The UK has been a pioneer of animal protection laws. In 1822, it passed the world’s first legislation, a limited measure protecting cattle, and protection has progressively increased since then. This week Advocates for Animals’ David Thomas summarises the centrepiece legislation in England and Wales. Protection now extends to animals in all sorts of situations – in the home, on farms, in entertainment, in the wild, during transportation and in laboratories. However, protection is piecemeal and is often limited by what is perceived to be in humankind’s interests. The law is no animal rights charter. England and Wales The Animal Welfare Act 2006 (AWA) covers vertebrate animals, essentially if they are of a domesticated species or under the control of humans. It therefore extends to farm animals, although they have separate legislation too. The authorities can extend protection to sentient invertebrates species. There are two main offences in AWA. The first is causing unnecessary suffering, or allowing it to be caused. Section 4 sets out non-exhaustive criteria of what is meant by ‘unnecessary’, such as: could the suffering have been reduced or avoided; did it benefit the animal or protect a person, property or another animal; was it proportionate given its purpose; and ‘was the conduct … in all the circumstances that of a reasonably competent and humane person’? The offence covers omissions as well as positive acts. Under section 9 , a person commits an offence ‘if he does not take such steps as are reasonable in all the circumstances to ensure that the needs of an animal for which he is responsible are met to the extent required by good practice’. This creates a positive duty to look after animals properly, not simply a negative one not to cause them harm as with section 4. An animal’s needs include a suitable environment and diet; ability to exhibit normal behaviour patterns; housing with, or apart from, other animals; and protection from pain, suffering, injury or disease. Similarly to section 4, the lawful purpose for which an animal is kept or used is relevant. In practice, that may diminish the protection, because other legislation restricts the extent to which an animal can exhibit natural behaviour or be free from pain. Section 9 does not prevent the humane destruction of an animal. Because the law regards animals as property, there is nothing to prevent an owner from (humanely) killing their perfectly healthy companion animal. Similarly, if someone deliberately injures someone else’s animal, as well as animal cruelty offences they commit criminal damage, a property offence. The maximum term of imprisonment for these offences is 6 months, although the Government has committed to increasing this to five years. A fine may also be imposed. The court can deprive a convicted person of ownership of an animal and disqualify them from involvement with animals. The authorities are given various other powers, for example to seize animals in distress. The authorities can also make regulations to promote welfare and issue codes of practice. Codes have been issued, for example, for farm animals, cats and dogs. Breach of a code is relevant to, but not determinative of, whether one of the main offences has been committed. In addition, the authorities can require particular activities involving animals to be licensed or registered. So, the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018 require the keeping or training of animals for exhibition, the breeding of dogs, the boarding of cats and dogs and selling animals as companion animals to be licensed in certain circumstances. AWA does not apply to anything lawfully done to animals in laboratories under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Similarly, it does not apply to ‘anything which occurs in the normal course of fishing’. Scotland and Northern Ireland Scotland and Northern Ireland are beyond the scope of this blog; however, in summary the nations have their own legislation, which is broadly similar to AWA. This is the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 and the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 respectively. Getting advice This post is not legal advice and should not be relied on as such. If you require legal advice on animal protection laws, please contact info@advocates-for-animals.com .

This week, guest writer, Marine Baptista Rosa, explores animal protection laws in Finland. Despite its modest population of 5,5 million people, Finland is home to a vibrant animal protection advocacy movement. Animal justice is an increasingly present topic on university curriculums and in the political agenda. Finnish animal protection law Due to its membership in the European Union (EU), Finland’s national law on animal protection is bound by EU treaties and EU animal law. It also has its own domestic legislation. The most important national legislation on animal protection is the Animal Welfare Act , which applies to all animals. The Animal Welfare Act contains provisions on a variety of specific topics ranging from animal competitions, the keeping and care of animals in performances, circuses, and zoos to inspection rules. In addition to the Animal Welfare Act, Finland has special rules on hunting, fishing, veterinary medication, animal breeding, artificial propagation of animals, animal testing on vertebrates, animal transportation, gene technology, and nature conservation. For some examples, check out the Animal Transport Act , the Act on the Use of Animals for Experimental Purposes , and the Hunting Act , all of which have specific animal welfare provisions. Relevant authorities In Finland, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry is the highest authority steering and controlling the enforcement of animal welfare legislation. Operating right under the Ministry, the Finnish Food Authority is the central government authority responsible for monitoring the wellbeing of animals used in agriculture. The Regional State Administrative Agencies oversee the compliance of the law in their respective regions. Finally, the main authorities controlling animal welfare control at the local level are municipal veterinarians, veterinary officers, animal protection supervisors, and the police. The future However, despite these protections, the active community and the fact 74% of Finnish citizens being opposed to fur farming activities , the country remains the world’s largest fox fur producer . The good news is that, in August 2020, the Social Democratic Party of Finland (SDP), which is the largest political party in the country, and current Prime Minister Sanna Marin’s party, committed to working towards ending fur farming and fur sales in Finland within a reasonable transition period. Further to this, a group of Finnish lawyers and legal scholars - The Finnish Animal Rights Lawyers Society – has submitted a legislative proposal on fundamental animal rights to be included in the Constitution of Finland. The proposal aims at strengthening the legal status of animals in the Finnish Constitution. Social pressure proved effective on the historic stand against fur farming, although that was only a first step. Hopefully, civil demand might ignite even further strides for a better future for animals in Finland. Getting advice This post is not legal advice and should not be relied on as such. If you require legal advice on animal protection laws, please contact info@advocates-for-animals.com .

600 million pigs are killed in China each year. If this number represented the average sized pigs, snout to tail, they would cover the distance between London and Beijing. And that’s just pigs, never mind the countless other animals slaughtered for the meat industry. This week’s guest writer who is located in China, will look at what legislation is in place to protect the welfare of animals in the People’s Republic. The overall picture China ranks Class E on the Animal Protection Index (API) , along with Ukraine, Pakistan and Nigeria. To put this in context, Belarus and Algeria are in class F and Iran and Azerbaijan are in the bottom ranking Class G. The UK is Class B. Chinese law does not recognise animal sentience. Farm animals The majority of China’s farm animals live in horribly overcrowded and unsanitary conditions. There are laws that were brought in for public health reasons that contain some welfare provisions, such as the Animal Husbandry Law of the People’s Republic of China (amended in 2015), but these largely focus on the protection of genetic resources rather than safeguarding individual animals. As the demand for meat continues to rise, according to Peter J. Li, ‘China has embraced intensive farming with associated practices that are being restricted or banned in other countries’ such as the EU. Fur farms Following coronavirus outbreaks on European mink farms, there has been at least passing discussion on how these animals are kept in countries including Denmark and Italy – and many farms have closed for good. In China, few regulations on fur farms exist , despite it being the world’s biggest fur producer. Perversely, the closure of European mink farms may well increase the demand from China. Wild animals In response to the outbreak of COVID-19 earlier this year, the National People’s Congress introduced a full ban on the trade of wildlife for the purpose of consumption . However, wild animals continue to be used and abused in the entertainment industry, as pets and as ingredients for traditional Chinese medicine, the latter being legitimised through a permit system. When the practice of extracting bear bile generates more than 10 billion Chinese Yuan profit every year, it comes as no shock that the practice has not yet been prohibited or any restrictions placed on how the animals are kept. That said, in a landmark decision which came into effect at the end of 2017, China banned the domestic ivory trade (a worldwide multi-billion yuan industry). So, perhaps there is hope for the bile-bears yet. Domestic animals As more and more people are choosing to keep pets, China’s Ministry of Agriculture recently reclassified dogs as ‘companion animals’ rather than livestock. Moreover, in April, 2020, the city of Shenzhen banned the sale and consumption of both cat and dog meat . Animal testing Also in 2020, the Chinese National Medical Products Administration put an end to mandatory animal tests on imported cosmetics, having already done so for domestically produced products. The future So long as China fails to recognise animal sentience the future looks bleak for the way animals are kept, transported and slaughtered. The coronavirus epidemic brought unsanitary conditions in Chinese wet markets to the world’s attention and it may be that outside pressure will result in legally sanctioned change – particularly following the in-country investigation WHO have been permitted to carry out post-epidemic. On the other hand, we’ve been here before with SARS in 2003 and the issues were forgotten as the epidemic faded. On a more positive note, however more young people in China are recognising animal sentience and some are pushing for change. Only time will tell whether pressure from gradually changing public opinion and fear of further epidemics will prove sufficient to force new legislation. Getting advice This post is not legal advice and should not be relied on as such. If you require legal advice on animal protection laws, please contact info@advocates-for-animals.com .

In Brazil, animal protection rules are placed within different levels in the hierarchy of law. This week guest writer Marina Baptista Rosa will explore what it means in practice that Brazil is among the few countries of the world where animal interests are protected in the Constitution. The other countries are Switzerland, India, Slovenia, Germany, Luxembourg, Austria, and Egypt. The Brazilian Constitution provides that protecting the environment, the fauna, and the flora is a duty imposed on the public power and on the society and forbids practices that endanger ecologic functions, cause species extinction, or submit animals to cruelty (Article 225, §1, VII). National scope legislation Article 32 of the law on environmental crimes (national law n° 9.605/1998) provides that criminal acts such as abusing, mistreating, injuring, or mutilating wild, domestic, native, or exotic animals are punishable by up to one year of detention plus fine payments. The sanction might be raised up to a third if the action results in the death of the animal. In 2020, an amendment was approved by the congress to include another aggravating to this article. Now, when committed against a cat or a dog, the crime is punishable by up to five years of detention, fine payments, and a guard ban. Case law demonstrates that Article 32 has been applied in a broad sense. For instance, the abandonment of companion animals has been broadly regarded as animal mistreatment in court decisions, and as such, has been punishable in the ways mentioned above. Another relevant law with national enforcement is law nº 11.794/2008, which regulates the scientific use of animals in Brazil. It instituted the National Council for Animal Experimentation Control (CONSEA), which is the body responsible to accredit institutions using animals for experimentation and to elaborate norms making this use as humane as possible. Local scope legislation Brazil, being a country of continental dimensions, has many different forms of cultural manifestation. Unfortunately, some of them have questionable values. For instance, ‘bull riding ’ events are still present in various regions of the country, although social pressure has led to the creation of national law nº 10.519/2002, which introduced minimum welfare standards to protect animals in this context. Even though the practice is not yet prohibited at the national level, many municipalities have introduced bans within their jurisdictions. Other common examples of practices prohibited in several cities across the country include the ban of animal traction vehicles used for cargo transport and the prohibition of ritualistic slaughter. Conclusion Brazilian activists were optimistic after the recent amendment in Article 32 of the law on environmental crimes, raising the penalties of crimes committed against companion animals. In addition, case law analysis shows that the constitutional provision has proved effective when animal protection clashes with certain human interests. Perhaps, the greater problem right now lays in the lack of implementation at the national level. Fortunately, many municipalities have been proactive to improve the lives of animals in different contexts and local legislative initiatives have been increasingly diffused across the country. Getting advice This post is not legal advice and should not be relied on as such. If you require legal advice on animal protection laws, please contact info@advocates-for-animals.com .

Over the last decade, the Polish animal advocacy movement has grown significantly stronger. Animal protection issues are now increasingly present in public discourse as well as on the political agenda. To a large extent, this is thanks to the still-developing but dynamic community of non-governmental organisations speaking up for animals. Guest writer, Iga Glazewska, will explore the main animal protection laws in Poland. Animal protection laws in Poland Poland, as a member state of the European Union (EU), is bound by EU law with regard to animal protection. Admissible methods of animal farming are regulated by the Organisation of Livestock Breeding and Reproduction Act of 2020, which incorporates the provisions of two EU directives and regulation in this area. The provisions of the EU directives concerning the protection of wildlife, natural habitats, animals in zoos and marine environment are implemented in Poland by the Nature Protection Act of 2004. In addition, the key, domestic legislation regarding animal welfare in Poland is the Animal Protection Act 1997 (APA), which incorporates the provisions of six EU directives and one regulation which concern the protection of animals at the time of slaughter, and the welfare of animals in transit and in farming. The protection of animals used in laboratories is a matter regulated by a separate act - the act on the Protection of Animals Used for Scientific or Educational Purposes 2015. On 22nd May, Poland celebrates Animal Rights Day to commemorate adopting the Animal Protection Act. Despite this, significant gaps remain in Polish legislation. According to Polish law, animals do not really have legal personhood. While animals are recognised as 'living beings capable of suffering' and 'not-things' (APA, art. 1.1) and as 'requiring humane treatment' (APA, art. 5), the APA also states that 'in matters not covered by the Act, the legislation to things shall apply accordingly to animals' (APA, art.1.2) (‘things’ here essentially meaning property or inanimate objects). Moreover, the APA only protects vertebrate animals, thereby excluding animals like crabs and lobsters which science has shown feel pain. Those vertebrate animals which are protected are further divided by the act into several groups, including domestic animals, farm animals, animals in entertainment and free-living (wild) animals. These arbitrary divisions—based on how humans relate to them rather than on their inherent characteristics—result in animals being protected in different ways and to different extents. It puts exceptional emphasis on domestic animals, and the welfare of other groups of animals is not sufficiently secured. A good example is provided by the chapter on wildlife – two out of only three articles of the chapter concern ways of obtaining animal bodies and hunting trophies. Crimes against animals The APA includes certain prohibitions with regard to the killing of animals and animal abuse. Despite the general prohibition on killing animals, the APA enumerates broad exceptions to the prohibition, such as killing animals raised for meat and skin, hunting, or fishing. Fur farming and ritual slaughter without stunning is also allowed. These exceptions highlight the ethical inconsistency in the law, as the APA emphasises that all vertebrate animals, as sentient beings, 'should be respected, protected and cared for' (APA, art. 1.1). Animal abuse is defined as 'inflicting pain or suffering, or knowingly allowing pain or suffering to be inflicted' (APA, art. 6.2). The APA contains an open catalog of what ‘in particular’ is recognised as abuse, such as deliberately injuring an animal or using cruel methods in animal farming. Importantly, the APA classifies both 'unnecessary' killing of animals and animal abuse as crimes – and the Polish Penal Code subjects such actions to sanctions, including fines, forfeiture of the animal, bans on animal ownership, and sentences of imprisonment from 3 months up to 3 years, or 5 years in cases of extreme cruelty. Law enforcement Although the Animal Protection Act requires comprehensive amendments, much of the problem lies in the lack of effective enforcement. This concerns as much the police as prosecutors and judges who often consider offences involving animals to be negligible. According to research conducted by two NGOs, over 70% of all animal cruelty cases are discontinued, and only 19% end up in court. Despite the Veterinary Inspection and the appropriate public administration bodies being responsible for the implementation of the APA, NGOs are still far too often forced to step in. What is the future of animal protection in Poland? The APA requires amending, in a way that would acknowledge and reflect the latest scientific knowledge in the field of animal sentience, and be ethically coherent. However, until this happens, strengthening enforcement mechanisms remains a priority. Hopefully, law enforcement agencies and judicial system will finally respond to the changing social awareness and efforts of the third sector, and start treating animal cruelty cases with the seriousness non-human animals deserve. Getting Advice This post is not legal advice and should not be relied on as such. If you require legal advice on animal protection laws, please contact info@advocates-for-animals.com .

In recent years, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam has solidified its position in global economics as one of south-east Asia’s fastest growing economies. Unfortunately, animal protection law in the country has not kept pace with these developments. This week guest writer Jenna Green will consider that while Vietnam has taken some encouraging first steps recently, in the form of new legislation prohibiting the maltreatment of animals, the protection provided is limited at best. Current laws Animal rights in Vietnam are currently governed by the Law on Animal Health 2015 (LAH 2015), and the Law on Animal Husbandry 2018 (LAH 2018). The LAH 2015 asserts a duty of care upon individuals and organisations in possession of animals, whilst the LAH 2018 mandates against ill-treatment of livestock in regard to rearing, transport, slaughter and scientific research. Unfortunately, the rhetoric present in both laws suggests that the provisions outlined prioritise human welfare as opposed to animal protection. For example, LAH 2018 asserts that all domestic dogs and cats must be vaccinated against rabies, with no further specifications regarding their welfare. When observed in conjunction with the current legal status of the dog meat trade, this single stipulation indicates a clear predilection for human health and economic interests. Wild animals Decree 32/2006/ND-CP provides the main authority for the protection of wild animals, prohibiting trapping, hunting, keeping and slaughtering of endangered and rare wild animals, alongside forbidding their trading, transporting, exporting, importing and advertising. However, this Decree prioritises conservation as opposed to the protection of welfare. It states that species may be obtained from the wild for scientific research when a permit is granted, with no expansion on the way in which this should be done or how the animals should be treated thereafter. Additionally, there are no express laws on the hunting of those animals which do not fall within Decree 32/2006/ND-CP. Farmed animals Both LAH 2015 and LAH 2018 assert protective measures over the treatment of livestock. However, there are no express stipulations regarding the rearing of any species under this category. LAH 2018 also goes on to express a requirement that livestock are to become ‘faint’ prior to slaughter, an ambiguous term which does not entail that they must be fully unconscious. Furthermore, LAH 2018 establishes that animals must experience limited trauma during transport, with access to food and water at all times. Unfortunately, the permission of long-distance live transport negates the welfare provisions in place; the extensive time spent in transit would exert undue stress upon any animal. What next? While there is evidence that Vietnam has been gradually improving its animal protection laws, it is apparent that there is still a long way to go to protect animals adequately. Both LAH 2015 and LAH 2018 require amendments outlining clearer provisions on welfare, alongside the acknowledgment of animal sentience in legislation. Furthermore, the disparities between the rights of different species highlights an ethically erroneous and arbitrary approach to animal protection. We can only hope that external pressure, including reports from the Animal Protection Index and the Environmental Investigation Agency will encourage the Vietnamese government to update its legislation and acknowledge the significance of protecting animals in all spheres. Getting advice This post is not legal advice and should not be relied on as such. If you require legal advice on animal protection laws, please contact info@advocates-for-animals.com .

As a Member State of the European Union, Spain is obliged to meet animal welfare standards that are a relatively high standard globally. However, it has not always been quick to enforce those standards and its cultural history exempts some activities. Guest writer, Joshua Bickerstaff, will explore the main animal protection laws in Spain. In the Animal Protection Index Spain is ranked C, along with France, India, and Mexico. By comparison, the United Kingdom, Austria and Sweden are ranked B. Morocco, Belarus and Vietnam are ranked as F. EU legislation Despite being a member state of the EU, Spain has not yet explicitly legislated to recognise animal sentience, even though animal sentience is recognised in EU law. Nevertheless, Spanish law recognises that EU law is sovereign over its own, so animal sentience is recognised in Spanish law. Article 13 of the TFEU mandates that Member States shall pay full regard to the welfare of animals and recognises that they are sentient. However, Article 13 contains an important caveat that religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage should be respected. Spain makes use of these exemptions, such examples include bull fighting and bull running. Compliance with EU legislation Spain has failed on several occasions to comply with the Regulations and Directives on animal welfare and has been put on notice by the European Commission and the European Court of Justice. For example, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled in 2010 that Spain had failed to ensure that all zoos in Spain’s territories were licenced in accordance with Council Directive 1999/22/EC . Later in 2012, Spain was one of the 13 Member States to receive a letter from the European Commission requesting them to comply with Directives which required those countries to afford various welfare rights to chickens. An example of these welfare rights is a ban on 'un-enriched' cages, commonly known as battery cages. National legislation Legislation known as Law 32/2007 was created to make Spanish law compliant with EU legislative requirements on animal farming. That law affords the basic levels of protection to animals that are set out in Council Directive 98/58/EC . This includes provision of food, water and care for animals, as well as lighting, temperature and other environmental conditions. Breaches of Law 32/2007 can create liabilities of up to €100,000, the seizing of animals and closure of establishments. However, hunting, fishing wild animals and bullfighting are excluded from this act by virtue of Article 14 (1) (c) and the First Additional Provision (2). Another piece of Spanish animal law is Law 18/2003 , which protects bullfighting as part of the cultural heritage of Spain that falls into the aforementioned exemptions of Article 13 of the TFEU. The desire to protect cultural traditions was demonstrated in 2016 when a 5-year ban on bullfighting in the Catalonian region was overturned by the Spanish Constitutional Court. The Spanish Criminal Code makes it punishable by up to a year’s imprisonment to mistreat any animals, except non-captive wild animals and the aforementioned exemptions. The future Recently, there have been suggestions of a changing tide. The Spanish Government agreed in May 2021 to amend their national law to refer to animals as living things, where they had previously only been recognised as objects. This change was made in consideration of divorce law and domestic violence against humans and pets. Getting advice This post is not legal advice and should not be relied on as such. If you require legal advice on animal protection laws, please contact info@advocates-for-animals.com .

The protection of non-human animals in Kenya is characterized by a fragmented and disparately enforced legal framework. In this article Kenyan animal lawyer Jim Karani will provide us with an overview of those laws. Introduction A high number of cruel practices go unregulated, and when regulated, are poorly enforced against and in other cases complete classes of species are not protected. For example, since Kenya relies heavily on wildlife-based tourism, wild animals have received considerably stronger legal protections with strong penalties prescribed in wildlife legislation as opposed to domestic animals that have poor protections. Laws in Kenya relating to animals are made at the national and county level of government and they are as follows; The Constitution of Kenya, CoK, 2010, is the supreme law and other laws are subject to it whether created by the National Assembly or County Assemblies. It provides for the protection of the welfare of both domestic and wild animals. Article 185(2) of the CoK 2010, as read with its Fourth schedule separates protection functions between the national and county governments. The National government handles the protection of wild animals while the county governments handle animal control and welfare. Article 2(5) of the CoK 2010 states that treaties that Kenya has signed directly form part of Kenyan law implying that the Convention on Biological Diversity , Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat , Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals , Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora , and the World Organization of Animal Health (OIE) provisions are considered part of Kenyan law. Animal laws The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Chapter 360, passed in 1963 is the main law protecting the welfare of animals. The act creates offences against various acts of cruelty such as animal fighting, public exhibitions, hawking and sport hunting. This law prescribes different penalties for various animal abuse offences and is further implemented by the Prevention for Cruelty to Animals (Transport of Animals) Regulations, 1984 that govern the transportation of animals. They acknowledge that animals can suffer pain and injury. The Wildlife Conservation and Management Act No.47 of 2013 is the main legislation protecting wildlife and implements CITES. This law lists and protects specific species of wildlife depending on their endangered and threatened status and creates offences against their poaching and trafficking. The Fisheries Management and Development Act No. 35 of 2016 is the main legislation protecting the welfare of marine and fish species. It creates prohibitions against illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing of fish and marine mammal species. The Penal code, Chapter 63, is the main criminal code in Kenya which prescribes one criminal offence against animals. Section 289 of the Penal Code creates the offence of killing of an animal with the intent to steal which states that any person who kills any animal capable of being stolen with intent to steal the skin or carcass, or any part of the skin or carcass, is guilty of an offence and is liable to the same punishment as if he had stolen the animal. The Meat Control Act provides for minimum standards which slaughterhouses should comply with when housing live animals before slaughter. There are regulations enforcing the main act as Meat Control (Local Slaughterhouse) Regulations, 1973, Meat Control (Transport of Meat) Regulations, 1976, Meat Control (Local Slaughterhouse) Regulations, 2012, Meat Control (Export Slaughterhouse) Regulations, 1973. The Animal Diseases Act introduces measures that may or shall be taken by public bodies and holders of animals for the control of diseases affecting animals. i.e., all stock, ruminating animals, dogs and captive wild animals and any other animals declared by the Minister to be an animal to which this act shall apply. It is enforced by the Animal Diseases Rules, 1968 which regulate the movement of animals either by importation or exportation; They give the steps that authorities should take in case they believe that an animal has an infectious disease. What’s next for animals Animal Welfare and Protection Bill, 2019, currently under consideration by the National Assembly, is expected to change the existing welfare framework by implementing OIE principles into domestic legislation, introducing new animal abuse offences and enhancing penalties. It has very progressive provisions that seek to regulate concentrated farmed animals’ operations and other commercial exploitation of domestic animals. Conclusion There is a need for reform in the legal framework to conform domestic law to the principles Kenya has agreed to internationally, especially OIE principles and also to enhance the scope of offences and penalties under domestic welfare legislation. The other main challenge remains in empowering law enforcement to enforce the compliance of these new laws and regulations to ensure animals are protected and kept safe. Getting advice This post is not legal advice and should not be relied on as such. If you require legal advice on animal protection laws, please contact info@advocates-for-animals.com . You can find more information about animal protection laws in Kenya here: https://www.lapa.africa/

This week guest writer Katy Halliday will explore the animal laws that exist in Thailand. Legislation A useful tool for gaining an insight into the protection of animals in each country, is the Animal Protection Index (API). The API ranks 50 countries around the globe according to their legislation and policy commitments to animal welfare protection. Included in the 50 countries ranked by the API is Thailand. Out of the 13 countries currently featured in Asia, Thailand is currently one of the top five ranked for their animal welfare policies and legislation. Enacted in 2014, the Prevention of Animal Cruelty and Provision of Animal Welfare Act is the main animal welfare legislation in Thailand. Whilst not explicitly defining animals as sentient, a step in the right direction is the recognition that animals have the capacity to suffer. However, the act contains a wide scope of exemptions. Loopholes Section 18 of the Prevention of Animal Cruelty and Provision of Animal Welfare Act 2014 notably lists these exemptions including religious slaughter without the requirement for animals to be stunned, animal experiments and animal fighting in accordance with any local tradition. The scope of the act’s definition of an 'animal' is also limited. It is concerned primarily with domestic animals and ‘any animal living in nature as prescribed by the Minister’. In the absence of a direction by the Minister regarding which species fall within this category, it remains unclear. Therefore, the key legislation aimed at protecting animals in Thailand, fails to formally include wild animals in captivity. Presently, there is no legislation protecting the welfare of wild animals not listed as protected or preserved. Protection of elephants As a long-standing fixture of Thailand’s history, the status of elephants as Thailand’s national animal is unsurprising. Their symbolic influence in the Buddhist faith affords these animals their sacred reputation in the Thai community. Disappointingly, the legal protection of elephants fails to paint the same picture. The Elephant Ivory Tusks Act was implemented in 2015. This act seeks to protect wild elephants by regulating the poaching for their tusks. However, the 2015 Act and other legislation aimed at protecting animal welfare, fall short in protecting the welfare of captive elephants. Existing legislation and enforcement also fail to provide any guidelines for the conditions and welfare standards of zoos. Therefore, in light of the growing demand of captive elephants for tourist activities, the fate of these elephants is uncertain. Looking ahead In recent years, encouraging progress has been made by the Thai government to better protect animal welfare. However, much like neighbouring countries in Asia there is tremendous room for improvement - particularly to better protect wild animals in captivity. Expanding the application of the Prevention of Cruelty and Provision of Animal Welfare Act 2014 to formally include wild animals could act as a positive step towards eliminating legislative loopholes and provide a brighter future for animals in Thailand Getting advice This post is not legal advice and should not be relied on as such. If you require legal advice on animal protection laws, please contact info@advocates-for-animals.com .

This week's guest writer and law graduate Sabina Bravo will provide us with an overview of some animal laws in Chile. Introduction Animal legislation in Chile began as a mere regulatory framework for economic activities where animals are involved (farming industry, for example) and animal health, but as time went on, welfare and, eventually, animal protection regulations were introduced, such as Act 20.380 on animal protection , enacted in September 2009. This law establishes duties of care for those who have an animal, as well as the obligation to avoid mistreatment or serious deterioration of the animal's health and unnecessary suffering in situations of slaughter, transport, circuses, zoos, laboratories, production industries, commercial premises for the sale and purchase of animals, among others. In one of its last sections, it excludes from its effects sports activities involving animals, including rodeo. Finally, it replaces section 291 bis of the Chilean Penal Code and introduces a penalty of imprisonment (3 years maximum) and a fine (from 1 to 30 UTM, which would be equivalent to a range between £48 and £1,458) for acts of mistreatment or cruelty to animal s. Between January 2019 and June 2021 more than 4,700 reports of animal abuse were registered in Chile . Most of these complaints involve companion animals, to a medium extent farm animals and to a very small extent, animals used in recreational or sporting activities, such as rodeo or dog racing. The latter is usually not seen as cruelty in the eyes of the public, even though it could objectively qualify as such. What about companion animals? In 2017, Act 21.020 on Responsible Pet and Companion Animal Ownership was enacted, which extends its regulation to any species of companion animal; however, most of its provisions refer to canines and felines. It mandates identification of pets, bans any training that encourages aggression in the animal, outlines categories of animals (community animal, potentially dangerous animal, etc.). It also prohibits animal abandonment, stating that its sanction will be that contemplated in article 291 bis of the Chilean Penal Code, mentioned above. Progress Recently, on 1st December this year, the Chamber of Deputies approved the bill banning cosmetic testing on live animals and it was sent to the Senate for further voting. If approved there, and duly enacted by the President, it would become law. Chile does not include animals in its Constitution, which is the highest legal standard, but is in the process of drafting a new constitutional proposal in which it is hoped, thanks to several animal rights campaigns, including #AnimalesEnLaConstitución by the Fundación Derecho y Defensa Animal , to achieve constitutional protection for non-human animals, where such protection would permeate the interpretation of lower laws. Now and the future There are still many discussions about the situation of animals in Chile, especially those mistreated in contexts where abuse is allowed or normalised. Year after year these activities, such as rodeo and dog racing, represented by their respective organisations, have managed to remain entrenched in society and, of course, unpunished. The bill to ban dog racing was rejected last September and in October a bill was introduced to amend the crime of animal abuse in the Penal Code to include the criminalisation of zoophilia . In order to uproot ideologies and traditions in Chile that make animal cruelty invisible, or to correct behaviour that stems from insensitivity and ignorance, education is still necessary, one of the greatest causal factors in everything that shapes citizens' actions. Getting advice This post is not legal advice and should not be relied on as such. If you require legal advice on animal protection laws, please contact info@advocates-for-animals.com .

The Bahamas is home to an abundance of marine animals. However, due to pressure from the development of tourism and commercial fishing, these animals are threatened with captivity and overfishing. At a recent United Nations Ocean Conference, a Bahamian Minister advocated for more marine life protection while echoing these concerns. This week guest writer Teshe Rolle will discuss the main legal provisions on these issues, and whether they are effective. What are the main pieces of legislation on marine animals in The Bahamas? International Law The Bahamas is a signatory to many international agreements. Two important examples are The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and the Protocol Concerning Specifically Protected Areas and Wildlife (SPAW) in the Wider Caribbean Region. These agreements help protect marine animals in The Bahamas by granting powers to create and enforce relevant laws, cultivating accountability at an international level, and initiating measures that have helped replenish Bahamian marine animal populations like sharks. Domestic Law The most relevant Acts on captivity and overfishing are the Marine Mammal Protection Act 2005 and the Fisheries Act 2020. Laws are enforced by different agencies including National Park Officials, the Marine Support Unit of the Royal Bahamas Police Force, and most importantly, the Royal Bahamas Defence Force. The Marine Mammal Protection Act 2005 (‘the Marine Mammal Act’) and the Marine Mammal Protection (General) Regulations 2005 forbid the import, export, ownership or captivity, sale, scientific research, or transport of marine mammals without a licence, which can, if compatible with the relevant international agreements, be granted by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. The Fisheries Act 2020 (‘the Fisheries Act’) was entered into force in June 2021. It repealed the Fisheries (Jurisdiction and Conservation) Act 1977. In summary it aims to enforce stringent regulations like closed fishing seasons on commercial fishing due to the overfishing of various marine species. Non-compliance with both acts can lead to fines and/or imprisonment. Do the current laws sufficiently protect marine animals from captivity and overfishing? The Bahamas provides a habitat for a host of different animals in its marine and coastal environments. The legislation and regulations detailed above go some way in protecting the habitats but there is concern that they do not go far enough. The Marine Mammal Act 2005 was no doubt brought about by concerns within the marine community about marine animals in captivity. More weight is attached to the ‘proposed measures’ of captive facilities than uniform prerequisites when granting licences; likely due to the desire to include marine mammals as tourist attractions. In The Queen v Gray [2014] for example, a group of dolphins held in captivity by a developer of a popular tourist hub faced significant risks including deafness from ocean noise and pollution. The Fisheries Act contains more provisions that are less advantageous to local Bahamian fishermen than their large commercial counterparts in Spanish Wells. Despite an uptick in certain species’ populations in 2021, opinions on the impact of the Fisheries Act are premature, and the increase could stem from other conservation efforts. Moreover, enforcement remains a problem as with endless kilometres of open sea to patrol, the Royal Bahamas Defence Force is strained for resources, and with other enforcement agencies not holding the same powers this can lead to any legislation having limited effect. Looking ahead To aid marine animal protection, the Marine Mammal Act should be reformed to establish a higher threshold for granting licences. Enforcement agencies need more resources and powers of arrest. Finally, studies should be executed to determine the effectiveness of the new Fisheries Act. Getting advice This post is not legal advice and should not be relied on as such. If you require legal advice on animal protection laws, please contact info@advocates-for-animals.com .

From mountain Gorillas to Elephants, Rwanda is home to some of the world's most iconic species. Guest writer Lily Scott will explore how the small landlocked country has shown significant commitment towards wildlife and environmental protections becoming one of the leading voices on the African continent. Introduction The road to restoring the wildlife populations has not been easy. The Rwandan genocide against the Tutsi in 1994 resulted in the death of around one million people. Wildlife was decimated and 90% of the cattle population in the country was killed. Key areas for wildlife such as Akagera Park became battlegrounds during the genocide and were later significantly reduced in size in order to accommodate displaced populations. As land was fought over, poaching and human wildlife conflict became a significant issue. However, the conservation of Rwanda’s species diversity and restoring species populations has become a key goal of the government. Through focusing on addressing economic opportunities for local communities, poaching patrols and community sensitisation programmes, many species have been restored in the country. The protection, however, of domesticated animals has not been prioritised and therefore lags behind the progress Rwanda has made in protecting wildlife. The legal framework The Constitution is the Supreme Law of Rwanda. It enshrines conservation and environmental protection within Article 53, providing that everyone has the duty to protect, safeguard and promote the environment and the state ensures the protection of the environment. The Organic Law instituting the Penal Code provides strict penalties for poaching wildlife under Article 417. Poaching, selling, injuring or killing a Gorilla or other endangered animal species shall be punishable by a prison term of more than 5 years to 10 years and a fine of five hundred thousand (500,000) to five million (5,000,000) Rwandan francs. It also provides for the mistreating or killing of domestic animals under Article 436. Any person who, mistreats livestock or domestic animals, in a way to compromise their health shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of eight (8) days but less than six (6) months and a fine of twenty thousand (20,000) to five hundred thousand (500, 000) Rwandan francs or one of these penalties. While those who maliciously and without reasonable justification kills or seriously wounds livestock or domestic animals belonging to another person, shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of six (6) months to one (1) year and a fine of two hundred thousand (200,000) to two million (2,000,000) Rwandan francs or one of these penalties. Conclusion Despite Rwanda's strong commitment to the protection of wildlife, there is limited concern and enforcement of the laws against cruelty to domestic animals. Education surrounding the welfare of domestic and companion animals is limited and remains largely unenforced. Local authorities routinely engage in cruel activities, such as the poisoning of stray dogs due to their negative image in the country. This is at a time when dog breeding and ownership is growing. Rwanda should take the issue of animal cruelty and welfare seriously by enforcing current legislation and enacting more thorough laws to protect domestic animals alongside wildlife laws. Getting advice This post is not legal advice and should not be relied on as such. If you require legal advice on animal protection laws, please contact info@advocates-for-animals.com .