A Fair Deal for Animals: A legal pathway for higher animal welfare in the post-Brexit UK

(1)

A Fair Deal for Animals: A Legal Pathway for Higher Animal Welfare in the Post-Brexit UK

University of Eastern Finland Law School

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of International and Comparative Law

15.14.2021

Marina Vitória Baptista Rosa (309028) Supervisor: Tarja Koskela

(2)

FOREWORD

My first thoughts on animals and the law have emerged after flipping through the courses I could choose as part of my master’s degree. I stumbled into the ‘Animal Law and Policy’

course description and what started as pure curiosity turned into the discovery of the field I now want to work with for the rest of my life. For this, I am immensely thankful for the lecturers Outi Ratamäki and Tarja Koskela, for having taught this course in such a thought-provocative way that enabled me to find genuine academic curiosity. For that, I am grateful for the flexibility I found in the Finnish educational system, without which I probably would never have found the freedom and time to study animal law in the first place.

This thesis has been a long time in the making. I felt slightly discouraged in the beginning after realizing how even experienced professionals could be unable to see a problem with the current legal landscape animals are trapped into. I heard that the EU legal system was already the best in the world. I knew that, but I also knew that the subjective limits of unnecessary suffering in the law still make this system immensely flawed. This made me realize I needed to be mentored by someone who had full understanding about animal justice issues, someone I could look up to. I was lucky to have professor Tarja Koskela agreed to be my supervisor. I thank her for her valuable advice, which improved this thesis immeasurably.

I thank my friends Giulia Testa and Nabgha Iqbal for having always been present, even when physically distant, during these difficult pandemic times. My utmost thanks go to my husband, André Rosa, for being such a good partner in life. I am deeply grateful for how receptive he was every time I wanted to share the bitter and interesting findings I made through this thesis and for all the deep, life-changing conversations we engaged in as a result. Finally, I always knew I owed a special thanks in this foreword to Draco, my furry four-legged buddy. Whenever the readings got too intense and I had tears in my eyes from the sad realities I had to confront in the making of this thesis, I could always stop for a minute and hug him very tightly. It comforted me knowing that, at least, I had the power to make this one animal feel as loved and respected as I wished every animal in this world had the chance to be.

(3)

Abstract

UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND Faculty

Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies

Unit

Law school

Author

Marina Vitória Baptista Rosa

Name of the Thesis

A Fair Deal for Animals: A legal pathway for higher animal welfare in the post-Brexit UK

Major

Environmental and Climate Change Law

Description

Master’s thesis

Date

24/08/2021

Pages

99

Abstract

The complex and detailed set of animal welfare laws in the EU makes it the most progressive animal welfare system in the world. Yet, an overwhelming number of animals are routinely subjected to conditions and practices that are contradictory to the very idea of unnecessary suffering and the recognition of animal sentience. This thesis takes the unprecedented momentum of Brexit as an opportunity to look closely into the strengths and weaknesses of the EU animal law. It analyses which parts of the EU legislative system should be kept in the UK and which should be modified in order to tackle these contradictions and enable a legal paradigm that makes justice to animals. In addition to subjecting the current rules on animal welfare to scrutiny using legal philosophy lenses, this thesis formulates a draft of policy recommendations, including legal reforms to safeguard core legal protections, as well as introducing bans of certain commercial activities while respecting international trade rules.

Key words

Animal law, Animal welfare, Animal rights, Brexit, EU law, international trade law.

(4)

“The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may one day come to be recognized that the number of legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate.

What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a full- grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day or a week or even a month old. But suppose they were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not Can they reason? nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?”

– Jeremy Bentham, The Principles of Morals and Legislation, 1789.

(5)

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AIHTS: Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards CIWF: Compassion in World Farming

CITES: Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species CMS: Convention on Migratory Species

COP: Conferences of the Parties

EPRS: The European Parliamentary Research Service EU: European Union

GATT: The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade ICJ: International Court of Justice

IWC: International Whaling

OIE: World Organisation for Animal Health PETA: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

RSPCA: Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals TBT Agreement: Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade TEU: Treaty on European Union

TFEU: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union UK: United Kingdom

UN: United Nations

UNEP: United Nations Environmental Programme WTO: World Trade Organisation

WHO: World Health Organisation

(8)

1. INTRODUCTION

Animals have been part of our lives since the beginning of times¹. Zooarchaeologists have listed the roles animals played in the human-animal relationship since the palaeolithic², which ranged from being our pets, companions, symbols, objects of feasting and sacrifices, spiritual helpers, and totems³. The main ambiguity permeating the human- animal relationship is that we have always valued and admired them and yet exploited them so badly⁴. Throughout time, we developed different ways of interacting with animals and using them for our benefit, such as for food, clothing, science, and entertainment. As civilization advanced, our interactions – with each other, the environment, and animals – started being regulated. In legal terms, animals have mostly been considered things, properties, or ‘legal objects’, since a time when philosophers believed that God had given humans domination over all animals⁵. This anthropocentric standpoint is still perceivable in our relationships with the whole environment around us.

As humans, we have been used to believe we are the centre of the universe. However, as moral considerations evolve, there is an urge to update regulations so that they meet our constantly adapting ethical standards.

In the international context, laws concerning animals tend to focus on the conservational aspect⁶. International law experience shows that reaching a global agreement is a difficult task. Relevant to animals, the level of agreement reached among states targets humankind’s efforts to avoid the extinction of endangered species⁷. Nonetheless, many states have adopted their own sets of animal protection provisions at the domestic level, mainly aiming at fighting acts of cruelty and the deliberate infliction of unnecessary suffering. The fact that rules on animal welfare have been introduced by domestic legislative acts in many countries is indicative that human-animal interactions are evolving to the point where we care about the wellbeing of individual animals and not

1 Zinn – Beck, 2014; Comba, 2010.

2 Russell 2011, p. 1-7.

3 Idem.

4 Idem.

5 Favre, 2021.

6 Peters, 2016.

7 As noted in the substance of international biodiversity treaties mentioned in section 2.1.

(9)

solely about the continuous existence of their species. Consideration about animals emerged then as a legal rationale that is not specifically tied to environmental protection per se, but rather to the welfare and rights of individual beings.

In the past few decades, the European Union created five Conventions on the protection of animals in distinctive circumstances, namely: The European Convention for the Protection of Animals kept for Farming Purposes⁸, The European Convention for the Protection of Animals during International Transport⁹, The European Convention for the Protection of Animals for Slaughter¹⁰, The European Convention for the Protection of Vertebrate Animals used for Experimental and other Scientific Purposes¹¹, and The European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals¹². Besides, a number of directives, recommendations, decisions, and member states’ national acts have emerged, illustrating the regional progressive account on the topic of animal welfare. This extensive engagement gave the European Union the unofficial status of having the most detailed and complex legal animal welfare system in the world¹³.

Notwithstanding, our ever-changing ethics standards continue to push for further reflections and legislative reforms. Despite its high standards, the EU animal welfare system still holds some inherent paradoxes, gaps, and weaknesses¹⁴. As societies continue to evolve, it is just expected that we continue to question the status quo of human-animal relationships and its reflexes on our legal systems. In this sense, it can be argued that there is always room for discussing further law improvements if they raise the bars of justice.

The circumstances of Brexit created a unique momentum for the United Kingdom to install its own legal adjustments, as leaving the EU means for the UK both the detachment from EU law limitations and the redefinition of its stance in the international community – for instance, before the World Trade Organization. It is fair to point out that examining

8 Treaty No.087, Strasbourg, 10/03/1976.

9 Treaty No. 065, Paris, 13/12/1968.

10 Treaty No. 102, Strasbourg, 10/05/1979.

13 McCulloch, 2019; Grethe, 2007.

14 Aaltola – Wahlberg, 2015; Grethe, 2007; McCulloch, 2019; Gille, 2016.

(10)

the opportunities that the UK’s new legal autonomy brought along is not an exercise limited by an expiration date, since the suggestions drafted in this thesis can still be implemented in the future, if not immediately after Brexit. Taking advantage of this unique moment, this research intends to analyse the ups and downs of EU animal law, in order to weave recommendations aimed at UK policymakers to enable a more just legal scenario for animals.

Research questions

Hence, the central research question of this thesis is: ‘How can the UK exercise its new legal competencies to improve the welfare of animals under its jurisdiction?’. In order to answer the main question, various sub-questions can be discerned, namely:

• What is the current relevant legal framework?

• What developments has Brexit brought to the UK in the field of animal law?

• What are the strengths, gaps, and weaknesses in EU animal law?

• What policies and laws can enable a more just and protective animal welfare system in the UK?

Methodology

The method adopted to answer the main research question can be best described as eclectic, as instead of adopting a single methodology to the exclusion of others, it will rather combine different approaches. To best explain the methodology used, the steps and tools used in each of the thesis sections will be described in the most possible transparent manner. Despite animal law being a legal field, looking at any animal welfare provision from a critical and progressive standpoint calls for a legal-philosophy-based reflection, which assigns this thesis natural interdisciplinarity. In this regard, the scope of this thesis will be limited by a combination of both the study of the relevant current legal framework concerning the field of animal law (in the international, EU, and domestic levels), and an analysis on the arguments posed by scholars in the legal philosophy and animal rights fields.

(11)

The inaugural part of the first substantial chapter (chapter 2) describes the relevant legal rules found in the primary sources of law, according to article 38 of the ICJ, therefore following a doctrinal legal research methodology. The legal framework comprises the existing animal law at the international, European Union, and UK’s levels, in the form of treaties, directives, regulations, decisions, and national acts. Particular consideration will be given to the analysis of the hierarchy, legal status, and dynamics between the sources.

The second part of chapter 2 investigates what are the known legal developments of Brexit for the domestic animal law in the UK, based on what the law itself says about it.

Chapter 3 critically analyses the EU legal instruments on animal welfare, emphasizing their strengths, gaps, and weaknesses. The purpose of this chapter is not only to interpret the EU animal law itself but also to look into its practical effects and on how effective they are (or not) in protecting animals. The justification for this analysis is to provide the legal background the UK could either replicate or avoid in its juridical system from now on. Therefore, because the law is confronted with its practical effects within this chapter, the sub-questions are answered not through a strictly legal dogmatic methodology but rather using a ‘law and ethics’ approach.

Chapter 4 questions the current welfare paradigm and proposes a redefinition of animal welfare standards, drawing from the legal philosophy literature. Therefore, legal theory is the predominant method of research in this section. To conduct these investigations, I make use of secondary sources of law to analyse and reflect onto the legal and ethical rationales of questions such as how the limits of necessity should be determined by the law. Finally, Chapter 5 elaborates recommendations aimed at policymakers, meant to draw a guideline of the most possible progressive, yet conceivable, legal scenario to enhance animal protection in the post-Brexit UK. These recommendations are naturally limited by the current socio-political reality, implying in the adoption of a more pragmatical approach, to the exclusion of a more ideological one – as in the case of the abolitionist approach, for example.

(12)

2. LEGAL FRAMEWORK

In June 2016 a referendum in the United Kingdom resulted in a slight majority of people being in favour of leaving the European Union. The UK has been a member of the EU since the Maastricht Treaty in 1993, and before that, a member of the European Community (EC) since 1973¹⁵. The decision to leave the European Union created an unprecedented legal moment since as a Member State, the UK has EU law integrated with its domestic laws in an imaginably difficult to disentangle manner. This is due to the very nature of the EU legal system, which is to make its provisions embedded in its members’

domestic law, rather than distinct from it¹⁶.

When it comes to the field of animal law, the interconnectedness between the UK and the EU goes both ways. EU law has largely influenced UK’s animal welfare laws and policies and, similarly, the UK has a history of being a regional and global leader in animal welfare, having played a substantial role in developing the EU animal protection policy.

For instance, the UK was responsible for lobbing the recognition of animal sentience in the EU legislation in the 1990s, which first culminated in a protocol on animal welfare in 1997 and later, on Article 13 of the Treaty of Lisbon. Additionally, important advances in the EU animal welfare legislation, such as the prohibition of veal crates and battery cages and the limitation of sow stalls, also happened with the essential participation of the UK Government.¹⁷

After Brexit, the UK continues to be bound by many international treaties. Therefore, the containment of its new freedom of action is its autonomy under international law¹⁸. Pertaining to animal protection, the changes brought up by Brexit can present both threats and opportunities¹⁹. McCulloch assessed the threats based on five criteria, namely: the political situation, the regulatory changes, the economic and trade factors, the institutional

15 McCulloch, 2019.

16 Reid, 2016.

17 McCulloch, 2019.

18 Idem.

19 Idem.

(13)

considerations, and the EU and international impacts²⁰. Given the uncertainty of threats, considering the complex unpredictability of political developments, and the limited scope of this academic project, this thesis focuses solely on the opportunities posed by Brexit.

This chapter examines the relevant legal framework in the field of animal. This will provide a better understanding of the expected legal developments of leaving the EU and, later, a chance to examine whether there is room for improvement and if so, how to achieve it.

2.1 Animal welfare under international law

The fact that the 180 member states of the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) recommended the institution to ‘support the development and implementation of OIE regional animal welfare strategies and consider the development of a global animal welfare strategy’²¹ is a fair illustration of the increasing global concern with the animal welfare issue. This concern has spread globally due to different reasons, among which, the concern for food safety and consumer health, ethical considerations, and compassion²². There is even divergence about whether the interest in animal welfare reflects a universal value, a global social normal, or even the rise of a general principle of law in the Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) sense, which would make it a formal source of international law²³.

However, despite the increasing worldwide concern, regulation on animal welfare remains insufficient at the international level. This is because international animal law is often thought of as very closely tied to environmental protection. Provisions are mainly targeted at conservation, ensuing its focus on ‘species’, rather than on the well-being and rights of individual animals. The furthest the animal welfare issue gets in the international law is in the OIE’s codes. The OIE was created to develop international standards for animal health as a reference for the World Trade Organisation, with its main purpose to

20 Idem.

21 OIE official website, Third OIE Global Conference on Animal Welfare: Implementing the OIE Standards – Addressing Regional Expectations, 2012.

22 Peters, 2016.

23 Idem.

(14)

prevent and control diseases in animals²⁴. OIE’s Terrestrial Code has a chapter devoted to recommendations for animal welfare, which it describes as ‘the physical and mental state of an animal in relation to the conditions in which it lives and dies’²⁵. The Aquatic Code also portraits concern with the welfare of farmed fish, as it advocates the use of ‘handling methods appropriate to the biological characteristics of the fish and a suitable environment to fulfil their needs’²⁶.

Regardless of the substantial number of instruments focused on wildlife, biodiversity, and endangered species at the international level, little, if any, attention is dedicated to the welfare, rights, and treatment of individual animals, especially those who are more frequently and numerously used and traded globally on a daily basis²⁷. In addition, animal welfare provisions are placed in secondary law sources emanating from organizations, bodies, and Conferences of the Parties (COP), contrary to treaty law, which can be problematic as secondary law sources are typically non legally binding²⁸. Without an international instrument specifically focused on the subject, animal welfare norms remain sparse across instruments primarily focused on other environmental-related topics, such as biodiversity and conservation treaties.

Examples of these treaties include the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which contains provisions obligating parties to minimize the risks of injury or cruel treatment during the transport of living animals²⁹, and the 1991 Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, which contains a provision requiring the taking of animal on the Antarctic landmass to be performed with the least degree of pain and suffering practicable³⁰. Another perceivable reflection of animal welfare concern in the existing international environmental law is in

24 OIE official website, ‘History’ page.

25 Article 7.1.1, Terrestrial Animal Health Code, World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE).

26 Article 7.1.2, Aquatic Animal Health Code, World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE).

27 Peters, 2016.

28 Idem.

29 Arts III(2) lit. (c) and VIII(3), Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), Washington, DC (US), 3 Mar. 1973, in force 1 July 1975.

30 Art. 3(6), Annex II, Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty: Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora, Madrid (Spain), 4 Oct. 1991, in force 14 Jan. 1998.

(15)

the 1958 UN Conference on the Law of the Sea that requested states ‘to prescribe, by all means available to them, those methods for the capture and killing of marine life, especially of whales and seals, which will spare them suffering to the greatest extent possible’³¹.

Similarly, the Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines for Sustainable Use of Biodiversity, adopted in 2004, called for a ‘more efficient, ethical and humane use’ of biodiversity³². Both the 1950 Convention for the Protection of Birds and the 1979 Berne Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats contain provisions prohibiting the use of blinded or mutilated decoys, also demonstrating a concern with animal welfare and cruelty prevention³³. Likewise, the 1972 Convention of the Conservation of Antarctic Seals enlists permitted capture methods, which are periodically reviewed in the interests of the ‘rational and humane use of seal resources’³⁴. Its Annex also authorizes the creation of recommendations designed to ensure a quick, painless, and efficient killing or capturing of seals, which indicates an interest in the welfare of individual seals³⁵.

The International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling has also been an important reference on the controversial concern about the welfare of individual animals under treaties with an initial conservational focus. The data submitted by Denmark in the Annual Report of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in 2004 showed that the time taken by larges whales to die from the moment of being struck occasionally reaches the mark of twelve hours³⁶. Such information provokes different reactions among IWC parties, leading countries such as the UK, Germany, and New Zealand, to argue that the

31 Resolution 5, on the Humane Killing of Marine Life, 1958 UN Conference on the Law ofthe Sea, Official Records, Vol. II, Doc. A/CONF.13/38.

32 Decision VII/12, Annex II, Practical Principle 11, Operational Guidelines. Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines for the Sustainable Use of Biodiversity, adopted under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 2004.

33 Article 5 of the 1950 Convention for the Protection of Birds, Paris, entry into force in 1963; and Appendix IV of the 1979 Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats.

34 Article 3, Convention of the Conservation of Antarctic Seals, London, 1972, entry into force in 1978.

35 Idem, Paragraph 7(a) of the annex.

36 Data submitted by Denmark in Annex G, ‘Chairman’s Report’, Annual Report of the International Whaling Commission, 2004.

(16)

Commission had a moral responsibility to consider welfare issues under its formal competencies, while other traditional whaling nations argue that this is not the scope of the Convention³⁷. Finally, the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards (AIHTS) between the EU, Canada, and the Russian Federation also demonstrates a concern with the welfare of wild animals, specifically fur-bearing animals trapped for their pelts, or for conservation and pest control purposes³⁸. Through this treaty, parties agreed on minimum trap humaneness standards.

These existing provisions on animal law at the international level, as seen, are sparse and lack sufficient enforcement mechanisms. Peters defined the current global animal law as

‘fragmented, often qualified, often inconsistent, unenforceable, and moreover unknown to most lawyers, law enforcers and legal scholars alike’³⁹. Similarly, White lamented the

‘current gap in the international legal protection of animal welfare’⁴⁰. Globalisation makes regulation at the domestic level insufficient to address global animal welfare problems alone, requiring complementation by international rules in order to be effective⁴¹. Kelch elaborated on this idea by recalling the existing differences in the cultural boundaries of states⁴². He pointed the problems with the globalised use of animals, which demands animal law to respond globally, requiring for a common language to be fashioned to cross-cultural differences⁴³. In this sense, Blattner developed the theory of extraterritorial jurisdiction, that will be further commented in chapter 5, as a way to fill this gap in the law.

Therefore, in the absence of a global enforceable instrument focused on the welfare of all animals, their protection remains compromised within fragmented excerpts of international treaties that do not address the aspect of globalisation and the trade of living beings. This gap reinforces the importance of states taking action at the national level, not

37 Bowman et al., 2010.

38 Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards (AIHTS), Brussels, 1997, entry into force in 2008.

39 Peters, 2016.

40 White, 2013, p. 392.

41 Peters, 2016.

42 Kelch, 2016.

43 Idem.

(17)

only by creating efficient animal protection regimes within their jurisdictions but also by taking a stand in accordance with this premise before the international trade regime.

Relying on the existing international instruments is simply not enough.

2.2 Animal welfare under EU law

The EU has an extensive body of animal welfare legislation, with over 40 animal welfare laws and some of the most progressive standards in the world⁴⁴. The Treaty of Lisbon, which came into force in 2009, moved the consideration of animal welfare to the centre of EU primary law, amending the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) to acknowledge animals as sentient beings. Article 13 of the TFEU now requires Member States to pay due regard to the sentience of animals when preparing policies in, for example, agriculture or the internal market. Besides the recognition of animal sentience, the EU sticks out for having banned the use of traditional cages for laying hens⁴⁵, veal crates⁴⁶, animal testing for cosmetic purposes⁴⁷, and the production and trade of seal, dog, and cats fur⁴⁸, besides the restriction on the use of sow stalls⁴⁹.

The EU animal welfare system encompasses five Conventions that function as general umbrellas to cover some of the main areas of animal use by humans: the European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals⁵⁰, the European Convention for the Protection of Animals During International Transport⁵¹, the European Convention for the

44 McCulloch, 2019; Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation, 2017.

45 Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens, Official Journal L 203, 03/08/1999 P. 53 –57.

46 Council Directive 2008/119/EC of 18 December 2008 laying down minimum standards for the protection of calves, OJ L 10, 15.1.2009, p. 7–13.

47 Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products, OJ L 342, 22.12.2009, p. 59–209.

48 Regulation (EC) No 1523/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 banning the placing on the market and the import to, or export from, the Community of cat and dog fur, and products containing such fur, OJ L 343, 27.12.2007, p. 1–4 and Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on trade in seal products, OJ L 286, 31.10.2009, p. 36–39.

49 Council Directive 2008/120/EC of 18 December 2008 laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs, OJ L 47, 18.2.2009, p. 5–13.

51 Treaty No. 065, Paris, 13/12/1968.

(18)

Protection of Animals for Slaughter⁵², the European Convention for the Protection of Vertebrate Animals used for Experimental and other Scientific Purposes⁵³, and the European Convention for the Protection of Animals kept for Farming Purposes⁵⁴. Further legislative instruments have been created to lay down specific welfare standards in each of these areas.

2.2.1 Farm animals

The most comprehensive set of rules in the EU animal law system is targeting farm animals. The European Convention for the Protection of Animals kept for Farming Purposes was created for the protection of animals bred or kept for the production of food, wool, skin, fur, or any other farming purposes, particularly animals in intensive stock- farming systems⁵⁵. The regulation concerning farmed animals provides for a detailed normative system that covers all different steps of production, including farming itself, transport, and killing. Farming activities in the EU are covered by five directives that establish minimum standards for different farm animals’ species, whilst the transport and killing of animals are prescribed by regulations. Directive 98/58 was initially created to lay down the general provisions applicable to all vertebrate farmed animals, providing detailed requirements ontopics such as staffing, inspection, record-keeping, freedom of movement, buildings and accommodation, equipment, feed and water, mutilations, and breeding procedures⁵⁶. Four other directives provide further requirements applicable for specific animals, as follows:

Directive 2008/119 lays down minimum standards for the protection of calves, focusing most on accommodation standards. It was designed as a response to intensive systems of breeding calves for ‘white’ veal meat. Before the directive, commercial practices in the production of veal meat commonly included calves being separated from their mothers

55Treaty No.087, Strasbourg, 10/03/1976.

56 Annex, Council Directive 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998 concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes, OJ L 221, 8.8.1998.

(19)

just a few hours after birth and kept in individual stalls, often tied by their heads, in complete darkness and submitted to a restrict diet that caused them malnutrition in order to keep their meat as ‘white’ as possible until the moment of slaughter⁵⁷. Thereupon, the directive established some prohibitions and minimum requirements, namely, to ensure that calves are not kept in darkness, to forbid tethering and muzzling, and to require that animals are fed an adequate diet in accordance with their biological needs.

Directive 2008/120 establishes minimum standards for the protection of pigs⁵⁸. Just as in the case of directive 2008/119, directive 2008/120 is also mainly focused on accommodation requirements, although important operational aspects of pigs’ production are also minutely specified. Previously to the directive, breeding pig females could be kept within individual stalls for their entire lives, without barely moving and unable to even turn around⁵⁹. Directive 2008/120 thus introduced group housing as compulsory for part of the breeding female lives, limiting individual stalls use to periods of natural service or artificial insemination, farrowing, and lactation.

Directive 1999/74 has specific provisions for laying hens⁶⁰. It defined the difference between three laying hens farming systems: unenriched cages, also known as conventional battery cages, in which hens have very little space to move and do not count with enrichment materials; enriched cages, which are equipped with enrichment materials and offer a bit more space for hens; and alternative systems, which are non-cage systems such as free-range or barn. The most progressive achievement of this directive was the prohibition of unenriched cages in the EU after 2012. Directive 2007/43 lays down minimum standards for the welfare of chicken kept for meat production, also referred to as broilers⁶¹. This directive introduced the concept of animal-based indicators for the first

57 Simonin - Gavinelli, 2019; Council Directive 2008/119/EC of 18 December 2008 laying down minimum standards for the protection of calves, OJ L 10, 15.1.2009.

58 Council Directive 2008/120/EC of 18 December 2008 laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs, OJ L 47, 18.2.2009.

59 Simonin - Gavinelli, 2019.

60 Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens, OJ L 203, 3.8.1999.

61 Council Directive 2007/43/EC of 28 June 2007 laying down minimum rules for the protection of chickens kept for meat production, OJ L 182, 12.7.2007.

(20)

time. It institutes a maximum stocking density of animals per area, in this case, 33 kg/m², possibly extended up to 39kg/m² and 42kg/m², in accordance with the quality of the management and the results of the monitoring of animals.

All five directives on farm animals reflect the so-called Five Freedoms, namely, the freedom from hunger and thirst; the freedom from discomfort; the freedom from pain, injury, and disease; the freedom to express normal behaviour; and the freedom from fear and distress⁶². The concept of Five Freedoms originated in 1965 with the Report of the UK Technical Committee to Enquire into the Welfare of Animals kept under Intensive Livestock Husbandry Systems, also known as the Brambell Report⁶³. The report was a governmental response to the outcry of the British public after the book Animal Machines, written by Ruth Harrison, which described in detail the intensive livestock practices of the time⁶⁴. The Brambell Report vindicated Harrison’s findings and set a course for policy reforms that were initially implemented in the UK and later spread into the EU. It is considered that Harrison’s work, along with the work done by the committee and the concept of the Five Freedoms, have laid down the groundwork for the very existence of the science of animal welfare⁶⁵.

Still with regards to farm animals, The European Convention for the Protection of Animals during International Transport⁶⁶ was created as a basis to set minimum requirements for the transport of domesticated animals. Later, Regulation 1/2005 specified compulsory requirements for the transport of vertebrate animals during economic activities⁶⁷. It is noted that although technical requirements were initially

62 European Commission official website.

63 Report of the Technical Committee to Enquire into the Welfare of Animals kept under Intensive Livestock Husbandry Systems. Chairman: Professor F. W. Rogers Brambell, F.R.S.,Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by Command of Her Majesty, 1965. Integral report available at https://edepot.wur.nl/134379, last accessed 06 Jan 2020.

64 ‘Animal machines’ was written by Ruth Harrison in 1964, and published by Cabi Publishing.

65 van de Weerd, S., 2008.

66 Treaty No.065, Paris, 13/12/1968.

67 Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations and amending Directives 64/432/EEC and 93/119/EC and Regulation (EC)

No 1255/97, OJ L 3, 5.1.2005.

(21)

designed for farm animals, part of the administrative requirements in the regulation is applicable to animals in other circumstances as well, for instance for the transport of wild animals, companion animals, and animals used for scientific purposes⁶⁸. These administrative requirements include, for example, that transporters must be authorised and that drivers have to obtain a certificate of competence, whilst technical requirements include, for example, requirements concerning the health and physical conditions of the animals transported, the handling of animals, besides transport practices.

The European Convention for the Protection of Animals for Slaughter established the initial framework to harmonise rules about slaughtering farm animals as humanely as possible⁶⁹. Regulation 1099/2009 on the killing of animals specifies the rules applicable where animals are killed in the context of production⁷⁰. The regulation requires animals to be stunned before the killing and describe different methods of stunning depending on the animals’ species and other circumstances. Although slaughter without stunning remains permitted in the context of ritual slaughter at the EU level, Member States have the freedom to introduce their own national rules ensuring more extensive protection for ritual slaughters. On these lines, Belgium introduced a ban on the ritualistic slaughter method for producing kosher and halal meat, which requires animals to be slaughtered without prior stunning⁷¹. Jewish and Muslim associations challenged the ban on the ground of religious freedom at the European Court, which upheld Belgium’s decision to require reversible stunning procedures before slaughter in order to safeguard the welfare of animals at the time of death. This decision was an important landmark in the discussion of balancing the rights of animals before the rights of humans – in this case, the freedom of religion.

68 Simonin - Gavinelli, 2019.

69 Treaty No.102, Strasbourg, 1979,

70 Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on the protection of animals at the time of killing, OJ L 303, 18.11.2009.

71 Case C-336/19 Centraal Israëlitisch Consistorie van België and Others. Judgement of the Court 17 December 2020, available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62019CJ0336&from=FI (last accessed on 22 June 2021).

(22)

Additionally, other EU laws with farm animal welfare implications include Regulation 1307/2013/EU on direct payments to farmers under support schemes⁷², Regulation 1308/2013/EU on export subsidies for live cattle⁷³, Regulation 1305/2013 on support for rural development⁷⁴, and Regulations 834/2007/EC⁷⁵ and 889/2008/EC⁷⁶ on organic production and labelling of organic products – which include high animal welfare standards as one of the principal objectives in organic production.

2.2.2 Research animals

The European Convention for the Protection of Vertebrate Animals used for Experimental and other Scientific Purposes establishes the framework to regulate the welfare of experimental animals⁷⁷. Directive 2010/63 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes lays down minimum standards for the housing and care of animals and regulates their use through a systematic assessment of pain, suffering distress, and lasting harm⁷⁸. The directive is based on the ‘principle of three Rs’, that incentives to replace, reduce, and refine the use of animals used for scientific purposes as much as possible. Regulation 2019/1010 amended Article 6 of the directive to improve

72 Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009.

73 Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council

Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007, OJ L 347, 20.12.2013.

74 Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005, OJ L 347, 20.12.2013.

75 Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91, OJ L 189, 20.7.2007

76 Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 of 5 September 2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products with regard to organic production, labelling and control, OJ L 250, 18.9.2008.

78 Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes Text with EEA relevance

OJ L 276, 20.10.2010.

(23)

transparency and reporting obligations in the context of the scientific use of animals⁷⁹. Another relevant legislation for experimental animals in the EU is Regulation 1223/2009⁸⁰, which replaced the Directive 76/768/EEC⁸¹, known as ‘The Cosmetic directive’, in which a programme was established to phase out animal testing of cosmetic products. This topic will be further covered in the next chapter, under section 3.1.

2.2.3 Pet animals

In sequence, The European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals instituted the groundwork for the protection of the welfare of ‘pet animals kept for private enjoyment and companionship’⁸². However, the EU’s competence in animal welfare is limited. In this sense, the convention merely reiterates Member States’ scope to undertake the necessary actions to protect pet animals. As a result, legislation concerning companion animals may differ greatly among Member States^83. It is, nonetheless, important to mention that the commercialization of cat and dog fur is banned within the EU common market as a result of Regulation 1523/2007/EC⁸⁴.

2.2.4 Wild animals

Finally, concerning wild animals, despite the vast provisions in EU law, just as it happens in the international animal law, most of the instruments affecting wild animals have a

79 Regulation (EU) 2019/1010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on the alignment of reporting obligations in the field of legislation related to the environment, and amending Regulations (EC) No 166/2006 and (EU) No 995/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Directives 2002/49/EC, 2004/35/EC, 2007/2/EC, 2009/147/EC and 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, Council Regulations (EC) No 338/97 and (EC) No 2173/2005, and Council Directive 86/278/EEC, PE/8/2019/REV/1, OJ L 170, 25.6.2019.

80Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products, OJ L 342, 22.12.2009.

81Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products, OJ L 262, 27.9.1976.

83 European Commission official website, ‘Animals’.

84 Regulation (EC) No 1523/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 banning the placing on the market and the import to, or export from, the Community of cat and dog fur, and products containing such fur, OJ L 343, 27.12.2007.

(24)

rather conservative approach on species, which exceeds the limits of this study. However, relevant cross-sectoral provisions between conservation and animal welfare are found in the Birds Directive⁸⁵, the Habitat Directive⁸⁶, the Firearms Directive⁸⁷, and in the Wild Game Meat Directive (1992)⁸⁸, as those instruments play a relevant role in shaping hunting policies in the EU. According to the Birds Directive, for instance, all wild bird species in the EU are protected from deliberate killing or capture, disturbance, destruction of the nests and eggs. Additionally, Regulation 2019/1241 restricted the use of driftnets, which resulted in enhanced protection and welfare for certain marine animals⁸⁹. Finally, Regulation 1007/2009/EC on the trade of seal products prohibited the placing of seal products in the EU market subjected to limited exceptions, as a response to the expressed concern with the welfare of seals during the hunt, killing, and skinning methods⁹⁰. 2.3 Animal welfare legislation in the UK

EU law is deeply entangled within the UK’s domestic legal system. Around 80% of the UK domestic animal law comes from the EU⁹¹. The next section analyses the precise effects of being a member state of the EU in terms of law harmonization and the hierarchy

85 Directive 79/409/EEC, 1979, amended in 2009, when it became Directive 2009/147/EC of the

European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds OJ L 20, 26.1.2010.

86Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

87 Council Directive 91/477/EEC of 18 June 1991 on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons OJ L 256, 13.9.1991.

88 Council Directive 92/45/EEC of 16 June 1992 on public health and animal health problems relating to the killing of wild game and the placing on the market of wild-game meat, OJ L 268, 14.9.1992, repealed by Directive 2004/41/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 repealing certain directives concerning food hygiene and health conditions for the production and placing on the market of certain products of animal origin intended for human consumption and amending council directives 89/662/EC and 92/118/EEC and Council Decision 95/408/EC, OJ L 157, 30.4.2004.

89 Regulation (EU) 2019/1241 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on the conservation of fisheries resources and the protection of marine ecosystems through technical measures, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1967/2006, (EC) No 1224/2009 and Regulations (EU) No 1380/2013, (EU) 2016/1139, (EU) 2018/973, (EU) 2019/472 and (EU) 2019/1022 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 894/97, (EC) No 850/98, (EC) No 2549/2000, (EC) No 254/2002, (EC) No 812/2004 and (EC) No 2187/2005, PE/59/2019/REV/1, OJ L 198, 25.7.2019.

90 Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 on trade in seal products, OJ L 286, 31.10.2009.

91 Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation, 2017.

(25)

of laws. This is relevant before analysing the effects of leaving the EU. For now, the focus is on the substance of the domestic animal law in the UK before Brexit. To begin with, the UK was the first country in the world to implement animal protection laws⁹². The Act to Prevent the Cruel and Improper Treatment of Cattle, known as Martin’s Act was created in 1822, criminalizing the cruel treatment of certain domesticated animals, such as cattle and horses⁹³. In 1911, the first general animal protection provision, namely the Protection of Animals Act⁹⁴, was instituted and later replaced by the Animal Welfare Act⁹⁵ in 2007, applicable only in England and Wales. The central instruments on animal welfare in Scotland and Northern Ireland are the Animal Health and Welfare Act⁹⁶ (2006) and the Welfare of Animals Act⁹⁷ (2011), respectively.

The Animal Welfare Act consolidated more than twenty pieces of animal protection legislation, including the mentioned Protection of Animals Act. The act applies to all vertebrate animals other than humans, with the possibility of extending its applicability to invertebrate animals ‘if the national authority is satisfied, on the basis of scientific evidence, that animals of the kind concerned are capable of experiencing pain or suffering’⁹⁸. There is,however, an exemption for experimental animals, and for anything that occurs within the normal course of fishing⁹⁹.

The World Animal Protection, an international not-for-profit animal welfare organization, shows the UK in the top position of their Animal Protection Index, together

92 Wise, S. M, 2016; BBC ‘Welfare law in the UK’, 2014.

93 Wise, S. M, 2016.

94 Protection of Animals Act 1911, An Act to consolidate, amend, and extend certain enactments relating to Animals and to Knackers; and to make further provision with respect thereto, 1911 Chapter 27 1 and 2 Geo 5, 18th August 1911.

95 Animal Welfare Act 2006, An Act to make provision about animal welfare; and for connected purposes, 2006 Chapter 45, 8th November 2006.

96 Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, 2006 asp 11, An Act of the Scottish Parliament to amend the Animal Health Act 1981, including by making provision for preventing the spread of disease;

to make provision for the welfare of animals, including for prevention of harm; and for connected purposes. The Bill for this Act of the Scottish Parliament was passed by the Parliament on 31st May 2006 and received Royal Assent on 11th July 2006.

97 Welfare of Animals Act (Northern-Ireland) 2011, 2011 CHAPTER 16, An Act to make provision about animal welfare, 29th March 2011.

98 Animal Welfare Act 2006, Introductory chapter, ‘Animals to which the Act applies’.

99 Animal Welfare Act 2006 - Sections 58(1) and 59.

(26)

with Austria, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Switzerland. This index rates animal welfare and conservation policies in fifty countries, measuring each nation’s efforts to improve animal welfare through legislation, sentience recognition, governance practices, and enactment of higher standards.¹⁰⁰ This is a reflex of the UK’s agency in implementing more stringent measures beyond EU minimum standards. For instance, whilst there is currently no EU legislation on the welfare of animals used in circuses, the UK government has passed a ban on the use of wild animals in travelling circuses in England, which came into force in January 2020¹⁰¹. A similar ban came into force in Wales very recently, in December 2020, passed with unanimously support by the Welsh Government¹⁰². Likewise, wild-animal circuses have been banned in Scotland in May 2018¹⁰³. Albeit no ban has been imposed by Northern Ireland so far, the country has no resident circuses with wild animals¹⁰⁴.

In addition, in 1985 the UK Department of the Environment commissioned a biological research on the keeping of cetaceans for recreational purposes after concerns brought by certain animal welfare groups¹⁰⁵. The scientific report brought recommendations that were enacted in the legislation, and as none of the dolphinariums met the new minimum requirements, all remaining facilities were closed¹⁰⁶. As a result, no cetaceans are currently held in captivity in the UK¹⁰⁷. Other relevant provisions on the welfare of wild animals in the UK are expressed in the Wild Mammals Act¹⁰⁸, the Protection of Badgers

100 World Animal Protection, ‘Animal Protection Index’ (interactive map).

101 Wild Animals in Circuses Act 2019, Chapter 24, An Act to make provision to prohibit the use of wild animals in travelling circuses, 24th July 2019.

102 Welsh Government official website, ‘Use of wild animals in circuses to be banned in Wales after Bill passed’.

103Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (Scotland) Act 2018, An Act of the Scottish Parliament to make it an offence to use wild animals in travelling circuses, 2018 asp 3, The Bill for this Act of the Scottish Parliament was passed by the Parliament on 20th December 2017 and received Royal Assent on 24th January 2018.

104 BornFree, ‘Wild Animals Circuses in Northern Ireland’.

105 World Animal Protection ‘Country review: United Kingdom’.

106 M. Klinowska, S. Brown, Great Britain Department of the Environment - A Review of Dolphinaria Prepared for the Department of the Environment, 1986.

107 Idem.

108 Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996, An Act to make provision for the protection of wild mammals from certain cruel acts; and for connected purposes, 1996 Chapter 3, 29th February 1996.

(27)

Act¹⁰⁹, the Conservation of Seals Act¹¹⁰, and the Deer Act¹¹¹, deepening the EU legal framework on hunting, as mentioned in the subsection 2.1.2, to guarantee activities are not done in a cruel manner.

Pertaining to farm animals, most standards applicable in the UK are not higher than the ones at the EU level, although the government has introduced a variety of supplementary national policies to address topical welfare issues. Examples comprise providing technical support for farmers¹¹², the publication of advice for farmers to cope with extreme weather conditions¹¹³, and the publication of an extensive code of practice on the welfare of horses^114. The main piece of legislation transposing EU requirements on farm animals in the UK is the Welfare of Farmed Animals Regulation¹¹⁵. The most important difference is the ban on fur farming. The activity has been banned in the UK on welfare grounds since 2000, after the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act entered into force in England and Wales¹¹⁶– Northern Ireland and Scotland had no fur farms but also imposed bans a couple of years later¹¹⁷. At the EU level, the activity is lawful and widely practiced, although dog, cat, and seal furs have been protected from it, as mentioned in the section above. Also, the UK had already imposed a total ban on sow stalls in 1999¹¹⁸, almost a

109 Protection of Badgers Act 1992, An Act to consolidate the Badgers Act 1973, the Badgers Act 1991 and the Badgers (Further Protection) Act 1991, 16th July 1992.

110 Conservation of Seals Act 1970, An Act to provide for the protection and conservation of seals in England and Wales and Scotland and in the adjacent territorial waters, 1970 Chapter 30, 29th May 1970.

111 Deer Act 1991, An Act to consolidate certain enactments relating to deer with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission, 1991 Chapter 54, 25th July 1991.

112 Animal & Plant Health Agency official website ‘Guidance and Regulation’.

113 UK Government official website. Guidance on ‘Keeping farm animals and horses in extreme weather’, last updated on 21 October 2020.

114 UK Government, Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA), ‘Code of Practice for the Welfare of Horses, Ponies, Donkeys and Their Hybrids’, 2017.

115 The Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007, 2007 No. 2078, in force in 1st October 2007.

116 Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act (2000), An Act to prohibit the keeping of animals solely or primarily for slaughter for the value of their fur; to provide for the making of payments in respect of the related closure of certain businesses; and for connected purposes. 2000 chapter 33, 23rd November 2000.

117 The Fur Farming (Prohibition), (Northern Ireland) Order 2002, 17th December 2002 and Fur Farming (Prohibition) (Scotland) Bill, SP Bill 39, introduced in 5 October 2001.

118 European Parliament official website, Parliamentary questions, Subject: Implementation of ban on individual sow stalls, 27/11/2013.

(28)

decade before a partial ban was introduced at the EU level¹¹⁹. Standards on the live transport and slaughtering of farm animals remain the same in the UK as in the EU law.

Finally, the support for international animal welfare standards is stronger in the UK than it is at the EU level. The World’s Organization for Animal Health (OIE) animal welfare standards focus on six pillars, namely, transport, slaughter, production systems, stray dog population control, use of animals in research and education, and working equids, all of which have been incorporated in UK’s legislation and codes of practices – the latter having quasi-statutory authority¹²⁰. On the other hand, although the EU has incorporated most of OIE’s guiding principles and standards on animal welfare in its legislative system, the regulation on the welfare of pet animals is limited to the countries that have ratified the European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals. Consequently, the welfare of stray dogs is currently not governed at the EU level.

2.4 Legal effects of Brexit

2.4.1 EU competence to legislate on animal welfare

The EU operates under the principles of conferred competencies and subsidiarity, which are both defined in article 5 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). According to the principle of conferral, the competencies not conferred upon the Union in the Treaties remain with the member states. In line with the principle of subsidiarity, in areas that do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Union shall act only if and in so far as the objectives cannot be sufficiently achieved by the member states. In other words, policy and law can only be enacted at the Union’s level either when it falls under its exclusive competence or when the objectives of the proposed action can be better achieved by the EU. Article 4 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)¹²¹ provides that the relevant areas in the context of animal welfare, such as the internal market,

119 The EU ban was introduced in 2008 by Directive 2008/120/EC, which laid down minimum standards for the protection of pigs.

120 OIE official website, ‘OIE animal welfare standards’.

121 OJ C 326, 26.10.2012.

(29)

agriculture, fisheries, and the environment fall under the shared competencies of the EU and its member states.

EU’s policies and laws on animal welfare have always been based on the founding treaties, even though they initially did not make specific mentions to animal welfare. In 2009, though, with the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, article 13 of the TFEU was amended to state that ‘in formulating and implementing the Union's agriculture, fisheries, transport, internal market, research, and technological development and space policies, the Union and the Member States shall, since animals are sentient beings, pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals, while respecting the legislative or administrative provisions and customs of the Member States relating in particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage’, thus providing an unequivocal legal basis for the concern with animal welfare in its primary law.

However, it is important to emphasize that the EU’s competence in animal welfare is limited. It is not, as such, an EU objective by treaty, and as explained by the Commission, legislating on animal welfare ‘is only relevant if it affects EU policies such as the internal market, agriculture or public heath’¹²². Therefore, certain topics of animal protection that do not interact with the areas mentioned in Article 13 TFEU, remain under the responsibility of the Member States. Examples include the protection of pet animals and some welfare aspects of wild animals kept in captivity. In areas widely covered by EU law, such as the welfare of farm animals, national governments may adopt more stringent rules, provided they are compatible with the provisions of the treaties. This ability to act beyond EU minimum standards is the reason why the UK stands out as a pioneer country in animal protection¹²³.

2.4.2 Member states’ scope to legislate on animal welfare

122 European Commission, brochure on ‘The welfare of companion animals in Europe’.

123i.e. in indexes such as the Animal Protection Index, mentioned in the previous section.

A Fair Deal for Animals: A legal pathway for higher animal welfare in the post-Brexit UK