Executive Summary

There have been several key changes in the legal protection of animals in Thailand since the first publication of the API. Namely, the Prevention of Animal Cruelty and Provision of Animal Welfare Act was enacted in 2014 and constitutes the main animal welfare legislation at present. Animal cruelty is prohibited in Section 17. In 2015, the Elephant Ivory Tusks Act B.E. 2558 was enacted. This legislation requires a special permit for trading in elephant ivory tusks. Furthermore, the Animals for Scientific Purposes Act B.E. 2558 was also brought into power in 2015. This Act defines procedures on the use of animals for scientific purposes to bring Thai practices in line with international animal welfare standards.

However, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Provision of Animal Welfare Act contains clear loopholes or compromises and fails to comprehensively protect animals. Notably, Section 18 of the Act lists exemptions to cruelty considerations, which includes all slaughter procedures. Religious slaughter is allowed, which means that animals can be killed without being stunned prior to slaughter. Farm animal mutilations are also allowed. The Act also exempts animal experiments from being included in this anti-cruelty provisions. Moreover, animal fights are also explicitly allowed in legislation. In addition to the above, there is a lack of regulations with regards to stray animal populations management, the dog meat trade, as well as the rearing and transport of several farm animals.

In Thailand, the Department of Livestock Development has powers in legislation to make regulations on areas concerning farm animals. Moreover, the Prevention of Animal Cruelty and Provision of Animal Welfare Act provides for the creation of the Animal Anti-Cruelty and Welfare Committee. The Committee is charged with proposing animal welfare policies and monitoring the implementation of the Act. Thailand should be highlighted as an example for other countries to follow, since its legislation mandates the inclusion of animal welfare organisations in the highest decision-making authorities with regards to animal welfare. Animal welfare organisations are represented in the Animal Anti-Cruelty and Welfare Committee, as well as within the Committee for Supervision and Promotion of Procedures on Animals for Scientific Purposes (CSPA), dedicated to the use of animals for scientific experiments.

The Government of Thailand is strongly encouraged to formally enshrine animal sentience into law and, from the recognition that all vertebrates, cephalopods and decapod crustaceans are sentient, the Government of Thailand is urged to amend the Prevention of Animal Cruelty and Provision of Animal Welfare Act, in order to remove the exceptions to animal cruelty, such as slaughter and scientific procedures. Moreover, the Government of Thailand is urged to ban the dog meat trade, recognising that the production of dog meat involves enormous animal cruelty. Similarly, the Government of Thailand is encouraged to ban the organisation of animal fights. The Government of Thailand is also encouraged to provide more detailed, species-specific welfare requirements with regards to the rearing of farm animals, the keeping of wild animals in captivity and stray animal population management. Further legal and policy recommendations are associated with each Animal Protection Index (API) indicator and contained in the relevant sections of this report.

Executive Summary

Since the API was first published in 2014, Sweden has enacted a new version of its main animal welfare legislation, namely the Animal Welfare Act 2018:1192 and its Ordinance 2019:66. The Animal Welfare Act 2018 is applicable to animals kept by humans and wild animals used for scientific purposes. The Act explicitly bans the abandonment of domestic animals and zoophilia. Swedish animal welfare legislation goes beyond and above EU law. For example, Sweden requires larger minimum space requirements for the animals, has 8hr limits for transportation of animals for slaughtering and cows must be out on pasture during the summer. Similarly, beak trimming and tail docking (pigs and dogs) are prohibited, and there is a full ban on the use of sow stalls and farrowing crates. Sweden also provides detailed requirements where such provisions don’t exist at EU level, for example for dairy cows. The castration of piglets without anaesthesia is also forbidden. Moreover, Sweden has positively addressed the use of animals in experiments, since it has banned the use of animals for cosmetic testing and has created the Three Rs Centre, dedicated to increase attention on the Three Rs principles – Replacement, Reduction and Refinement – and developing alternative research methods than with using animals.

However, there remains room for improvement in some domains related to animal welfare. Notably, fur farming is still allowed for some species, which tarnishes Sweden’s reputation as an international leader in animal welfare. Furthermore, Sweden has not fully banned the use of wild animals for entertainment such as circuses and marine parks. In the ordinance Sweden has banned the use of 12 groups of animals, for example elephants and sea lions. The welfare for wild animals should be improved by a total ban or if Sweden adopted positive list of animals allowed for entertainment. With regards to animals used for research, the legislation still allows the capture of wild animals to be used in experiments.

Overall, there is a good allocation of human and financial resources dedicated to animal welfare in Sweden. The Ministry for Rural Affairs is responsible for animal welfare, and the County Administrative Boards are in charge of enforcing the Animal Welfare Act 2018 and its Ordinance. The Swedish Board of Agriculture is the principal national agency creating new regulations on animal welfare. Within the Board, the Animal Welfare Council, now called the Dialogue Group for Animal Welfare, comprises representatives from animal welfare NGOs, veterinary organisations, academia, County Administrative Boards and stakeholder organisations for farm and pet animals. The Swedish Centre for Animal Welfare (SCAW) provide the government, the parliament and the governmental board with expertise on the matter of research and education on animal welfare.  SCAW is also pointed out as reference centre for animal welfare by OIE. At the national level, the Government of Sweden has also established a Scientific Council on Animal Welfare which acts as a risk-assessment body. There are Animal Ethics Committees in charge of deciding whether animal experiments should be carried out, and a Three Rs Centre dedicated to developing alternatives to animal research.
 
In the first paragraph in the Animal Welfare Act 2018 it is stated that animals shall be treated with respect. In the governmental bill (2017/18:147 this is explained further: “With respect for animals, one should understand the awareness and recognition that animals are living and knowing beings with certain needs that must be taken into account. This also means that animals have an intrinsic value regardless of the benefit they have to humans”.  At present, Swedish legislation still allows for the killing of abandoned or lost cats (the Animal Welfare Act 2018 prohibited the abandonment of animals). The Government of Sweden is therefore strongly encouraged to remove this provision, and to instead promote TNRM (trap-neuter-return-management) programmes in order to control cat populations and to give financial support to organisations that take care of abandoned and lost cats. Furthermore, with regards to wild animals in captivity, the Government of Sweden is urged to fully ban fur farming. Fur farming is inherently cruel and causes pain, distress and suffering to animals. Moreover, Sweden is highly encouraged to ban the use of all wild animals for entertainment purposes, which includes circuses. The breeding, keeping and trading of marine mammals in captivity should be banned, so that the animals currently in captivity constitute the last generation. With regards to animals used in research, the Government of Sweden is urged to ban the capture of wild animals for experiments and is strongly encouraged to continue investing in the Three Rs Centre, in order to develop alternatives to animal research. Further legal and policy recommendations are associated with each Animal Protection Index (API) indicator and contained in the relevant sections of this report.

Executive Summary

The United States (US) has a few key pieces of animal welfare legislation applicable at the federal level. The Animal Welfare Act (1966) sets general standards for the humane care and treatment that must be provided for certain animals who are bred for commercial sale, exhibited to the public, used in biomedical research, or transported commercially. The Horse Protection Act (1970) prohibits sored horses from participating in shows, exhibitions, sales or auctions and the Humane Slaughter Act (1978) mandates humane slaughter for certain species. Most US animal welfare laws are enacted at the state level. However, the scope of application of statutes vary across states.

Since the API was first published in 2014, several new pieces of legislation have been enacted and have been positive for animal welfare. The Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture Act (PACT), unanimously passed by Congress in November 2019, makes it a federal crime to engage in animal crushing. At the state level, California passed Proposition 12 in November 2018, considered one of the most progressive pieces of animal welfare legislation in the world. In fact, it sets specific minimum space requirements for animals raised for food, thus effectively banning cages for laying hens, sow stalls, and crates for calves. Furthermore, California passed the Circus Cruelty Prevention Act in May 2019, which outlaws the use of all wild animals in circuses. In October 2019, California became the first state to prohibit the sale of fur products, with a ban entering into force on 1 January 2023. California and Maryland also passed legislation prohibiting pet stores from sourcing animals from commercial breeders. Massachusetts passed two Protect Animal Welfare and Safety (PAWS) Acts: the first one in 2014 established an animal welfare task force, while PAWS II aims to improve cross-reporting of animal cruelty to law enforcement agencies, prevents the automatic euthanasia of animals confiscated from the animal fighting industry; and modernizes the state’s prohibitions against animal sexual abuse. In November 2019, Michigan passed Senate Bill 0174, which mandates cage-free conditions for egg-laying hens and prohibits the sale of non-cage-free eggs by December 2024.

However, there remains room for improvement in many areas related to animal welfare. Notably, there is a clear lack of federal protection for animals, since the Animal Welfare Act (1966) does not apply to birds, rats and mice used for research, horses used for research and farm animals. There is no federal legislation protecting farm animals during the rearing phase. Plus, the Humane Slaughter Act does not apply to poultry or fish. Furthermore, the US Department of Agriculture has removed public access to thousands of reports documenting the numbers of animals kept by research laboratories, companies, zoos, circuses and animal transporters, and whether those animals are being treated humanely in accordance with the Animal Welfare Act (1966). Since 3 February 2017, anyone wishing to access such information needs to file a Freedom of Information Act request, which can take months to be processed. Furthermore, cruel practices such as fur farming and various uses of animals for entertainment purposes are allowed in the US.

The US Department of Agriculture is responsible to promulgate laws and regulations pertaining to animal welfare on a limited number of issues. Its subsidiary the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is responsible for enforcing the Animal Welfare Act, implemented by the APHIS Animal Care and Veterinary Units. With regards to animals used in scientific research, it is required that all institutions intending to use animals for research establish an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) to review the experiment planned. The Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM), created in 2000, promotes the Three Rs principles (Replacement, Reduction, Refinement) and collaborates internationally on the development of alternatives to animal research.

Given the extensive body of scientific evidence, the US Government is urged to define in legislation, at a minimum, all vertebrates, cephalopods and decapod crustaceans as sentient. Furthermore, the US Government is strongly encouraged to expand the use of the Animal Welfare Act (1966), so that it applies to all sentient animals. The US Government is strongly encouraged to amend the PACT Act (2019), with removing the exemption for the animals killed for food or used in scientific research. Building upon the example of California’s Proposition 12, the US Government is urged to ban the worst forms of confinement for farm animals. In particular, the use of farrowing crates, sow stalls, and cages should be banned. The US Government is also urged to ban the production and sale of fur products, since fur farming is inherently cruel and causes pain, distress and suffering to animals. The US Government is also encouraged to outlaw cruel forms of entertainment that cause animal suffering, such as the use of animals for circuses, rodeos, fights, races, rides on wild animals, and the use of marine mammals in shows. The US Government is also urged to support the re-introduction and enactment of the Humane Cosmetics Act that would phase out cosmetic animal testing and the sale of cosmetics tested on animals. The US Government is strongly encouraged to allocate sufficient annual funding to ensure the effective implementation and enforcement of animal welfare standards. Further legal and policy recommendations are associated with each Animal Protection Index (API) indicator and contained in the relevant sections of this report.

Executive Summary

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960 is the main piece of animal welfare legislation in India. This Act recognises that animals can suffer physically and mentally, and is applicable to ‘all living creatures’. This implicit recognition of animal sentience is echoed in the country’s Constitution, which enshrines the principle of ahimsa and mandates to all citizens of India to ‘have compassion for living creatures’. Furthermore, the Government of India should be acclaimed for having banned various forms of entertainment using wild animals such as dolphins and the use of all wild animals in circuses in 2017. Since the API was first published, India has also banned the import of skins of reptiles, chinchillas, minks and foxes in 2017. India has also made progress in protecting animals used in scientific research, since the country banned the use of cosmetic products on animals in 2013, and banned the import of cosmetic products which were tested on animals in 2014, thus becoming the first country in South Asia to do so.

However, there is room for improvement in many domains related to animal welfare. For instance, animals used in scientific research are exempt from cruelty considerations in the Prevention of Animal Cruelty Act 1960. Furthermore, there is a lack of regulations regarding the rearing of farm animals, notably with unregulated urban dairy systems developing quickly with very poor welfare standards. Indian legislation also allows for religious slaughter to be carried out without prior stunning. Fur farming has also not been banned in India. The country also allows for the killing of stray dogs in the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960, though the Government encourages spay-and-neuter programmes in the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules 2001. Additionally, Indian legislation allows the hunting of endangered species for a wide range of purposes, including collecting specimens for zoos and museums.

The Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) is the central body responsible for animal welfare in the country. It should be highlighted that some members of the AWBI are from animal welfare organisations. Local Animal Welfare Boards also exist in the country. In 2018, the AWBI was moved from being under the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change to now falling under the responsibility of the Ministry for Agriculture. The National Institute for Animal Welfare, created in 1999, has the broad mandate to improve animal welfare through research, education and public outreach. The Committee for the Purpose of Control and Supervision of Experiments on Animals (CPCSEA) oversees the use of animals for scientific research and is in charge of taking all measures to ensure that animals are not subjected to unnecessary pain or suffering before, during or after the scientific experiment performed on them.

Regarding farm animals, the Government of India is urged to mandate humane slaughter for all animals, which requires unconsciousness prior to slaughter. Furthermore, the Government of India is strongly encouraged to ban the worst forms of confinement for animals reared in farming. The Government of India is highly encouraged to enact stronger welfare requirements to better regulate the spread of urban dairy systems. In addition, the Government of India is highly encouraged to fully ban fur farming, which is inherently cruel and causes pain, distress and suffering to animals. The Government of India is urged to outlaw the culling of stray animal populations, and to implement spay-and-neuter campaigns as a tool to control stray animal populations. The Government of India is also strongly encouraged to ban the use of all animals for entertainment. For example, at present, legislation only bans the use of wild animals in circuses. Overall, the Government of India is strongly encouraged to align its current legislation with OIE standards. Further legal and policy recommendations are associated with each Animal Protection Index (API) indicator and contained in the relevant sections of this report.

Executive Summary

In the Philippines, animal welfare legislation is made up of the Animal Welfare Act (1998), the Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection Act (2001) and a large number of supporting Administrative Orders regulating many processes and facilities that affect animal lives, such as farm animal transport and pet shops. Although sentience is not formally recognised in legislation, there is legal recognition that a large number of animals, both vertebrates and invertebrates, can suffer both physically and mentally, and the Five Freedoms are also enshrined in law. Similarly, guidelines on chicken and pig rearing, transport and slaughter were written to align with OIE standards. Much of the legislation goes beyond considerations of animal health from human health and productivity perspectives signifying that animal welfare is important in the Philippines.

While there are many aspects to Philippine law that have a positive effect on animal welfare, this is not equal across all animal species. The Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection Act provides anti-cruelty provisions for wild animals but also allows many species to be hunted even when listed under CITES conservation status as ‘threatened’. The commercial breeding of wild animals is also allowed in legislation. Similarly, there is a lack of legislation banning inherently cruel and unnecessary practices such as fur farming, long-distance transport of live animals and testing on animals for cosmetics, including on wild caught animals. While zoos are somewhat regulated and require licences, there are no further Administrative Orders governing best practice and guidelines for animal welfare. Under Philippine law there are also inconsistencies. Dog and horse fighting are banned outright in the Animal Welfare Act (1998), whereas cockfighting is not.

Animal Welfare governance is spread across multiple Government Departments including the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Both departments run separate committees such as the Committee of Animal Welfare (Department of Agriculture) and the National Committee on Wildlife Management (Department of Environment and Natural Resources); however, there is no suggestion that these two committees work together to ensure animal welfare protections for all animals under their jurisdictions.

Since the previous edition of the API in 2014, there has been little change in Philippine Law to further protect animals. In fact, many of the supporting Administrative Orders supporting animal welfare legislation are more than a decade old.

The Government of the Philippines is recommended to align all animal welfare legislation and jurisdictions under one government department with enough resources for education, enforcement and to continue to improve animal welfare. The Government is also recommended to revise and reassess all Administrative Orders that impact animal welfare to ensure they are aligned with modern OIE standards and current scientific thinking. Furthermore, the Government of the Philippines is strongly encouraged to ban cruel practices such as fur farming, keeping wild animals as pets and long-distance transport of animals. Further legal and policy recommendations are associated with each Animal Protection Index (API) indicator and contained in the relevant sections of this report.

Executive Summary

At the federal level, the Criminal Code contains provisions banning animal cruelty. Since the API was first published in 2014, new legislation has been passed that improves animal protection. Notably, amendments to the Criminal Code explicitly prohibit all sexual abuse of animals and strengthen the Code’s provisions dealing with organizing and keeping animals for animal fighting. Moreover, the Ending of Captivity of Whales and Dolphins Act was passed in June 2019, which effectively outlaws the keeping, breeding and capture of cetaceans for public entertainment through amendments to the Criminal Code, the Fisheries Act and the Wild Animal and Plant Protection and Regulation of International and Interprovincial Trade Act. In addition, the Health of Animals Regulations were amended in 2019, reducing the maximum length of transport without access to feed, rest or water for some animals. At the provincial level, Quebec passed the Act to Improve the Legal Situations of Animals in 2015, which recognises domestic and captive wild animals as sentient.  

However, there is room for improvement in many areas related to animal welfare. Notably, there is no legislation applicable at the federal level dedicated to positive requirements for animal welfare. The variability in legislative and regulatory animal welfare protection across provinces means there is no consistency in Canada in the level of protection offered to animals. Although the Criminal Code applies to all provinces and territories and can be enforced across the country, provincial enforcement agencies generally use provincial or territorial legislation first, as they tend to be easier to enforce. Despite having been improved in 2019, the current Health of Animals Regulations still allow for the transport of animals for very long periods of time (36 hours for ruminants) without feed, water or rest. Moreover, the Federal Government has failed to regulate farming practices to safeguard animal welfare, choosing instead to leave the industry to self-police through the development and implementation of the Codes of Practice. These Codes are developed by the National Farm Animal Care Council (NFACC), an industry-led multi-stakeholder committee that includes representatives from two animal welfare organizations, World Animal Protection and Humane Canada. The Codes are not legally binding themselves, but they are referenced in the animal protection regulations of six provinces to establish accepted industry practices. They are also often introduced as evidence in court as established accepted practices, even when they are not referenced in the law.  The Federal Government also defers to the Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC), made up of industry representatives, to develop guidelines with regards to animals used in research. Once again, allowing the industry to self-police.

At the federal level, there is no specific body with responsibility for development of policy on animal welfare. The Federal Government also relies on implementation and more detailed regulation and enforcement taking place at the provincial level. Most provincial legislation is the responsibility of a provincial minister who usually has the power to make regulations and the powers of enforcement are typically given to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA), which is primarily funded by public donations in many provinces.

The Government of Canada is strongly encouraged to strengthen the Criminal Code’s animal cruelty provisions and to move them out of the property section of the Criminal Code, and into a separate section acknowledging them as sentient beings. Furthermore, the Government of Canada is urged to work with the provinces and territories to ensure consistent protection to animals across the country. In particular, they should address the daily treatment of farm animals on the farm. Moreover, recognizing that wild animals cannot have their needs entirely met when kept as pets, the Government of Canada is strongly encouraged to follow the lead of countries like the Netherlands and Belgium which have developed laws governing which animals can be kept as companion animals, based on clear criteria including animal welfare and other robust scientific risk assessments. Another significant wildlife welfare issue impacting many wild animals in Canada is fur farming. The Government is strongly encouraged to take steps towards phasing-out this inhumane and unnecessary industry at the federal level as other nations have done or are in the process of doing (e.g. UK, Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, Japan, New Zealand and Denmark). The Government is also highly encouraged to develop legislation mandating the humane treatment of stray animals, wild animals and animals used in scientific experiments. Further legal and policy recommendations are associated with each Animal Protection Index (API) indicator and contained in the relevant sections of this report.