Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the animal-health requirements applicable to non-commercial movement of pet animals"
Date: 2000-11-29
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: animal disease, domestic animal, enlargement of the Union, health legislation, third country, transport of animals

C 116/54

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

20.4.2001

backdrop, private sector involvement and experience are
essential. This must be reflected in the design, formulation and
implementation of programmes, especially in order to avoid
red tape.

4.3.
Resources for promotion on the single market must
match the ambitions. Inadequate resources will not only limit
the effectiveness of the instrument, but will also generate
unnecessary tensions between eligible sectors and products.

Brussels, 29 November 2000.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European
Parliament and of the Council on the animal-health requirements applicable to non-commercial
movement of pet animals’

(2001/C 116/12)

On 10 October 2000 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Articles
37 and 152(4)(b) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 15 November 2000. The
rapporteur was Mr Leif E. Nielsen.

At its 377th plenary session of 29 and 30 November 2000 (meeting of 29 November) the Economic and
Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 110 votes to one with one abstention.

1.

Introduction

have been recorded in the EU primarily relate to animals from
regions in non-EU countries where rabies is endemic. The
proposal provides for more stringent control on entry from
third countries and is based on the opinions of several groups
of experts, including the Scientific Veterinary Committee.

Fears of rabies and other diseases transmitted by
1.1.
household pets have prompted certain Member States to
introduce restrictions on the non-commercial movement of
dogs, cats and other pets from other Member States and
third countries. The Commission’s proposal harmonises the
common rules governing external protection and limits
internal restrictions. A number of the diseases concerned solely
affect animal health while others (‘zoonoses’, and especially
rabies) also impact on human beings. Hence the Commission’s
view is that harmonisation should be implemented under the
common decisionmaking procedure.

1.2.
The rabies situation in the EU has radically improved
as a result of oral vaccination of foxes in regions where rabies
is endemic. Sweden and the United Kingdom have therefore
done away with their earlier quarantine arrangements and
introduced less restrictive provisions. The cases of rabies that

1.3.
Under the proposal, dogs and cats moving between the
Member States or from specified third countries and territories
which can, in line with a regional approach, be assimilated to
the Community (Andorra,
Iceland, Liechtenstein, Monaco,
Norway, San Marino, Switzerland, the Vatican, the Isle of Man
and the Channel Islands), must be accompanied by their
owners or a natural person who has responsibility for them
during travel. Animals must be identified by a tattoo or
transponder and be accompanied by a rabies vaccination
certificate; except in the case of first vaccination, such vacci-
nation must have been carried out less than one year before-
hand with an inactivated vaccine complying with WHO
standards.

20.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 116/55

Sweden,

1.4.
Ireland and the United Kingdom may
additionally require a neutralising antibody titration more than
six months prior to the movement and more than 30 days
after the preceding vaccination. However, these countries may
waive all rabies requirements in the case of movement from
Member States and third countries and territories with the
same status.

1.5.
For movement to the EU from third countries other
the same rules regarding rabies
than those listed above,
vaccination and antibody titration apply as for movement to
Sweden, Ireland and the United Kingdom, thereby tightening
up the rules of some Member States. Further, Sweden, Ireland
and the United Kingdom may introduce quarantine rules, to
be communicated to the Commission.

1.6.
The proposal does not provide for any animal health
requirements regarding movement between Member States, or
from the specified third countries or territories, of a number
of species other than dogs or cats: all species of arachnida and
insects,
fish, amphibia, reptiles, birds and ferrets, rabbits,
guinea pigs and hamsters, as listed in Annex I to the proposal.

However, on the Regulation’s entry into force, a
1.7.
Member State may apply to the Commission,
in special
circumstances, for additional guarantees regarding diseases
other than rabies. The Commission also wishes to have the
powers to amend and supplement the annexes regarding
animal species, countries and territories and veterinary require-
ments respectively,
in consultation with the Standing Vet-
erinary Committee. The inclusion of further third countries in
the annex shall take account of the structure and organisation
of their veterinary services, their status with regard to rabies,
regulations applicable to imports of carnivores and regulations
in force on the marketing of antirabies vaccines.

2. General comments

2.2.
It is greatly to be welcomed that the rabies situation in
the EU is now under control in the Member States. On the
other hand, there is a major risk of rabies spreading through
the entry of animals from regions where the disease is endemic.
It is therefore vital to harmonise national rules and introduce
a common regime for movement of animals. Nonetheless, the
ESC observes that the proposal aims at regionalisation, as
opposed to full harmonisation, which may often be called for
in the veterinary sector. The countries which are ‘historically
free of rabies’ therefore attain a special level of protection,
which for the time being must be considered justified.

2.3.
The proposal’s rabies prevention provisions are essen-
tially based on the Member States being in a position to carry
out adequate controls on the entry of pets from third countries
other than those specified. The ESC would recommend that
the Commission and the Member States do their utmost to
achieve effective border control.

As proposed by the Commission, it is appropriate for
2.4.
third countries and territories which, in terms of geography
and disease prevention, can be considered comparable with
the EU to be treated in the same way as the Community. That
presupposes, however, that entry into these countries and
regions from other third countries is subject to just as stringent
controls as apply to entry into the EU.

3.

Special comments

3.1.
As rabies is not the only disease risk associated with
the movement of pets, measures may also need to be taken to
avoid contagion of livestock, with the resulting costly measures
to deal with it. All bird species, including pet hens, pigeons,
parrots etc. may be carriers of dangerous contagious diseases
(Newcastle Disease, Ornithosis and zoonoses, including Sal-
monella DT 104). Camphylobacter, which can infect poultry,
can be transmitted through pets (dogs, snakes, tortoises, etc.)
which have been in contact with polluted water.

2.1.
The ESC feels that it is vital to take the broadest
possible action to prevent and curb contagious diseases among
household pets in the EU and in the applicant countries and to
avoid the propagation of such diseases through the entry of
animals from other third countries. Following enlargement the
new neighbour countries and the movement of animals over
larger distances will increase the risk of contagion. As in the
case of the present proposal, the relevant measures must be
based as far as possible on the scientific evidence.

Though there can therefore be many arguments in
3.2.
favour of introducing measures to reduce the risk of contagion
from these and other diseases in connection with the move-
ment of pets, the ESC feels that the administrative situation is
unclear, and that the impact of such measures is dispro-
portionate compared with the risk of contagion from wild
fauna.

C 116/56

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

20.4.2001

3.3.
The slaughter of animals which do not comply with
the requirements must be carried out in accordance with the
conditions laid down in the Amsterdam Treaty protocol
governing animal protection.

3.5.
The Commission should submit a report in five years’
time on the implementation of the rules, accompanied by any
proposals they may have for amendments.

The ESC also feels that it is necessary to reduce the
3.4.
problem of cruelty to animals in the commercial importation
of exotic species to the EU.

Subject to the above comments, the ESC supports the

4.1.
Commission’s proposal.

4. Conclusion

Brussels, 29 November 2000.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Regulation
extending for a period of up to one year the financing of certain quality and marketing
improvement plans approved under Title IIa of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72’

(2001/C 116/13)

On 20 October 2000 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article
37 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 15 November 2000. The
rapporteur was Mr de las Heras Caban˜ as.

At its 377th plenary session (meeting of 29 November 2000) the Economic and Social Committee
adopted the following opinion by 107 votes to one with two abstentions.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
The proposed regulation follows on from the first part
of the agreement reached by the Council of Ministers meeting
in Brussels on 17 July 2000 whereby it invited the Commission
to propose that the payments to nut (almonds, hazelnuts,
walnuts and pistachios) and locust bean growers, which expire
in 2000, be continued for one year within the budget for
2001. In addition, it instructed the Commission to carry out a
specific study of the nut and locust bean sector in the context
of the report which it has to present before the end of 2000
on the fruit and vegetables regime.

substantial impact in some Member States on the organisation
of production, the concentration of supply and the improve-
ment of production and marketing structures. These plans
have helped to maintain producers’ incomes and slow down
the abandonment of nut and locust bean growing in the
producer regions of the EU.

2.

Background

2.1.
The 10-year improvement plans launched in 1989
under Title IIa of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 have had a

However, the special problems of nuts and locust beans
2.2.
were not taken into account by Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 on
the reform of the common organisation of the market in
the fruit and vegetables sector, which revoked the existing
measures. The measures laid down in this regulation have not
proved adequate because they are not geared to the specific
features of these crops.