international wild animal welfare and future directions
TRANSCRIPT
International wild animal
welfare and future directions
Stuart R. HarropStuart R. Harrop
Chair of Wildlife Management LawChair of Wildlife Management LawDurrell Durrell Institute of Conservation and EcologyInstitute of Conservation and Ecology
School of Anthropology and ConservationSchool of Anthropology and Conservation
University of KentUniversity of Kent
All Photos: © Stuart Harrop 2010 except
Mauritius Parakeet © 2010 Jim Groombridge
A preliminary note of humilityA preliminary note of humility --the UKthe UK has has
been slow to legally protect the welfare of been slow to legally protect the welfare of
wild animalswild animals
•Cetaceans- UK in the
vanguard of whale
killing in the last
century.
Steele v Rogers
(1912) 106 LT 79
•Rowley and Murphy
[1964] 1 All ER 50
•The Animals
(Scientific Procedures)
Act 1986
•Wild Mammals
(Protection) Act 1996
Can conservationistsCan conservationists find room for find room for
compassion?compassion?
Conservation- scientific pragmatismThe conservationist aims to preserve diversity in species and seldom
deals at the individual level
Welfare- ethics with science baseWelfare seeks to avoid unnecessary suffering in the individual
animal irrespective of its conservation status. Science informs
“suffering”. Ethics and science inform “unnecessary”.
Common Ground-from separate epistemological
perspectivesBoth approaches aim to secure that species live freely and naturally
in the “wild” state
Can conservationistsCan conservationists and and welfarists welfarists work work
together?together?
Confluences include:
• Welfare case for inhumanity of whaling and conservation case for moratorium
• Eradicating illegal bush-meat killing
Potential Conflicts include:
• Culling of protected or other species to maintain populations
• Culling required to resolve human-animal conflicts
• Culling required to maintain genetic integrity (hybridization)
• Recreational hunting to support conservation strategies through incentives
• Other invasive conservation techniques
The case for compassion in conservation The case for compassion in conservation --11
The dThe distinction between istinction between
domestic/farmed animals and wild domestic/farmed animals and wild
animalsanimals
•No comprehensive international law yet
for domestic/farmed animals but regional
advances in e.g. the European Union
•CITES effectively protects captive
animals in the custody of humans and
also when in a farmed or “ranched”
situation- mirrors the trend to protect
domestic/farmed animals under human
control
•Case for wild animal welfare in
conservation activities may be
strengthened by emphasizing increased captivity of or control over wild animals
The increasing case for compassion in The increasing case for compassion in
conservationconservation--2 2
Environmental change
•Climate change coupled
with habitat fragmentation
may force range changes
and reduce space for wild
animals to live freely
•Some ranges may be lost
requiring “zoo" conditions or
extinction
•Protected areas for
particularly large mammals
already mirror to an extent
farmed conditions
•More species potentially in
ex-situ “ranched”conditions?
The case for compassion in conservationThe case for compassion in conservation--33
•More human impacts on wild
animals generating
conservation v compassion
dilemmas:
�Hybridization of wild with domestics
�Alien Species
�The need/obsession for more conservation data
ConservationPractices
•Conservation
techniques for critically
endangered species
often mirror captive
management operations
for domestics in
agriculture
What is already in place?What is already in place?
--Hard and soft international conservation instruments that deal with
wild animal welfare-
Hard
•CITES- welfare extended to captive animals in trade, in transport and reception.
Also some aspects of welfare for ranched animals.
•International Whaling Commission- provisions relating to killing and secondary
killing methods for commercial whaling
•Incidental provisions- such as Article 8 Berne Convention- ban of “indiscriminate
means of capture and killing”
Soft
•International Agreements(s) on Humane Trapping- merely advance the status quo
for inhumane traps
•UN General Assembly World Charter for Nature 1983- “Every form of life is unique, warranting respect regardless of its worth to man…[we should] accord other
organisms such recognition [and] be guided by a moral code of action”
Regulatory developmentRegulatory development where to from where to from
here?here?-- 11
No international regulation directly tackles the relationship between welfare and conservation.
Ideal might be a protocol to CBD setting out minimum wild animal welfare standards for conservation activities
BUT:
•The CBD, although hard law, has a poor normative record
•It takes time to establish international law - 15 years from start to implementation
•The international arena is preoccupied with the economy and the abstract concept of “carbon”…despite the foundational position of species and ecosystems for all civilization…and the advice of John Lennon
Regulatory development: where to from Regulatory development: where to from
here?here?-- 22Options include:
1. Compassion-in-conservation protocol initiative through CBD
2. As secondary approach incorporate welfare requirements into CBD’s current target exercise
3. Use inter-convention / institutional networks such as GRASP
4. Expand/develop Compassion-in-conservation guidelines within major international, conservation NGO’s, the private sector and conservation funding agencies
5. Develop Guidelines for application within the conservation “industry”
6. Expand existing conventions such as CITES by the “back door”
Some principles in regulatory/guideline Some principles in regulatory/guideline
developmentdevelopment
•Welfare eradicates unnecessary suffering and alleviates necessary suffering: thus it is designed to compliment necessary agendas- (ranched species in CITES)
•Welfare is also the leader in some agendas (But did hunting ban in UK fully analyse role of culture, community and conservation incidents?)
•Must establish priorities- which ethic leads?
•Must facilitate right of challenge e.g. :
•welfare to challenge culling on basis of necessity,
•conservation to challenge hunting bans,
Some potential components of Some potential components of
regulatory/guideline developmentregulatory/guideline development
• The “CIA” - Compassion Impact Assessment of conservation (with quid-pro-quo: Conservation Impact Assessment of welfare oriented activities- e.g. hunting bans)
• Establish standards for capture methods, tracking, monitoring methods and other invasive techniques
• Minimum training requirements re: the above
• Apply ordinary standards of farm animal welfare to conservation operations that involve ranching and to intensive activities forextreme species recovery operations (e.g. Mauritius Parakeet)
• Establish test of necessity for projects/project methodologies (along lines of UK’s scientific procedures regulation)- does the project’s value merit the suffering?
• Open projects to pre-scrutiny by welfare experts