Zoovet Série Technique — Vol. IV — Réglementation sanitaire internationale
Pourquoi les États réglementent des parasites spécifiques, ce qu'exige chaque destination et quel fondement biologique justifie la fenêtre temporelle 24–120 heures.
Zoovet Travel — Lima, Pérou
Correspondance : info@zoovettravel.com
Vol. IV — Février 2026En pratique vétérinaire clinique, l'indication d'un traitement antiparasitaire répond à une évaluation individuelle : l'état sanitaire du patient, son environnement épidémiologique, la probabilité d'exposition et les bénéfices attendus pour cet animal. Ce cadre conceptuel opère au niveau de l'individu et est orienté vers le bien-être d'un patient donné.
Les exigences réglementaires de traitement antiparasitaire obligatoire dans les mouvements internationaux répondent à une logique différente. Leur objectif n'est pas le bien-être de l'animal qui voyage, mais la protection du statut sanitaire du pays de destination. Un chien asymptomatique et apparemment sain peut agir comme hôte définitif de parasites sans présenter de signes cliniques, et ses fèces peuvent introduire des œufs infectieux dans un écosystème où le parasite n'est pas établi. La réglementation traite ce risque au niveau de la biosecurité territoriale et populationnelle, et non au niveau du patient individuel.
Cette distinction conceptuelle explique pourquoi une destination peut exiger un traitement que le vétérinaire responsable ne prescrirait pas pour des raisons cliniques : le traitement ne répond pas à la maladie de l'animal, mais à la protection du territoire de destination.
La sélection des parasites soumis à réglementation dans les mouvements internationaux répond à des critères techniques définis dans le cadre de l'Organisation mondiale de la santé animale (OMSA) et appliqués par les autorités compétentes de chaque pays. Les critères fondamentaux incluent : l'absence du parasite sur le territoire ou son éradication active ; la capacité du parasite à s'établir dans la faune sauvage résidente ; l'impact zoonotique potentiel ; et l'existence d'un cycle de transmission viable dans l'écosystème du pays récepteur.
Echinococcus multilocularis est le parasite qui concentre les exigences les plus documentées dans les destinations à plus fort volume réglementaire. Son absence du territoire est le statut sanitaire que les pays à plus grande pertinence normative — Finlande, Irlande, Malte, Royaume-Uni, Norvège — protègent activement en exigeant un traitement antiparasitaire obligatoire certifié pour les chiens entrant depuis des zones endémiques. L'OMSA classe l'échinococcose comme maladie à déclaration obligatoire (Code sanitaire pour les animaux terrestres OMSA, Chapitre 8.4).
Echinococcus multilocularis, known as the fox tapeworm, is a small cestode (1.2–4.5 mm as adult) that develops its life cycle primarily between wild canids — especially the red fox (Vulpes vulpes) — and small rodents acting as intermediate hosts. Humans and domestic dogs can enter this cycle as accidental hosts.
The domestic dog can act as a definitive host after ingesting rodents infected with larval cysts. Once in the dog's small intestine, released protoscolices develop into adult worms producing gravid proglottids laden with eggs. The eggs of E. multilocularis are immediately infective when shed in feces, are morphologically indistinguishable from those of Taenia spp., and display notable environmental resistance: they survive months to years under cold and humid conditions, are resistant to most commercial disinfectants, and are inactivated primarily by heat above 60°C or freezing at –70°C or below (Companion Animal Parasite Council, 2025; WCVM/University of Saskatchewan, 2024).
In the definitive host — including the domestic dog —, infection with adult E. multilocularis is asymptomatic in the vast majority of cases, even with high parasite burdens. This absence of clinical signs is precisely what allows an infected and apparently healthy dog to disseminate eggs in a new territory.
The prepatent period is the interval between infection of the definitive host and the first moment at which eggs or proglottids can be detected in feces. Its duration determines the point from which an animal can begin to disseminate the parasite into the environment.
For E. multilocularis, the prepatent period in dogs has been documented in a range of 26 to 36 days, with sexual maturity reached in approximately 4–5 weeks (Clinician's Brief, 2017; WCVM/University of Saskatchewan, 2024). Kapel et al. (2006, cited in ScienceDirect Topics) note that 95% of total egg excretion occurs within the first month of patency. WOAH (2022) reports a range of 25–80 days for the genus Echinococcus depending on species and strain.
The logic of the 24–120 hour treatment window responds directly to this biology. Treatment eliminates mature and immature intestinal forms of the parasite. If administered too far in advance — more than 120 hours (5 days) — there would be sufficient time for the animal to become reinfected in the endemic area of origin and develop intestinal forms again before crossing the border. The lower limit of 24 hours ensures the product has had time to act before entry into the protected territory. This rationale is explicitly stated in Recital (8) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/772.
The concept of a "disease-free country" or "disease-free territory" is defined, in the context of WOAH and European regulations, as one that can demonstrate absence of infection in wild definitive hosts, based on a specific surveillance programme over at least three consecutive 12-month periods. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/878 lists the Member States that have accredited this status with the European Commission for E. multilocularis.
The "free" status does not imply that the parasite is biologically impossible in that territory, but that it is not established in resident wildlife according to systematic surveillance. The entry treatment requirement does not aim to cure the animal, but to prevent the introduction of viable eggs that could contaminate the environment and establish a sylvatic cycle where none currently exists.
The destinations selected below represent those of greatest relevance by volume of international pet traffic and documented regulatory density. For each, the antiparasitic treatment requirement, target parasite, treatment window, documentary requirements, and official regulatory source are indicated.
Regulation (EU) No 576/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 June 2013 establishes the general framework for non-commercial movements of pet animals. Article 19(1) of this Regulation delegates to the Commission the adoption of specific preventive measures for the control of Echinococcus multilocularis.
In exercise of that delegation, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/772 of 21 November 2017 establishes the treatment conditions: administration by a veterinarian, product with demonstrated activity against mature and immature intestinal forms of the parasite, window of not more than 120 hours and not less than 24 hours before entry. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/878 identifies the Member States that apply these measures: Finland, Ireland, Malta and — for movements from third countries — Northern Ireland. Norway applies the same regime by virtue of the EEA Agreement.
Certification of the treatment must be completed in Section II.4 of the health certificate or the equivalent section of the European pet passport, with the product used, exact date and time of administration, and the signature of the administering veterinarian. The health certificate, issued by an official veterinarian of the exporting country, is valid for 10 days from issue for initial entry and is extended by the duration of any sea journey where applicable.
Following the United Kingdom's exit from the European Union (January 2021), the pet travel regulatory framework was reformed. Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales) adopted its own rules as a third country under the EU "Part 2" classification. The anti-Echinococcus treatment requirement was maintained with an identical window (24–120 hours) and the same active ingredient (praziquantel or equivalent). The most operationally relevant change is that EU passports issued by official veterinarians in Great Britain are no longer valid for travel to the EU; trips from GB to the EU or Northern Ireland require an Animal Health Certificate (AHC) per trip. For entry to GB from non-exempt countries, the AHC must include the antiparasitic treatment record in Section II.4, with exact date and time and the signature of the administering veterinarian.
USDA APHIS confirms that the anti-Echinococcus treatment may be performed before or after APHIS endorsement of the AHC when the origin is the United States, provided the treatment window is met at the time of arrival in the UK (APHIS, 2024).
Northern Ireland falls within the European Union's regulatory framework for pet movements by virtue of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland of the Withdrawal Agreement, and is included in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/878. Therefore, dogs entering Northern Ireland from non-exempt zones must have received treatment within the same 24–120 hour window. Treatment is not required for direct movements between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, Finland, Malta or Norway (DAERA, Northern Ireland, 2025).
The United States, as a country of origin for dogs exported to destinations with mandatory treatment requirements, has a relevant regulatory role in this context as an exporting country. USDA APHIS has confirmed that Finland, Ireland, Malta, Norway and the United Kingdom require anti-Echinococcus multilocularis treatment within the 24–120 hour window, and has established a specific operational requirement: the treatment must be administered by a USDA-accredited veterinarian and documented in the corresponding section of the health certificate before the certificate is submitted to APHIS for endorsement (official signature and seal). Documentation must include manufacturer name, product name, and the exact date and time of administration (USDA APHIS, aphis.usda.gov/pet-travel, verified February 2026).
Regarding the entry of dogs into US territory from abroad, requirements focus primarily on rabies vaccination and the documentation system reformed by the CDC (since August 2024). A mandatory preventive antiparasitic entry treatment equivalent to the EU framework has not been identified in the current federal regulations. Readers should verify directly at aphis.usda.gov and cdc.gov/importation, as this area has been subject to recent regulatory changes.
Dog import requirements to Canada are regulated by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). The CFIA does not require certified antiparasitic treatment against Echinococcus multilocularis or tapeworms as an entry condition for domestic dogs. The primary entry requirement focuses on rabies prevention: the dog must be accompanied by a valid rabies vaccination certificate, written in English or French, indicating breed, colour, weight, vaccination date, vaccine trade name and duration of immunity. The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) conducts a visual inspection; if the animal presents obvious signs of external parasites (fleas, ticks), it may be referred to secondary CFIA inspection where necessary treatments would be applied at the owner's expense, but this is a corrective procedure, not a preventive entry requirement (CFIA, inspection.canada.ca). Direct verification at inspection.canada.ca before each movement is recommended.
| Destination | Traitement antiparasitaire obligatoire ? | Parasite cible | Fenêtre temporelle | Certification | Base réglementaire |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 🇫🇮 Finlande | Oui | E. multilocularis | 24–120 h avant entrée | Administration par vétérinaire habilité ; passeport/certificat sanitaire officiel Section II.4 ; date et heure exactes | Règ. Dél. (UE) 2018/772 ; Règ. Exéc. (UE) 2018/878 |
| 🇮🇪 Irlande | Oui | E. multilocularis | 24–120 h avant entrée | Administration par vétérinaire habilité ; passeport/certificat Section II.4 ; date et heure exactes | Règ. Dél. (UE) 2018/772 ; Règ. Exéc. (UE) 2018/878 |
| 🇲🇹 Malte | Oui | E. multilocularis | 24–120 h avant entrée | Administration par vétérinaire habilité ; passeport/certificat Section II.4 ; date et heure exactes | Règ. Dél. (UE) 2018/772 ; Règ. Exéc. (UE) 2018/878 |
| 🇳🇴 Norvège | Oui | E. multilocularis | 24–120 h avant entrée | Administration par vétérinaire habilité ; certificat sanitaire officiel ; date et heure exactes | Règ. Dél. (UE) 2018/772 (application EEE) |
| 🇬🇧 Royaume-Uni (GB) | Oui | E. multilocularis | 24–120 h avant arrivée prévue | Vétérinaire habilité ; AHC Section II.4 ; date et heure exactes ; signature du vétérinaire administrateur | GOV.UK (DEFRA/APHA) — gov.uk/bring-pet-to-great-britain |
| 🇬🇧 Irlande du Nord | Oui (depuis zones non exemptées) | E. multilocularis | 24–120 h avant entrée | Passeport UE ou AHC ; Section II.4 ; date et heure exactes | Règ. Dél. (UE) 2018/772 ; DAERA NI |
| 🇦🇺 Australie | Oui (composante d'un processus complexe) | Ectoparasites + endoparasites (liste DAFF) | Selon IHS DAFF ; quarantaine post-arrivée obligatoire | Permis BICON + certificat sanitaire officiel + quarantaine Mickleham | agriculture.gov.au ; Biosecurity Act 2015 |
| 🇳🇿 Nouvelle-Zélande | Oui (composante d'un processus complexe) | Parasites internes et externes (liste MPI) | Selon IHS MPI ; quarantaine minimale 10 jours | Permis MPI + certificat vétérinaire officiel + quarantaine agréée | mpi.govt.nz ; IHS CATDOG.GEN ; Biosecurity Act 1993 |
| 🇺🇸 États-Unis (comme destination) | Non identifié comme exigence d'entrée | — | — | Voir aphis.usda.gov et cdc.gov/importation pour les exigences en vigueur | USDA APHIS ; CDC |
| 🇺🇸 États-Unis (comme origine → UE/UK) | Oui — exigé par le pays récepteur ; traité par APHIS | E. multilocularis | 24–120 h ; doit figurer sur le certificat avant l'endossement APHIS | Vétérinaire accrédité USDA ; section « Tapeworm treatment » du certificat UE/UK ; date, heure, produit et signature | USDA APHIS — aphis.usda.gov/pet-travel |
| 🇨🇦 Canada (comme destination) | Non exigé | — | — | Certificat de vaccination antirabique (anglais ou français) ; inspection visuelle CBSA | CFIA — inspection.canada.ca |
Le traitement antiparasitaire obligatoire n'a pas de valeur réglementaire s'il n'est pas correctement documenté. Dans les systèmes européen et britannique, l'invalidité de l'enregistrement — donnée manquante, erreur d'heure, absence de signature ou produit non identifié — est un motif de refus à la frontière au même titre que l'absence de traitement.
Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/772 establishes a treatment window defined in hours. The record must include both the date and the time of treatment administration, not just the date. A time error that places treatment outside the 24–120 h window renders the certificate invalid for that specific entry.
The signature of the veterinarian administering the treatment is distinct, in some contexts, from the signature of the official veterinarian who certifies the document. In the British AHC, Section II.4 must be completed by the veterinarian who administers the treatment, who may be different from the official veterinarian signing the complete certificate (APHIS, 2024).
Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/772 requires that the product contain praziquantel or other pharmacologically active substances with demonstrated efficacy against mature and immature intestinal forms of E. multilocularis, with a marketing authorisation in the administering country. No specific product is required by trade name, but the active ingredient must be identifiable in the record.
For intra-EU movements, the European pet passport is the standard medium. For entries from third countries to the EU, an official health certificate is required. For entries to the UK (GB) from any origin, the AHC has been the required document since January 2021; the EU passport issued in GB is no longer valid for international travel (GOV.UK, 2024).
The most relevant documentary differences between the EU and post-Brexit UK systems are operational, not substantive: both require the same information (product, exact date and time, veterinarian's signature), but the medium differs (EU passport vs. AHC). A dog that regularly travels between the EU and the UK may need both types of documents for different stages of the journey.
In the Australian and New Zealand systems, documentary requirements are significantly more extensive and must be coordinated with import permits prior to travel. Antiparasitic treatment certification is only one element of the export dossier and of the official health certificate, which must be issued and endorsed by a government veterinarian in the exporting country.
The regulatory concern of countries free from E. multilocularis is not infection of the travelling dog — which follows an asymptomatic course with no clinical consequences for the animal — but the potential environmental contamination with viable eggs and the consequent establishment of the sylvatic cycle in susceptible local wildlife.
Eggs of E. multilocularis excreted in the feces of an infected dog are immediately infective for intermediate hosts. In territories where the red fox (Vulpes vulpes) or other wild canids are present and rodents act as habitual intermediaries, repeated introduction of viable eggs could, in scenarios of sustained exposure, create transmission conditions that did not previously exist. Surveillance of parasite absence requires active sampling programmes in wildlife — primarily foxes; once established, containment may be difficult since the sylvatic cycle is independent of interventions on domestic animals (WOAH, 2022).
The reason Finland, Ireland, Malta and the United Kingdom have maintained and reinforced their treatment requirements despite being high-volume tourist destinations for pets is precisely the difficulty of eradicating the parasite once established. Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/772 explicitly mentions in its recitals the experience of countries that, having adopted a wider treatment window, successfully remained free of the parasite — which served as the scientific basis for establishing 24–120 hours as the operationally sufficient interval.
Alveolar echinococcosis is the most severe manifestation of E. multilocularis infection in humans, who act as accidental intermediate hosts. Humans become infected by ingesting parasite eggs — present in contaminated environments, unwashed food or untreated water — not through direct contact with infected dogs. Infection is asymptomatic for years; when it becomes clinically manifest, it produces hepatic lesions with infiltrative behaviour similar to a malignant neoplasm, with potential involvement of other organs (WOAH, 2022). WOAH classifies alveolar echinococcosis as one of the parasitic zoonoses with the greatest public health impact in endemic regions.
Introduction of the parasite into a free territory would not immediately and directly increase human risk, but would modify the epidemiological landscape in the long term by creating a sylvatic reservoir from which humans could become indirectly infected through the environment. This is the public health justification cited in European Commission regulatory documents when providing the basis for the treatment requirement.
Maintaining E. multilocularis-free status requires active surveillance programmes in wildlife — primarily foxes — using WOAH-accepted methodologies (necropsy, coproPCR, sedimentation and counting technique). These programmes have a sustained cost for competent authorities. The requirement to treat entering companion animals is a preventive biosecurity measure whose unit cost falls on the animal's owner and whose benefit is collective: it protects the sanitary status that in turn allows free movement of animals between exempt-group countries without requiring treatment. The system is sustained by reciprocity: exempt countries do not require treatment between themselves because they mutually trust the integrity of their respective statuses.
This analysis has inherent limitations that must be considered by any reader intending to apply its content to a specific animal movement.
Dynamisme réglementaire. La réglementation relative à l'importation d'animaux est de nature dynamique. Les règlements d'exécution de la Commission qui mettent à jour les listes de pays indemnes d'E. multilocularis, les systèmes de classification des pays DAFF et MPI, les formulaires de certificat sanitaire USDA APHIS et les exigences d'entrée CFIA peuvent être modifiés ou remplacés. Le présent document décrit la réglementation révisée à la date de février 2026 et ne garantit pas l'exactitude pour des dates ultérieures.
Portée des sources. Les exigences réglementaires peuvent évoluer. La vérification auprès de l'autorité compétente est requise avant mise en œuvre.
Commercial vs. non-commercial movements. This analysis focuses on non-commercial movements of pet animals (accompanied by their owner or authorised person). Commercial movements — sale, transfer of ownership, export by breeders — are subject to different regulatory frameworks in most of the jurisdictions reviewed.
Additional requirements not covered. Antiparasitic treatment is only one of the requirements for a complete international movement. Microidentification, rabies vaccination, rabies serological titre test (where applicable), health certificates and designated entry points are not covered by this document. A movement that fulfils the antiparasitic requirement but not the others may be refused at the border in the same way.
Variability in inspector application. Although European regulations are directly applicable in all Member States, differences in interpretation or rigour of verification may exist between different entry points. This does not modify the regulatory obligation but may affect the practical experience of owners.
Antiparasitic treatment requirements in international dog movements respond to a population and territorial biosecurity rationale that is independent of the individual clinical status of the animal. The selection of Echinococcus multilocularis as the target parasite in the European and UK system is directly justified by its biology: prepatent period of 26–36 days in dogs, absence of clinical signs in the definitive host, immediate environmental infectivity of eggs, and capacity for establishment in the wildlife of receiving territories.
The 24–120 hour window before entry is a piece of regulatory engineering grounded in that prepatent period: narrow enough to prevent reinfection and development of intestinal forms between treatment and entry; wide enough to be operationally feasible in the context of international travel.
The comparative analysis of the destinations reviewed reveals two distinct system types that must not be confused: treatment-based systems with a defined temporal window (EU, UK), and sequential import systems with mandatory post-arrival quarantine (Australia, New Zealand). Presenting both as equivalent in a simplified matrix without this distinction can lead to real errors with real consequences for the animal and the owner.
Canada and the United States (as destinations) currently do not have a mandatory preventive entry antiparasitic treatment requirement equivalent to the EU/UK framework. The US has, however, a relevant operational role as an exporting country to those destinations, with an APHIS endorsement requirement that demands treatment be documented in the certificate before the official signature.