Russia

F
Russia
Recognising animal protection

Recognising animal protection

This theme examines recognition of animal sentience and the importance of animal protection as a societal value within the country, including government support for the Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare, prohibition of cruelty and protection for different categories of animals.

G

Formal recognition of animal sentience

There is no policy or legislation

Under Article 137 of Civil Code of the Russian Federation, general rules with regard to property apply to animals. This means that animals are qualified as inanimate objects in the country’s legal system and no consideration appears to be given to animal sentience.

Are legal provisions effective in acknowledging animal welfare as a mainstream concern?

As it stands today, there is no formal evidence or signal from the government to recognise sentience as an independent issue that will inform discussions of animal issues in the country. As such, sentience is not included and does not inform public policies that could be potentially linked to animals (such as environmental or sustainable production policies).

Are there economic and societal barriers to improving animal welfare in the country?

The government has not yet incorporated current practical experience and scientific knowledge regarding animal sentience into the country’s legislation. The government does not appear to consider animal welfare as an important issue, despite Russia being a member of the OIE, which has guiding principles on animal welfare that are based on the premise that animals are sentient beings.

Are enforcement mechanisms in place in policy and legislation?

There is no policy or legislation relevant to this indicator.

G

Support for the Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare

There is no policy or legislation

The government has not pledged in principle support for the Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare.

Note: The Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare is a proposed formal international acknowledgment of a set of principles giving animal welfare due recognition among governments and the international community. An expression of support for the UDAW demonstrates a government’s commitment to working with the international community to improve animal welfare.

Are legal provisions effective in acknowledging animal welfare as a mainstream concern?

There is no support for the UDAW. Support for the UDAW would be a first step into integrating animal protection considerations into different discussion tables, becoming a soft law source for decision makers interested in improving animal protection in the country.

Are there economic and societal barriers to improving animal welfare in the country?

The government has not expressed a desire to improve animal protection in the country; there appear to be significant barriers to improvement.

Are enforcement mechanisms in place in policy and legislation?

There is no policy or legislation relevant to this indicator.

D

Laws against causing animal suffering

There is legislation with partial application

Article 245 of the Penal Code of the Russian Federation contains a provision addressing cruelty to animals. The article is comprehensive enough to cover all animals, but its content has restrictions in its application. Cruelty is not defined, but rather refers to two potential outcomes, namely injury or death of the animal, and such cases are addressed by law in observance of one of three cases, when cruelty is caused with malicious or mercenary motives, with the use of sadistic methods, or in the presence of minors. Suffering caused by failure to act is not covered. The provision is included in the chapter of crimes against human health and public morality.

Are legal provisions effective in acknowledging animal welfare as a mainstream concern?

There are no considerations in the existing legislation by which animal welfare and animal protection are intrinsically recognised as independent issues. This reduces the effectiveness of the anti-cruelty legislation and discourages an open dialogue by which animal protection could be improved in the country. The provision does not take into consideration current practical experience and scientific knowledge regarding animal sentience that has led to animal welfare improvement in countries with similar economies. No evidence was found of policy documents or further national anti-cruelty regulations that expand the scope of protection offered by the Penal Code. 

Are there economic and societal barriers to improving animal welfare in the country?

As the relevant provision is contained within the Penal Code, applicable legislation to criminal procedures can be applied. This facilitates citizen interaction with authorities, as the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Code establishes that prosecution is mandatory in Russia. Authorities therefore have the obligation to pursue any crime committed in the country and process it according to the rules. Citizens have a correlative obligation to report any criminal activity to authorities. However, as the implementation of the criminal provision is qualified (in other words, can only be put in place in cases where particular conditions are met) the existing legislation does not offer many preventive alternatives to protect animals. 

Are enforcement mechanisms in place in policy and legislation?

Criminal enforcement mechanisms are available. These include fines, corrective labour or arrest for a term of up to six months. No evidence was found suggesting that there are guidelines or complementary policy applicable to criminal cases on animal cruelty. In addition, because of the nature of criminal procedures, mechanisms covering cruelty cases potentially traced to corporations or other collective bodies are not found. 

E

Protecting animals used in farming

There is legislation with partial application

The general anti-cruelty provisions in the Penal Code apply to this category of animals.

Beyond this very basic level of protection, there is no evidence that the country has developed any policy and legislation on the protection and promotion of welfare of animals used in the farming industry.

Are legal provisions effective in acknowledging animal welfare as a mainstream concern?

The anti-cruelty provisions in the Penal Code have very narrow application. There is no apparent legislation or policy on animal welfare issues for this category of animals.

Are there economic and societal barriers to improving animal welfare in the country?

The Food and Veterinary Office of the European Commission has produced a series of reports on several countries that have (or could potentially have) a trade relationship with the European Union. In 2009, a report on poultry meat and poultry products concluded that “[t]here is a detailed system for official controls implementing Russian legislation. However a system for official controls to meet Community standards for PM and PMP [poultry meat and poultry meat products] intended for export to the EU has not yet been put in place.”[1] This statement would appear to show that regardless of the country’s own capacity to implement existing legislation, standards are not met. While the report comments on aspects mostly in relation with animal health, the standards referred are those produced in the European Union, which include welfare standards and recommendations. There is no apparent government commitment to produce legislation and policy for this category of animals; this does not appear to be a priority for government work or resources.  

 

[1] European Commission DG(SANCO), Poultry meat and poultry meat products, Audit 2009-8357, Brussels: The Food and Veterinary Office, 2009

Are enforcement mechanisms in place in policy and legislation?

Criminal enforcement mechanisms are available for breach of the anti-cruelty provisions of the Penal Code. These include fines, corrective labour or arrest for a term of up to six months.

E

Protecting animals in captivity

There is legislation with partial application

The general anti-cruelty provisions in the Penal Code apply to this category of animals.

There are some laws, in place for several decades, that apply to animals kept in zoos. The Safety and Sanitary Rules for Zoos adopted by the Ministry of Culture of the USSR on 25 July 1973 is complemented by secondary provisions such as Order 411 of 1997 of the Federal Committee on Environmental Protection. It is not clear whether this legislation contains welfare-related considerations.    

In March 2014 it was reported that the Moscow Zoo, which is traditionally responsible for regulating the operation of zoos in the country, will draft a new federal law on zoos because the existing legislation is outdated.[1]

As an additional concern, Russia is one of the largest producers of farmed fur in the world and there are significant welfare issues associated with this activity. There is apparently no legislation to protect the welfare of wild animals farmed for fur.

 

[1] http://rapsinews.com/legislation_news/20140321/270986017.html

Are legal provisions effective in acknowledging animal welfare as a mainstream concern?

There is no evidence to suggest that the Russian legislative and policy covers issues on captive animals further than provisions on zoological collections, which are just one of many instances in which animals are kept captive. The limited scope of the legislation narrows down the possibilities of debates in relation to protection of captive animals, for instance animals used in the entertainment industry. There is no evidence either suggesting limits to “private” collections. The existing law on zoos is reported to be outdated and not to encompass provisions relating to the living conditions for animals.[1] It is also reported that wild animals are held in hunting dog training camps where their welfare is severely compromised not only by the conditions in which they are kept but also because they are used as living targets to train and test the dogs.[2] Russia is also one of the largest producers of farmed fur in the world and there are significant welfare issues associated with this activity and no apparent law to protect the welfare of these animals.

 

[1] http://rapsinews.com/legislation_news/20140321/270986017.html

[2] http://www.one-voice.fr/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/The-baiting-of-wild-a...

Are there economic and societal barriers to improving animal welfare in the country?

There is a dedicated authority in charge of state registration of wildlife collections (Order 411/1997, Part II) in the State Committee of the Russian Federation for Environmental Protection. However there is no evidence that the law provides any financial resource for the activity or that welfare conditions have to be met in order for such collections to achieve registration.

Are enforcement mechanisms in place in policy and legislation?

Criminal enforcement mechanisms are available for breach of the anti-cruelty provisions of the Penal Code. These include fines, corrective labour or arrest for a term of up to six months.

Order 411 of 1997 has an article (Part VI) says that lack of compliance with the provisions of this norm will entail responsibility in accordance with laws of the Federation, but there are no specific descriptions of the type of responsibility, possible sanctions and/or procedures to process any such infringements.

E

Protecting companion animals

There is legislation with partial application

The general anti-cruelty provisions in the Penal Code apply to this category of animals.

Beyond this very basic level of protection, there is no evidence found of policy and legislation on the care and protection of companion animals in the country.

Are legal provisions effective in acknowledging animal welfare as a mainstream concern?

There is no evidence of recognition by the government that animal welfare or animal protection are seen as independent issues for policy and legislative development. Reports of inhumane culling by both citizens and government officials appear on several media sources year on year, with an evident relationship between the geographical focus of such problems and urban areas. For example, In the run up to the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi there were reports of large stray dog populations in the country and international outcry about the killing of dogs in Sochi.[1] Dog hunters are reported to operate in Moscow, who organise mass culls of animals, including by the use of poison, causing great concern amongst animal protectionists.[2]  The stabbing to death of a stray dog on Moscow’s metro caused an outcry leading to a statue being raised celebrating Moscow’s reported 35,000 street dogs.[3] There is no evidence to suggest that regulations on stray dogs have followed international humane guidelines and recommendations.

 

[1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2549977/Russians-culling-stray-d...

[2] http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/01/dog-hunters-plan-big-cull-...

[3] http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/628a8500-ff1c-11de-a677-00144feab49a.html#axzz...

Are there economic and societal barriers to improving animal welfare in the country?

There is no evidence that the government has identified animal protection for companion animals as an issue requiring regulation, despite media reports and international pressure to do so. This does not appear to be a priority for government work and funding. This is a great obstacle to provide protection to a large number of animals. The government is encouraged to produce minimum legislative standards on care and protection of companion animals.

Are enforcement mechanisms in place in policy and legislation?

Criminal enforcement mechanisms are available for breach of the anti-cruelty provisions of the Penal Code. These include fines, corrective labour or arrest for a term of up to six months.

E

Protecting animals used for draught and recreation

There is legislation with partial application

The general anti-cruelty provisions in the Penal Code apply to this category of animals.

Beyond this very basic level of protection, there is no evidence of policy or legislation being discussed or having been produced on this category of animals.

Are legal provisions effective in acknowledging animal welfare as a mainstream concern?

The basic provisions in the Penal Code are not sufficient to make the welfare of this category of animals a mainstream concern of society. A recent expose of cruelty in St Petersburg circus revealed animals being beaten and kicked, but animal protection campaigners reported that they did not foresee any action being taken under the anti-cruelty legislation because that legislation is not sufficient to deal with such incidents.[1]

The practice of training hunting dogs during ‘tests’ on captive wild animals causes suffering to the wild animals and may also result in injuries to dogs.[2]

 

[1] http://themoscownews.com/russia/20130517/191520084/Video-of-animal-cruel...

[2] http://www.one-voice.fr/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/The-baiting-of-wild-a...

Are there economic and societal barriers to improving animal welfare in the country?

The lack of policy or legislative development in this area suggests that there are significant barriers to improvement.

Are enforcement mechanisms in place in policy and legislation?

Criminal enforcement mechanisms are available for breach of the anti-cruelty provisions of the Penal Code. These include fines, corrective labour or arrest for a term of up to six months.

E

Protecting animals used in scientific research

There is legislation with partial application

The general anti-cruelty provisions in the Penal Code apply to this category of animals.

Beyond this very basic level of protection, there is no evidence of existing policy or legislation to protect animals used in scientific research. Peer reviewed publications indicate that there are some statutes from the Soviet era, such as the Rules for Execution of Experiments with the Use of Laboratory Animals, but “their validity in today’s Russia is doubtable in many situations, from the judicial point of view.”[1]

 

[1] Loukianov, Anatoly S, Is a Compromise Possible in Russia Between Animal Advocates and Researchers Who Use Animals in Harmful Experiments? ATLA 39 (2011), 227-231

Are legal provisions effective in acknowledging animal welfare as a mainstream concern?

The basic provisions in the Penal Code are not sufficient to make the welfare of this category of animals a mainstream concern of society.

Are there economic and societal barriers to improving animal welfare in the country?

There is no policy or legislation relevant to this indicator. Furthermore, the government seems complacent with the existing regulations which not only are judicially challenging to apply, but are also overlooked by the wider scientific community, even as there seems to be consensus on how ineffective they are for animal protection and even how they undermine scientific practice.[1] The lack of policy or legislative development in this area suggests that there are significant barriers to improvement.

 

[1] Loukianov, Anatoly S, Is a Compromise Possible in Russia Between Animal Advocates and Researchers Who Use Animals in Harmful Experiments? ATLA 39 (2011), 227-231

Are enforcement mechanisms in place in policy and legislation?

Criminal enforcement mechanisms are available for breach of the anti-cruelty provisions of the Penal Code. These include fines, corrective labour or arrest for a term of up to six months.

E

Protecting the welfare of wild animals

There is legislation with partial application

The general anti-cruelty provisions in the Penal Code are presumed to apply to this category of animals, although this is not clear from the law.

Beyond this very basic level of protection, the Federal Law of the Russian Federation on Wildlife (No. 52-FZ of 1995) is the most important law applicable to wild animals in the country. This legislation is complemented by a significant number of regulations forming secondary legislation on biodiversity, conservation, fisheries and other related matters. There are regulations for the management of lists (Red Book) of protected endangered animals. The law contains provisions that mostly apply to conservation and there is a chapter on protection of wildlife and their habitats (Chapter III) which is written from that perspective.

There is some policy in existence for the welfare of wild animals, but its context is often controversial; for example with the Agreement on Inhumane Trapping Standards signed between the Russian Federation, Canada and the European Union (then the European Community).

According to the Federal Law of the Russian Federation on Wildlife, wildlife is a regenerating natural resource that should be used rationally for the purpose of satisfaction of spiritual and material needs of Russian nationals. Therefore there are no elements of welfare or protection of individual animals in the wildlife law or in secondary legislation. Furthermore, most of the secondary legislation revolves around the idea of animals considered as commodities. Examples of this stance are found in the fish and fisheries decrees (for example, Decree No. 154 of 2002 regarding validation of the Regulation on setting up commission for the concession of the defined fishing areas of fishing reservoirs for the purpose of ensuring the utilization of biodiversity and Order No. 85 of the Ministry of Agriculture validating the list of biological resources, the industrial fisheries, artisanal and sport fishing of which and the protection thereof shall not be regulated by the regional executive bodies) and those relating to hunting (for example, Law 26-OZ of 2000 on hunting and hunting reserves).

Are legal provisions effective in acknowledging animal welfare as a mainstream concern?

Some of the policy production seems to focus on activities which are by their very nature detrimental to animal welfare; the ratification of the 1997 Agreement on Inhumane Trapping Standards is an example of such provisions. While it introduces some minimum standards that may be inspired by welfare considerations, the capture of wild animals for fur using other trapping mechanisms is legitimised. The Agreement itself does not demonstrate any attempt by the government to restrict or reduce wild animal capture.

Current legislation is not effective to make the welfare of wild animals a mainstream concern of society in the country.

Are there economic and societal barriers to improving animal welfare in the country?

Traditional practices appear to present barriers to improvement in this area, and existing legislation legitimises approaches to wild animals that do not promote good welfare. The main obstacle to improving the welfare of wild animals seems to be the perception according to which wild animals are to be viewed and used as commodities, and the terms of the human-animal relationship are defined in utilitarian terms, with existing legislation regulating different ways to “use” wild animals.

Are enforcement mechanisms in place in policy and legislation?

To the extent that the basic anti-cruelty provisions of the Penal Code apply to this category of animals, so too do the related enforcement mechanisms (fines, corrective labour or arrest for a term of up to six months).

There are a series of administrative measures to regulate provisions in the wildlife legislation, such as cancellation of permits, revocation of licences, fines and similar mechanisms.  No provisions were found detailing criminal prosecution. There is no evidence of policy production guiding citizens or exploring further the content of existing legislation.

Governance structures and systems

Governance structures and systems

This theme examines government commitment to improving animal protection. This includes whether there is allocation of responsibility, accountability and resources within government.

G

Government accountability for animal welfare

There is no policy or legislation

There is no evidence of responsibility for animal protection or animal welfare development being allocated to an individual body of the government.

Are legal provisions effective in acknowledging animal welfare as a mainstream concern?

Although the government has assigned some environmental responsibilities to its executive bodies, this has not transformed or evolved into allocation of animal protection within the government. Environmental and conservation measures in the country are underpinned by a view of the commodification of animals, which does not create a framework in which debates promoting animal protection and animal welfare can take place.

Are there economic and societal barriers to improving animal welfare in the country?

There is no evidence of human and financial resource allocated to promote animal protection or animal welfare. This does not appear to be a government priority. A general lack of concern for animal welfare in society appears to act as a significant barrier to progress with respect to animal welfare.

Are enforcement mechanisms in place in policy and legislation?

There is no policy or legislation relevant to this indicator.

Animal welfare standards

Animal welfare standards

This theme examines whether the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE)’s animal welfare standards have been incorporated into law or policy, the extent of engagement with the OIE on animal welfare issues, and whether the government publishes reports on progress in improving animal welfare.

D

Engagement with the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE)

There is policy

There is evidence of positive steps towards interaction with the OIE. On 7 March 2013 the OIE signed an agreement with Russia to open a new OIE representation office in Moscow. The office will be “supporting the quality of national veterinary services and information on animal disease situation in the region. It will also facilitate the conduct of PVS Pathway evaluation and gap analysis missions, as well as capacity building seminars for OIE national focal points and Delegates of countries in the region” (OIE). 

There is also evidence of collaborative work with the OIE that has directly influenced the production of legislation on the veterinary profession and animal health.  Examples of this are the Resolution of the Russian Federation Government No. 1015-p dated 31 July 2001 Section 1 which established the Ministry of Agriculture as a body authorised to coordinate with the OIE. The Ministry’s website states that the OIE's guidelines are permanently used by the Veterinary Department for the development of various animal disease control procedures (Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian Federation). Another example is the more recent Resolution of Customs Union Commission No. 721 dated 22 June 2011 on application of international standards, guidelines and recommendations, which provides in Section 2 that in the case of absence of appropriate Customs Union veterinary regulations, the standards of international organisations, including the OIE, shall apply.

Are legal provisions effective in acknowledging animal welfare as a mainstream concern?

The government has taken some positive steps to interact with the OIE, and while the current engagement is strongly focussed on work relating to animal health with the aim of improving or facilitating trade with neighbouring countries, there should be the scope for animal welfare to be included in this decision-making process. The government is encouraged to include elements of animal welfare promotion in the legislative and policy production in relation to animal health and trade. International trends, particularly those of the neighbouring European Union, might be informative in this process.

Are there economic and societal barriers to improving animal welfare in the country?

There is evidence of allocation of responsibility and budget for the development of interaction with OIE.  The production of legislation and policy based on this interaction seems to be yielding positive results and may suggest that there are existing government mechanisms by which responsibilities and resources could be allocated for animal protection and animal welfare development.

Are enforcement mechanisms in place in policy and legislation?

There are no enforcement mechanisms relevant to this indicator.

E

OIE animal welfare standards

There is policy

The existing legislation does not cover issues addressed by the OIE’s animal welfare guiding principles and no evidence was found that legislation is to be developed to address the animal welfare standards by means of direct transposition. 

There are some references to the OIE’s standards in international legislation, which could act as a secondary source for interpretation or brought as a preamble of such norms. Examples of these are found in the Resolution of Customs Union Commission No. 721 dated 22 June 2011 on application of international standards, guidelines and recommendations; the Customs Union Treaty related to Veterinary and Sanitary Measures dated 11 December 2009; and the Order of the Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian Federation No. 3 dated 11 January 2010 on approval of procedure for audit of legal acts related to sanitary-epidemiological , veterinary-sanitary and phytosanitary requirements.

Are legal provisions effective in acknowledging animal welfare as a mainstream concern?

The animal welfare guiding principles and standards of the OIE are based on scientific evidence strong enough to support legislation and policy production. The country would benefit greatly from introduction of the recommendations and guidelines found in the standards or development of legal texts based on the principles. The government would benefit greatly from taking these initial steps and developing legislation based on the science of animal welfare. 

Are there economic and societal barriers to improving animal welfare in the country?

There is no evidence of government work to transpose the standards or the guidelines into policy and legislation, which means that there are no members of the government responsible for the inclusion of the standards and guidelines in their legal system, or budget allocated into it.

However current reference to the standards in international agreements or in the preamble to existing legislation shows that the government already has some policy from which transposition and implementation of the OIE’s standards could follow, thus suggesting that existing barriers to improvement may not be insurmountable. 

Are enforcement mechanisms in place in policy and legislation?

There is no policy or legislation relevant to this indicator.

G

Reporting on progress

There is no policy or legislation

There is no evidence of any current reporting relevant to this indicator.

Are legal provisions effective in acknowledging animal welfare as a mainstream concern?

At present there is no government policy or legislation relating to reporting on progress towards improving animal welfare.

The government is encouraged to develop or extend existing reporting structures to include detailed animal welfare considerations for all categories and species of animals.

Are there economic and societal barriers to improving animal welfare in the country?

Although there is no current reporting on animal welfare in the country, there is evidence of the existence of legal frameworks that could be extended to reporting in this area.

The Resolution of the Russian Federation Government No. 588 dated 2 August 2010 on approval of procedure for development, implementation and evaluation of state programmes of the Russian Federation establishes in Sections 27 to 46 a general obligation to publish annual reports with regard to adopted state programmes. This presents a legal path for reporting, although there is no evidence that this Resolution has been used for the production of reports on animal welfare conditions. Resolutions No. 446 (14 July 2007) and No. 717 (14 July 2012) establish reporting obligations in relation to State programmes on agriculture, which could potentially include reports on animals used in farming. The Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment has published, since 2003, a report on the state and Environmental Protection of the Russian Federation which could potentially include elements of wild animal protection. The existence of some reporting mechanisms demonstrates that there is the possibility of improvement in this area. The main obstacle is the lack of an animal protection legislative framework which could present indicators, parameters or figures in relation to the subject matter that could be assessed in annual reports.

Are enforcement mechanisms in place in policy and legislation?

There are no enforcement mechanisms relevant to this indicator.

Providing humane education

Providing humane education

This theme examines whether issues of animal care and protection are included in the national education system at primary and secondary level, and comments on whether animal welfare issues such as humane handling form part of veterinary medicine education.

D

Education on animal care and protection

There is legislation with partial application

Section 11.5 of the Order of the Ministry of Education No. 1897 dated 17 December 2010 on approval of national standard for basic general education establishes, in section 11.5, that the national standard for biology school studies includes the development of ecological literacy and awareness of measures for the protection of animals and biological diversity.

In addition, a more general statement on conservation and education can be found in the General Principals of Ecological Policy to 2030, approved by the President of the Russian Federation on 30 April 2012, which provides in section 20 that national and regional education standards shall contain issues with regard to development of an understanding and awareness of ecological problems, ecological culture and environmental liability.

Are legal provisions effective in acknowledging animal welfare as a mainstream concern?

The legal provisions introduce the concept of protection of animals as an independent issue and a key element of the country’s curriculum. This appears to relate to conservation rather than to welfare of individual animals, but provides a route by which animal protection and animal welfare issues can be introduced.

Are there economic and societal barriers to improving animal welfare in the country?

The country has allocated to the Ministry of Education the responsibility for implementation of the national curriculum, which is required to include elements of animal protection (in the context of ecological issues and biodiversity). However, the law is relatively recent and information from the World Bank’s Worldwide Governance Indicators suggests on its Rule of Law indicator that the country ranks on the lowest percentile of compliance. This suggests that there are still barriers to successful implementation. In addition, it is not clear to what extent animal welfare considerations are included within this remit. Further development of animal protection and animal welfare concepts at other education levels would help to raise awareness of animal welfare and would assist with the production and promotion of legislation and policy.

Are enforcement mechanisms in place in policy and legislation?

The inclusion in the national curriculum of concepts on animal protection is mandatory. However the remit appears to relate to ecological issues and biodiversity rather than to animal welfare.

Promoting communication and awareness

Promoting communication and awareness

This theme examines whether there is government consultation and engagement with relevant stakeholders on animal protection issues, such as the development of new legislation and policy and the licensing of scientific research using animals.

D

Consultation with stakeholders

There is legislation with partial application

The Resolution of the Russian Federation Government No. 404 dated 29 May 2008 on the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment includes in section 5.16 a requirement that the Ministry shall support organisations engaged in activities for environmental protection, including protection of animals, and shall maintain an appropriate federal register of organisations supported by the Ministry. 

However there is no evidence found of existing animal welfare or animal protection committees or any other advisory bodies in which experts on animal welfare could participate in the decision-making process with regard to policy and legislation to protect animals.

Are legal provisions effective in acknowledging animal welfare as a mainstream concern?

It is positive that the government has taken some important steps to support the existence of organisations to protect animals. Resolution 404 of 2008 gives official backing to activities relating to animal protection and connects this subject matter with environmental protection. There is at present a lack of detailed legislation on animal protection and animal welfare for different categories of animals. Through opening channels of dialogue and communication with organisations working on these issues on an official basis (such as through expert committees), production of legislation could be facilitated.

Are there economic and societal barriers to improving animal welfare in the country?

Resolution 404 of 2008 is quite positive in terms of general recognition of NGOs. It is very positive that tasks in relation to the objectives of the Resolution are allocated to the Ministry of Environment, but there is a lack of specific detail and no provisions for developing structures of interaction between registered organisations and the Ministry could be found. As this legislation gives official support to organisations working for animal protection it needs policy and further secondary legislation introducing the guidance, recommendations and codes of practice by which animal protection organisations are not only encouraged to exist, but also have a platform for dialogue and participation in potential decision-making processes that could have an impact on animals in the country.

However, given the general lack of action on animal protection by the government with respect to many categories of animals, it is considered that there may still be barriers to progress.

Are enforcement mechanisms in place in policy and legislation?

The legal status of the Resolution is not clear and it is not known whether there is scope for legal challenge or enforcement for failure to carry out this requirement to support NGOs.

Countries Selected
Select up to four countries and then select 'Compare' to start contrasting animal welfare standards

The main driver of the economy is private consumption, which has been supported by the government’s policy of supporting wages in the public sector. BMI contends that, unless a concerted effort to liberalise the economy takes place, Russia will not “change its current consumption-centred commodity-dependent growth model into an investment oriented one”. 2013 saw GDP growth of only 1.5%, which was a drop from the growth rate of 2012 of 3.4%. However, EIU predicts growth to improve with a rate of 3% in 2013. In the long term, the EIU predicts a real GDP growth rate of 3.2% for the period 2012-30.

 

 

Date of information: 11/02/2014
Population 
143,533,000
GDP 
$2,014,776,311,555
GDP (PPP) 
$23,501
Education expenditure (% of GDP) 
4.1 (2008)