Normalising and Socialising Animal Welfare in a Global Context: Lessons learned

Normalising and Socialising Animal Welfare in a Global Context: Lessons learned Professor Nat Waran BSc (Hons) PhD Professor (One Welfare) Hon Professor (JMICAWE, University of Edinburgh) Executive Dean (Education, Humanities and Health Science) Eastern Institute of Technology, Napier, New Zealand nwaran@eit.ac.nz Animal welfare often means different things to different people, and opinions are varied and debates often heated. However if we are to achieve higher standards of animal welfare globally, there is a need to persuade those with competing agendas that animal welfare matters, not just to animals but also for human wellbeing. Arguably, the field of Animal Welfare Science emerged following publication of the Brambell Report in the UK in 1965, after which the UK Farm Animal Welfare Council was born, and the ubiquitous Five Freedoms emerged. Over the past 50 or so years, as the field has developed, there has been an increasing recognition that animal welfare is a multidimensional phenomenon based upon life experiences and circumstances, characterized by how an individual animal feels as well as how it functions. This development has further extended to include the possibility for, and presence of, positive emotional experiences such as pleasure and even happiness. Yet whilst the scientific study of animal welfare has progressed and international concern for animal welfare has grown, the understanding of what animal welfare is, how it is assessed and why it matters, differs across borders. Developing an effective approach for bridging the gap between what are often perceived as competing agendas in relation to human/society and animal welfare, is now recognized as essential for engaging communities and governments in productive discussions about why animal welfare matters and the need for change. In these situations, animal welfare improvement initiatives need to be multifaceted, taking into account not just scientific, ethical, and economic evidence, but also the religious and cultural context, and other factors such as international trade policy considerations. Although human welfare, social welfare, and animal welfare have traditionally been distinct disciplines, a new integrating concept, One Welfare, is a way forward for highlighting the inter-connectedness of human and animal welfare, an approach that is particularly relevant when addressing animal welfare across borders. This has highlighted the importance of understanding human attitudes and behaviour and consequently methods for effective change management, to ensure animal welfare objectives can be achieved. The challenge as we move forward is to be able to normalise standards for positive animal welfare irrespective of where an animal lives in the world, so that there is a reset of accepted baselines for keeping and managing animals. A key approach for this is to develop knowledge and leadership within influencing organisations and professions such as veterinarians, so that they can drive effective change within their own country and context. Promoting animal welfare, as a compulsory subject in the curriculum of every veterinary school is suggested as a way to provide countries with that leadership, however how animal welfare science, applications and animal ethics could and should be taught within the

veterinary curriculum is a subject for much discussion. For example, traditional methods for imparting knowledge to students particularly in developing countries, tend to be didactic with the focus on delivering content rather than on ensuring effective learning and inviting discussion. Whilst there has been a move within some veterinary schools in Europe, North America and Australasia to utilize a more problem- based approach to learning, promoting more integration of subjects and critical thinking, this is not yet the case in many developing countries, where a more traditional pedagogical approach is applied. In this case, subjects are taught in silo s and there are problems with the inclusion of multi-disciplinary subjects such as animal welfare due to a lack of lecturer capability. Additionally there are some subjects, such as euthanasia or slaughter that may not addressed due to cultural and religious sensitivity and others that may be more dominant in the curriculum due to traditional practices. Over the past years with my colleagues, working towards normalising and socialising animal welfare globally, there have been some valuable lessons learned (and mistakes made) including the following key points which will be discussed more fully in my spoken paper; 1. There is no one size that fits all animal welfare messaging and education needs to be context specific and relevant to be meaningful and effective. 2. There are some animal welfare issues that may be too tough to tackle at present to make advances in animal welfare and to bring people along, it is sometimes necessary to identify the polarising issues and initially to focus on the low hanging fruit to engage people. 3. A coordinated approach between agencies involved with animal welfare is essential if key messages regarding animal welfare are to be understood and accepted. 4. Although veterinarians are considered to leaders as change agents, they are often under equipped in terms of knowledge and understanding about animal welfare to be effective. 5. The mantra of What you can measure you can manage is a powerful one. Providing robust evidence can be more persuasive than emotional arguments. 6. Although evidence is hard to argue with, it can be easy to ignore when there are competing human agendas. 7. Animal Welfare requires human behavour change and an understanding of how to do that. 8. Education is a key catalyst and driver for change but it needs to be accessible, relevant and targeted to be effective.

Laws, Regulations, Guidelines and Standards to Control Laboratory Animal Welfare Across Continents Noelia Lopez Salesansky 1, Nicole Clark 2, Silvina Diaz 3 and Nur Hidayu Mazlan 4 1 Named Veterinary Surgeons Department, Royal Veterinary College, London, UK 2 Department of Research Integrity, University of Sydney, Australia 3 Faculty of Veterinary Science, National University of La Plata, Argentina 4 Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University Putra Malaysia nlopez@rvc.ac.uk Most countries regulate the use of laboratory animals with legislations and guidelines that aim at protecting the welfare of animals used for scientific purposes through the application of the 3Rs: Reduction, Replacement and Refinement. These regulations have a crucial role to ensure that the use of animals for scientific purposes is justified, and that the science obtained from them is of high quality. However, the controls and implementation of these laws varies across countries: from the very strict legislation that regulates animal use in the U.K., to the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee based system that is in place in Australia and the newly developed legislation in Argentina and Malaysia. This talk will cover the positive and negative aspects of the legislative requirements in these countries, addressing the challenges faced when implementing these regulations. The talk will also emphasize differences in the moral status of laboratory animals in the world and how to overcome and change them. This is particularly important in our globalized world, where professionals have the possibilities to work abroad, which can be challenging when differences exist on the levels of care and legal duties.

Learning from our similarities and our differences: Differing attitudes towards cat management in New Zealand and the United Kingdom can still teach us about effective human behaviour change. Mark J Farnworth 1, Edith MacDonald 2, Jennifer McDonald 3, Kevin J Stafford 4, Wayne Linklater 5, and Jane Clements 3 1 School of Animal, Rural and Environmental Sciences, Nottingham Trent University, Nottinghamshire, United Kingdom 2 Science and Policy, Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand 3 Cats Protection, National Cat Centre, Chelwood Gate, Haywards Heath, United Kingdom 4 Institute of Veterinary, Animal & Biomedical Sciences, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand 5 Centre for Biodiversity and Restoration Ecology, School of Biological Sciences, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand Abstract There can be little doubt that cats provide substantial positive benefits to their owners. However, countries, such as the United Kingdom (UK) and New Zealand (NZ), can and do fundamentally differ in their approach to cat management. This presentation explores two on-going projects to change human attitudes and practices around stray and owned cat management. In the UK, a community engagement project was undertaken which incorporated a trap-neuterreturn (TNR) campaign in an urban space to promote local management of the stray cat population. Data were collected using a pre-campaign survey collected door-to-door in the target area. Questions considered both attitudes towards cats and intentions around unowned cat management. The results underwent structural equation modelling. Results indicate that reduced likelihood of positive intended behaviour (e.g. taking a cat to be neutered) was directly associated with negative attitudes towards cats and reduced knowledge around neutering. Additionally, this result was indirectly influenced by perceptions of unowned cats and an understanding of their needs.

In NZ, a behavioural prioritisation methodology was used to generate a better understanding of the values of cat owners to design an achievable and effective cat/wildlife advocacy campaign. Veterinarians were contacted via their practices and asked to rate nine potential interventions in relation to impact on wildlife and impact on cat welfare. A list of nine cat owner-based management behaviours was developed based on these. These nine ownerbehaviours were then delivered to owners at selected clinics. Assessment of owner prioritisation was predicated upon ranking of: (i) likelihood of owner adoption and implementation; (ii) current use by cat owners already; (iii) effectiveness of reducing wildlife depredation; (iv) vets opinions about cat welfare impacts. Results indicated that keeping cats indoors at night (CIN) was most likely to be adopted by cat owners to reduce cat depredation of native wildlife. Behaviours ranked as more effective for conservation (e.g., cats always enclosed in homes or by property fences) had a low likelihood of owner-adoption or were rated as negative for cat welfare by veterinarians (whose support is likely to be critical). The proposed management changes (UK: TNR; NZ: CIN) may be considered inappropriate between countries and both are subject to robust debates as to their efficacy. However, there are global opportunities to learn from, and share, behavioural change processes, maximising success and animal welfare improvements for locally tailored cat management strategies. Both identify that the motivations of the local population are pivotal to the impact and longevity of the respective campaigns and provide routes by which community education may reduce opposition to the campaigns or provide mechanisms for better targeting of education. Opinions on appropriateness of interventions vary hugely between countries. However, these studies indicate that the key to success is community engagement and education. They also exemplify the need for campaigns to learn from one another, even in the absence of absolute agreement around processes and outcomes.

ANIMAL WELFARE AND SUSTAINABILITY: TRADE OFFS OR NEW OPPORTUNITIES FOR ANIMAL WELFARE IMPROVEMENTS? CM Dwyer 1, 2 1 Animal Behaviour and Welfare, SRUC, Roslin Institute Building, Easter Bush Campus, Edinburgh, UK 2 Jeanne Marchig International Centre for Animal Welfare Education, R(D)SVS, University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush Campus, Edinburgh, UK Cathy.dwyer@ed.ac.uk Globally we need to feed an increasingly urban and expanding population with a growing demand for meat, milk and eggs, against a background of reducing the carbon footprint of food production. Under these conditions can developments in farm animal welfare continue to be sustained or be improved? Livestock provide one third of the protein sources used in human nutrition, but contribute 18% of greenhouse gas emissions, with ruminants contributing 37% of anthropogenic methane production. Sustainable intensification has been mooted as an approach to produce more food of animal origin from a smaller environmental footprint. The origins of this term comes from poor small-holder oriented concerns of low productivity (usually ruminants and chickens), and high environmental degradation, although the term is now most often applied to conventional high-input farming. In the former usage this is concerned with providing sustainable, localised food production to reduce food-poverty and improve diets in Africa and elsewhere, whereas the latter description has been used to justify increasing housing and production under a Western food production model. Animal welfare has only sometimes been considered within this dichotomy. On one hand, increased housing and confinement, and genetic selection for production traits, for example, whilst increasing control of nutrition and health and increasing production, has also been associated with reductions in animal welfare. On the other, lowly productive, extensive systems often provide variable nutrition, and experience high mortality and morbidity from preventable disease, which impacts on both productivity and animal welfare. For low productive systems animal welfare can be improved through actions which will simultaneously improve productivity (e.g. vaccination against disease, education in animal hygiene and management, and provision of improved nutrition, such as improved grassland management). In these situations livestock can provide improved human nutrition, with minimal impact on biodiversity and environmental degradation. In high-input systems it is generally accepted that good animal health is positive for both animal welfare and production, but the value in providing for other aspects of animal welfare, such as space and opportunity to express highly motivated behaviour, may be in conflict with drivers for efficiency gains. Issues such as prophylactic use of antibiotics, competition between humans and monogastrics for the same food stuffs, and fertility and longevity in highly productive animals are also relevant to both animal welfare and sustainability. The relationship between animal welfare and sustainability is complex, and operates differently when applied to low- and high-producing systems. Improved animal welfare and sustainability can occur together in low-input systems, but the opportunities are less clear elsewhere.

PRODUCTION ANIMAL WELFARE AND THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS Rebecca Doyle 1, Barbara Wieland 2, Kristina Roesel 3 and Delia Grace 3 1 Animal Welfare Science Centre, The University of Melbourne, Australia 2 International Livestock Research Institute, P. O. Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 3 International Livestock Research Institute, Box 30709, Nairobi, Kenya Rebecca.doyle@unimelb.edu.au The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are the United Nations 17 objectives for universal human advancement by 2030. The Food and Agriculture Organization links sustainable livestock systems to all 17 SDGs, and animal welfare is considered a core component of sustainable livestock production. By demonstrating the roles animal welfare play in sustainable development, we aim show how animal welfare impacts people s livelihoods worldwide. Cross-referencing welfare frameworks like the 'Five Freedoms and 'Welfare Quality ' with the SDGs demonstrates direct relationships between the welfare of production animals and eight SDGs. Adequate nutrition, husbandry, housing and health are critical to livestock welfare, while ensuring animals are growing and producing well meets the income and nutritional needs of families. Good animal health and handling is also associated with lower zoonotic risks. Together, these animal welfare outcomes relate to SDG1, No poverty; SDG2, Zero hunger; and SDG3, Good health and well-being. Two of the environmentally focused SDGs Climate action (13) and Life on land (15) are inextricably linked to animal welfare. Animal feeding, housing and husbandry directly affect animal welfare and exist in a complex relationship with effective land management. Extreme weather events from climate change increase risks to animal welfare and inefficient livestock production contributes to greenhouse gas emissions. Livestock health, management and behaviour relate to SDG5, Gender equality. Two-thirds of the world's 600 million poor livestock keepers are rural women. Their role is commonly underappreciated and under resourced, transmission of zoonotic diseases poses greater risks to women than to men, and animal welfare issues provoke different levels and causes of concern in women and men. The long-term vision of SDG12, Responsible consumption and production, must consider animal welfare if the growing and changing consumer demands around animal products are to be met humanely and equitably as well as profitably and sustainably. Improved animal welfare is often associated with higher value market opportunities and suboptimal welfare can restrict market access. Opportunities and risks in animal welfare need to be evaluated independently for diverse global livestock production systems if SDG10, Reduce inequalities, is to be achieved and potential trade barriers avoided. Using the SDG framework, we will provide evidence of the many and global associations between animal welfare and sustainable development in the conference presentation. We argue that progress in animal welfare and sustainable development may be restricted if the diverse conditions of global livestock production and their specific animal welfare issues are not well understood.

LESSONS FROM THE PAST: REFOCUSING ON THE INDIVIDUAL WITHIN A GROUP J Webster 1,2, H Neave 3 and G Zobel 1,2 1 Animal Welfare Team, AgResearch Ltd., Hamilton, New Zealand 2 Centre for Animal Welfare Science and Bioethic Analysis, the David Bayvel Consortium, New Zealand 3 Animal Welfare Program, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada gosia.zobel@agresearch.co.nz A consideration of animal welfare across borders should look for lessons from different systems worldwide. For instance, a valuable aspect of small-scale farming is the close relationship between humans and their animals. A consequence of increased intensification and herd size is that the knowledge specific to individuals within a group has been eroded. Production systems have also become more uniform, requiring all individuals to adapt to herd-level management. Animal welfare must be examined on an individual basis, as all animals within a herd deserve equal consideration. With increasing emphasis on achieving a good life for animals in our care, we are examining how individuality, particularly personality, can be incorporated into welfare assessments for modern production. Firstly, we need ways to identify individual personalities and state of mind of individuals within a group, and then we need to incorporate this knowledge into farming systems. Technology can be leveraged to gather information at the individual level; however, as we have previously highlighted, increasing technology use on-farm may decrease individual contact and weaken our bond with animals. We therefore should aim to reinvigorate some of the traditional methods of care used by small hold farmers into modern production systems. One of the most commonly farmed animals worldwide is the goat, ranging from small subsistence farmers to largescale commercial systems housing thousands of animals. Our research has started with goats as a model for the assessment of personality and emotional states, and we will provide examples of how these measures could be accounted for in practical on-farm situations. Specifically, we will discuss consistent differences in individual responses to the provision of raised surfaces, hiding structures, and outdoor space, which we have related to particular personality traits. An additional focus of our work is to automate the assessment of personality to make it practical for application on-farm. We will discuss some successes and shortcomings of this research thus far in order to provide a strong foundation for future work aimed at monitoring individuals on farm. Ultimately, the goal of this research is to maintain our ability to care for and connect with individuals within systems by managing to the needs and wants of individual animals irrespective of their location in the world.