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

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

Animal welfare in Vietnam is governed by the Law on Animal Health (2015) and the Law on Animal Husbandry (2018). Both laws prohibit the ill-treatment of animals and the Law on Animal Health (2015) mandates a duty of care of animals to owners. Vietnam has legislation providing additional protections for some species or for certain animal welfare issues, such as bear bile farming. Vietnam’s delegated authority to state and local equivalents has allowed cities, such as Hanoi, to ban cruel practices such as the dog meat trade.

Animal welfare legislation in Vietnam is characterised by a prioritisation on human health and consumption. This has resulted in limited protections for animals in the country. Language used in legislation is vague, and animal welfare protections for wild animals are completely absent. Despite some species being totally protected and cruel practices such as bear bile farming being banned, reports suggest these problems are ongoing.  While livestock are protected from ‘ill-treatment’ there are no details as to what ill-treatment constitutes and there are no supplementary guidelines or regulations to govern the care, rearing, transport and slaughter of different species.

In Vietnam, various departments within the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development have primary responsibility for matters dealing with animals. For instance, the Vietnam CITES authority deals with wildlife and bears, the Department of Animal Health deals with rabies and animals in farming and the Department of Livestock Production deals with the development of livestock policy. The Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment has some importance in protecting animals, especially rare and endangered species.

Since the API was first published in 2014, Vietnam has introduced two new pieces of legislation to govern animal welfare. The Law on Animal Health (2015) is focused, however, on animal health for the benefit of humans, rather than because animals feel pain and can suffer. Similarly, the Law on Animal Husbandry (2018) focusses on ensuring greater productivity through improved animal husbandry for the benefit of humans.

The Government of Vietnam is strongly urged to amend the Law on Animal Health (2015) and the Law on Animal Husbandry (2018) to ensure that clear and stringent animal welfare protections are included. The Government is also encouraged to align animal welfare under one Ministry with sufficient resources for animal welfare education, promotion of animal welfare and enforcement of the law. The Government is also encouraged to create a separate committee under the said Ministry with ultimate responsibility for animal welfare across Vietnam. The committee should include representatives from different government departments, the Vietnam Zoos Association and animal welfare non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Finally, the Government of Vietnam is encouraged to develop supporting regulations and guidance, by species, on the handling, care, transport, slaughter and euthanasia of farm animals in Vietnam. 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, it is very positive that China has announced a ban on the domestic ivory trade in 2015, which was implemented in 2017. The Law on the Protection of Wildlife has also been amended in 2017. The law further separates captive breeding from natural conservation and slightly tightened regulation on wildlife use. It is encouraging that the Chinese Veterinary Medical Association, under instruction by the Ministry of Agriculture, has drafted General Principles of Animal Welfare. These will be non-binding guidelines on the welfare of various categories of animals, including farm animals, and will include issues such as infrastructure, feeding environment and health. In 2017, these Guidelines were approved by the National Animal Husbandry Standardisation Technical Committee and are now under review by the Ministry of Agriculture. Furthermore, it is positive that humane slaughter is now legally required for pigs and, in the Shandong province, for poultry. Progress has also been made in regulations focusing on companion animals. The Nation’s Rabies Prevention Control Plan (2017-2020) lays out specific requirements for vaccinations, monitoring, epidemic surveys and education against rabies. At the municipal level, cities also enacted companion animal regulations mandating vaccination and microchipping of dogs. In addition, the fact that China has ended animal testing requirements on post-market cosmetics is a step forward eliminating the practice of animal testing on cosmetics. China has already stopped animal testing for domestically produced cosmetics. Legislation relating to animals used in experiments is very progressive by comparison to other categories of animals, since it requires that those involved in laboratory animal work must love and protect animals and shall not disrespect or abuse animals. In early 2020, to combat the spread of Covid-19, the Chinese Government introduced a full ban on the trade of wildlife. Later in addition, the legislation body made a decision (equivalent to a law) to complete ban the hunting, trade, captive-bred and transport of terrestrial wild animals for consumption as well as the eating of captive-bred wild animals. Illegal wildlife trade enforcement and punishment are also escalated to the highest level. Wild animals used for other purposes such as scientific research, medicine and exhibition are required to go under strengthened inspection and quarantine to regulate the trade. Further wildlife trade regulation will be launched and enforced strictly by the State Council and related departments.

The main relevant legislations for animal welfare in China are the Animal Husbandry Law of the People’s Republic of China (amended in 2015), which is only applicable to livestock and poultry production standardisation, and the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Protection of Wildlife which focuses on conserving endangered wildlife species. An overall piece of legislation solely focused on animal welfare protection is still missing. The Husbandry Law contains minimal welfare requirements, mandating that livestock and poultry farms provide suitable conditions for the breeding, survival and growth of the animals. Animal cruelty is not banned by a stand-alone law; rather, animals receive limited protection in terms of being considered a food source, through penalties related to property damage or food poisoning. Moreover, the Wildlife Protection Law allows for the commercial breeding of endangered wildlife, through a permit system. Since the Law focuses on species protection, individual wild animals under state protection may still be consumed and traded for several legally permitted purposes. Many categories of animals in China still lack legal protection, such as stray animals, draught animals and those used for recreational purposes. Furthermore, it is still compulsory for some imported products to be tested on animals before being given licences for sale in China.

Animal welfare is not formally part of the remit of any Ministry in China. However, the Ministry of Agriculture, the National Forestry and Grasslands Administration and the Ministry for Housing and Urban-Rural Development have produced guidelines referring to animal welfare. Assigning responsibility and accountability for animal welfare to a Ministry, and to a dedicated animal welfare unit, would be an essential improvement in the governance scheme of animal welfare.

The Government of China is strongly encouraged to enact the General Principles of Animal Welfare. Moreover, building upon the example of legislation for animals used in research, the Government of China is encouraged to enact a stand-alone animal welfare legislation, recognising animal sentience and laying out detailed welfare requirements for various species of animals, in line with the OIE international standards. The Government is also encouraged to remove the permit system allowing the captive breeding, commercial trade and consumption of wildlife or wildlife-derived products. Further legal and policy recommendations are associated with each indicator and contained in the relevant sections of this report. Further legal and policy recommendations are associated with each Animal Protection Index (API) indicator and contained in the relevant sections of this report.

Taiwan, China has its own animal welfare legislation which has not been assessed as part of the 2020 Animal Protection Index. The assessment and grade in this report refers to mainland China legislation only. 

Executive Summary

The Animal Health and Development Law 1993 is the main piece of legislation dealing with animal welfare in Myanmar. The law provides basic protections for some animals including protection from deliberate harm, such as withholding food and water, but it lacks a recognition of animal sentience and is applicable only to domesticated animals bred by humans. While the Protection of Wildlife and Conservation of Natural Areas Law 1994 applies some protections to wildlife, the fact that wild animals are not within the scope of the Animal Health and Development Law is concerning. There are some protections for livestock and draught animals, however, these do not cover their rearing, their transport or their slaughter, nor provide species-specific standards. Overall, there is a lack of animal welfare legislation in Myanmar.

The Ministry for Agriculture, Livestock and Irrigation holds overall responsibility under the Animal Health and Development Law, but Myanmar lacks a body or department dedicated to animal welfare. While Myanmar recognises in some ways the connection between animal and human health, the country’s legislation is limited in applying protections for animal welfare.

Since the API was first published in 2014, Myanmar has not substantially improved animal welfare through legislation. Myanmar has made great strides in its plan for developing a “green” agenda and strives to develop sustainably. While these policies and strategies are likely to positively impact species conservation and livestock animals, generally they have not translated into explicit improvements for animal welfare. While the Government has partnered with both the OIE and NGOs for improvements in animal health and a “green” development plan, they are yet to entrench OIE standards into their animal welfare law.

The Government of Myanmar is urged to develop and legislate animal welfare protections for livestock from rearing to transport to slaughter. Similarly, the Government of Myanmar is encouraged to ban completely the culling of stray animal populations and engage with organisations such as the United Against Rabies Collaboration to protect both animals and its human population from rabies.  The Government of Myanmar is encouraged to strengthen and expand its current animal welfare protections into a comprehensive Act that would enshrine animal sentience, define animal welfare in accordance with OIE standards and prohibit animal cruelty in a more encompassing manner. This includes the creation of a specific government body dedicated to animal welfare that should include representatives from animal welfare organisations. 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 it first introduced the Animal Protection Act (2017), Korea has been proactive in continuing improvements to the law, ensuring that animal welfare is protected in the country. The Act enshrines the Five Freedoms, places a duty of care towards animals on owners, local authorities and the general Korean population. There is a recognition across animal-related legislation that animals feel pain and can suffer, and it is mandated that steps be taken to prevent any unnecessary pain and suffering. Some jurisdictions in the country, for example Seoul, should be commended on their commitment to animal welfare with their local schemes to reduce stray animal populations and to end the trade in dog meat.

While the Animal Protection Act (2017) has continued to improve, its application can still be unclear due to contradicting definitions of animals in other legislation. This is a common theme across animal-related legislation in Korea. For example, the Livestock Products Sanitary Control Act (2016) and the Livestock Industry Act (2017) include different species in their definition of “livestock.” Similarly, it is unclear how the protections enshrined in the Animal Protection Act (2017), such as the Five Freedoms, are applied in relation to farm animals. Reports suggest that battery cages are widely used for chickens, and that small cage sizes result in an inability for chickens to achieve several of the Five Freedoms stipulated by law.
 
The Animal Protection Act (2017) established an animal welfare committee, under the Ministry of Agriculture, which is required to develop and implement a national animal welfare plan every five years. However, legislation for wildlife and marine animals, assigns responsibility for their care to the Ministry of Environment. Similarly, while the Animal Protection Act (2017) mandates treatment for animals in testing, the responsibility for their care is assigned to the Ministry for Food and Drug Safety.
 
Since 2014 and the previous iteration of the Animal Protection Index, the Government of Korea has made amendments to many pieces of legislation that impact animal welfare. This suggests a strong political will to ensure high animal welfare standards in the country.

The Government of Korea is recommended to align all animal welfare matters under one government ministry with the human and financial resources for research, policy development, public education and enforcement. Further legal and policy recommendations are associated with each Animal Protection Indicator (API) indicator and contained in the relevant sections of this report.

Executive Summary

The Act on Welfare and Management of Animals (1973) forms the basis of animal welfare protections in Japan. The Act includes enforcement mechanisms and recognises that animals feel pain and distress. The Act on Welfare and Management of Animals (1973) is also very clear in its expectations of animal owners and organisations to care for animals their entire lives. The Act is reviewed every five years allowing for regular amendments to improve animal welfare across the country.

While animal welfare legislation exists, it is vague and limited in the protections it provides animals. Similarly, supplementary standards are not mandatory and not aligned with current OIE animal welfare standards. There are no animal welfare protections provided for wild animals in any of the applicable laws. It is also concerning that there is no further guidance, beyond the Act on Welfare and Management of Animals applicable to animals in captive environments such as zoos. Inherently cruel activities also continue to take place in Japan, for example dog fighting and the internationally condemned Taiji Cove dolphin hunt. Similarly, the keeping of exotic pets is also popular in Japan, and there are currently few restrictions on their keeping.  

Animal welfare in Japan is generally governed by the Ministry of Environment, with some policies regarding animal health being produced by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries.

Since the 2014 iteration of the Animal Protection Index, Japan has not introduced new animal welfare protections. There is at least one new bill; aimed at reducing stray dog and cat populations; passed by the Japanese Parliament in 2019. However, as the Act on Welfare and Management of Animals (1973) is currently under review, new bills increasing animal welfare provisions, will not come into force until after the passing of any amendments to the Act on welfare and management.

The Government of Japan is strongly urged to align all animal welfare under one ministry and to create an animal welfare committee whose purpose is to produce guidelines, enforce legislation and educate the public on animal welfare. The committee should include representatives from multiple government ministries, animal welfare organisations and experts and the national zoos and aquariums associations. The Government is encouraged to introduce mandatory guidelines, aligned with OIE animal welfare standards, to govern the rearing, transport and slaughter of farm animals, working conditions for draught animals, animals in captivity and dog and cat 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