11.7.14

the reception

Thursday, July the 10th the attendees and the speakers of the II Global Animal Law Conference (Barcelona, 10th-11th of July 2014), have been invited by the Department for the Protection of Animals of the Municipality of Barcelona (Oficina de Protección de los Animales del Ayuntamiento de Barcelona) for a glass of Cava in the beautiful rooms of the city hall, wich houses the headquarters of the city government since 14th century. It was a pleasure for all to attend the reception and receive such a warm welcome both from the organizers of the conference, Prof. Teresa Giménez-Candela of the Autonomous University of Barcelona and Prof. David Favre of the Michigan State University College of Law, as well as from Mr. Carles Domingo, who - representing the mayor - kindly showed participants the Medieval building in all its original splendor. In his welcome speech, Mr. Domingo underlined the importance of the work related to the protection of animal welfare, which has been done until now and all that still needs to be done, in the perspective of a civic coexistence which takes in consideration both the respect for people and the respect for animals, whether pets or not. To this regard we have to mention that the Municipality of Barcelona is the only one in the whole of Spain to have a department for the protection of animals; thanks to their collaboration with the SGR Research Group ADS (Animals, Laws, and Society) of the Autonomous University of Barcelona, pets are now allowed to access urban public transportation means. 

This much-appreciated event is proof of Barcelona´s renowned tradition for respect and openness; therefore we thank the Municipality of Barcelona for its support to the II Global Animal Law Conference and to the recent achievements related to animal protection and welfare. 



Martina Pluda

Communications Officer
Master en Derecho Animal y Sociedad
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona

10.7.14

Featured Speakers #2

Updates on Litigation Filed on Behalf of Chimpazees

Prof. Steven Wise

Chair of the last session of today was Joyce Tischler, Founder of the Animal Legal Defence Fund, who introduced Prof. Steven Wise, the President of the Nonhuman Rights Project, as a friend and as a great achiever in his pursuit to create legal personhood for animals.

The Nonhuman Rights Project is an organization working toward actual legal rights for nonhuman animals. Their mission is to change the common law status of at least some nonhuman animals from things to persons, who possess fundamental rights as bodily integrity and bodily liberty, and those other legal rights to which evolving standards of morality, scientific discovery, and human experience entitle them. Their first cases were filed in 2013.

But to tell us where the Nonhuman Rights Project is at right now, Prof. Wise told us first where it all started from: in the early work he did with/for the Animal Legal Defence Fund. During this period he realised how the relationship between man and animal is the same between master and slave. This was an insight that led Prof. Wise to study the development of slavery and its abolition, such as the case of the African slave James Somerset, who was able to undergo a legal transubstantiation. He stepped in the court room as a thing and left it as a person. Therefore in the 1990s Wise started to think of how the concept of habeas corpus, present in the James Somerset case, could be extended to persuade a court that a non human animal was no longer a legal thing but a legal person. From these thoughts in 1985 to the practice, it took Prof. Wise 29 years to finally presume that he would have a reasonable chance of winning before the court. Finally, in 2007 Prof. Wise decided that the Nonhuman Rights Project had to take action and he has been able to attract a very good multidisciplinary team of lawyers, students, scientists, sociologists, media people, etc. to actively work on it. The team had to then decide which states they wanted to litigate in; to figure this out, they had more than 60 legal issues and 3000 legal questions, which would indicate in which State they were going to have the highest rate of success. The final 6 states were finally chosen, and number one  on the list was the State of New York. They decided to focus on 2 chimpanzees of a road-side zoo in the State New York. Unfortunately both of them died shortly after and the litigation could not be pursued. Hit by the news the team decide to move faster and file habeas corpus for all the chimpanzees in the State of New York, which at the moment were 5, now 4.

On December 2nd 2013 the Nonhuman Rights Project began its legal journey and issued the following press release:

Dec. 2, 2013 – New York, NY – The Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP) announced today that it has filed the first-ever lawsuits on behalf of captive chimpanzees demanding that the courts grant them the right to bodily liberty via a writ of habeas corpus. The suits, filed in New York Supreme Court, are based on scientific evidence proving that chimpanzees are self-aware and autonomous, and therefore entitled to be recognized as “legal persons” with certain fundamental legal rights.
The four captive chimpanzee plaintiffs, all located in the state of New York, are:
  • Tommy – a 26-year-old chimpanzee living in a used trailer lot in Gloversville, NY, isolated in a cage in a dark shed on the owner’s property.
  • Hercules and Leo – two young male chimpanzees owned by New Iberia Research Center, used in a locomotion research experiment in the Anatomy Department at Stony Brook University in Stony Brook, NY.
  • Kiko – a 26-year-old chimpanzee living in Niagara Falls, NY, on private property where he is caged and was previously used in the entertainment industry.
The lawsuits ask the judge to grant the chimpanzees the right to bodily liberty and to order that they be moved to a sanctuary that’s part of the North American Primate Sanctuary Alliance (NAPSA), where they can live out their days with others of their kind in an environment as close to the wild as is possible in North America.
“No one has ever demanded a legal right for a nonhuman animal, until now,” said Steven M. Wise, founder and president of the Nonhuman Rights Project. “When we go to court on behalf of the first chimpanzee plaintiffs, we’ll be asking judges to recognize, for the first time, that these cognitively complex, autonomous beings have the basic legal right to not be imprisoned.”
Legal claims made by the Nonhuman Rights Project are rooted in genetic, cognitive, physiological, evolutionary and taxonomic evidence that the plaintiffs are self-aware and autonomous. The species has been studied long and extensively by some of the world’s most well-respected scientists. The organization is seeking rights that are appropriate for the plaintiffs based on existing scientific evidence.
“Not long ago, people generally agreed that human slaves could not be legal persons, but were simply the property of their owners,” attorney Wise continued. “We will assert, based on clear scientific evidence, that it’s time to take the next step and recognize that these nonhuman animals cannot continue to be exploited as the property of their human ‘owners.’
“Abraham Lincoln put it best when he said that ‘in giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free.’”
The cases filed today are the first in a series that the Nonhuman Rights Project plans to file throughout the United States on behalf of captive animals who are scientifically proven to be self-aware and autonomous. Those include great apes (gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans and bonobos), elephants and cetaceans (dolphins and whales).

To follow the cases visit the archive of the document archive of the Nonhuman Rights Project; to have an insight in Prof. Wise´s work, check out this video by the New York Times:



Martina Pluda
Communications Officer
Master in Animal Law and Society
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona

Featured Speakers #1

The GAL Project 
(www.globalanimallaw.org)


Antoine Goetschel, President of GAL 
and 
Sabine Brels, Manager of GAL

GAL is a brand new online platform that invites everybody to make realistic and visionary - even utopian - proposals to improve the legal conditions of animals at international , national, regional, and local level. These animal law and welfare proposals can range from the protection of farm animals, pet animals, animals in sports, to wild animals. 

GAL also proposes a list of global animal law experts and international animal law platforms, as well as offering a complete database of actual legislation from around the globe. Even here anyone can contribute to the page by sending any useful source, text, provision from his/her own county in order to benefit the international community dedicated to this field. 

GAL believes that animals have their own language and we have problems in understanding what they tell us; it is not enough for us to just love them. Unfortunately money rules the world and animals pay the price, for this reason they should be included in the constitutions of all states and be recognised as the third category. GAL strengthens majorities to make animal laws stronger because animals do need a voice in animal procedures. Why do we protect animals? Bentham said because they can suffer, Smith said because they have dignity, whilst Utopians say that a good use of animals is no use of animals.

GAL believes that the best way to predict the future is to create it with collaborative effort and joint thinking.



Martina Pluda
Communications Officer
Master in Animal Law and Society
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona

PANEL #3 Teaching Animal Law

The chair of the first panel of the afternoon, Natasha Dolezal, is the Director of the Animal Law LL.M. Program at Lewis & Clark Law School in Portland, Oregon (USA). The Center for Animal Law Studies (CALS) is dedicated to teaching the next generation of animal law attorneys.


The first speaker, Professor Maria Baideldinova, is speaking about her experiences in "Teaching Animal Law for the First Time in Kazakhstan". She teaches at KIMEP University in Kazakhstan. She is a legal consultant to many NGOs and promotes animal law reform in Kazakhstan:

The legal system in the Republic of Kazakhstan is quite new. Traditionally an agricultural country, there are hundreds of legal acts on human-animal interaction, but not a single law about animals themselves. Animals are not considered as having value per se and there are also no animal anti-cruelty laws. Furthermore, animal law is not established as an academic or scientific discipline. However, a CIS model law on treating animals was introduced as a draft law in 2007.

The KIMEP University was established in 1992 and is a leading English university, with a faculty from over 20 different countries. It is an independent, non-profit institution serving a multicultural and multinational student body. The University is situated in the center of Almaty, the largest city in Kazakhstan.

Maria Baideldinova introduced the first course in animal law, which was originally offered in the spring of 2013. It was an elective course within the LL.B program and can be taken by both law and non-law students. So far 90 students have taken the course. David Favre supported and brought inspiration to Maria to teach the course, which analyzes animal law as a dynamic developing discipline.

The learning objectives of the course are to learn the substance and principles of existing law as it addresses nonhuman animals in Kazakhstan. The course also includes complex debates about animal law and the ethics and legal philosophy about animals.

Course materials include: storytelling (D. Stewart, The Limits of Trooghaft); videos (Meet koko, PBS’ The Natural History of the Chicken, BBC’s Secret Life of the Dog, and some PETA videos); readings (D. Favre, A. Akhtar, A. Cochrane, GJAL Survey, Animallaw.info); in-class discussions; and activities, such as zoo visits to see first hand the welfare of animals in zoos as compared to in their natural habitat. Veterinary specialists, as well as animal trainers, give guest lectures to the students. Every student has the opportunity to volunteer at local NGO rescue operations for dogs. The course has received great student feedback and has increased student awareness about animal sentience. Maria Baideldinova will offer the course every year and continue to help it grow.


The second speaker is Tagore Trajano, who is from Brazil and has a Ph.D. in animal law. Dr. Trajano is an expert in Brazilian law, bioethics and animal law issues. He is an attorney in Brazil and has published articles in both Brazil and in the United States on animal law. He is speaking today about "How to Bring Animal Law to the Classrooms of Brazil".

There are two key questions about the origins and development of animal law, a new subject in Brazil. How can Brazilians expand this field of knowledge? What are the steps to introduce a new law paradigm that is pro-animal in Brazil in the law school? One must remember that Brazil has traditional conceptions of the law and animal law is a new concept in Brazil. Traditional and modern professors will often have different points of view on the subject.

Philosophical Background
The philosophical framework of animal law came from British heritage. Peter Singer was pushing the concept of animal law to shift the paradigm and create opportunities; open new discussions; and learn and change standard education.

Brazil v. US development of animal law
In the United States the number of institutions offering animal law courses is increasing dramatically and is recognized as a unique subject requiring full time professors. Publications were encouraged and animal law became a principal subject in more conservative colleges such as Duke and Harvard, which helped foster the creation of research groups to study legal considerations surrounding animals.

On the other hand, in Brazil the students are offered diverse perspectives on animal treatment instead of simply concentrating on existing law. Brazilian schools do not prioritize philosophical or personal approaches to animal law. Many conferences are held to try and revolutionize the traditional concepts in the Brazilian civil law system. Animal law is being taught, not as “animal law” specifically, but is included in philosophical discussions.

Minimum curriculum at the graduate level includes a movement for animal rights, development of anti-cruelty laws, improvement in state and federal laws, information on animal experimentation and vivisection, the use of animals in entertainment, religious, and educational purposes, as well as humane slaughter. At the postgraduate level, there should be an international overview of animal law, which should be a distinct subject that encompasses a total perspective.

The law must consider a nonhuman interest in law context.
Brazilian obstacles to this:
There are a huge number of law schools (more in Brazil than in the rest of Latin America, totaling more than 1200)
Revolution to bring new perspective for Brazilians to consider animal law as a new field:
Steps: animal law is not considered a field for attorneys, people still think Brazilians have more crucial issues to address than animal law; neither public nor private funding exists to encourage development in this field of study.

So the final question is: how do you bring animal law to classroom of Brazil? One must show this subject is an autonomous subject.


The third speaker Carlos Contreras, who is from Columbia and received his PhD in animal law from the UAB. He is discussing "How the Master’s Degree in Animal Law & Society at the UAB Enhances the Legal Knowledge About Animals in a Global Context".

There are two important ideas to remember about the Master’s Program in Animal Law & Society in Barcelona, Spain: The Masters is taught from a legal point of view even though students come from different backgrounds and specialties. Second, the Master’s program is global, from the students to the professors and staff. This year will start the fourth edition of the masters.

The staff includes, Daniel Parsons, a student from Brown, with a degree in History, academic coordinator, Teresa Gimenez-Candela is the director of the Program, Carlos Contreras himself, and Martina Pluda, coordinator of communication. The Master’s Program is taught in the law faculty building (Facultat de Dret). The Master’s Program is taught by professionals from the subject they will be teaching. Visiting professors from around the world, such as professors from France and the US. David Favre, is well known professor of animal law from Michigan State University. Steven Wise, founder of the nonhuman rights project has taught at the Masters, along with Pamela Frasch and Kathy Hessler come to speak at the Masters as well.

Both the professors and the students are very international. Barcelona is becoming a center for animal law education in Europe, as it offers the only Master’s in Animal Law in Europe. Students from Latin America, Slovenia, Italy, France, Mexico all come to study at the Program. The Program collaborates closely with the veterinary faculty, a very prestigious faculty at the UAB, updates the students on animal behavior and animal welfare standards, which have been scientifically developed. It is important for students to know sentience based upon scientific facts along with the legal viewpoint.

Resources of the UAB are available to the students. There is an amazing library, as well as articles and books written by the professors, who are from all over the world. The students write articles and book reviews, which are published by the students on the Master’s Program website, www.derechoanimal.info. Students must complete final projects, which are published to enlarge the animal law field more and more with each edition of the Masters.


The fourth speaker is Pamela Frasch, the Assistant Dean of Lewis & Clark Law School. She is speaking on building an education center in animal law. She is the exec director of animal law studies at the university. She has taught animal law since 1998 and first publisher of animal law legal book in the US.

In the USA 150 law schools offer at least one animal law course, there are 200 accredited law schools, only 9 schools offered course in 2000, 177 SALDF chapters up from 12 in 2000, and 6 academic journals solely dedicated to animal law.

Why is there an increased popularity of animal law education?
The reasons are many: 
Growing body of literature;
Acknowledge link between animal and human violence;
Treat companion animals as family leads to increased awareness (When asked who would you rather be on deserted island with, 60% said they would rather be there with their pet than their spouse);
Growth of pet industry—dog/cat = gateway animal to other species.

Over 20 years ago Lewis & Clark began with animal law, thanks also to the willingness of local attorneys to serve as adjunct professors and to the increase in student groups and the creation of specialty animal law studies. Nevertheless there are still challenges to overcome: animal law is still considered a fringe field, we need funding for new classes, find employment for recent graduates, there are too few tenured professors choosing animal law, dwindling applications to law school and fewer tuition dollars and more online students.

Strategies
Leverage student interest, engage professors in related fields, reach out to colleagues at other schools, publish animal law articles in mainstream journals, work with human-animal studies at undergraduate and graduate level, involve law school deans and influential professors, fundraise.

Future plans for CALS:
Develop internships and externships, encourage interdisciplinary scholarship, secure funding to endow professorship in animal law, partner with other academic institutions like the UAB and provide assistance to other law schools seeking to grow their animal law program, and increase international collaboration.



Danielle Holt
LL.M. Animal Law
Lewis & Clark

PANEL #4 Global Animal Law Issues

The afternoon started with a panel on Global Animal Law Issues, coordinated by Jean-Marc Neumann (www.animaletdroit.com), with three speakers from the United Kingdom, Switzerland, and the USA.


The first speaker, Paul Littlefair, International Director of the RSPCA, talked about "Animal Law Enforcement in Practice":

The RSPCA, founded in 1824, is the oldest animal welfare organisation. It is a charity and does not receive any governmental money. It enforces animal protection law in England and Wales, does lobbying, campaigns, educates, advises the UK government, and EU bodies. They cover cases of farm animals (China has half the world´s pigs), stray animals (80% of dogs population globally is free roaming), lab animals (100 mill animals used every year), and wildlife. It is therefore very important that RSPCA inspectors have strong interpersonal skills, are able to cope with pressure, and to work alone, as it is not an easy job. At the moment RSPCA is composed of 30 scientific staff, 4 departments, 330 inspectors, 130 AWOs, and 50 ACOs. They receive about 1,3 million calls and have in the past year investigated on 153,700 cruelty complaints. Its policy is to influence the development of policy at multilateral levels and to support the development and revision of animal welfare legislation in various countries it collaborates with. 

Here are some more recent statistics for England and Wales:
Defendants convicted: 1,421
Prosecution success rate: 98%
Prison sentences imposed: 83
Suspended  prison sentences: 179
Disqualification orders: 1,175
Convictions: 3,748

Now some information focusing on the situation in East Asia: 
China: has no legislation for domestic animals;
Hong Kong: RSPCA inspectors and police prosecute;
Taiwan: law since 1998 and local govenment inspectros;
Japan: legislation since 1970s and local gov. inspectors;
Korea: similar system to Japan, supported by NGOs.
In all these countries RSPCA gives support with law enforcement training preparation. Here the task is to carry out research and preliminary field visits to understand the animal protection legislation in the country, the actual conditions for animals, the historical/cultural attitudes towards animals, the significance of law to the ordinary citizen, the attitudes towards authority, officials, uniforms, etc. The areas for training comprise transferable knowledge and skills such as tools and procedures, animal welfare assessment (investigation standards), advice, health and safety, evidence gathering, case file preparation, team working, multi-agency working.



Proceeding with the  panel was Dr. Geri Bolinger, who focused on the "Protection of Dignity: Switzerland Sets a New Standard in Animal Law":

Switzerland is not a member state of the EU, therefore EU animal protection regulations do not apply to Swiss animals. Nevertheless since 1973 animal welfare is an issue in the Swiss Constitution. In 1981 the first Swiss Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and Animal Welfare Ordinance (AWO) have been promulgated. In 2008 both the AWA and the AWO has been totally revised and it applies to ALL vertebrates, with no exceptions whatsoever for farm, lab animals, etc. The purpose of the AWA is to protect the dignity and welfare of animals, as this is a fundamental principle of all Swiss animal welfare law.


Let´s define dignity. Dignity is "inherent worth of the animal that has to be respected when dealing with it". But the protection of animal dignity is not absolute: we have to weigh the interests of the animal and the ones of men, do a so called balance test. The violation of this dignity includes various categories of stress. The first one is represented by the physical elements of stress such as pain, suffering, harm, anxiety. The second one is of ethical nature and is related to humiliation, major interference with the animal´s appearance and abilities, excessive instrumentalisation of it.

What are the legal consequences?
Art. 26 AWA establishes a custodial sentence up to 3 years or a monetary penalty for who mistreats, neglects, overexerts or disregards the dignity of an animal. Also more in general we can see some changes: animals are no longer things, but they still remain property, they have their own legal status between persons and object (since 2003). Furthermore socially living animals cannot be kept alone (since 2008), rather in companionship (e.g. sheep, hamsters). There are also some statutory bans, meaning some acts which are completely forbidden, with no balancing test and no justification such as zoophilia, doping of animals, their postal delivery, live animal feeding, the cropping of dogs, and the importation of cetaceans.

What about enforcement? Is Switzerland a paradise for the animals?
Well in theory the balancing test should work this way: the more significant an intervention to an animal´s dignity is, the greater the justification required by the user. But in practice this balancing test is often in favour of human interests and not of the animals and their dignity. There are also some legitimate user interests determined by society, such as the use of animals for food or experimentation. So the use of animals is justified in front of economic interests, but actually this should never be enough for justification. Regarding Swiss court decisions, there have been many cases in the "clear facts" regarding for example absolute bans, but only few cases on animal dignity in any other way, one of the most important of which, is the decision from 2009 of the Swiss Supreme Court on experimentation animals.

So the question is when is the humiliation or instrumentalisation really justified? When do we draw the line? Breeding, tattooing, colouring of animals, their use for advertisement? This is a question we will leave open.



Martina Pluda
Communications Officer
Master in Animal Law and Society
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona

PANEL #2 Animal Issues in the European Union

In the second panel of the day we addressed animal issues in the European Union, with Ms. Marguerite Kuzma of the European Commission and Ass. Prof. Francesca Rescigno, from the University of Bologna (Italy), who talked about "Italian Animal Law":

Most legal systems today have an anthropocentric view, meaning that animals are still things and are under complete subjection to the will of men. Nevertheless the necessity of attribution of legal capacity to animals and to create a new legal status is clear. Whilst science and philosophy have been able to evolve in animal rights, by proving they have rationality and experience feelings, the law has not. But the law should be the right tool to approach a new consideration of animals and create a new concept of legal system which is biocentric and not anthropocentric.

In Italy the first provisions regarding animals were comprised in the Zanardelli Code of 1889, which stated that whoever became cruel to an animal was to be punished with a fine. These provisions, though, targeted the protection of humans from inconvenient feelings of disgust in front of a cruelty scene, not the protection of the animal´s welfare. The last revision of the Italian Civil Code, in 2004, still defined define the animal status in the Italian legal system. In Italy right now, there still is a very complex framework. Although we can see an animal attitude in this framework, it is not enough to give animals subjectivity. Still animals keep on being excluded from legal capacity and this is an unconceivable discrimination. Animals should be included in the Italian Constitution; the animal dignity should at least be present in the form of a mediation between human and animal interests. Revision right now i s the only way to improve the legal system.

(article not complete)


Ms. Marguerite Kuzma, of the European Commission, talked instead of EU policies and their important anniversary, celebrated this year "40 Years of EU Animal Welfare":

To understand the necessity and the reason behind EU animal welfare policies we have to start with some facts. In Europe there are 12 million sows, 360 million laying hens, 330 million eggs are consumed and processed every day, 10 million chickens are slaughtered per day,  and so are 1 million cows, sheep, horses. Regarding transportation, the statistics show that the animals being transported every year for more than 8 hours are 4 million cattle, 28 million pigs, 4 million sheep, 243 million chickens, and 150.000 horses. It is therefore evident that animal welfare is and must be a priority for the European Union. According to the OIE definition of welfare, welfare means how an animal is coping with the conditions in which it lives. To this regard, EU policies have to follow five key principles, also called the five freedoms: 1. the freedom from thirst and hunger; 2. from discomfort, 3. from pain, injury, and disease; 4. to express normal behaviour; 5. from fear and distress.

The first legislation on the matter was introduced in 1947 for the protection of animals in slaughterhouse and in 2009 a very important step has been achieved: the art. 13 of the Treaty of Lisbon states that animals are "[...] sentient beings, pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals [...]". In recognition of this the European Commission has adopted new strategies to improve welfare conditions for animals kept in farms, living in zoos, and used for experiments (not for pets, because not economically relevant, therefore not part of policies to harmonise the common market). But changing value to add value goes through a process, it is not immediate. The first step is represented by a change in the values of society and a related response, followed by the scientific development of new animal welfare indicators. Then there are new market drivers and the integration of animal welfare with the sustainable agenda, followed by a holistic approach, which can finally establish new relations between producers and society.

Under the guiding principle of "everyone is responsible" the new strategy has a multi-layered approach, oriented to enlarge the scope of EU, spread animal welfare indicators, spread information to consumers, create a network of reference centres, and guarantee more competence and education. 



Martina Pluda
Communications Officer
Master in Animal Law and Society
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona

PANEL #1 Animal Issues in China

The first Panel of today has been introduced by Professor Thomas Kelch, who underlined how this issue is of extraordinary importance, since China is the most populous country in the world and its developments here are of vital importance.


The first speaker, Professor Deborah Cao, talked about "Dog Management in China":

Pet ownership in China is a very new social phenomenon. Just think that the word "pet" in China did not actually exist until the 1960s. Having cats and dogs as pets is the most Western sense is something really new; before the most common kept animals were birds and fish, dogs emerged in China 15000 years ago but not as companion animals. Today the estimates say that there are 11 billion pets in China. Before the 1980s there dogs were not allowed in Chinese cities, but gradually the regulation began to loosen and in 1983 the city of Beijing first started to adopt regulations to control and restrict dog ownership. These regulations, done at city level, regard who can own a dog, which breed, how many, etc.; the registration of dogs and vaccinations are also required. Today China also adopts the one dog per family policy, the vicious and dangerous dog prohibition, and various restrictions on breeds and size. Nevertheless there is no anti cruelty or animal welfare law in China, only some guidelines for zoos and entertainment animals, but no law whatsoever for companion animals and for the prevention of cruetly of any kind.

The main objectives of such city regulations is to maintain public security and environmental sanitation. But the main problem of these regulations is the selective enforcement, especially the non-enforcement. For example dog owners are not allowed to abuse or abandon their dogs, but there has not been a single case of enforcement in the whole of China. For example, in the city of Shanghai there are more specific enforcement rules; the law says that those who violate the provisions of non-abandon shall pay a fine, their dog registration will be revoked, the dog put in a shelter, and they will not be able to keep another dog for the next 5 years. But this was also never enforced. 

Regarding the keeping of dogs, in general in China we can observe two types of cruelty behaviors:
1. Individual cruelty actions (abandon, abuse, etc.);
2. Government sanctions, such as dog beating squads (a very cruel practice) and dog pounds. 

Another controversial issue in China is the one regarding dog eating and the Dog Meat Festival. This is a very cruel practice because it is not limited to the killing and eating of the animal, but it comprises its beating and cruel treatment. Unfortunately there is no law prohibiting dog or cat consumption in mainland China; there are only regulations related to food hygiene, safety, and transport. On the other hand there are more and more warm hearted Chinese, who do not tolerate this, and do rescue actions and protests against the Dog Meat Festival and the consumption of dog meat. Even though the liberation movements stopping trucks with cats and dogs going to restaurants are increasing, difficulties still remain because these animals are still seen as resources, tools, food, means to serve human purposes, and not as living beings. Many believe that animal law and animal rights are too ahead of its time for China. for sure reducing animal cruelty in China requires the efforts of Chinese and of non-Chinese.



The second speaker, Dean Song Wei, focused on "How to Stop Shark Fin Consumption in China":

From an historical analysis shark fin consumption developed as following:
During the Tang Dynasty only the king consumed shark fin and later on, during the Ming Dynasty this privilege was extended to the members of the royal family. In the early Quing Dynasty also senior officials were granted this privilege, whilst in the late one also wealthy men could afford consuming shark fins. During Mao´s time this practice disappeared completely because of the communist regime, but after the Reformation period it gradually started to increase again. Currently shark fin consumption is not spread in the whole of China, it is limited to the coastal areas, especially to the cities of Guangdong, Fujan, Zehjiang, and is to be found in the restaurants of the major cities. Shark fin today is seen as a symbol of wealth and status, therefore it is usually consumed by businessmen.

What about the public attitude today? More and more young people are taking action to stop this practice and to grow awareness between the Chinese population. Part of this movement are also young chefs, who increasingly refuse cooking with shark fins. Also the slogan to stop eating shark fin is very widely spread now in China. The market responses have also been significant with a price drop of 50% and a dramatic market shrink. positive is also the reduction of tourists consuming shark fin meat.

The Government reactions to this issue have been multiple. Amongst the many we underline the Chinese IT Summit of 2011, where the Government announced that shark fin dishes would not appear in the official treat. Also the recently introduced prohibition to consume shark fins addressed to governmental officials is a big step forward.

From a legal analysis we observe that all dynasties had animal protection regulations; in the contemporary China provisions who could address this issue can be found in the articles 9 and 26 of Constitution, in the Environment Protection Law, the Law on Protection of Wildlife, the Fisheries Law, the Food Safety Law, the Tort Law, and others include some principles. But how do we change the contemporary situation? First of all by constraining and decreasing consumption, furthermore by putting emphasis on production, by reaching a satisfactory level of enforcement, which is far from satisfaction, and finally by setting up a special agency and creating laws to protect sharks. The suggestion Dean Song Wei makes is to add sharks to the list of China National Key Protected Wild Animals and to create an effective supervision system, to avoid that legislation remains on paper.

Lastly we addressed the new issues related to fake shark fins, which are made of corn starch and gelatine. Is this good or bad news? Some say it is good, since it avoids the hunting and consumption of real fins and it represents an invisible tax for the rich; some say it is bad, since those who can afford it don't want a fake; others say it might address and satisfy new needs (such as vegetarians), but the truth is we must stop both fake and real, because the production and consumption of fake fins will automatically increase the demand for real as it is a matter of prestige.

To conclude we have to bear in mind the thoughts of the Chinese philosopher, Confucius, who stated that man has to live in harmony with nature. So shark fin consumption does not only go against the global sustainable trend, but also against this great Chinese philosophers´s thoughts.



The third speaker, Ass. Prof. Amanda Whitfort, addressed the topic of "Animal Law in China":

China is populated by 1.3 billion humans and is the larger meat producer in the world. It is also a country that has no national law against animal cruelty; there is only a law protecting wild animals or animals which serve an economic or scientific purpose. There is also no law regulating the treatment of lab animals and the Animal Husbandry Law does not address animal welfare at all.

In this scenario, and as a response to different cruelty episodes, we are witnessing a growing mementum in China, oriented towards the protection of animals. One of these episodes happened in 2002 when a student of the Tsinghua University attacked with acid the bears at the Beijing Zoo, but there was no law to prosecute him. Eventually he was charged for damage of state property, but it had no penal consequences. Other episodes include the microwaving of puppy and the adopting and torturing of 30 cats by other top uni students, as well as the starvation of 11 Siberian Tigers in  the Shenyang zoo. In all these cases there was no enforceable law, only the public outcry raised attention towards the matter. 

At present China is working on the Draft of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Law 2010, of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, collaborating with overseas experts and local law professors. The development of this Draft arises from the need to reflect growing public concerns. This Draft Law comprises 5 categories of animals:
1. Wild animals: it regulates also animals kept in captivity (e.g. in zoos), it targets common abuse actions (like de-clawing, feeding of live prey, etc.), and cruel hunting practices.
2. Pet animals: it prohibits deliberate cruelty and abandon, and promotes adoption.
3. Farm animals: it prohibits abandon, and protects from cruel husbandry practices and inhumane slaughter, it contains regulations on transportation, and establishes protection for fur animals (china is the largest world producer of fur from minks, racoons, chinchillas, dogs, cats, rabbits), and it obliges to the compliance with OIE obligations.
4. Lab animals: it reflects the Guiding Opinions but makes them also criminally enforcable,  it establishes that experiments which cause extreme pain can only be performed by vets.
5. Animals in entertainment: it prohibits cruelty during performances and the cruel keeping of the animals. 
It also establishes penalties for cruelty, especially fines and rewards for those who report animal abuse. The Draft Law was submitted in 2011 to NPC (National People´s Congress) and is awaiting further development. 

Modern animal protection laws don´t just prohibit cruelty, but they actively prevent it. It does not matter if we call it neglect or cruelty, what matters is that there is something we need to protect.



Martina Pluda
Communications Officer
Master in Animal Law and Society
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona