Essential Features of Future R&D - Drivers and Constraints

3.1 AAWS Objectives

The R&D Advisory Group noted that two of the AAWS Objectives (in Goal 2) support an active, strategic, R&D programme in animal welfare.  These are:

1. To maintain and improve the scientific basis for animal welfare standards.
   Activities under this Objective are to: 
   
   -  Identify possible research and development needs and to encourage greater investment in research areas by industry and government through existing funding mechanisms.
   -  Explore options for funding and establish national animal welfare research priorities.
   
2. To ensure that new knowledge gained through research on animal welfare is broadly communicated and adopted into national animal welfare standards.
   Activities under this Objective are to:
   
   - Establish a process whereby welfare research is continually monitored and, where applicable, sustainable standards can be updated.

Implementation priorities under Goal 2 of the endorsed AAWS National Implementation Plan (NIP) include “… achieve consistency of Australian animal welfare requirements, based on national and international benchmarks, and scientific evaluation and research.”

It is critically important that technical support, including research and development, is available to inform development of improved, sustainable, national animal welfare assessment methodology, practices, codes and standards.  Additional to the significance of these evidence-based practices domestically, the R&D Advisory Group noted the importance of the international arena.  Australia’s continued involvement in the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE), which is developing international animal welfare guidelines, is crucial.

This is reflected in activity 10 of the NIP - for Australia “…to contribute to the benchmarking of international animal welfare outcomes by assisting in the development of international standards through the World Organisation for Animal Health (Office International des Epizooties — OIE)”.  The AAWS is consistent with the international view, expressed by OIE, that good animal welfare correlates with good animal health outcomes.  AAWS’ contribution to international debate and agenda-setting is expected to lead to improved quality and availability of locally relevant science - for national application as well as for consideration by OIE, the Quads group of countries³ and other international committees when developing sustainable international guidelines. 

There is capacity to develop such an approach in an agreed and strategic manner through the AAWS.  Activity 14 of the NIP states that Australia will ‘identify possible research and development needs and encourage greater investment in research areas by industry and government through existing funding mechanisms’.  Additionally it lists ‘enhanced collaboration between RDCs and research institutions, within Australia and internationally will be achieved’ as an outcome from this activity. 

3.2 AAWS Stocktake

The AAWS Stocktake process identified a series of broad priorities derived from individual sectoral needs (see ‘Priorities for Action from Inventories of Animal Welfare Arrangements’ by Kevin Shiell, August 2006). 

The Research Priorities meeting in Sydney in July 2006 reviewed the breadth of current commitments and discussed in broad terms the concept of an Australian animal welfare ‘centre’.  It was clear both that:

a)  the Rural Industry R&D Corporations had their own, industry-specific objectives
b)  a number of research providers have capacity and skills in the animal welfare area
c)  there was currently no over-arching national animal welfare R&D agenda to improve the scientific basis for animal welfare standards
d)  the meeting revealed no unanimous view on an R&D agenda;
e)  there was incomplete support, at this and the 2nd National Workshop, for an Animal Welfare CRC bid
f)  moves to address animal welfare R&D priorities in a strategic way would necessitate clear funding pathways dedicated to this area of science.

The R&D Advisory Group recognizes that the AAWS R&D discussion does not take place in an empty landscape – there are existing funders with strategic plans, institutional research agendas, investments and skill-sets.  To avoid unproductive duplication, the role of an AAWS-sponsored R&D agenda and establishment of a ‘centre’ needs to recognize and ‘leverage’ existing stakeholders, skills and capacities.

3.3 Diverse Nature of the Sectors

The Strategy’s six Sectors were created in order to group human interaction with all higher animal species.  The sectors and their needs, are very diverse. 

Of the six sectors, two are primarily driven by people breeding animals for the private sector (Companion and Work/sport/recreation Sectors). 

Two Sectors span environmental/ecological management - Wild Animals and Aquatic. 

Research and Teaching is a smaller, highly focused and regulated sector, which is (notwithstanding research grant income) self-funded through practicing institutions and supported by the biomedical/pharmaceutical industries. 

The Livestock/Production Animals sector is primarily private sector, but subject to significant direct and indirect regulation.  While animal welfare is not a justifiable element of official trade regulation, its impact does affect the cost of animal production up to the point of processing.  There may be commercial opportunities for producers who can clearly demonstrate high levels of animal welfare in the production of animals and animal products.

In considering the R&D plan, the Advisory Group noted the sectoral views of R&D priority areas (categories) that were expressed at the 2006 National Workshop.  These are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1: R&D importance matrix topic and sector - from 2006 national workshop

The R&D Advisory Group recognises that sectoral groups were not using a common, explicit, weighting system to prioritise and too many topics appeared in the ‘high priority’ zone.  While this information thus gives no compelling priority area for animal welfare R&D, it suggests that the aquatic and recreational sectors see less overall need for R&D.  The Advisory Group considers it worthwhile to ask each sector to clearly define the relative importance of each of these categories by use of a clear, consistent ranking process. This will be done during sectoral group meetings in the period up to and during the 3rd AAWS National Conference, 3-5 December, 2007.

The Advisory Group considered this information coming out of the 2006 Workshop and other discussions and posed three questions:

• Was R&D more important to one Sector than another?
  
  
• Were there clear drivers for a animal R&D investment?  If so, in which sector/s?
  
  
• Did the first two questions resolve a major R&D focus?

3.4 Current Investments - General Issues

As noted above, the rural industry R&D Corporations presently invest in animal welfare in their own industries, with government co-funding.  Australian Wool Innovation Ltd for example has a significant program into development of non-surgical alternatives to mulesing. 

An issue which emerged from the 2nd national workshop was the need to ensure a strong linkage between R&D outcomes and uptake/application, particularly by industry, through QA and other support and extension services.  It was seen as equally important that governments recognise research outcomes and current science during development of government codes and standards, as well as practices and requirements adopted to implement regulatory responsibilities. This process was seen as a gap by some industries. 

A related issue was a concern that implementation of some ‘best practice’ measures identified by research may reduce Australian producers’ competitiveness, because of the cost or additional requirements. This potentially favoured suppliers who operate from other countries at a lesser standard, and therefore may work against the welfare interest of animals at a more global level.

The Australian Government’s policy is this respect is very clear, and consistent with the current view of the WTO.  Animal welfare is not an issue that an importing country can raise to limit market access.  Accordingly, the need is for implementation of any animal welfare arrangements to be consistent and delivered cost-effectively to reduce the potential for commercial impact in a global trading environment.  As noted however, there may be commercial opportunities for ‘niche’ marketing of animal products that can be verified as produced in an ‘ethical’ manner.

Public sector Veterinary Training institutions and animal biology research groups play a major, complementary, role in delivering information on animal welfare.  These include:

• University of Melbourne
  
  
• University of Queensland
  
  
• University of Sydney
  
  
• Murdoch University
  
  
• James Cook University
  
  
• Charles Sturt University
  
  
• University of New England
  
  
• CRCs (Beef, Sheep, Poultry, Invasive Animals)
  
  
• CSIRO.

3.5 Rural R&D Corporation (RDC) Priorities

In May 2007, the Commonwealth Government announced revised rural industry research priorities, which address the challenges of the next 5 - 10 years.  These include, in relation to supply chain and markets, the “… achievement of animal welfare objectives in livestock production, transport and slaughter, the management of working animals and the control of pest animals⁴. ”  These priorities were developed in consultation with interest groups including industry.

This priority may result in research funds being channeled to the field of animal welfare.  However, it is most likely that each of the industry-based RDCs will internally prioritise work to address the specific needs of its industry stakeholders.  While such work may make significant contribution to the body of knowledge on animal welfare, it will not necessarily contribute to a national agenda, be coordinated with other research in the general area or be freely available (because of contractual undertakings).

3.6 Priorities for Research Providers

As a coarse generalisation, the focus of Australian university research is driven by the professional capacity of academic staff.  While an element of concentration is provided by structural arrangements, such as topic-focused Australian Research Council research centres, ARC Linkage grants, CRCs etc, the majority of research funding is allocated through a competitive process to Discovery grants.  There are no ARC Special Research Centres (or similar) in the area of animal welfare at present.  ARC does not plan to create more collaborative centres at present.  Thus, although ARC funds significant biological science research (141 Biological Science and Biotechnology Discovery grants were announced in 2006 with $274m funding allocation⁵) there is no active focus on animal welfare projects.

The CSIRO has a different model, where researchers apply professional skills within programs (or Flagships) which have a balance of curiosity and outcome-driven objectives.  Service to industry is a significant function for CSIRO.  In the animal production area there is a considerable inventory of applicable research expertise and established collaborative links between researchers, both nationally and internationally.  This inventory can be applied to animal welfare research when it is prioritised.

As the AAWS R&D Stocktake process indicated, Australia is well-served by researchers with expertise in animal biology, production and behavior, all of which link with animal welfare.  There are individual laboratories at a number of institutions and a smaller number of agencies with groups of researchers and labs servicing programs with animal biology focus. 

Interaction between researchers sharing animal welfare interest is common in Australia and the Research Advisory Group reported a high degree of openness and collaboration.  Researchers meet at conferences and other meetings in a collegiate atmosphere where links and projects are discussed informally.  There are however few formal, national linking arrangements.  There is, for example, no professional ‘animal welfare research society’.  With the exception of the Animal Welfare Science Centre in Victoria and the University of Queensland’s Centre for Animal Welfare and Ethics, no agency focuses primarily on welfare.  The Research Advisory Group heard that the AAWS was recognised by researchers as a new model that has potential to both improve collegiate linkages and generate impetus for development of formal institutional linkages.  This was particularly so to address overarching themes where cross-sectoral work is needed.

The Research Advisory Group had to limit its coverage of existing research activities to those that have relevance for animal welfare.  Not all animal biology research could be embraced.  The boundaries of animal welfare research are permeable and the Group found it necessary to create a boundary and limit itself to that research which is conducted primarily to understand or advance the welfare of an individual animal or species.  Research where the outcome is increased productivity may have a welfare component, but is not, in this context, captured as ‘animal welfare research’.

A feature sought by research providers, the Research Advisory Group noted, was greater project funding continuity, to allow graduate student and junior researcher progression and development.  Three-year funding, the norm for ARC grants, is seen as suboptimal.  Five-year funding was preferred as it facilitates the development and transition of doctoral researchers into post-doctoral programmes that build the research capacity within the particular institution..

3.7 Domestic and International Drivers of Change

The Research Advisory Group has noted the calls for animal welfare reform.   As the AAWS Stakeholder Analysis⁶ found:

“The research review also detected high interest by Australians in wildlife and a concomitant concern about protecting habitats. Public concerns about the welfare of livestock animals are often focused on living conditions and animals’ ability to express natural (social) behaviours. Conversely, farmers’ animal welfare concerns tended to focus on the physical condition of livestock animals.   Public concerns about livestock animals in Australia are growing.”

Currently, transnational Non Government Organisations (NGOs) are lobbying to constrain long distance animal transport on grounds of alleged inherent and unavoidable poor welfare experiences due to the transport and the animal handling practices the animals may be exposed to. 

Some of Australia’s trading partners have also argued in favour of mandating practices which are difficult and unprofitable for many exporting countries, including for Australian animal production, and introduce penalising systems for non-compliance.  Alternative approaches have also been mooted, including mandatory welfare labeling of retail products to a national standard with little or no capacity for recognition of ‘equivalence’ of animal welfare outcomes in the systems that apply in other countries.

There are also significant moves in the commercial sector to incorporate systems for assurance of ‘ethical production’ in end products derived from animals for consumers.  In some other countries these commercial requirements have become de facto trading standards for the industry that producers need to meet in order to access any significant retail outlets.  There are perceived advantages to Australia adopting, promoting and displaying a coordinated process where research supports evidence-based codes of practice.  Being proactive in agenda-setting is preferable to being reactive.

⁴ Rural Research and Development Priorities, DAFF, 2007

⁵ Summary of Information on Funding Outcomes (announced 2006) - Australian Research Council PDF [82kb]

⁶ Mazur, N. et al, Australian Animal Welfare Strategy Stakeholder Analysis Phases 1- 4, Bureau of Rural Sciences, 2006

Previous page | Contents | Next page