1. Identification, Vaccination and Movement of Dogs and Cats in the EU Conclusions
Adolfo Sansolini, Director - AnimalWelfareAndTrade
Julie Sanders, Director - Companion Animals, FOUR PAWS

2. Conclusions: Introduction

3. EU animal health rules for moving dogs and cats from one member state to another
The existing EU animal health legislation on moving dogs and cats into one Member State from another has provided a useful set of rules.
These have improved the situation compared to the past, however over time such norms have been shown to be insufficient.
More specific requirements are required for companion animals in order to increase the effectiveness of both the documentation (pet passport, other documents), and the checks.

4. Dogs and cats traceability in Europe: history
The existing system for tracing the commercial movement of cats and dogs (TRACES) across EU borders was originally designed for animals intended for food consumption.
The system seems to work well for farm animals but improvements are needed for companion animals, for example creating a category for “Dogs” and “Cats”. Currently these animals are shown under “other mammals” so there is little transparency regarding the number of dogs and cats transported every year.
The distinction made by EU law between ‘commercial’ and ‘non-commercial’ movement is very complex and difficult to enforce.

5. European Parliament‘s work on pet traceability
The welfare of companion animals still largely lies in the competency of Member States, despite obvious cross-border health concerns.
Reports on the suffering of puppies that are traded illegally across borders show that existing national legislation is not sufficient to tackle this European-wide problem.
Since 2009, the EU Parliament has asked for harmonisation and improvements in the situation of pets in 38 written questions and multiple resolutions.
In its Resolution of February 2016, the European Parliament called once again for a harmonised EU-system of identification and registration for pets.
Such a system would mitigate the possibility of fraud for the existing Pet Passports and bring a number of benefits.

6. Conclusions: Part One
The Failed Harmonisation across EU Member States of the Identification of Companion Animals

7. Transponder codes, ISO norms, manufacturer codes and country codes
No mandatory registration of companion animals at the EU level.
No harmonised system of identification of companion animals in the EU. Therefore identification of companion animals is the responsibility of the Member States whose systems are very different.
There should be an obligation for Member States to designate a competent authority for matters relating to the identification of pets, in particular the quality standards that transponder manufacturers must meet.
It is also essential to have legislation in place, and proper monitoring of its implementation, in relation to the production of unique transponder codes.
Transponders should contain a manufacturer code and a country code.

8. Identification as the guarantee for proper vaccination and animal health
Rabies vaccination should always occur after the identification of the animal. In practice this is not always the case.
The derogation to allow unvaccinated dogs should be abolished for trade, due to the illegal puppy trade exploiting it.
Linking identification and registration to vaccination has many benefits, and it should be done from birth.
The Pet Passport can be used not only as a travel document but also as a repository of the health records of the animal.

9. The need for identification and registration of companion animals in shelters
Mandatory Identification and Registration is important for shelter animals because it:
Promotes individual and collective responsibility towards mistreated/ abandoned/stray animals .
Provides real time/reliable data on health and welfare status and history (i.e. vaccination, testing, spay/neuter, dangerous animals) at the individual level.
Helps with disease surveillance and disaster management.
However dog traceability can only be guaranteed when EU national databases are interconnected to a central EU-compatible information system.

10. The Limits of the Pet Passport
Conclusions: Part Two
The Limits of the Pet Passport

11. The Pet Passport, a non-lifetime document
Pet Passports should be designed to last the lifetime of the animal and should be mandatory from birth.
National “health/vaccination book” systems should be abolished in favour of Pet Passports, to avoid problems for example where the original rabies stickers are stuck in the national health booklet rather than in the Pet Passport.
The Pet Passport should be mandatory for all dogs and cats across Europe even if the animal does not leave the country.
There should be mandatory linking of transponder numbers and pet passport numbers in national databases.

12. The Belgian atempt to transform the Pet Passport into a lifetime document
European case law demonstrates that the European Pet Passport can also be used for other purposes, like identification and registration of pets.
However the Belgian Government was condemned for this by the European Court of Justice.
Mandatory registration and the Pet Passport reinforce each other, ensuring a high level of compliance with European and national legislation.
Using the Pet Passport should be part of mandatory registration to ensure traceability.

13. The vaccination proof in the Pet Passport: the growing issue with counterfeit stickers
Numerous cases of counterfeit vaccination stickers have been discovered on pet passports from all over Europe.
An infected pet may not appear ill but can infect other animals, allowing disease to rapidly gain a foothold in pet populations.
Better checks should be conducted by adequately trained veterinarians and competent authorities.
Stickers should be printed in a way that makes their duplication difficult e.g. by including holograms.

14. The use of the Europetnet system to detect fraud
The Europetnet database can assist with detecting:
transponder number abnormalities
the use of transponders that do not comply with ISO/ICAR rules
if the same identification transponder number is present in 2 different animals
To be efficient in companion animal traceability Europetnet recommends:
the use of the country code in the transponder
mandatory Identification and registration of pets across Europe
Pet passports details linked and registered with the transponder
a centralised registration system across Europe

15. Conclusions: Part Three
The Difficulties Faced by the Inclusion of Companion Animals in the TRACES System

16. How the TRACES system works for companion animals
All Member States should be able to access the TRACES system, so that they can view movement of animals across Europe.
There should be a control system for checking the rabies vaccination and transponder codes on TRACES.
The way in which data is entered on TRACES should be harmonised and standardised across Europe.
It should be compulsory for Member States to have in place a sufficient number of trained staff to carry out checks on TRACES.

17. The difference of interpretation of Regulation 1/2005 between Member States
EC Regulation 1/2005 ‘on the protection of animals during transport’ is relevant for companion animals.
The rules are very precise for farm animals species but not for companion animals.
Many countries still do not consider that these rules apply to dogs and cats and are not checking them.
Many questions remain open regarding the interpretation of the Regulation in relation to the transportation of companion animals.

18. The refusal of some national authorities to let NGOs use TRACES (Case study: Greece)
Greek authorities refuse to issue TRACES health certificates to shelters that are transporting animals for rehoming.
As a result, all rescue companion animals are transported under the non-commercial scheme (which is illegal).
There is a need to make a clear distinction between transporting for rehoming (saving lives) and transporting for trade (motivated by profit).
Specific legislation is required on the movements of shelter dogs and cats for rehoming (as recommended by the European Court of Justice).
The access of qualified NGOs to the TRACES system supports the action of the competent authorities, and should be authorised in all Member States.

19. The way forward
The Permanent Representation of the State of Hesse, FOUR PAWS International, and the Federation of Veterinarians of Europe, organised this event together with CAROdog and CAROcat, in order to bring to the attention of the European Commission and of other stakeholders the content of a new report.
The report includes recommendations for improving the identification, vaccination and movement of dogs and cats in Europe.
We hope that the report, today’s presentations, and our conclusions, will serve as a useful starting point for tomorrow morning’s Open Discussion and as a further step to improve the vaccination, identification and movement of cats and dogs across Europe.

20. Thank you Adolfo Sansolini, Director - AnimalWelfareAndTrade
Julie Sanders, Director - Companion Animals, FOUR PAWS