensive than a tattoo. 
In the same Member State it may be 12 times more expensive. In two Member 
States, however, it is cheaper. 
 The veterinary charge to the owner to  cover issuing of a passport, when not 
included in the cost of the microchip, ranges from 0 (Ireland) to €45 (Sweden), 
with an average cost of €16.2. 
 It should be noted that since identifi cation of dogs is obligatory under national 
law in most Member States, a tatt oo or microchip may not necessarily 
constitute an additional travel-related cost.  
(2) Health costs25 
 Health costs consist of the cost  of an anti-rabies vaccination.  
                                                 
48 Median value not indicated when not significantly differ ent from average. 
 
EN 96   EN  According to the Regulation, a vaccinati on against rabies is valid 21 days from 
completion of the vaccination protocol for the primary vaccination and from 
the date of revaccination where the vaccine  is administered within the period of 
validity of a previous vaccination. It should be noted that where anti-rabies 
vaccination of domestic carnivores is  obligatory under national law (in the 
framework of rabies eradication programmes), there are no additional travel-related costs. 
 Several vaccines against rabies are marketed and a vaccine produced by one 
company may have a distinct period of validity according to the marketing authorisation granted by the competent authority in the country of origin of the 
vaccinated pet. These differences in  vaccination validity, which affect 
travellers through different frequencie s of revaccination, do not exist for 
vaccines for which the manufacturer hol ds a marketing authorisation granted 
by means of a centralised procedure according to Directive 2001/82/EEC of 
6 November 2001 of the European Parl iament and of the Council on the 
Community code relating to ve terinary medicinal products.  
 The vaccination must be carried out by an authorised veterinarian who must 
endorse the passport or issue a certificate to that effect.  
 As part of the consultation, Member Stat es were therefore asked to provide the 
average cost of an injection of an ti-rabies vaccination including vaccine, 
visit/act fees and passport documentation.  
 From the consultation, it appears that th e cost of the anti-rabies vaccination 
ranges from €2 (Romania) to €65 (Denma rk), with an average cost of €26.7. 
1.2. Entry from non-listed third countries into the EU  
Preparation costs include, in addition to the identification and anti-rabies vaccination 
costs, the cost of sampling w ith certification of the laboratory result in the passport 
and laboratory analysis, since that category of pets must be subjected to blood testing 
to confirm the protective leve l of anti-rabies antibodies.  
As part of the consultation, Member Stat es were therefore asked to provide the 
average cost25 of sampling with certification of th e laboratory result in the passport 
and EU-approved laboratories were asked to provide the cost of an analysed post-
vaccination serum.  
From the Member State consultation, it a ppears that the average cost of sampling 
with certification of the laboratory result in  the passport ranges from €5 (Lithuania) 
to €65 (the UK), with an average cost of €34. 
25 out of the 36 EU-approved la boratories officially cons ulted by the Commission on 
27 September 2007 sent the sta ndardised questionnaire back. 
From the replies, although some laborator ies did not provide a response concerning 
the cost, it appears that the average cost of titration of a post-vaccination serum is 
€50, with a range of between €23 (the UK) and €88 (France). 
 
EN 97   EN It should be noted that since a veterinarian is allowed to order an analysis at any of 
the 53 EU-approved laboratories in the worl d, knowledge of the average cost of 
titration is of value.  
2. COSTS INCURRED BY PET OWNERS TO PREPARE A PET UNDER THE TRANSITIONAL 
REGIME , I.E. FOR MOVEMENT TO A MEMBER STATE APPLYING NATIONAL RULES  
2.1. Movement within, and entry from listed th ird countries into, that Member State 
Under existing national rules, preparati on costs include where appropriate, in 
addition to the identification and anti-rabies  vaccination costs, the costs of sampling 
with result certification and laboratory analysis, anti-parasite treatments and 
'carriers'. 
1. Anti-parasite treatment costs25 
 Anti-parasite  treatments must be carried out by an authorised veterinarian who 
must endorse the passport or issu e a certificate to that effect.  
 As part of the consultation, Member Stat es were therefore asked to provide the 
cost of an anti-parasite treatment incl uding drug and visit/ act fees and where 
necessary a distinction by sp ecies and weight. It should be noted that  veterinary 
fees provided by Member States are t hose usually requested  during weekdays. 
Indeed, fees may be higher where the service is provided during a weekend or 
on bank holidays due to protocol time constraints (treatment 24 to 48 hours 
before check-in for travel) or where, when making long-distance trips, owners 
have to visit another vet en route  to the final destination to comply with the 
deadline constraints of the anti-parasi te treatment protocols. Although the 
amount of this extra cost may be sizeab le, Member States were not asked to 
provide it since it is considered to be  too uncertain and probably variable. 
 From the consultation, it appears that  some Member Stat es provided unique 
average data while others made a distin ction by species and/ or by weight or a 
range of costs. Calculation of an averag e cost for that treatment is therefore 
difficult.  
 €16.8 could be considered the average cost of anti- echinococcus  treatment for a 
dog of 10 kg but with a great variatio n from €1 (Romania) to €39 (Finland). 
 €18.8 could be considered the average co st of anti-tick treatment for a dog of 
10 kg but with a great variation fr om €5 (Romania) to €56 (Denmark). 
2. Carriers' costs 
 From the consultation it appears that Sw eden does not hire the services of these 
'carriers'. Finland has only one compa ny specialising in pe t transport but did 
not provide the requested figures. As regards the UK, Ireland and Malta, 
'carriers' act as transport providers an d checking companies which could charge 
their services separately. 
 
EN 98   EN Finland 1 transport company 
Ireland Ferry: €20 to €25 (car travel only) 
Air travel: around €700 as airline co st from continental Europe 
+ €210 as 'carrier's' cost 
Malta Pets less than 5kg: €46. Additional €5.3 for every kg above 5kg 
Sweden No carriers 
United Kingdom Not provided: carriage charges are variable 
2.2. Entry from non-listed third count ries into that Member State 
According to the Regulation, pets coming fr om non-listed third coun tries must fulfil 
a quarantine period when entering the UK, Ireland, Malta and Sweden. For the same category of third countries, the other Memb er States request bl ood testing to confirm 
the level of rabies antibodies. 
The following figures about quarantine faci lities emerge from the consultation: 
Malta €3.5 per small dog/cat per da y (+18%VAT) (i.e. around €740 
VAT incl. for a 6-month quarantine) 
€4.7 per dog> 5kg weight per day (+18%VAT) (i.e. around 
€1000 VAT incl. for a 6-month quarantine) 
Ireland Between €2000 and €3000 approximately depending on species 
and size for a 6-month quarantine 
Finland No approved quarantine faci lities for dogs, cats and ferrets 
(application of home quarantine isolation) 
Sweden €3300 – €3400 per dog and €2050 - €2200 per cat for quarantine 
of at least 120 days 
United Kingdom £2500 for dogs and £1800 for cats (i.e. around €3480 and 
€2500) for a 6-month quarantine 
 
EN 99   EN ANNEX 22  
Main elements of EFSA’s conclusions/recommendations 
Rabies risk assessment 
A rabies vaccination using an authorised vaccine administered according to the approved 
vaccination schedule is considered to be the key requirement for pet movement between and 
into Member States, provided that protective immunity ha s been established and is 
maintained. 
A serological titre of 0.5 IU/ml of  neutralising antibodies measured  in a sample taken after the 
prescribed period fo llowing primo-vaccination with a si ngle dose is considered to be 
indicative of a high probability  of protection and is used  as the threshold titre. 
Because this assumption is not related to the e fficacy of any vaccine but to the definition of a 
certain level of risk, the following issu es must be specifically addressed: 
– as a function of time, vaccinating an alre ady rabies-incubating animal may have 
limited or no effect on subsequent development of the disease; 
– no discriminatory methods are available to detect infection in a live vaccinated 
animal; 
– due to individual biological variations, a sm all fraction of vaccinated pets, especially 
animals younger than 1 year ("low responders "), may not achieve the threshold titre 
after a single dose of primary vaccination. 
From the above it is possible to identify two ri sk scenarios which require additional mitigating 
measures to prevent spread of the disease: 
– the animal was vaccinated while incuba ting the disease (type A risk), and 
– a low responder becomes infected and in cubates the disease despite a positive 
vaccination record (type B risk). 
A protocol including the following risk-mitigating measures would be the best way to deal 
with the risk of rabies introduction: 
– a waiting time (time spent between v accination and movement) following primo-
vaccination with a single dose w ould allow clinical disease to develop if the animal 
was infected before primo-vaccination. EFSA ’s risk assessment has modelled the 
effect of the waiting time on the probability of developing clinical signs before the 
end of the waiting time, for the two risk scen arios. As an example, an animal has a 
95.2% probability of developing clinical si gns before the end of a waiting period of 
60 days.  
– serological testing or administration of a second injection of vaccine 4 to 6 weeks 
after the first vaccin ation, to overcome the problem of low responders, provided that 
approved vaccination schedules are amende d to include such an option in the 
marketing authorisation. 
 
EN 100   EN There is no rationale for including a waiting time beyond the point where protective immunity 
has been reached for animals comi ng from countries with a neglig ible incidence of rabies in 
pets (lower than one case per million pets per year). According to EFSA's opinion, the highest 
rabies prevalence in pets in 2005 within th e EU was to be found in Baltic States. 
Very little published data are available to support the positive impact of a second injection 
and the assumption is mainly based on expert advice from laboratories authorised to do 
serological tests. Consequently  the number of true non-responde rs after two in jections is 
considered negligible. 
Echinococcosis risk assessment 
The opinion addresses the risk of introduction of Echinococcus multilocularis  into free 
Member States, through pet movements, if th e pre-movement treatment is abandoned. There 
are very few data on the prevalence or incidence of infections with E. multilocularis  in pets, 
in particular in pets to be moved into an area considered free of this parasite. Therefore EFSA 
could not carry out a qu antitative release and exposure assessment of the risk of introduction 
and establishment of E. multilocularis  in the five Member States. 
Risk factors are still not fully known. The typical transmission cycl e in Europe is indirect and 
wildlife-based: eggs shed in the faeces of infected definitive hosts, mainly the Red Fox 
(Vulpes vulpes) and to a lesser extent domestic dogs and cats,  are ingested by and develop to 
the metacestode stage in arvicolid rodents, wh ich are the prey of carnivores and serve as 
intermediate hosts. 
In accidental cases, humans may also become an  intermediate host and acquire the infection 
by egg ingestion through manipulation of definitiv e hosts, ingestion of row fruits, plants or 
garden vegetables, ingestion of contaminated  water or picking-up of wood. Only preventive 
hygiene measures can minimise the risk of infec tion, the complete eradic ation of the parasite 
being utopian. 
There is evidence that prevalen ce rates in foxes have risen in  many agriculturally dominated 
landscapes of France, the Neth erlands, Germany, Austria, Sl ovakia and Poland, but the life 
cycle is now also established in many urba n areas, where red foxes occur with high 
population densities due to abundant  availability of anthropogeni c food. Infection rates can be 
high but tend to be lower than in surroundi ng rural areas, probably because of the limited 
presence of habitats suitable for voles (intermedi ate hosts) in urban areas. However, due to the 
high density of fox populations in urban areas, th e absolute number of infected foxes may still 
be higher than in rural areas and the close proximity betwee n foxes and humans is a cause for 
concern. 
There are no records of E. multilocularis  from the Iberian Peninsula, Fennoscandia (in 
Norway the parasite was introduced only into th e arctic islands of Svalbard through grain 
deliveries inhabited by voles) and the British Is les. The reasons for unequal prevalence are not 
yet clear, but appear to be linked to agricultu ral land use and landscape patterns. The presence 
of permanent grassland favours populations of the parasite's most im portant intermediate 
hosts and is likely to be of pr imary importance for transmission. 
Infection of domestic carnivores appears to be a rare event that is difficult to detect as large 
numbers of samples per geographical unit must be  analysed to obtain an accurate estimate of 
the prevalence of the infection. While domesti c dogs and cats are sporadically naturally 
 
EN 101   EN infected, they appear of secondary importance for the life cycle, whic h is typically wildlife-
based. The low infestation rates in domestic dogs in Europe are most likely due to low 
exposure to the invasive stage of the parasite and to routine deworming of domestic pets. The 
suitability of cats as final hosts is less clear. 
In humans, data from the year 2005 point to an apparent increase of  cases. EFSA recognises 
that the situation is not elucidated: is it the result of an expansion of E. multilocularis  in wild 
hosts and an increased host population in Europe or of intensified investigations combined 
with improvements in diagnosis.  
The risk of introducing E. multilocularis  from endemic areas into a country where the 
intermediate hosts (rodents) are present but is co nsidered free from the disease on the basis of 
national surveys is greater than negligible and could be reduced if pets are treated before 
movements. However, the estimation of the risk is impaired by a lack of reliable data in particular on the frequency of pet movements,  their infestation rate, the quality of hygiene 
measures taken by owners to remove dro ppings, the likelihood of contact between 
intermediate hosts and contaminated faeces, and the tenacity of the invasive form of the 
parasite in decomposed rodents, in so far as rodents die soon after infestation. 
With the overall expansion of the endemic area, it is most likely that the parasite will be 
introduced through wild carnivo res or infested rodents. 
The opinion recommended that surveillance systems for wildlife and pets should be 
established in Europe in or der to define risk areas and criteria for freedom from E. 
Multilocularis. Until such systems have been implemen ted and evaluated, it is not possible  to 
give firm recommendations  as to the minimum surveillance requirements to document disease 
freedom. 
 
Final Host 
Intermediate host Ingestion of eggs Predation of 
Intermediate Host
 
Ticks risk assessment 
EFSA clearly indicated a lack of sufficient ev idence as regards the epidemiological situation 
in the UK, Ireland and Malta to refute or accep t the justification for the additional measures 
currently applied by these countries.  
 
EN 102   EN ANNEX 23  
Outcomes of the Member State cons ultation on approved 'carriers' 
 IRELAND 
(year 2007 to date) MALTA 
(year 2007 to date) UK 
(2006) 
Number of approved 'carriers' 9 7 114 
Number of pets entering the 
country 1278 528 84767 
Number of applications per ye ar 1278 (774 using ferries, 504 using 
airlines) 60 84767 
Cost of an operation for pet 
owners Ferry: €20 to 25 (car travel only) 
Air travel (as cargo only): around 
€700 as airline cost from continental Europe + €210 as 'carriers" cost Under 5 kg: €45 
Above 5 kg: €5.3 per additional kg Carriage charges are variable 
Cost of an operation for car riers Commercial informati on Not available Not provided 
Global cost for pet owners Ferry: €15 480 to 19 350 
Air travel: €458 640 Calculation impossible due to lack 
of detailed information  
 
EN 103   EN ANNEX 24  
Outcomes of the Member State cons ultation on quarantine facilities 
Year 2006 IRELAND MALTA SWEDEN UK 
Number of approved 
quarantine facilities 1 1 2 31 
Number of pets 
quarantined per year - 206 34 3281 
Number of applica-
tions per year 71 206 34 2134 
Cost of a quarantine 
stay for pet owners (6 months quarantine) Between €2000 and 3000 
approximately depending on species and size € 3.5 per small dog/cat per day 
(+18%VAT) (i.e. around €740 VAT incl.) €4.7 per dog> 5kg weight per day (+18%VAT) (i.e. around €1000 VAT incl.) 33000-34000 SEK (~ €3300-
3400) per dog and 20500-22000 SEK (~ €2050-2200) per cat. £ 2500 for dogs and £ 1800 
for cats (i.e. ~ €3480 and 2500€) 
Cost of a quarantine stay for a quarantine facility Not mentioned The costs of 9 full time 
workers
49 Border inspection 2046 SEK, 
veterinary inspections during stay 5600 SEK, feed 1500 SEK, toys/bedding/treats etc 1200 SEK, full time employee (based on full time with 30 pets a year) 12000 SEK, plus other costs
50  Not available as these 
facilities operate as independent commercial businesses 
 
                                                 
49 Including night watchmen, the pet food which is consumed, water/ electricity and maintenance of the premises. 
50 Rent, maintenance, telephone, fax, transport vehicle and gaso line, security alarm system, wast e disposal, electricity, etc. (c osts for rent, maintenance and electricity are quite 
large but have not been specified in detail).