Priorities for Government Policy Making

There are a variety of drivers of policy, here they are summarised as domestic or international issues and consequences.

4.1 Domestic Issues

• The study⁷ on community attitudes, commissioned by AAWS, revealed widespread societal interest in animal welfare and emotional engagement, but shallow appreciation of the complexity of issues.  Initial interpretation of ‘animal welfare’ was typically narrow and negative. Particular issues, by Sector, were:
• Livestock – comparatively strong awareness of issues in this sector.  Key concerns related to the live export trade and battery hens.
• Companion animals – strong affinity with this sector, low level of concern in this sector based on assumptions.
• Animals in research and teaching – regarded as an ‘unfortunate necessity’ and believed to be well-regulated.
• Animals used for work, sport, recreation – mixed concerns including doping, exploitation, animals being used for profit and retirement/euthanasia.  There was an assumption that animal used for work were more valued by their owners and consequently well-treated.
• Animals in the wild – high awareness of issues surrounding pest animals, particularly environmental aspects such as destruction of habitat and extinction of species.
• Aquatic animals – low salience to the community and welfare of fish rarely considered.
  
  
• The study found, despite a keen interest in the topic, a shallow understanding of the issues. It reported “The general public is easily emotionally engaged with the topic of animal welfare, however when challenged for factual information, responses are often narrow or superficial.” Awareness stems largely from media reports (often sensationalist) on distressing stories of animal cruelty. Worryingly, from the Strategy’s perspective, was the level of misinformation held by interviewees.
  
  
• The study also reported a low appreciation of government presence in animal welfare arena and of the Strategy.  There was, however, openness to authoritative information.  That authoritative information should be available to reassure public concern that animal ‘use’ is not causing unnecessary harm.
  
  
• It follows that scientific discussion should be part of strategic agenda-setting, rather than reactive.  Also, that animal welfare requirements should be informed by science.  Further, ability to deliver improved animal welfare outcomes should be verifiable, and that any regulatory impact should be kept to a reasonable level – no more than that required to achieve and demonstrate an agreed level of compliance.

4.2 International Issues

Animal welfare issues seen at the domestic level can also be played-out on a larger stage.  The Government’s concern is both to support effective international trade regulatory systems and to ensure that misinformation impacting on the international community’s views of Australia’s animal welfare credentials is effectively redressed.  Issues include:

• Supporting the current WTO rules which focus on ‘animal health’ rather than welfare is important.  Providing a science foundation for this continuing argument is highly desirable.
  
  
• Concern about potential introduction of compulsory animal welfare 'labeling' obligations on producers/processors to match an arbitrary ‘standard’. The ‘labeling’ approach can be seen in other sectors, for example vehicle sales, where concordance with tough EU standards (in this case for emissions) is used as a marketing tool.
  
  
• Concern over payments to producers for the costs of animal welfare requirements and efforts to have such payments isolated from consideration as 'subsidies' through recognition of them as 'blue' or 'green' box payments. 
  
  
• Concern, generally, about international campaigns against Australian production systems – this represents a serious ongoing risk which can be mitigated in part by government and industry being on the front-foot.  Australia’s ability to project authoritative, coherent, evidence-based, positions on animal welfare will assist in this area.
  
  
• Trade and food safety – Australian production systems are very cost-competitive and underpinned by strong animal health and food safety requirements.  It is well established that good animal welfare outcomes in agricultural industries are closely linked to good animal health outcomes but Australia does not accept that animal welfare should be an element for official regulation of international trade by Governments. Nevertheless, commercial groups are increasingly recognizing this link in sourcing requirements.
  
  
• While Australian livestock systems are cost-competitive, competition from other agriculture exporting nations is increasing.  Within the OECD, Australia is the country most at risk from fluctuations in price and accessibility to export markets for animals and animal products (a very high proportion, perhaps as high as 75%, of animal production in Australia is directed to supplying export markets). This is because Australia’s domestic market is already supplied from local sources therefore disruption to exports could not be compensated for by increase in domestic sales. Given the size of the domestic market and the energy of primary production enterprises, the high proportion of product entering the international trading system is not surprising.  This trade is nationally valuable but industries involved have vocal critics both domestically and internationally.
  
  
• There is also increasing competition to Australia’s animal fibre-producing industries from synthetics and other natural-fibre producing (and trading) countries. 
  
  
• In this difficult trading environment, a commercial ‘edge’ that can be provided by a ‘clean, green’ image, underpinned by verified systems, is valuable.  Likewise, effective demonstration that Australia has sound animal welfare through argument and science is important in light of contrary allegations.
  
  
• Australia’s social history has generated primary production industries which are adjusted to this unique geophysical and regulatory landscape.  There is an opportunity for a structured domestic, science-based, discussion to assess whether animal welfare outcomes are different from those found in intensive agricultural countries.

Recent events have heightened the Government’s concern about the risks to the integrity of our national systems and Australia’s commercial position.  The uncertain and evolving environment suggests that Government leadership in establishing an authoritative, collaborative, centre of scientific expertise is justified.

4.3 OIE Centres

The World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) is the intergovernmental organisation responsible for improving animal health worldwide.  It is recognised as a reference organisation by the World Trade Organization (WTO) and as of May 2007, had a total of 169 Member Countries and Territories.

At its time of establishment, the main aims of the OIE were:

a. To promote and co-ordinate all experimental and other research work concerning the pathology or prophylaxis of contagious diseases of livestock for which international collaboration is deemed desirable.


b. To collect and bring to the attention of the Governments or their sanitary services, all facts and documents of general interest concerning the spread of epizootic diseases and the means used to control them.


c. To examine international draft agreements regarding animal sanitary measures and to provide signatory Governments with the means of supervising their enforcement.

More recently the OIE has recognized that it has a broader mandate, including to provide leadership on the development of guidelines for its members to help them improve animal welfare.

As part of its work the OIE may recognise ‘Collaborating Centres’.  These are centres of expertise in a specific designated sphere of competence relating to the management of general questions on animal health issues (for example epidemiology, risk analysis, etc.). In its designated field of competence, they must provide their expertise internationally. 

There are presently twenty-two Collaborating Centres, including a centre for ‘Animal Welfare Science and Bioethical Analysis (Asia/Pacific)’ based at Massey University.  The material and process required for an application to be recognised as an OIE Centre is not overly demanding. 

The benefits of a Centre are their status and recognition by OIE and its members of the substantial skills and expertise embraced by the Centre.  They are mandated to :

• operate as centres of research, expertise, standardisation and dissemination of techniques within their sphere of competence
  
  
• to propose or develop any procedure which will facilitate harmonisation of international regulations applicable to the surveillance and control of animal diseases
  
  
• to place expert consultants at the disposal of the Office International des Epizooties.
  In addition they may: 
  -  within their sphere of competence, provide scientific and technical training to personnel from Member Countries of the OIE
  -  organise scientific meetings on behalf of the OIE
  -  coordinate scientific and technical studies in collaboration with other laboratories or organisations
  -  publish and disseminate any information in their sphere of competence which may be useful to Member Countries of the Office.

It is proposed that the Australian Animal Welfare Research Centre expeditiously apply for recognition by the OIE as a Collaborating Centre for animal welfare.

Previous page | Contents | Next page