A Strategic Review of International 1CHAPTER Animal Protection
Paul G. Irwin
Introduction he level of animal protection Prior to the modern period of ani- activity varies substantially Early Activities mal protection (starting after World Taround the world. To some War II), international animal protec- extent, the variation parallels the in International tion involved mostly uncoordinated level of economic development, as support from the larger societies and countries with high per capita Animal certain wealthy individuals and a vari- incomes and democratic political Protection ety of international meetings where structures have better financed and Organized animal protection began in animal protection advocates gathered better developed animal protection England in the early 1800s and together to exchange news and ideas. organizations. However there is not spread from there to the rest of the One of the earliest such meetings a one-to-one correlation between world. Henry Bergh (who founded the occurred in Paris in June 1900 economic development and animal American Society for the Prevention although, by this time, there was protection activity. Japan and Saudi of Cruelty to Animals, or ASPCA, in already a steady exchange of informa- Arabia, for example, have high per 1865) and George Angell (who found- tion among animal protection organi- capita incomes but low or nonexis- ed the Massachusetts Society for the zations around the world. These tent levels of animal protection activ- Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, or exchanges were encouraged further ity, while India has a relatively low per MSPCA, in 1868) both looked to by the organization of a number of capita income but a fairly large num- England and the Royal Society for the international animal protection con- ber of animal protection groups. Prevention of Cruelty to Animals gresses, including one in Philadel- The level of animal protection (RSPCA) as a role model for their own phia, Pennsylvania, in 1908, followed activity appears to be influenced not efforts, as did the founders of many by another in London in 1909. only by the wealth of a country but other societies for the prevention of In 1910 an International Humane also by its sociopolitical background cruelty to animals (SPCAs) in the Congress covering both child and ani- and its dominant religious traditions. British Empire and elsewhere. In mal protection was organized in Wildlife and food animal issues pre- 1877 a group of American organiza- Washington, D.C., under the auspices dominate in developing nations, tions established the International of AHA. The report of this meeting whereas companion animal issues Humane Society—the first to carry (American Humane Association have been the driving force behind the adjective “international”—although 1910) is 228 pages long and includes the development of animal protection the name later changed to the Ameri- a list of SPCAs outside the United in most of the developed nations. can Humane Association (AHA).
1 Table 1 Animal Protection Organizations Represented at the 1910 International Congress in Washington, D.C.
Country Country Country
United Kingdom* 200 Austria-Hungary 110 Argentina 3
Belgium 20 Brazil 2
Australia 8 Crete 1 Mexico 5
Burma 2 Denmark 140 Nicaragua 1
Canada 40 France 16 Panama 1
Caribbean 9 Germany 500 Surinam 1
Ceylon 1 Italy 20 Uruguay 1
Cyprus 5 Monaco 1 Venezuela 1
Egypt 8 Netherlands 35
India 23 Norway 12 Algiers 5
New Zealand 3 Portugal 2
Singapore 3 Roumania 2 China 2
South Africa 12 Russia 180 Japan 3
Spain 4
Sweden 120 United States 300
Switzerland 40
* RSPCA branches Source: American Humane Association 1910
States as an appendix. Table 1 identi- societies throughout the world, to the fies the approximate number of soci- president of the Conference for the Modern eties (or organizations with either a Reduction and Limitation of Arma- president or secretary) identified in ments in 1932. International the printed report of the meeting as The records of the 1910 Washington being active in particular countries. meeting indicate that many of the Animal Other international congresses societies outside Europe, the United Protection were organized in 1911 and 1927 States, and the British Common- After World War II the level of orga- (London), and five more were held in wealth were represented by expatri- nized international animal protec- Helsingborg, Copenhagen, Philadel- ates (American Humane Association tion expanded as national move- phia, Brussels, and Vienna between 1910). One example of a foreigner ments grew and flourished. Today 1911 and 1947 (Anonymous ca. setting up an organization is the there are four major international 1947). The Animal Defense and Anti- American Fondouk. This entity was entities and a number of internation- Vivisection Society’s International established in 1920 in Morocco by al activities sponsored by a variety of Humanitarian Bureau was established American traveler Amy Bend Bishop organizations. The four major enti- in Geneva (the home of the League of to take care of the needs of animals. ties (listed in descending size) are Nations) in September of 1928 She asked the MSPCA to oversee the the International Fund for Animal (Anonymous ca. 1947). The bureau program, and today the Fondouk Welfare (IFAW), the World Society for organized a deputation, supported by treats 15,000 animals annually. the Protection of Animals (WSPA), more than 1,400 animal protection the international program of the
2 The State of the Animals II: 2003 RSPCA, and Humane Society Inter- interests and was headquartered for The International Department can national (HSI), the international most of its existence in Geneva. It call on any of the professional staff in affiliate of The Humane Society of tended to draw most of its support the RSPCA’s U.K. headquarters to the United States. from animal groups in Europe, assist with international projects. although The HSUS became involved The RSPCA was a key supporter of IFAW in WFPA’s governing body in the the establishment of ISPA and, more IFAW was founded by Brian Davies. 1970s. Another organization, the recently, was the initiator of Euro- (The actual incorporation of IFAW in International Society for the Protec- group for Animal Welfare (see below). Massachusetts was in 1975.) Davies’s tion of Animals (ISPA), was estab- The RSPCA works proactively in East initial focus was the Canadian seal lished in 1959 with the support of the Asia and in Southern, Central, and pup cull and, as a result of his cam- RSPCA and the MSPCA. It had its Eastern Europe. It uses a variety of paigns, the Canadian seal issue is now headquarters in London but it had an tools to improve animal welfare, well known around the world. Davies office in Boston as well. ISPA became including training courses for govern- slowly built IFAW into the largest known for its disaster and emergency ment officials, nonprofit groups, and international animal protection orga- relief work—John C. Walsh, currently others. It gives out grants and has an nization, with an annual budget of WSPA International Projects director, association scheme to link with more than $60 million per annum in particular, was involved in a num- groups worldwide. It has run more (the largest amount being raised in ber of dramatic rescue operations— than a hundred training courses in the the United Kingdom) contributed by while WFPA was recognized for its past few years and in 2002 funded more than 2 million donors around work on the development and eventu- projects in more than forty countries. the world. Its expansion in the 1990s al passage of several animal protec- was particularly impressive, as its tion conventions at the Council of HSI budget increased from $30 million in Europe. HSI was established in 1991 to provide 1994 to $62 million in 1998; the The 1960s was marked by signifi- coordination for the international number of donors grew from 750,000 cant competition between WFPA and efforts of The HSUS. It has some sim- to 1.8 million over the same period. ISPA. During the 1970s, however, the ilarities to the RSPCA international IFAW employs more than two hun- leaders of both organizations recog- program in that it is able to draw on dred staff persons in its Massachu- nized that there would be consider- the program experts of The HSUS to setts headquarters and in offices in able benefits from a merger, and they provide expertise as needed. However, another thirteen areas around the began to work toward this end. In unlike the RSPCA, HSI has offices world (Asia/Pacific, Canada, China, 1981 the two organizations formally overseas. As of 2003 it had major pro- East Africa, the European Union, merged to become the World Society grams in Costa Rica, Australia, and France, Germany, India, Latin Ameri- for the Protection of Animals (WSPA), Europe, and new offices had been ca, the Netherlands, Russia, Southern with offices in the United States, the established in Asia, the United King- Africa, and the United Kingdom). United Kingdom, and Switzerland. In dom, France, and Germany. Other A few years ago, IFAW divided its the 1980s the Swiss office was closed, affiliates of The HSUS, including programs into three broad areas— but WSPA established new field EarthVoice and the Center for the reducing commercial exploitation offices in Costa Rica, Colombia, and Respect of Life and the Environment, and trade, saving animals in distress, Canada. Today the organization has also support international activities and preserving habitat for animals. offices in thirteen countries; 400 on the environment and animals. These programs include working on animal protection organizations from trade through the Convention on 91 countries as members; more than Other Groups 400,000 individual supporters; and International Trade in Endangered The RSPCA and various groups in Species of Wild Fauna and Flora an annual budget of approximately $15 million. Europe formed Eurogroup for Animal (known as CITES), elephant protec- Welfare in 1980. Eurogroup now is tion, seal protection, opposition to supported by leading animal welfare bushmeat (usually understood to RSPCA organizations in all fifteen member refer to the meat of terrestrial wild The RSPCA has been the model states of the European Union. Head- animals consumed for food), provid- that organizations have followed quartered in Brussels, Eurogroup's ing emergency relief, and working when establishing animal protection role is to present a united animal to establish marine reserves. groups in countries outside the United welfare voice and to lobby for new Kingdom. It also has supported ani- or improved European legislation to WSPA mal protection overseas for much of provide greater protection of animals. The World Federation for the Protec- its more than 175-year existence. It is recognized as an influential and tion of Animals (WFPA) was founded Currently its international programs powerful lobby with many achieve- in 1953 by Dutch animal protection are overseen by an internal division. ments to its credit.
A Strategic Review of International Animal Protection 3 For many decades the MSPCA has The country populations were South America (in Group C) have overseen animal protection programs obtained from the U.S. Central Intel- weak animal protection activities but in North Africa and Turkey. Various ligence Agency’s World Factbook on exhibit signs of a growing interest and organizations in the United Kingdom the Worldwide Web (www.cia.gov/ some hope for the future. These have raised money to support animal cia.publications/factbook). The ap- regions have reasonably high stan- protection activities in Japan, proximate per capita income in Pur- dards of living, but cultural factors Greece, and North Africa—the Soci- chasing Power Parity (PPP) also was (including possibly their strong ety for the Protection of Animals in obtained from the Worldwide Web. Roman Catholic religious traditions) North Africa (SPANA) is a particularly (PPP incorporates differences in cul- seem to work against the develop- successful example—also for decades. tural demand to provide a picture of ment of a healthy animal protection The North Shore Animal League comparative standards of living that capacity. Some attitude surveys in (Long Island, New York) and the is more accurate than a simple com- Central America (see Drews, in this National Canine Defense League parison of annual per capita incomes volume) show that the public appears (United Kingdom) teamed up in the in local currencies.) The analysis to have the same strength of humane mid-1990s to organize a series of could have been refined further to sentiment as that seen in the United capacity-building conferences in East- attempt to incorporate broad cultural States. However without the tradition ern Europe focused around the idea factors (e.g., dominant religions) but of animal protection activity, those of no- or limited-euthanasia pro- that would have produced a level of attitudes are not yet being translated grams. The U.S.-based People for the detail and fragmentation not neces- into behaviors that support animal Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) sarily helpful for the level of analysis protection. recently has established offices over- discussed here. Group D includes most of Asia, seas and is becoming more engaged Briefly, there are three regions in most of Africa, and most of the for- in international activities. A consor- the world (North America, Northern mer Soviet countries. In Asia animal tium of animal protection groups has Europe, and Australia/New Zealand, protection is mostly weak to nonexis- come together to represent animal or Group A) where support for animal tent. Japan has a very high standard protection interests on alternatives to welfare is very strong and where there of living, which usually is equated animal testing at meetings of the is a robust and well-funded animal with concern for animals, but perhaps OECD Chemicals Directorate. As of protection presence. All three regions the religious and cultural traditions 2003 the Hong Kong SPCA was orga- tend to be characterized by high stan- discount moral concern for animals nizing a capacity-development and dards of living and Protestant reli- (e.g., see Kellert 1993). Nonetheless training conference for Asian and gious traditions. there are some signs of an interest in other groups to follow up on an earli- In four regions of the world (South- developing an effective animal protec- er conference in the Philippines. ern Africa, the Caribbean Islands, tion capacity in Japan, and recently a Southern Europe, and Eastern group of Japanese animal groups Europe, or Group B) animal protec- came together to try to develop a Current State tion activity is reasonably healthy, more robust political presence. although all four regions could use In India the standard of living is rel- of Animal help to bolster their programs and atively low but the religious traditions the level of animal protection exper- tend to support moral concern for Protection tise available to them. The activity in animals. India has a relatively large International animal protection is Southern Africa and the Caribbean is number of animal protection organi- healthy and expanding in both influ- almost certainly a legacy of British zations, but they tend to be financial- ence and sophistication. Table 2 pro- colonial traditions and/or proximity ly weak. Maneka Gandhi has provided vides some indication of the level of to the United States (producing a strong leadership to help develop animal protection activity in different supply of expatriates to staff animal improved animal welfare standards, regions around the world. This table protection programs and some funds but economic barriers and the sheer is compiled from a variety of sources. to support projects and organiza- size of the country make her task for- The number of animal protection tions). Southern and Eastern Europe midable indeed. She was removed organizations in each country was are upgrading their animal protec- from her position as a minister in the obtained from the International tion activities because of parity Indian government in 2002 and, Directory of World Animal Protection; demands within the EU (in the case of therefore, no longer has the political wildlife conservation groups were not countries in the EU) or in hopes of power that she used quite effectively included in the tally. (The directory being able to join the EU sometime in to challenge such activities as animal does not include a complete tally of the future. However, none of the orga- research oversight. organizations, but the numbers prob- nizations in these countries is well- In the rest of Asia (including ably are accurate enough for the funded. Indonesia, the Philippines, China, and rough analysis provided in the table.) Of the other regions, Central and the Koreas) animal protection is con-
4 The State of the Animals II: 2003 Table 2 Animal Protection Activity Around the World
# of Approx. per Animal Capita Exemplar Total Protection # APOs/mIncome Region Countries Population Orgs. (APOs)1 people (000s) (PPP$)2 Group
Europe— United Kingdom, 211 million 1,865 8.840 22.5 A Western and Germany, Northern Scandinavia
Europe— Spain, 178 million 348 1.960 18.0 B Southern France, Greece
Europe— Poland, 194 million 158 0.820 4.5 B Eastern Hungary, Ukraine
Middle East Turkey, Iran, 239 million 46 0.190 5.4 C Israel
Russia and Russia, 219 million 22 0.100 3.6 D Central Asia Kazakhstan, Georgia
Asia— Afghanistan, 1,367 million 128 0.094 1.5 D India and Bangladesh neighbors
Asia— Thailand, Malaysia, 229 million 16 0.070 3.5 D Southeast Laos
Asia— New Caledonia 217 million 3 0.014 3.3 D Indonesia and Islands
Australasia Australia 23 million 220 9.690 19.0 A and New Zealand
Asia— Philippines, 78 million 5 0.060 3.6 D Philippines Tonga, Guam and Islands
Asia— China, 1,358 million8 0.006 3.3 D China North and and Korea South Korea
Asia— Japan 127 million 30 0.240 23.4 C Japan
(continued on next page)
A Strategic Review of International Animal Protection 5 (continued from previous page) Table 2 Animal Protection Activity Around the World
# of Approx. per Animal Capita Exemplar Total Protection # APOs/mIncome Region Countries Population Orgs. (APOs)1 people (000s) (PPP$)2 Group
America— U.S.A. and 310 million 6,400 20.675 27.0 A North Canada
America— Mexico, 135 million27 0.200 5.5 C Central Panama
America— Bahamas, 38 million 44 1.157 3.5 B Caribbean Cuba
America— Chile, Brazil, 346 million 112 0.324 6.3 C South Columbia
Africa— Morocco, 292 million 7 0.024 1.0 D North Egypt, Ethiopia
Africa— Guinea, Nigeria, 186 million 5 0.027 1.5 D West Ghana
Africa— Congo, Cameroon 74 million 0 0.000 1.2 D Western/ Central
Africa— Uganda, Burundi, 102 million 10 0.098 1.0 D Eastern/Central Tanzania
Africa— Angola, South 126 million 115 0.913 3.0 B Southern Africa, Mozambique
Total 6,049 million 9,569 1.580 6.0
1Taken from World Animal Protection Directory 2PPP stands for Purchasing Power Parity and is used by the World Bank to compare countries. fined to a few pockets of effective to adopt more animal-friendly poli- activism or to leftovers from colonial Types of cies. In terms of hands-on animal pro- times (e.g., the Hong Kong and Sin- tection activities, the programs can gapore SPCAs). Africa north of the International be divided into those that address dog Zambesi River is mostly lacking in any and cat issues, those that address significant animal protection activity Activities farm and draft animal issues, and International animal protection activ- (with a few noteworthy exceptions in those that address wildlife issues. ities can be segmented into several East and North Africa), as is the Mid- Some organizations are engaged in areas. One obvious activity is the dle East, where only Israel has any programs to set aside land for wildlife pressuring of international organiza- active groups. There are signs of a and to promote humane, sustainable tions—e.g., the World Trade Organi- stirring of animal protection interest development activities. zation (WTO), Food and Agriculture in Russia and some of the other Sovi- Organization (FAO) (see Trent et al. et republics, but the movement is still in this volume), International Whal- very new and weak. ing Commission (IWC), and CITES—
6 The State of the Animals II: 2003 Advocacy developing countries were set up to program in Jaipur, India, has record- All four of the major international address domestic dog and cat issues, ed a decline in street dog populations organizations are active in advocating however, often by expatriates from (C. Townend, personal communica- for animals on a wide range of inter- Group A countries. Currently most of tion, n.d. 2003), and HSI (2001) national issues. The WTO is currently the companion animal activities are reports that a Bahamian program a particular concern, because coun- focused on attempts to gain some reduced the number of strays on the tries with strong animal protection control of community and stray dog streets, left the sterilized strays in a laws are being threatened with trade populations. In developing countries healthier state, and began to change sanctions if they use those laws to the “pet” dog makes up a relatively the attitudes of local human popula- restrict the import of animal prod- small proportion (perhaps 5 percent tions toward the street dogs. ucts from countries with weaker or or less) of the total dog population. It is clear that dog and cat welfare nonexistent animal protection legisla- Most of the dogs are either communi- projects in the developing world tion or enforcement. However animal ty dogs, with some tenuous connec- cannot involve simply the direct appli- protection has had a major presence tion to a household or group of cation of approaches that have been at CITES since its establishment households, or true strays who survive used in Europe and North America. in 1973 and at the IWC for the past exclusively by scavenging. These pop- New, appropriate technology pro- thirty years. Indeed the current ulations can be very significant; for grams need to be developed that restrictions on whaling are largely a example, 85 percent of households in recognize that, although the nurture result of the effectiveness of animal Miacatlan, a Mexican village, have of animals is a universal phenomenon advocates over this period. Some of stray/community dogs who use the of human nature, appropriate nurtur- the other international treaties that house as home base for their territory ing behavior does not simply appear intersect with animal protection con- (Orihuela and Solano 1995). without role models acceptable to the cerns are: Because community and stray dogs local community and adequate oppor- IATTC/IDCPA: Inter-American are an important conduit through tunity to engage in such behavior. It Tropical Tuna Commission and which humans contract rabies (and a must also be recognized that animal dolphins (dolphin protection); range of other diseases, such as nurturance, and animal protection, WSSD: sustainable development, hydatidosis), the World Health Orga- cannot thrive where human commu- animal agriculture, fisheries, drift- nization has worked with WSPA to nities do not have adequate security nets; develop approaches to control popu- or opportunities to provide food and ISO: international standards involv- lations of stray and community dogs. shelter for themselves. ing humane farming and trapping; For the most part, developing coun- FAO: trade, fisheries, whaling, tries have tried to deal with stray dog Farm and farm animal husbandry, slaughter issues by periodically killing as many Draft Animals and transport; dogs as they can (often by poisoning). However canids respond to such pro- Farm and draft animals are vital in SPAW: specially protected areas providing families with food security and wildlife in the Caribbean; grams by having larger litters and breeding more frequently, therefore (in the context of availability, not of CMS: Bonn Convention on migra- safety) and the means to support tory species; 70 percent or more of a dog popula- tion must be killed before a signifi- themselves in much of the developing CBD: convention on biological world. In parts of Africa, cattle and diversity. cant drop in the population may be noticed. Such dog control programs other livestock are a family’s social Several organizations (including security system and “bank.” Thus the HSI and WSPA) now have consultative rarely have the resources to take the first essential step—to conduct dog welfare of these animals is tied closely status at the United Nations and are to the welfare of families and commu- using that status to campaign for ani- population studies. Over the past ten years, it has been nities. The FAO is working with mals at the level of these internation- HSI on a range of humane slaughter al organizations. suggested that a variation of the “trap, neuter, vaccinate, and release” initiatives that not only address approach currently used to control animal welfare but also include such Dogs and Cats stray cats in developed countries might elements as food security and hygiene Although companion animals are a be used for control of community and for local communities and the rele- driving force behind the development stray dog populations. Only a few of vant state. Draft animals (e.g., work- and growth of animal protection orga- such dog trap, neuter, vaccinate, and ing equines) also are important for nizations in Group A countries, they release programs have included the local communities, and it is impor- have not carried the same weight in collection of dog population data, so tant to help support their health and countries in Groups B, C, and D. Most it is not yet possible to conclude that welfare with appropriate initiatives. of the organizations established in this approach can work. However a
A Strategic Review of International Animal Protection 7 Wildlife tion activities, other organizations Humane Society International (HSI). For most of the developing world, also do their part. For example, Earth- 2001. Dogs on Abaco Island, wildlife represents either a competi- Voice has been working with U.K.- The Bahamas: A case study. tor for resources or a resource in based Fauna and Flora International Washington, D.C.: HSI. July. itself. Therefore wildlife protection to set aside land in Africa and the Kellert, S.R. 1993. Attitudes, knowl- issues in developing countries involve: Americas that secures important edge, and behavior toward wildlife (1) attempting to establish ap- habitats for wild species. HSI has among the industrial superpowers: propriate protected areas been engaged in a project to explore United States, Japan, and Ger- where wildlife can thrive; the potential of developing an many. Journal of Social Issues 49: (2) attempting to enforce protec- immunocontraceptive vaccine to 53–70. tions for populations of manage elephant populations in Orihuela, T.A., and V.J.Solano. 1995. threatened and endangered Southern Africa without resorting to Demographics of the owned dog species; and culling. population in Miacatlan, Morelos, (3) dealing with the many associat- Mexico. Anthrozoös 8: 171–175. ed cruelties of the trade in wildlife and bushmeat and Conclusions attempting to address human- International animal protection has animal conflicts. been growing in its sophistication, These issues frequently interest reach, and impact for the past quar- both wildlife conservation and wildlife ter century. The Internet provides a protection groups and provide oppor- valuable new tool to support the activ- tunities for such groups to work ities of the major international together to support land protection, groups as well as assist local individu- conservation initiatives, and wildlife als to be more effective in their advo- protection. The work of many conser- cacy. In ten years animal protection vation organizations already involves will have a foothold in those countries significant overlap with the programs where it is now mostly a curiosity and put in place by the international ani- will be much stronger around the mal protection groups. For example, globe. The message of kindness to HSI ran a three-year project to sup- animals is developing sophisticated port wildlife rehabilitation around the new clothing. As the habit of helping world. Many zoos and conservation and protecting animals spreads groups, most notably the Wildlife around the world, not only will the Conservation Society, which is based animals will be better off, but in the United States, support similar humans, and the communities, soci- veterinary programs. Animal protec- eties, and nations they people, also tion groups campaign against various will grow less violent and more civil. aspects of wildlife trade. The U.K.- The dream of a safer and more nur- based WildAid runs active programs turing world gradually will emerge to educate people in source countries into reality. about the harmful impact of wildlife trade and provides training to rangers and customs officials in source coun- Literature Cited tries to enable them to be more effec- American Humane Association. 1910. tive. WSPA has developed a very suc- The First International Humane cessful bear protection initiative Congress. Washington, D.C. Octo- (“Libearty”) to address the cruelties ber 10–15. involved in harvesting bear products Anonymous. (undated but circa for the traditional medicines market 1947). You and the animals in and in performing-bear activities peace and war. London: The throughout Asia. Animal Defence and Anti-Vivisec- While the U.S.-based Nature Con- tion Society. servancy is the giant of land preserva-
8 The State of the Animals II: 2003