EUPAW Promoting Animal Welfare Excellence in Europe

Transcription

1 EUPAW Promoting Animal Welfare Excellence in Europe This document is compiled on behalf of ENDCAP * and provides recommendations and information to assist in the drafting of the EU Policy for Animal Welfare 2011 to 2015 (EUPAW), in addition to previous information provided by the Born Free Foundation and ENDCAP, as part of the Evaluation of the EU Policy on Animal Welfare and Possible Policy Options for the Future (2010) 1 (EUPAW). The ENDCAP initiative Europe s Forgotten Animals aims to encourage the effective application of legislation concerning the welfare of wild animals in captivity and to improve and harmonise animal welfare standards throughout the European Community. Following the entering into force of the Lisbon Treaty, which acknowledges in Article 13 that all animals are sentient beings, the revision of the EUPAW presents an opportunity to include wild animals in captivity within its mandate. Wild animals in captivity refers to wild animals kept in zoos (including aquaria and dolphinaria), circuses and travelling menageries and those wild animals within and imported into the EU to be sold and kept as pets. Investigations such as those undertaken by Eurogroup (2008) 2, FVE (2009) 3, ENDCAP (2009) 4 and Born Free Foundation (2011) 5 have identified a widespread lack of expertise relating to animal welfare, which we are convinced undermines EU Member States ability to effectively implement relevant legislation. This is particularly apparent in the evaluation of the implementation and enforcement of the EC Zoos Directive (1999/22), which identified systemic failures by government departments, enforcement agencies and veterinarians to effectively apply their national zoo law. The EU Zoo Inquiry , undertaken by the Born Free Foundation in association with ENDCAP, has revealed that non-compliance often results from insufficient knowledge and expertise in appropriate animal care and inaccurate interpretation of legal requirements. As a result, thousands of zoos across Europe are substandard and the welfare of millions of wild animals may be compromised. The revision of the EU Policy for Animal Welfare presents an opportunity to try to address the lack of necessary understanding, skills and experience to ensure the effective implementation of existing legislation and, further, to ensure the proper application of future law. Such an approach has already received the support of the European Parliament. The Report on evaluation and assessment of the Animal Welfare Action Plan (2009/2202(INI)) (2010) ( Paulsen Report ) 6 has called on the Member States to ensure the effective enforcement of existing legislation (No. 39, Paulsen Report), including the application of the EC Directive 1999/22 (relating to the keeping of wild animals in zoos) (No. 11, Paulsen Report). Furthermore, the Parliament s Report concluded that the mandate of the EUPAW should include other categories of animals (No.18, Paulsen Report) and should apply to all livestock and animals in captivity, such as food-producing animals, pets, circus animals and animals in zoos or stray animals (our emphasis; No.23, Paulsen Report). * European coalition of 32 NGOs from 29 European countries, which specialise in the protection of wild animals in captivity

2 Despite such matters being subject to subsidiarity, consistent investigations have suggested that leadership and guidance from the European Community at Commission level is necessary to deliver higher standards of protection and animal welfare across the EU. In the European Union, there are an estimated**: 4000 zoos; each keeping an average of 200 species and 1000 animals = approximately 4 million animals. The European Association of Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA) represents a total of only 277 Full Members in the EU 7. According to EAZA their full Membership employs approximately 32,000 people 8 and they estimated more than 140 million people visit EAZA member zoos each year 7. EAZA represents no more than 8% of the total numbers of zoos in Europe dolphinaria, holding between 1 and over 30 animals each, with an estimated total of around 280 animals circuses with wild animals with a total estimate of 50 species and between 4000 to 7000 individual animals 10. In 2002, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) predicted there to be at least 12 million non-domesticated animals kept as pets in UK. This number is likely to have increased. The number of primates kept as pets in the EU is not known, although an estimated 2,485-7,454 or more may be in the hands of private individuals in the UK alone 11. Between million live reptiles were imported into the EU in **NB. These are estimated numbers based upon available data and reports. To ensure EUPAW effectively addresses inconsistencies in application and enforcement of existing legislation and improves the level of protection accorded to wild animals in captivity in the European Community, inclusion of the following aspects is strongly recommended: 1. A common understanding of animal welfare Currently there is no common understanding of animal welfare in Europe policy. An adopted term or reference within the EUPAW that stipulates minimum requirements will ensure the variations in interpretations of animal welfare and biological needs between Member States are harmonised. This would bring continuity to fundamental animal protection laws across Europe. Accepted definitions of animal welfare already exist. The Paulsen report acknowledges animal welfare to mean the result of the application of standards and norms relating to the well-being and health of animals which are designed to meet inherent speciesspecific needs and long-term welfare needs 6. The World Animal Health Organisation (OIE) states Animal welfare means how an animal is coping with the conditions in which it lives. An animal is in a good state of welfare if (as indicated by scientific evidence) it is healthy, comfortable, well-nourished, safe, able to express innate behaviour, and if it is not suffering from unpleasant states such as pain, fear, and distress. Good animal welfare requires disease prevention and veterinary treatment, appropriate shelter, management, nutrition, humane handling and humane slaughter/killing. Animal welfare refers to the state of the animal; the treatment that an animal receives is covered by other terms such as animal care, animal husbandry, and humane treatment. 13

3 The Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC), recognises the Five Freedoms 14 : Food & water (Ready access to fresh water and a diet suitable to maintain full health and vigour); Suitable living environment (A living environment that provides shelter, privacy, and mental and physical stimulation); Opportunity to exhibit natural behaviour (Provision of sufficient space, facilities and enrichment to permit natural behaviours); Health care (Prevention of injury, illness, disease or infection); and Protection from fear and distress (Ensuring conditions and treatment to avoid mental suffering). Furthermore, it is important to recognise the Guiding principles for animal welfare : 1. That there is a critical relationship between animal health and animal welfare. 2. That the internationally-recognised five freedoms (freedom from hunger, thirst and malnutrition; freedom from fear and distress; freedom from physical and thermal discomfort; freedom from pain, injury and disease; and freedom to express normal patterns of behaviour) provide valuable guidance in animal welfare. 3. That the internationally-recognised three Rs (reduction in numbers of animals, refinement of experimental methods and replacement of animals with non-animal techniques) provide valuable guidance for the use of animals in science. 4. That the scientific assessment of animal welfare involves diverse elements which need to be considered together, and that selecting and weighing these elements often involves valuebased assumptions which should be made as explicit as possible. 5. That the use of animals in agriculture and science, and for companionship, recreation and entertainment, makes a major contribution to the wellbeing of people. 6. That the use of animals carries with it an ethical responsibility to ensure the welfare of such animals to the greatest extent practicable. 7. That improvements in farm animal welfare can often improve productivity and food safety, and hence lead to economic benefits. 8. That equivalent outcomes based on performance criteria, rather than identical systems based on design criteria, be the basis for comparison of animal welfare standards and recommendations. (OIE, Terrestrial Health Code, 2010) 13 Furthermore to recognise the Principals and criteria developed as part of the Welfare Quality Principles Good feeding Good housing Good health Appropriate behaviour Welfare criteria 1. Absence of prolonged hunger 2. Absence of prolonged thirst 3. Comfort around resting 4. Thermal comfort 5. Ease of Movement 6. Absence of injuries 7. Absence of disease 8. Absence of pain induced by management procedures 9. Expression of social behaviours 10. Expression of other behaviours 11. Good human animal relationship 12. Absence of general fear

4 Standards should be devised and implemented on the basis that all individual animals of the same species have similar inherent needs for their long-term well-being, irrespective of the purpose for which they are kept (e.g. farm, pet, laboratory, circuses, zoo, etc.). 2. Promote a Duty of Care to all animals owned by, managed by and kept under the control of humans. Recognising Article 13 of the EC Treaty, which states, the Union and Member States must, since animals are sentient beings, pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals, a number of EU Member States have included a concept of Duty of Care into their animal welfare legislation (eg. UK, Austria, Estonia and France). This imposes a duty on all owners and keepers to appropriately care of their animals and thus be held responsible if the welfare of the animal is compromised. Recognising that appropriate care for animals must stem from an accurate understanding of the animals fundamental biology and needs, identification of poor health and welfare conditions and how to respond, any approach to implement a Duty of Care should incorporate educational programmes and support materials (e.g. best practice guidance) to reduce misinterpretation and harmonise understanding. A UK Government funded-study concerning Duty of Care, concluded that Duty of Care is an essential component of animal welfare education, particularly for young people, and helps to instil a caring behaviour in society 15. To view this document go to: Such an approach would compliment the DG SANCO initiative on animal welfare education, Everyone is responsible (2010) 16. A Duty of Care provides the basis on which a general EC animal welfare law could be established. 3. Advocate, and establish an evaluation method, based on performance criteria, that can be used to assess levels of animal welfare. The production of best practice protocols could provide Member States with the tools for delivering consistently high animal welfare standards that will target all animal categories. These should be developed through a multi-stakeholder forum that can consolidate existing tools and guidance into comprehensive and user-friendly protocols. Additional training may be required to assist Member States in direct application. Such training could be included within the mandate of the European Network of Reference Centres (ENRC). The Travelife Animal Attractions Handbook (FTO 2008) provides a good example. This was developed via a multi-stakeholder process that included industry associations, NGOs, scientific institutions and government departments. This has resulted in a comprehensive protocol and accompanying tools used by the Quality Assurance Managers of tour operator companies to assess levels of animal welfare and identify poor standards. These can then be addressed through improvements in operating conditions. Additional training is provided to persons that lack fundamental understanding in zoology and animal welfare, but the protocol provides sufficient information and reference to ensure appropriate baseline knowledge. The Handbook can be reviewed at

5 Furthermore, the EU-wide assessment of 200 zoos, which formed part of The EU Zoo Inquiry 2011, used a Zoo Assessment Protocol that took into consideration the requirements of the EC Directive 1999/22 (applicable to zoos), the specific requirements of national zoo law and the EAZA Minimum Standards for the Accommodation and Care of Animals in Zoos and Aquaria. Information and guidance was also drawn from the DEFRA Standards of Modern Zoo Practice 2004 (SMZP) and the Zoos Forum Handbook. The Zoo Assessment Protocol is therefore one of the most comprehensive and thorough independent evaluation tools on EU zoo status and performance. The protocol can be reviewed at sessment_protocol.pdf 4. Ensure that existing and future EC legislation that is relevant to the ownership, management and/or keeping of animals includes specific reference to their psychological and behavioural needs. National legislation and existing standards have been reviewed as part of The EU Zoo Inquiry 2011 together with an evaluation of the implementation and enforcement of the EC Zoos Directive. This identified that few Member States have established additional requirements or developed supporting guidance to take legal requirements beyond those broadly set out in the Directive. The preamble of Directive 1999/22 recommends that Member States adopt the EAZA Minimum Standards for the Accommodation and Care of Animals in Zoos and Aquaria, but few appear to have taken this advice, although some Member States have developed species-specific minimum standards for the keeping of animals. As a result, legal requirements for the keeping of wild animals between Member States range from aiming to provide animals with their biological needs to detailed species-specific physical, environmental and behavioural requirements. Species-specific standards also vary considerably between Member States. Some appear to be based on scientific evidence and existing husbandry guidance drawn up by experts (e.g. Hungary and Austria), whilst others appear to be self-regulatory standards developed by the zoo industry (e.g. Romania and Estonia). It is recommended that EUPAW should advise all Member States to require licensed zoos to meet all the recommendations of the EAZA Minimum Standards for the Accommodation and Care of Animals in Zoos and Aquaria. Furthermore, as these Standards do not focus significantly on species-specific/taxon-specific requirements, the development of scientifically-validated species-specific husbandry standards is a priority. To ensure that standards are not weakened in the process of debate and negotiation, they should be presented as a non-mandatory guidance, available online, but be strongly recommended to Member States. Examples of guidance for the appropriate keeping of captive wild animals that have been established by countries to ensure high standards in animal care and husbandry: a. Switzerland Animal Welfare Ordinance: b. UK zoo licensing guidance: c. Spanish zoo guidance El parque zoológico, un Nuevo aliado de la biodiversidad (2010): arques_zoologicos/documentos/pdf/guia_aplicacion_ley_ _edicion_2.pdf

6 d. BIAZA (British and Irish Association of Zoos and Aquaria) animal husbandry guidance: %20Edition.pdf e. EAZA (European Association of Zoos and Aquaria) Minimum Standards for the Accommodation and Care of Animals in Zoos and Aquaria: f. AZA (American Zoo Association) Animal Care Manuals: g. New Zealand zoos code: h. Australia draft exhibited animals standards: data/assets/pdf_file/0006/762846/draft-animal-exhibitstandards.pdf Examples of existing species-specific minimum standards for the keepings of wild animals from EU Member States: Austria: Animal Husbandry Regulations ( Bulgaria: Minimum Requirements - Regulation No.6 (SG 105 / , amended SG 44 / ) ( Germany: Expert opinions on the minimum requirements for the keeping of mammals in captivity, Federal Ministry for Consumer Protection, Food and Agriculture (BMVEL) ( HaltungSaeugetiere.pdf? blob=publicationfile). Hungary: Minimum Standards ( Romania: Ministerial Order 742/ Version Minimum Standards ( repealed in 2007 by Ministerial Order 1798/ Development of best practice, non-mandatory guidance for the keeping of wild animals in other facilities / uses currently not covered by EC legislation. Although animal welfare is a matter for subsidiarity, governed at a national or regional level in each Member State, there is significant evidence to establish the need for best practice guidance for the appropriate keeping of animals, irrespective of their use or circumstance. Whereas certain Member States may have the ability and expertise to develop stringent guidance to protect the wellbeing of animals, other Member States do not.

7 Therefore, the development of scientifically-validated, non-mandatory guidance for the appropriate keeping of animals (across all animal categories), would assist Member States achieve and uphold higher animal welfare standards. To ensure such guidance is not weakened through debate and negotiation, speciesspecific guidance should be available online and presented as a non-mandatory guidance, but strongly recommended to Member States. For wild animals in captivity, this could include the appropriate keeping of wild animals: As pets; At the British Veterinary Association congress in May 2010, delegates identified the lack of understanding about the care needs of exotic pets, the abandonment of fashionable pet animals, and the disease risks of importing exotics into the UK, as amongst the most important animal welfare issues for the British government 17. Over 40% of exotic pet owners cite lack of information from suppliers as a common problem 18. ENDCAP is calling for the urgent: Revision and update of the European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals, and in particular the Resolution on the Keeping of Wild Animals as Pet Animals (1995). Development of the Codes of Practice for the keeping of wild pets (where permitted) appropriate to each species. (These could be the same as those used for zoos) Requirement for pet shops and others selling animals to provide appropriate information to potential purchasers (including the codes of practice). ENDCAP is soon to produce a document to review wild pet keeping in the EU. In circuses and travelling menageries; By their very nature, circuses operate in such a way as to facilitate ease of frequent transportation and to ensure day to day animal control. Due to their dependency on regular travel, circuses cannot provide sizable and complex living conditions but instead may subject their animals to: cramped conditions; restricted movement due to tethering/chaining; repeated and extended transportation with no constraints; repeated loading and unloading; inadequate and unnatural social environments; a lack of privacy; and high noise levels. Such conditions would be unacceptable in a European zoo, regulated under the EC Directive 1999/22. Austria has banned all wild animals in circuses and bans on certain wild animals exist in the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Portugal and Sweden, Belgium, Estonia and Poland prohibit the use of wild-caught animals. England, Scotland, Wales, Greece and Slovakia are currently considering restrictions on the use of wild animals in circuses. In rescue and rehabilitation centres or sanctuaries. As a result of consultation with multi-stakeholders, a Global Federation of Animal Sanctuary Standards (GFAS) has been established, which is currently developing a series of operational and taxon-specific standards for optimum care of animals in sanctuaries. These Standards are available online at

8 6. Facilitating training to reduce misinterpretation of requirements and improve the enforcement of existing legislation. i. Animal welfare science Investigations by the Federation of Veterinarians of Europe and through the EU Zoo Inquiry 2011, have revealed inconsistent knowledge and understanding of what constitutes animal welfare and particularly how adequate standards can be reached. The education and training of veterinarians appears to be at fault. The European Association of State Veterinary Officers (EASVO) confirms that animal welfare is not taught at a satisfactory level and scientific basis in all European Veterinary Schools 19 and the FVE identified that animal welfare science is often only presented in a theoretical manner in terms of legislative aspects, as opposed to an applied perspective 3. Consultation with both these European veterinary institutions has confirmed that both would support an initiative to increase understanding and expertise, and ensure knowledge, relevant to all categories of animals (including wild animals in captivity), is more readily available. The EUPAW should therefore seek to improve knowledge, provide training and influence veterinary education. ii. Zoos, aquaria and dolphinaria Investigations from the EU Zoo Inquiry 2011 have revealed a lack of knowledge, understanding and commonality of interpretation of criteria between Member States and relevant authorities on fundamental animal welfare issues. This is believed to be an undermining factor in their ability to effectively implement and enforce relevant legislation. View findings of The EU Zoo Inquiry 2011 at Member States keen to address the findings of The EU Zoo Inquiry 2011 and improve conditions in zoos and their regulation would benefit from training opportunities for zoo inspectors, enforcement agencies and zoo operators. In addition to encouraging consistency in application, training would facilitate knowledge and understanding of fundamental animal biology and behaviour, and on the identification of poor animal welfare, and curative and preventative measures. iii. Capture and trade of wild animals In accordance with CITES Articles III, IV and V, EC Council Regulation No. 338/97 (Article 9) requires that live specimens of species listed in Annexes A, B and C must be prepared, moved and cared for so as to minimise the risk of injury, damage to health or cruel treatment. It further requires that the place of destination is adequately equipped to conserve and care for it properly. These welfare requirements are implemented through Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004, which governs the protection of animals during transport and which further states that animals must be transported in a manner which complies with the International Air Transport Association (IATA) Live Animals Regulations. Unfortunately, there are no definitions to accompany the welfare provisions outlined in Article 9, and inadequate guidance regarding the enforcement and implementation of these provisions within the implementing Regulations. The provisions are therefore subject to vastly differing interpretations and do not adequately protect the welfare of live animals in international trade. There is, therefore, an urgent need for clear guidance and definitions to be incorporated into the Regulations. Furthermore, the Regulations should be broadened to incorporate the entire process of trade - from the point of capture, to arrival at the final destination. ENDCAP / Species Survival

9 Network (SSN) ( would be prepared to provide some detailed draft guidelines and definitions on these issues, if required. Wild animals traded for the pet industry For each exotic pet animal that does end up in someone s home, countless others will have died along the way 20. For every live animal captured and sold as an exotic pet, up to 50 may be killed or die in transit 21. Many owners of exotic pets lack the necessary expertise to provide them with appropriate care, and animals commonly suffer from an inappropriate environment, malnutrition, inadequate or inappropriate social contact, and the stress of confinement. Many end up being neglected or abandoned. According to animal shelters, 60% of all wild animals kept as pets die within the first month of ownership Establish a list of hazardous animals to protect the health and safety of the public and the environment. The EU is one of the largest markets for exotic pets, and demand continues to grow as EU membership expands. Exotic pets are traded through channels such as pet shops, garden centres, markets, via newspaper advertisements and, increasingly, on the internet. By their nature, exotic pets are wild animals and are unpredictable and many can cause significant injury to people e.g. 22. In addition, exotic pets may carry diseases which are potentially infectious to people and other animals. More than 60% of all human infectious diseases and up to 75% of emerging diseases may be derived from animals 23,24. The trade in and ownership of exotic pets is recognised as a significant factor in the emergence and spread of zoonotic disease 25. In order to protect the health and safety of European Citizens, and the protection of animals from substandard conditions, EUPAW should advocate the categorisation of animals based upon their ability to cause injury and/or pose a risk of transmission of zoonotic disease. Limitations on the use and ownership of certain animal species should be addressed by Member States. Example of standards: 8. Establish and substantiate a critical relationship between animal welfare and species conservation. There is an urgent need to specifically acknowledge the close links and interaction between animal welfare and conservation. Changes to individual animal physiology and behaviour can influence populations or species, particularly when numbers of animals within a population are low. As a result, the ability of individual animals to cope (their welfare) can impact on conservation priorities. Similarly, actions taken in the name of conservation may have significant, and sometimes detrimental, effects on individual animal welfare. The welfare of captive wild animals should be promoted, not only in respect of their intrinsic value as sentient beings, but in order to maximize their potential for conservation. For more information:

10 CONCLUSIONS European Parliament The European Parliament s Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (2010) Report on evaluation and assessment of the Animal Welfare Action Plan (Paulsen Report) 6 concluded that the EUPAW , should include: 1. A general European animal welfare law 2. A European centre for animal welfare and animal health 3. Better enforcement of existing legislation 4. The link between animal health and public health 5. Indicators and new techniques European Commission Recognising that the outcomes of the Evaluation of the EU Policy on Animal Welfare were: Enforcement Lack of awareness and training Conflicts with economic interests Complexity and rigidity of the legislation Competiveness for farmers Improved animal welfare may mean additional costs EU Standards not known well enough by consumers No equivalent standards in 3 rd world countries Communication to consumers and stakeholders 64% consumers are worried about animal welfare (1:2 citizens aware of animal welfare issues) (2010) No information for most products Most private schemes under 20% market share (national level) Stakeholders not sufficiently informed Science and innovation Clarify animals needs More research required, particularly concerning wild animals in captivity Optimise animals needs and economic sustainability Better to disseminate results at practical level Scope of EU legislation Dogs and cats (120 million animals) No specific EU provisions for many farmed animals Council of Europe (DG SANCO, 31 st January 2011) 26

11 Born Free Foundation/ENDCAP Recognising the outcomes of Evaluation of EUPAW Consultation, the following incorporates the above recommendations and the findings from The EU Zoo Inquiry : Enforcement Misinterpretation of definitions and legal requirements. Lack of knowledge and training of enforcement agencies and State veterinarians in appropriate skills in animal care and welfare. Lack of knowledge about the skills necessary to provide high standards of animal care and welfare by zoo operators and animal keepers, those who have responsibility to care for animals in zoos. Conflicts with limited resources and low skilled and low paid workers. Complexity, rigidity and, sometimes, ambiguity of the legislation. Non-compliance by zoos Limited guidance to improve knowledge and enforcement, and maintain suitable conditions for animals. Most zoos fail to meet all the national and European legal requirements. Improved animal welfare may mean additional costs. No common understanding of animal welfare and how to provide for an animal s basic needs. EAZA self-regulatory guidelines not recognised and enforced. Communication to consumers and stakeholders The public are concerned about substandard conditions in zoos 27. No explanatory notes and guidance to effectively interpret the legal requirements. Diverse array of minimum standards for the keeping of wild animals in zoos between EU Member States, few of which appear based on scientific evidence. Guidance provided by zoos for zoos (often not independently sourced). Science and innovation The need to clarify animals needs. The need to optimise animals needs and economic sustainability. The need to establish harmonised species-specific standards. Better disseminate results at practical level. Scope of EU legislation EC Directive 1999/22, relating to the keeping of wild animals in zoos. Requires zoos to aim to satisfy the biological and conservation requirements of the individual species, inter alia, by providing species specific enrichment of the enclosures, and maintaining a high standard of animal husbandry with a development programme of preventative and curative veterinary care and nutrition. NO explanatory notes or guidance is provided. EC Council Regulation No. 338/97 (Article 9) requires that live specimens of species listed in Annexes A, B and C must be prepared, moved and cared for so as to minimise the risk of injury, damage to health or cruel treatment. It further requires that the place of destination is adequately equipped to conserve and care for it properly. European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals, and in particular the Resolution on the Keeping of Wild Animals as Pet Animals (1995). No specific EU provisions for the keeping and management of wild animals in captivity.

12 The EU Policy for Animal Welfare should therefore incorporate a mix of both legislative and non-legislative approaches to address the highlighted problems above: Non-legislative options: a long-term commitment to - Improve communication to clarify definitions and legal requirements: ensuring all EC legislation is accompanied by a detailed set of explanatory notes or guidance. The EC Zoos Directive, for example, contains no explanatory notes, which has been identified as one of the main reasons for its inconsistent application. Provide training opportunities for Member State Competent Authorities and enforcement agencies, as well as stakeholders, to further their education and knowledge in matters concerning animal protection and welfare. Provide training opportunities for veterinarians to further their education and knowledge in matters concerning the protection and welfare of wild animals in captivity, which will include knowledge of poor animal welfare indicators and effective methods (e.g. environmental enrichment) and means to address substandard conditions. Facilitate regular Member State forums, where MS Competent Authorities can meet and exchange information, best practice guidance and ideas. Encourage, through financial incentives, more research into fundamental biology and the implications for standards of captive wild animal care. Develop, through a multi-stakeholder process, scientifically-validated, non-mandatory animal husbandry standards that take into account the physical, environmental and behavioural requirements of wild animals in captivity. Encourage Member States to improved coordination and harmonise understanding of matters concerning animal protection and welfare, between government departments and enforcement agencies. Establish the proposed European Network of Reference Centres for animal welfare to harmonise animal welfare standards, facilitate training opportunities and educational programmes and the dissemination of information both within each Member State and between Member States. The ENRC could further facilitate research for, and provide advice to, Governments and industry. Legislative options: Develop and establish a legal framework for the European Community that will Establish a common understanding of animal welfare and a series of minimum requirements that can be easily adopted by Member States, which are based upon the Welfare Quality principals and criteria, thereby providing for the physical, environmental and behavioural requirements of animals. Instil the Duty of Care concept, as part of a Corporate Social Responsibility ethic, as well as for the private individuals, whereby the owner, manager and keeper of an animal is legally responsible for the animal s protection and welfare. Introduce common penalties across EU Member States that will recognise animal cruelty, abuse, abandonment and neglect as a criminal offense.

13 References: 1 European Commission, DG SANCO (2010). Evaluation of the EU Policy on Animal Welfare and Possible Policy Options for the Future. Available from %20EUPAW%20Evaluation.pdf (last accessed on 24 th February 2011). 2 Eurogroup for Animals (2008). Report on the Implementation of the EU Zoo Directive. Available from (last accessed 24 th February 2011). 3 Federation of Veterinarians of Europe (2009). Animal Welfare Teaching in European Veterinary Facilities (Poster). Available from (last accessed on 24 th February 2011). 4 ENDCAP (2009). Animal Welfare Excellence in Europe. Available from (last accessed on 24 th February 2011). 5 The EU Zoo Inquiry Available from (last accessed on 24 th February 2011). 6 European Parliament. Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (2010). Report on evaluation and assessment of the Animal Welfare Action Plan (2009/2202(INI)) (Paulsen Report). Available from DOC+PDF+V0//EN (last accessed on 23 rd February 2011). 7 EAZA. (last accessed on 24 th February 2011). 8 EAZA (2011). EAZA Response to the Evaluation Report of the EU Policy on Animal Welfare, January from the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society (WDCS) received on 24 th February ENDCAP Circus records. 11 RSPCA & Wild Futures (2009). Primates as Pets: Is there a case for regulation? Available from (last accessed on 24 th February 2011). 12 RSPCA (2010) The Welfare State: Measuring animal welfare in the UK OIE. (last accessed on 24 th February 2011). 14 FAWC. (last accessed on 24 th February 2011). 15 The University of Edinburgh, SAC & DEFRA (2009). Promoting a Duty of Care towards animals among children and younh people. Available from (last accessed on 24th February 2011). 16 European Commission, DG SANCO, Animal Welfare Education. (last accessed on 24 th February 2011).

14 17 British Veterinary Association. (last accessed on 24 th February 2011). 18 Wells D (2002). The ownership and welfare of exotic pets. RSPCA. 19 from Dr Romano Zilli (EASVO President) recieved on 29 th March Captive Wild Animal Protection Campaign. (last accessed on 24 th February 2011). 21 Miller G. T. & Spoolman, S. E. (2007). Sustaining the Earth: An Integrated Approach. Belmont, USA: Brooks/Cole. 22 Western Daily Press (1999). Pet marmosets turn into homewreckers. 3 rd March Karesh W., Cook R. A., Bennett E. L. & Newcombe J. (2005). Wildlife Trade and Global Disease Emergence. Emerging Infectious Disease, 11; Brown C. (2004). Emerging zoonoses and pathogens of public health significance-an overview. Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz. 23; Chomel B. B., Belotto A. & Meslin F. X. (2007). Wildlife, Exotic Pets, and Emerging Zoonoses. Emerging Infectious Diseases 13 (1); Meeting with DG SANCO at the Stakeholders consultation on the second EU strategy for the protection and welfare of animals , Monday 31 st January Born Free Foundation Complaints Database, Zoo Check Department. Reports from members of the public about instances of animal suffering and abuse.