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 .

The agricultural industry is a key pillar of New Zealand’s economy and this industry benefits from the perception that the country has rigorous and effective animal welfare regulation. This week guest writer Marcelo Rodriguez Ferrere of the University of Otago will explore the main piece of legislation that governs animal welfare in New Zealand. Introduction The Animal Welfare Act 1999 (AWA) is at the centre of that regulatory framework, and imposes duties of care on all those who own or are in charge of animals, as well as prohibiting their ill-treatment, providing a framework for the use of animals in testing, teaching and research. The act operates alongside other legislation, such as the Dog Control Act 1996 and the Wildlife Act 1953, but by far is the most important legislation relating to animals in New Zealand. In addition to its general provisions (outlined below), the AWA also provides for the creation of supplementary regulations such as the Animal Welfare (Care and Procedures) Regulations 2018 which creates offences involving the use, care and protection of specific animals. It also provides for codes of welfare, which impose minimum standards and best practices for certain animals, practices, or industries. While regulations are directly enforceable, evidence of failure to meet the standards in relevant codes may only be used to support prosecutions under the act, with evidence of following codes also being a defence. What animals are protected under the act? Animal is defined widely in the act, as encompassing all mammals, birds, reptiles, certain fish, octopus and squid, lobster, crab, and crayfish. Animal extends to any unborn animal in its last half of gestation. This definition can be extended by the Governor-General. What does the act cover? The AWA operates in two main parts. Part 1 sets out obligations of those who own or in charge of animals to care properly for their welfare. Part 2 sets out general provisions relating to ill-treatment against animals. Persons in charge of animals is defined in s 2 as anyone who has an animal in their possession or custody, or under their care, control, or supervision. This broad definition helps to ensure accountability where several persons are supervising an animal. What is an ‘owners’ responsibility towards an animal? Section 10 in part 1 of the AWA creates a duty for all owners and persons in charge of animals to ensure that animals physical, health and behavioural needs are met in accordance with good practice and scientific knowledge. Physical, health and behavioural needs is defined in s 4 as including proper and sufficient food and water; adequate shelter; the opportunity to display normal patterns of behaviour; appropriate physical; and protection from, and the rapid diagnosis of, any significant injury or disease. These needs mirror those articulated in the Five Freedoms, and the requirements vary depending on the species, environment, and circumstances of the animal. Owners and all persons in charge of an animal must also under s 11 ensure that animals receive treatment to alleviate any unreasonable or unnecessary pain or distress. There is no requirement that an animal is kept alive, only that it is killed without unnecessary pain or distress, reflecting animals’ status as chattel property in New Zealand. What ill treatment is prohibited under the act? Ill- treatment is defined in s 2 as any act or omission causing pain or distress that is in its kind, degree, or object, or in the circumstances as inflicted, unreasonable or unnecessary. Part 2 has a hierarchy of offending involving ill-treatment of animals. Section 28 prohibits wilful ill-treatment and resulting in permanent disability, death, or serious injury or impairment requiring veterinary attention. Section 28A prohibits reckless ill-treatment in the same manner. Section 29 prohibits ill-treatment simpliciter, a strict-liability offence requiring no mens rea but with a series of statutory defences available in s 30 of the act. Section 30A expressly extends these penalties to the wilful and reckless ill-treatment of wild animals and animals in a wild state. The punishments for ill-treatment mirror the hierarchy of seriousness, with a conviction for wilful ill-treatment being punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment and/or a fine. Is animal testing covered under the act? Part 6 of the AWA details the regulations for animal testing, teaching and research. Animal testing, teaching and research requires an approved code of ethics and an ethics committee to oversee the project, in accordance with the 3Rs. The use of animals in testing, teaching and research is not limited by parts 1 and 2 but failing to comply with part 6 enables liability under parts 1 and 2. How is the act enforced? Finally, the AWA also provides for the appointment of animal welfare inspectors with powers to investigate animal welfare and enforce the AWA. Inspectors’ powers include being able to enter certain land, take steps to mitigate animal suffering, and apply to the district court for enforcement orders and serve notices to comply with the act. The current appointed inspectors are the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), the RNZSPCA and the Police, although enforcement is, in practice, undertaken by the MPI for agricultural animals and the RNZSPCA for companion animals. 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 .

Saint Lucia has a long-standing reputation for being a luxurious holiday destination; boasting breath-taking landscapes and diverse marine ecosystems, visitors are promised the experience of a lifetime in this small corner of the Caribbean. This week, guest writer and postgraduate law student, Jenna Green will consider whether the established rhetoric regarding Saint Lucia’s status as a paradise coincides with its approach to animal protection laws. Animals Act At present, animal rights laws in Saint Lucia are governed by the Animals Act 2005 (AA 2005), also contained within the Revised Laws of Saint Lucia (2019). The act has a predominant focus on 'the prevention of cruelty to animals, the seizure and impounding of stray animals, the proper control of animals and for related matters'. Dog specific legislation A key focus of the act is the governance of obligations pertaining to the ownership, importation, breeding, and registration of dangerous dogs. Such regulations include the prohibition of persons under 18 years of age owning or transporting a dangerous dog, and that such dogs must be securely fitted with a muzzle when away from their place of residence. The listed attributes of these animals include, but are not limited to, dogs over 20kg, fighting dogs, Dobermans, Ridgebacks, German Shepherds, and any other dog deemed dangerous by the Minister of local government. Upon assessment of this, it is apparent that the qualifying conditions are arbitrary, with an apparent bias against larger breeds. Much like with the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 of England, Wales and Scotland, breed-specific legislation could be argued as negating the importance of responsible dog ownership. Furthermore, sections 31-33 AA 2005 regulate the ownership and registration of fighting dogs, despite the prohibition of ‘encouraging’ the baiting or fighting of dogs and bulls contained within section 6 AA 2005. Upon registering a fighting dog, the assigned registration number is branded onto the pinna of the animal’s ear; a particularly sensitive area of a dog’s anatomy, owing to the multitude of nerve endings contained within them. This directly contradicts the purpose of Part 2 of the act: the prohibition of cruelty to animals. General protections Animals found wandering around or on public highways may be seized and impounded, or even shot. Unfortunately, the reality is dogs, cats, goats and many more animals are regularly seen on highways and in public spaces. Furthermore, rather than the Government providing adequate solutions to Saint Lucia’s overpopulation of strays, there is a heavy reliance on organisations such as Helpaws ; a charity that rescues, adopts, and offers neutering for the abundance of dogs and cats. Saint Lucia’s status as a tourism hot spot has encouraged the provision of horse-riding experiences around the island. Whilst section 3(1)(b) prohibits the overloading of animals, many businesses offering such experiences fail to implement appropriate weight restrictions. Additionally, section 7 establishes that utilising animals in emaciated conditions for work purposes is an offence, and persons found guilty will be liable to a fine of $1,000. It is standard practice to tether horses around the island, with many relying solely on the grasses, herbs, and weeds for nutrition; something that may be considered substandard for their workload. Unfortunately, it is apparent that whilst there are restrictions pertaining to the maltreatment of animals in place, enforcement appears to be relatively lax. Finally, section 3(1)(b) establishes that any person who inflicts torture upon an animal is in direct violation of the act, and is liable to a fine of $1,000. Conclusion Whilst Saint Lucia has an established framework for animal protection laws, both enforcement mechanisms and sanctions need to be developed in order to generate an effective response to the maltreatment of animals. Additionally, there is considerable scope for addressing the root of the problem, be it overpopulation of stray animals or the reasons a dog may become dangerous. 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 .

Introduction Mongolia, population 3.27 million, is an East Asian country known among other things for its natural beauty, not least that of the Steppe. Guest writer James Hone will explore the legal framework for animals in one of the most sparsely-populated nations in the world and home to Earth’s coldest capital city, Ulaanbaatar, and many of the most endangered animal species. Mongolia has yet to be given a rating by the Animal Protection Index (API); however, World Animal Protection has developed a programme in Mongolia through collaboration with the IFRC and the Red Cross. Contextual and recent historical overview Before getting into some of the laws in detail, it should be said as background that Mongolia’s Constitution (which entered law in 1992) states under Article 6 that fauna “are subject to national sovereignty and state protection” and that “game is the property of the State”. Game in Mongolia includes wild boar, Siberian roe deer, grey wolves, blacktail gazelles, white gazelles, various birds (such as geese, ducks, pochards, grouse and cormorants) and various “Asian big game”, of which the main three are the Mongolian elk, Ibex, and Argali (a type of wild sheep). Fishing is also common in Mongolia, and the country’s various large fish species make it a popular destination in the international angling community. This makes regulation of hunting a core aspect of Mongolian animal protection law, as there is much to regulate. Two factors exacerbate this: (1) the large range of endangered and rare animals in Mongolia and (2) the emphasis on farmed animals to the Mongolian economy . The majority of animals farmed in Mongolia are “camels, horses, cattle (of which yak are considered to be a part), sheep and goats”. Forms of protection which came in in the late 20th Century include: The designation of various environments as “Strictly Protected”, meaning that hunting and development are prohibited; The designation of some environments as “National Parks”, thereby limiting access to ecotourists in some small areas and to local nomads for fishing and grazing otherwise; The creation of “National Reserves” or “National Monuments”, where development is prohibited so as to preserve endangered species and archaeological value. In 1995 the Law on Environmental Protection imposed state obligations to “prohibit the hunting and trapping of very rare animals”, “register and protect very rare animals and rare animals in the Red Book of Mongolia”, “conduct ecological education programmes” and “establish hygienically sound areas to ensure the protection of sources [of water]” (Article 19.2). In 2000 the Law on Hunting set out key permissions with respect to hunting (Articles 6-16): Game are permitted to be hunted all year round for specified purposes. Other animals are hunted only by special state licence or during a specified hunting period. Should these rules be violated, sanctions can be imposed (both civil and criminal ). In 2001 the Law on Animal Genetic Resources and Health Protection introduced regulations on “animal genetic resources, animal reproduction and animal health protection”. This covered pets for the first time. The 2001 law also dealt specifically with a series of ongoing administrative issues with respect to animal health, such as the proliferation of veterinary care and breeding services, with a view of upholding high standards. Key recent legislation Law on Animals 2012 The 2012 law can be viewed as both an update and a codification of much of what came before. With respect to which species can be hunted and when, it says that “very rare animals may be hunted or trapped with permission of the State central administrative body with the purpose of conducting scientific work only” (Article 7.1), that “rare animals may be hunted or trapped … with the licence issued by the SCAB for research, cultural, arts and treatment purposes, where citizens of Mongolia or foreign countries [have] paid special fees, and for the purposes of regulating herd structure of animals in certain territories and disinfecting focus areas of communicable diseases” (Article 7.2). As in the 1995 Law, hunting of certain kinds of animals is permitted only during specified seasons (an example is that badgers must be hunted between the 15th November and the end of January) (Article 9.1). With respect to how animals may be hunted, it bans various methods and weapons (Articles 10 and 11), most of them for reasons of not being designed for hunting specifically or being unduly cruel. Outside of hunting, the 2012 Law also lays out a great many other forms of protection. Article 6(1) includes: The setting of sanctions and restrictions for animal use The registration of rare and very rare animals in the Red Book and Appendices The retention of normal growth of animals and their range The protection of free migration paths for animals The protection of animal gene pools The determination of animal resources and regulation of their use The reintroduction of some animals and the prevention of extinctions due to commercial activity such as industrial development The taking of biotechnical measures The caretaking of sick animals, or animals who have endured disasters and other phenomena The conducting of scientific work designed to justify further measures The education of citizens and key stakeholders about the need for animal protection Law on Animal Health 2017 Whilst not an animal protection measure, it is included to provide insight into provisions that affect animals, such as a growing animal export trade. The 2017 law came in the aftermath of a prolonged collaboration between the FAO and the Mongolian Government in which the former set a series of goals with respect to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Later, in 2019, the FAO reported the 2017 reform as an overall success. The measures it took, which the EDA called “an important step towards compliance with international standards and a precondition for increased exports of livestock products”include: Veterinary services and legal framework both improved to support the development of the farmed animal sector. Consultation workshop on animal and veterinary public health and genetic resources. Five year action plan produced on controlling animal disease and a report produced on key measures to implement. Ascertaining from stakeholders the level of capacity of vets to handle their workload and what needs to be done to improve the situation. On-site visits of veterinary centres to understand functionality. The future Continued International Collaboration Catherine Arnold CBE has written for the FCDO about how the Mongolian authorities and UK government have been working together with ZSL to combat illegal animal trade in Mongolia, and in particular in the country’s capital, Ulaanbaatar. Such attempts are crucial to tackle the widespread nature of the problem in the country and may help to identify why it is that legal attempts to discourage the practice so far have been ineffective . This will be crucial if Mongolia is to tackle the areas in which the practice is growing, rather than merely continuing . Expanding Protection To More Animals Protection for farmed animals and companion remain extremely limited and so some organisations have focused on campaigning for them to have their own protections the way endangered animals do. Similar calls have come from those who advocate for assistance animals . 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 federal republic, the laws that protect animals in Mexico vary widely from state to state. Guest writer Kitty Tench will explore what this has meant for animal protection and whether there are any plans to improve standards. The current position The Federal Criminal Code of Mexico applies to all the states and the Federal District (Mexico City). There are no existing animal welfare stipulations here, and Mexico’s Federal law does not recognise animal sentience. However, there are some provisions in the law regarding animal care. The Federal Animal Health Act (2007) provides basic principles on animal welfare, with provisions referring to the Five Freedoms , although this is only in relation to preserving animal health, largely for the purpose of regulating goods of animal origin for human consumption. The General Wildlife Law (2000) contains some welfare provisions for wild animals. The Official Mexican Standards at Federal level also include some animal protection provisions. For example, the Official Mexican Law Norm-033-Zoo-1995 Humane Killing of Domestic and Wild Animals (' Norm-033 ') provides federal standards for the humane slaughter or anaesthesia of farm, domestic and wild animals, including the stipulation that farm and wild animals (used for human consumption) must be stunned before slaughter. As a Federal Republic, each state and the Federal District (Mexico City) has its own constitution and legislation, and most states have their own legislative provisions on animal welfare, although this varies widely . Some states have legislated extensively on animal welfare, such as the Federal District (Mexico City); following amendments in 2017, the Constitution of Mexico City formally recognises all animals as sentient beings . World Animal Protection considers recognising animals as sentient in legislation to set an important standard for animal welfare considerations in a jurisdiction. The state of Michoacán de Ocampo have also explicitly recognised all non-human animals as sentient beings under the Law of Rights and Protection for Animals (2018) , which also enshrines the Five Freedoms in law, so that cruel treatment such as deprivation of food and water is prohibited. Other states recognise animal pain and provide protections to varying degrees. The state of Campeche’s Animal Protection Act (1997) suggests an understanding that animals are capable of feeling pain, although these protections exclude invertebrates, and do not explicitly include wild animals. The state of Chiapas is even more limited in its protection of animals, as animal cruelty is not a criminal offence in any capacity in the state’s Penal Code. Why are animals in Mexico vulnerable? The absence of animal welfare stipulations in the Federal Criminal Code of Mexico (Código Penal Federal) leave animals vulnerable to abuse in states that have not produced comprehensive legislation that prohibits animal abuses. Currently, the only protection afforded to these animals lies in limited Federal provisions. The Federal Animal Health Act (2007) only considers animal welfare in relation to animal health provisions, so the requirements of the act are not comprehensive regarding the needs of animals in accordance with their capacity for physical and psychological pain. Also, overall responsibility for animal welfare in Mexico has not been assigned to a Government Ministry. The 2007 Act is overseen by the Ministry of Health, the Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development, Fisheries and Food; the General Wildlife Law (2000) is implemented by the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources. There is therefore a lack of clarity, consistency and commitment to animal welfare issues in the implementation of legislation at the Federal level. Animal protection regulations under the Federal Standards, including Norm-033, are also limited. Federal Standards are not carefully constructed legislation based on principle and reason , and usually only provide regulations for specific circumstances. This does not provide a wide scope of protection to animals. Compliance to regulations is also unreliable due to the limited enforcement of the Federal Standards. Breaches to Norm-033, as well as breaches to the animal welfare stipulations of the Federal Animal Health Act (2007) are implemented by the Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development, Fisheries and Food, and are only punishable as an administrative offence. Punishments include the suspension of licences, closure of premises and a financial penalty. A breach to these regulations does not amount to a criminal offence. Violations to the General Wildlife Law (2000) are also punishable with fines and the suspension of licences. For some offences under the act, punishments available also include an administrative arrest of up to 36 hours, and community service relating to wildlife conservation. This act, however, only protects wild animals. While most state criminal codes contain animal welfare provisions prohibiting abuses to animals, penalties for such abuse are absent in Chiapas’ criminal code. While Chiapas has passed the Law for the Protection of Fauna (2014) which defines some acts of cruelty relating to pain and suffering, these acts of cruelty are not criminalised in the state’s Penal Code. Welfare considerations for animals in Chiapas are therefore only enforced according to Secretariat regulations, and the only deterrent for perpetrators of animal cruelty would be the punishments attached to administrative offences. Proposed changes In Mexico, Animal Equality has proposed a constitutional reform to grant the Congress of the Union the power to legislate on animal welfare issues. The legislation, presented by Animal Equality together with Federal Deputy Fausto Gallardo García of the Green Ecologist Party of Mexico, was approved on January 25th 2023 by the Constitutional Points Commission of the Chamber of Deputies. The Plenary of the Chamber of Deputies went on to approve the proposal on March 30th 2023, after Animal Equality presented 100,000 petition signatures in support of the changes to the Congress in the Union. The reform now awaits approval from the Senate of the Republic of Mexico. The proposed reform would amend Article 73 of the Political Constitution of the Mexican United States, specifically Fraction XXIX-G . This article currently grants Congress the power to legislate on environmental protection, preservation and restoration; the reform would manifest legislative separation of the environment and animals as different entities that require individualised consideration. This amendment would give Congress the express power to create a General Animal Welfare Law, which would mandate standards of animal welfare that must be applied across the Mexican states, regardless of state legislation. State law would be permitted to expand upon the points of animal protection within the General Law in their own legislation, but not to restrict these points. Animal Equality is also working on presenting a proposal to amend Article Four of the Mexican Constitution to the Senate. This article would be reformed to recognise any non-human animal with a complex nervous system as a sentient being. This is undoubtedly progress in favour of animals, which will lay the foundations and be an example for the entire country. This reform to the [Constitution] supports the idea that animals are sentient beings and we have obligations towards them. Dulce Ramírez, Animal Equality Vice President of Latin America Will animals be protected following the proposed constitutional changes? The key reform proposed by Animal Equality and the Green Ecologist Party of Mexico is to change the Mexican Constitution to specifically grant Congress the express power to legislate on animal welfare issues. This change would make it possible for a General Animal Welfare Law to pass under federal jurisdiction, providing a foundation for animal welfare that would be obligatory at all legislative levels. This would allow for a new legally enforceable standard of protection for animals, consistent across all Mexican states. Animals living in states such as Chiapas, that currently provide no or very little welfare enforcements, would be protected by new welfare regulations. General laws originate in constitutional clauses, so once enacted, must be applied by federal, state and municipal authorities. General laws will also distribute powers to these three levels of government, establishing which authorities must regulate, monitor and apply various elements of the law. The Animal Protection Index (' API '), formulated by World Animal Protection, has given Mexico’s animal welfare policy and legislation a C ranking. The API report recommends, among other suggestions, that the Federal Government of Mexico creates a national multi-stakeholder committee to guide the country's policies and strategies on animal welfare to fall in line with international standards. A General Animal Welfare Law could allocate responsibility for such a committee to be created, and therefore improve animal welfare standards in Mexico as the API suggests it would. Animal Equality’s proposal to amend Article Four of the Mexican Constitution to recognise all animals with a complex nervous system as sentient beings in Mexico’s Constitution is significant, because, as a constitutional principle, law-makers would be obligated to consider the specific needs of animals according to their capacity to suffer when formulating animal welfare legislation. Enshrining the recognition of animal sentience also fulfils another one of the World Animal Protection’s API recommendations. Conclusion While amending Article 73 of the Mexican Constitution will not guarantee that a General Animal Welfare Law will be passed by Congress, the reform will provide the essential structure required to enact a General Law on animal welfare issues. Additionally, recognising animal sentience in the Mexican Constitution would create a constitutional principle that should improve animal welfare considerations in future legislative decisions. 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 .

Austria is an EU Member State, but its existing animal welfare legislation goes beyond that in many other member states. This week, guest writer Veronika Jancikova will provide an overview of the laws in Austria. National law The basis of animal welfare legislation in all nine individual states of Austria is the Animal Welfare Act 2004 , which defines animals as 'fellow creatures' (in the main applicable to all vertebrates, cephalopods and decapod crustaceans) and implicitly recognises animal sentience and prohibits the infliction of unjustified pain, suffering or injury to an animal. This act defines animals as 'fellow creatures' as those other than humans. The government has offered its support for the Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare (UDAW) and has incorporated the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) animal welfare standards into the country’s legislation. Additionally, the Austrian Constitution was amended in 2013 to include the protection of the life and well-being of non-human animals, adding that ‘the state protects the life and well-being of animals due to the special responsibility humans have for their fellow creatures’. Animals used in farming As an EU Member State, Austria must comply with EU law in relation to farmed animals. The duty of care provisions of the Austrian Animal Welfare Act 2004 apply to farmed animals, in addition to the general anti-cruelty laws of EU law. The Austrian government has also produced various other provisions in regards to the protection of animals in farming. Secondary legislation made under the Animal Welfare Act 2004, the First Regulation on Keeping Animals 2004 , sets minimum standards for the keeping of farmed animals, and the Animal Welfare Monitoring Regulation 2004 ensures regular inspections are carried out to monitor compliance. Austria has banned enriched cages for laying hens (in 2020) and has agreed to phase out the use of pig farrowing crates by 2033. Additionally, Austria banned long-distance (over 8 hours) international transport for live animals and limits domestic transport of live animals within Austria to 4.5 hours. The production of foie gras has also been banned, and decapod crustaceans also have legal protections, which is not common across the EU. Relevant authorities Legal responsibility for animal welfare primarily lies within the Federal Ministry of Health. In addition, the Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management works on animal welfare issues relating to farmed animals. Each state is also required to appoint an Animal Protection Ombudsperson whose role is to act as a non-governmental representative who acts independently in relation to animal welfare issues. What’s next? Whilst there are many ways in which Austria has led in the field of animal welfare legislation (as detailed above), the Austrian government still has the opportunity to lead by example, and to encourage other EU countries to enact detailed and robust animal protection legislation and policies which further protect animal welfare. 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 the iconic kangaroos to the wonderful sea creatures of the Great Barrier Reef, Australia is well-known for being home to a wide range of animals. Australia also has several introduced species such as horses, pigs, and sheep. So, when it comes to animal welfare in Australia, one might assume that all animals (both companion and working) are roaming happily across the vast lands. But is this really the case? This week, guest writer Jessica Tang, an Australian qualified solicitor, provides an introduction to the legal framework surrounding animal welfare in Australia.  Current legal framework  The legal framework protecting animals in Australia is complex, with a multi-layered governance system involving federal, state, and local law.  Despite animals being transported across states and territories daily, Australia does not have a national law on animal welfare. This may seem odd: having a single law throughout the country would likely create more consistency and simplicity for everyone involved. However, because of Australia’s Constitution , the Commonwealth (i.e.the country of Australia) has limited powers and can only enact legislation in certain specified fields - as set out in section 51 of the Australian Constitution . As a result, when it comes to animals and their welfare, the Commonwealth can only exercise power in the context of international treaties and external trade (e.g. live export and trade in wildlife). Instead, each state and territory exercises its residual power to enact legislation, and each has its own separate statutes, regulations, and industry guidelines relating to the welfare of animals. The relevant animal welfare statutes are: Animal Welfare Act 1992 (Australian Capital Territory)  (the ' ACT Act '); Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 (New South Wales)  (the ' NSW Act '); Animal Protection Act 2018 (Northern Territory) ; Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 (Queensland) ; Animal Welfare Act 1985 (South Australia) ; Animal Welfare Act 1993 (Tasmania) ; Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 (Victoria)  (the ' Victoria Act '); and Animal Welfare Act 2002 (Western Australia) , (the ' Animal Welfare Acts '). Generally, the Animal Welfare Acts make it an offence to commit an act of cruelty to an animal. In   Queensland  and Tasmania ,  the respective Animal Welfare Acts also impose a duty of care on the person in charge of an animal.  Whilst the broad offences are set out in the Animal Welfare Acts, the detail regarding applicable standards and requirements are contained in a series of National Model Codes of Practice. However, the intention is to replace these Model Codes with nationally agreed Australian Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines  (the ' Standards and Guidelines ') In theory, the Standards and Guidelines would aim to achieve nationally consistent objectives, standards, and guidelines across different animal industries. Unfortunately, in practice, it is arguable that they don’t go far enough to uphold  animal welfare.  Concerns of the Standards and Guidelines can be outlined as follows: They only outline minimum recommendations for the proper care and management of animals and are not intended to define best practice; They largely operate to protect the interests of producers over the welfare of the animals; and Each state and territory is responsible for implementing the Standards and Guidelines, meaning, unless incorporated in the relevant laws of each jurisdiction, compliance is only voluntary and non-compliance with the Standards and Guidelines does not constitute an offence.  What is an ‘animal’? Most of the Animal Welfare Acts define an ‘animal’ as a live member of a vertebrate species such as an amphibian, reptile, bird, fish (subject to certain conditions), and mammal (excluding human). The definition of an ‘animal’ varies widely across the Animal Welfare Acts which can be demonstrated as follows: Cephalopods can be included as ‘animals’ in the Australian Capital Territory and Queensland;  Crustaceans can be included as ‘animals’ in the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, and Northern Territory; Other than fish eggs, live pre-natal or pre-hatched creatures in the last half of gestation or development are included as ‘animals’ in Queensland; and Fish are excluded as ‘animals’ in South Australia and Western Australia meaning that these animals are not protected at all from cruelty under the relevant Animal Welfare Acts.  Property status  Animals are classified as property in Australia. Under common law , domesticated animals are 'absolute property' and wild animals are deemed to be property only once captured or in the possession or control of a person. The status of animals as property is also reflected in legislation both at the federal and state/territory level.  For example, under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) , the definition of 'goods' includes animals. This fails to recognise animals as beings with feelings and their own interests, and is an obstacle to advocating for animals through the legal system. There is a strong community push to reform current legislation to recognise animal sentience more broadly and the Australian Capital Territory was the first (and remains the only) jurisdiction in Australia to recognise animal sentience, with the Australian Capital Territory Act reformed in 2019 to reflect that animals have the ability to 'subjectively feel and perceive the world around them ' .  At the time of writing, proposed reforms of the Victoria Act  have also been introduced to recognise animal sentience. And although recognising animal sentience does not completely overcome their legal status as property, it is a step towards distinguishing animals from mere objects under the law.  Animals in farms One of the most obvious issues in Australia is that many animals are simply excluded from protection under the Animal Welfare Acts. The Animal Welfare Acts differentiate between farmed animals (such as cattle) and companion animals (such as cats), with most basic protections only covering companion animals. For example, whilst section 9 of the NSW Act  makes it an offence to fail to provide an animal with adequate exercise, 'Stock Animals' (defined as cows, sheep, goats, deer, pigs, and domestic fowl) are expressly excluded. Further, young cows, sheep, goats, and pigs are all excluded from the offence of castrating an animal without anaesthetic under the NSW Act .  In addition, treatment of an animal has to be 'unreasonable', 'unnecessary' or 'unjustifiable' for a cruelty offence to be established in most jurisdictions (for example, section 4(2) of the NSW Act ). These qualifications are subjective and can protect producers. For example, if cruel farming practices are seen as necessary to create food supply for humans, then such cruel farming practices would not constitute a cruelty offence under the relevant Animal Welfare Act.   It is also worth noting that responsibility for regulating animal welfare is delegated to the Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, as well as the equivalent departments of Primary Industry and Agriculture in each state. This means that the same department that is responsible for the welfare of farmed animals is also responsible for the profitability of primary industries based on the exploitation of such farmed animals. These two functions are incompatible in nature and economic interests normally take precedence over the welfare of the animal.  Introducing independent offices of animal welfare, solely devoted to promoting animal welfare and with a responsibility to report directly to Parliament (rather than being contained in other governmental departments with conflicting interests and priorities) has long been campaigned for in Australia as a solution to this issue.  At the time of writing, the Independent Office of Animal Welfare Bill 2023 (South Australia)  has been introduced, which intends to establish in South Australia the first such independent office of animal welfare. Animals used for scientific purposes There is specific legislation in each state and territory in Australia, which deals with the use of animals for scientific purposes, either through their respective Animal Welfare Statutes (for example, sections 25 to 36 of the Victoria Act ) or separate legislation (for example, the Animal Research Act 1985 (NSW)  and the Animal Research Regulations 2021 (NSW) ).  Further, at the Commonwealth level, the Australian Code for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes  (the ' Code ') must be complied with for all research conducted in Australia that is funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council. The Code has been incorporated into legislation in each of the states.  The Code applies the ‘3Rs’ principle to animal experimentation: (i) the replacement of animal usage with alternatives; (ii) the refinement of procedures to safeguard animal welfare; and (iii) the reduction of the number of animals used. However, as noted above, any potential offence can be rebutted if an animal’s suffering is deemed to be necessary. Therefore, if the experiment can be shown to have a human benefit, it could be deemed ‘necessary’, resulting in procedures that cause harm to animals being permitted.  Cosmetic testing on animals is banned in Australia under the Industrial Chemicals Act 2019 (Cth)  (' ICA 2019 '). Under ICA 2019, new ingredients that are exclusively used in cosmetic products (e.g. eyeshadow) that are either manufactured in Australia or imported into Australia are not permitted to use information derived from animal testing to prove that the product is safe for humans.  However, a chemical ingredient may still be tested on animals if the ingredient is also intended to be used in a non-cosmetic product. This loophole defeats the purpose of the legislation and means that certain ingredients in Australian cosmetics can still be tested on animals. Animals in exhibitions The laws surrounding zoos, aquariums and marine parks also vary across the different states and territories. In NSW, the Exhibited Animals Protection Act 1986 (NSW)  and the Exhibited Animals Protection Regulation 2021 (NSW)  govern how animals can be exhibited and the requirements for licences, approvals and permits. The latter provides several standards that animal exhibitors must comply with.  To improve national consistency, the Agricultural Ministers Forum endorsed the Australian Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines for Exhibited Animals in 2019 , which contains standards for the welfare of animals used for exhibition purposes. They include general standards and guidelines and specific standards and guidelines for the exhibition of koalas, wombats, kangaroos, wallabies, crocodilians and flightless birds. The standards apply to those who are responsible for caring and managing the exhibition of such animals and set out a minimum industry standard. However, the effect of these standards is largely dependent on each jurisdiction implementing them in their legislation. At the time of writing, most states and territories are still either in the process of implementing or considering these standards and guidelines.  Conclusion When thinking about the legal regime applicable to animals in Australia, it is important to understand the specific circumstances of the animal. An animal in Australia may find itself subject to different  legislation depending on: (i) what kind of animal it is; (ii) which context it finds itself in (e.g. farm, zoo or laboratory); and (iii) which state or territory it is in.  However, whilst there is still a long way to go to achieve animal justice in Australia, the current proposed reforms show that Australia is moving in the right direction.   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 .