DOCSLIB.ORG

Michael Wu, CEO Maxim's Caterers Limited, Director of Dairy Farm

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Michael Wu, CEO Maxim's Caterers Limited, Director of Dairy Farm Michael Wu, CEO Maxim’s Caterers Limited, Director of Dairy Farm Group, Director of Jardines Group 18/F, Maxim’s Centre, No.17 Cheung Shun Street, Cheung Sha Wan, Kowloon, Hong Kong 05 February 2018 Dear Michael Wu, Re: Sustainability at Maxim’s Caterers Limited (Shark Fin) We note and applaud your company’s moves towards sustainable development over recent years. There is, however, an aspect of your company’s operations that directly contradicts its commitment to saving the environment, which is Maxim’s Caterers Limited (Maxim’s) continued sales of shark fin. Simply put, the consumption of shark fin at over 50 Maxim’s outlets across Hong Kong is directly contributing to the endangerment of shark species, and the marine environment – in Asia and beyond. More specifically, a comprehensive scientific study conducted by a consortium of scientists from Hong Kong and the United States discovered that at least 76 species of sharks are commonly found in the trade in Hong Kong, of which almost one third are listed as under threat of extinction on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species.1 Despite repeated calls from the public for Maxim’s to stop selling shark fin, we note that your company continues to serve unsustainable and often illegally-sourced shark fin – despite an abundance of scientific evidence which points to the fact that this practice not only destroys marine biodiversity, but is pushing shark species to the brink of extinction. According to WWF Hong Kong, a quarter of all sharks and related species are threatened with extinction.2 Around 100 million sharks are unsustainably slaughtered each year, with around 73 million sharks targeted solely for their fins. The practice of shark finning is not only unsustainable, it is cruel and inhumane. Sharks have their fins hacked off whilst still alive and are then thrown back into the sea still living. Finned sharks then either starve to death, are eaten alive by other fish, or drown (if they are not in constant movement their gills can no longer extract oxygen from water). Noting Maxim’s communications in June 2017 where your company stated that; “We take responsibility in sustainable sourcing while continuing to respond to our customers’ changing preferences. We will also closely monitor new environmental factors, and review our strategies responsibly3”, we would like to draw your attention to the fact that blue sharks (Prionace glauca) were added to Appendix II of the United Nations Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) in October 2017. The inclusion of blue sharks on CMS marks an important milestone in shark conservation. The CMS listing of blue sharks shows how concerned governments everywhere are about the total lack of management of this species. CMS Appendix II listings are designed to stimulate better government coordination globally, and show that measures such as catch limits – and even a CITES Appendix II listing – will be needed if blue shark fisheries and trade are to be made genuinely sustainable, not just assumed to be with little evidence and no management or safeguards. We commend the University of Hong Kong for banning shark fin from all university functions as early as 2005 “in accordance with [their] commitment to protect and conserve biological diversity”. According to WWF-Hong Kong, to date, a total of 206 companies covering 100,000 employees in Hong Kong have committed to the WWF-Hong Kong ’No Shark Fin’ corporate pledge. These companies include international banks, small and medium enterprises, as well as major hotels, such as the Jardine Matheson-owned Mandarin Oriental Hotel Group, Starwood Hotels, the Shangri-La Group and the Hongkong and Shanghai Hotels Limited.4 Further, a total of 17 global container shipping lines and 44 airlines have stopped carrying shark fin as cargo, in large part due to perceived business risk, but also for Environmental Social and Governance (ESG) reasons. It is clear that the shipping and trading of shark fin poses many environmental, legal and even reputational risks. In 2013 the State Council of the People’s Republic of China banned shark fin soup at official banquets nationwide. That year, the Hong Kong government also followed suit with a complete ban on the consumption of shark fin by all government officials and civil servants. It is clear that setting ’No Shark Fin’ policies is the direction that society is moving towards. Maxim’s has ignored repeated requests from the public to show the same environmental leadership as the central 1 Fields, A. T., Fischer, G. A., Shea, S. K. H., Zhang, H., Abercrombie, D. L., Feldheim, K. A., Babcock, E. A. and Chapman, D. D. (2017), Species composition of the international shark fin trade assessed through a retail-market survey in Hong Kong. Conservation Biology. doi:10.1111/cobi.13043 2 https://apps.wwf.org.hk/file/SharkReport/wwf_riskybusiness_report_eng.pdf 3 http://wildaid.org.hk/sites/default/files_tmp/Maxim_Reply_Shark_Fin_10June.pdf 4 https://www.wwf.org.hk/en/news/?20120/Feature-Story-The-No-Shark-Fin-Policy government authorities, the Hong Kong government, the logistics sector and the 206 companies who have taken the WWF- Hong Kong ’No Shark Fin’ corporate pledge. Maxim’s is partially owned by Jardines whose Mandarin Oriental Hotel Group banned shark fin in 2015. It is therefore inconsistent for Maxim’s to continue selling shark fin. Your company has stated publicly that it serves blue shark which you maintain is “lower risk”. However, your company is ignoring the wealth of scientific evidence that indicates the contrary. “Lower risk” does not mean “no risk”. Due to no catch limits in the North West Atlantic and the Central and Western Pacific Ocean, blue shark fishing is far from sustainable. The last blue shark stock assessment from International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) was conducted in 2005 and can no longer be considered accurate. Crucially, multiple peer-reviewed publications have since 2005 documented declines in blue shark populations:- – >50% decline in the North Pacific from 1996 to 2009 (5% per year) — Clarke et al. 20125 – Blue shark fishing is approaching, and will soon exceed, minimum sustainable yield in the North Atlantic – UNEP, 20176 – 80% decline in male blue sharks in the North Atlantic from the mid 1980s to early 1990s — Heuter & Simpfendorfer, 20087 – 87% decline in the Central Pacific from the 1950s to the 1990s (5-6% decline per year) — Ward & Myers, 20058 – IUCN Shark Specialist Group members estimate only 4% of shark and ray fisheries are sustainably managed and none of these are blue shark fisheries. The fisheries considered to be sustainably managed are mainly for some rays, chimaeras and small sharks that are not preferred for shark fin soup — Dulvy & Simpfendorfer, 20179 – Finning (dumping the bodies at sea) of blue sharks still happens, even in monitored fisheries. — Clarke et al. 201210 – “In the Northwest Atlantic, blue sharks spend up to 92% of their time on the high seas, where they are largely unregulated and unmonitored. They are caught in large numbers by swordfish and tuna fishing fleets from a large number of nations, usually unintentionally, and are unproductive by fish standards, which makes them particularly sensitive to fishing pressure. Landing statistics that grossly underrepresent actual catches, unreported discards that often exceed landings, and high discard mortality rates are threats to the populations and roadblocks to useful population monitoring. The influence of these threats is greatly magnified by inattention and ineffective management from the responsible management agency, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), whose prime focus is the more valuable swordfish and tuna stocks.” — Campana, 201611 – In Peru, which is one of the top 12 suppliers of blue shark fins to Hong Kong, 74.7% of blue sharks caught were deemed sexually immature and under the legal minimum landing size. — Doherty, 201412 5 Clarke S, Harley S, Hoyle S, Rice J. 2012. Population trends in Pacific Oceanic Sharks and the Utility of Regulations on Shark Finning. Conservation Biology, Contributed Paper: 1-13. 6 UNEP, 2017. Samoa and Sri Lanka successful inclusion of the blue shark (Prionace glauca) on Appendix II of the Convention, 12th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties of Convention on Migratory Species, Manila, Philippines, 23-28 October 2017 Agenda Item 25.1, Convention on Migratory Species. 7 Hueter RE & Simpfendorfer CA. 2008. Trends in blue shark abundance in the western North Atlantic as determined by a fishery-independent survey. In Sharks of the Open Ocean, M Camhi and E.K. Pikitch, eds. Blackwell Scientific Publ., Fish and Aquatic Resources Series 13:236-241. 8 Ward P & Myers RA. 2005. Shifts in open-ocean fish communities coinciding with the commencement of commercial fishing. Ecology 86(4): 835-847. 9 Dulvy NK & Simpfendorfer CA. 2017. Bright spots of sustainable shark fishing. Current Biology Magazine 27, R1-R3. 10 Clarke S, Harley S, Hoyle S, & Rice J. 2012. Population trends in Pacific Oceanic Sharks and the Utility of Regulations on Shark Finning. Conservation Biology, Contributed Paper: 1-13. 11 Campana SE. 2016. Transboundary movements, unmonitored fishing mortality, and ineffective international fisheries management pose risks for pelagic sharks in the Northwest Atlantic. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 73: 1599-1607. 12 Doherty PD, Alfaro-Shigueto J, Hodgson DJ, Mangel JC, Witt MJ, & Godley BJ. 2014. Big catch, little sharks: Insight into Peruvian small-scale longline fisheries. Ecology and Evolution 4(12): 2375-2383. – Global shark chondrichthyan (shark, ray, skate and chimaera) landings peaked in 2003 and declined by almost 20% over the next decade. Authors found that landings declines were mainly attributed to fishing pressure and that current fisheries management measures did not have the strength or coverage to halt overfishing and avert population declines.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Prime Minister of Cambodia Office of the Prime Minister Royal Government of Cambodia Government Peace Building No
    His Excellency Samdech Techo Hun Sen Prime Minister of Cambodia Office of the Prime Minister Royal Government of Cambodia Government Peace Building No. 38, Confederation Russia Blvd (110) Phnom Penh Cambodia [email protected] May 22, 2020 Re: The Threat of the Dog Meat Trade to Cambodia Dear Prime Minister Hun Sen, We are writing on behalf of the Asia for Animals Coalition, representing international animal welfare and conservation organizations regarding our concerns about the dog meat trade in Cambodia and its threat to public health, in light of the recent COVID-19 pandemic. Despite the worsening situation of the pandemic globally and throughout Southeast Asia, with 45,2091 ​ human coronavirus infections in the region to date, the mass trafficking, sale, and slaughter of ​ companion animals often alongside wild animals throughout the Kingdom continues unchallenged. The dog meat trade is rampant in Cambodia, involving the slaughter and consumption of up to 3 million dogs each year, many of them stolen pets, with an unknown number trafficked regularly into neighboring Vietnam. Research suggests that only 12% of Cambodians regularly consume dog meat, and consumption remains a controversial practice among Khmer people.2 The dog meat trade has proven to be a significant threat to public health, facilitating the transmission of deadly diseases including rabies, cholera, and trichinella. The trade also directly undermines Cambodia’s rabies control efforts and disrupts any attempts at achieving herd immunity through mass canine vaccination programs. Despite growing global public health concerns regarding live animal interfaces and wet markets and the potential for the emergence of novel and deadly viruses, the dog meat trade in Cambodia continues to operate - even in the face of mounting calls to end this trade.
    [Show full text]
  • MAW-003 Animal Welfare Laws, Policies and Organizations
    MAW-003 Animal Welfare Laws, Policies and Organizations Block 4 ANIMAL WELFARE STATUTORY BODIES AND ORGANIZATIONS UNIT 11 Animal Welfare Organizations UNIT 12 CPCSEA Animal Welfare Statutory Bodies and Organizations BLOCK 4 ANIMAL WELFARE STATUTORY BODIES AND ORGANIZATIONS In India, the major national level animal welfare statutory bodies are working under Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying (MoFAHD) and Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC). The state level statutory bodies are working under corresponding ministries at state level. At district level, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) is the recognised body. The animal welfare non-governmental organisations (NGOs), societies and charitable trusts are generally non-profit bodies funded by donations, grants and sponsorships. The Committee for the Purpose of Control and Supervision of Experiments on Animals (CPCSEA) is the national regulatory body constituted under the PCA Act, 1960. Unit 11, Animal Welfare Organizations focuses on the major national and Global level animal welfare organizations / not-for-profit organizations. Unit 12, CPCSEA describes the meaning, guidelines, objectives and functions of CPCSEA and IAEC, justify the need for the CPCSEA and Institutional Animals Ethics Committee (IAEC), the ethical principles adopted for use of animals in scientific experiments and the protocols for the use of animals in research and other related purposes. 172 Animal Welfare UNIT 11 ANIMAL WELFARE Organizations ORGANIZATIONS
    [Show full text]
  • “​Brand Management and Analysis​”
    Action Project Reference: 65-02 ​ ​ Organisation: Animals Fiji ​ ​ Action Project Proposal: “Brand Management and Analysis” ​ ​ Who Are Animals Fiji? West Charity Trust Society (operators of Animals Fiji) was established in late 2011 in Fiji by four Trustees to support initially via fund-raising activities what was then the Nadi branch of the SPCA Fiji (based in Suva) due to the SPCA's increasingly limited resources at the time. There had been no permanent Veterinary services outside of the Capital City of Suva for over 3 years at that time; the SPCA Fiji Nadi Clinic was staffed by a Vet Nurse and a Full-time Volunteer Technician. By June of 2012, the West Charity Trust Society now trading as Animals Fiji owned 90% of the clinic's assets, 100% of the drugs / medical supplies and was providing Veterinary services (welfare and revenue generating) via sourcing of international volunteer Vets. In July of 2012, SPCA Fiji could no longer support the Nadi clinic in any meaningful way and Animals Fiji took over operations. Since 2012, via international volunteers and new staff, Animals Fiji has been able to provide full-time veterinary services initially just in Nadi, but now four other clinics in Fiji: ● Savusavu (since 2013 to present), ● Lautoka (since Jan 2016 to present), ● Labasa (since Jan 2016, to present) and ● Taveuni (since Jan 2016 to March 2019) As well we have provided various other out clinics throughout Fiji, which by 2019 averaged 25 annually in various areas of Fiji. In addition to our 2011 registration as a Fiji charity, Animals Fiji has been registered in NSW, Australia since 2012 for fund-raising activities and is operated there by two volunteers who are long-term animal welfare supporters.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Letter to the UK Government on Support for the Dairy Industry
    Open Letter to the UK Government on Support for the Dairy Industry To: Mr George Eustice, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Cc: Mr Rishi Sunak, The Chancellor and Treasury Dear Mr Eustice, We the undersigned understand that representatives of the UK dairy industry, namely the National Farmers Union (NFU) and The Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers (RABDF) are pressuring the government to step in with financial support for their industry, due to collapsing demand from the foodservice and hospitality sectors. This is amid a growing ‘crisis’ causing some farmers to start dumping cows’ milk. Whilst we sympathise with all small UK businesses during this challenging time and appreciate the vital role that food producers may play, with regards to national food security, it is important to maintain perspective. The UK dairy industry is clearly in decline and has been experiencing a recent but significant drop in consumer demand. There are now fewer than 9,500 dairy farms in the UK compared with 13,000 10 years ago, and it has been predicted there will be fewer than 5,000 by 2025. On the other hand, the UK market for dairy alternatives has grown by 150% in 6 years. Plant-based business is positively booming. Whilst we appreciate the need to support farmers, we shouldn’t collectively keep artificially propping up a failing industry with public funds. We would instead like to see support for a progressive transition over to more sustainable, healthier and planet-friendly, non-animal-based agriculture or into other sustainable forms of land management.
    [Show full text]
  • Fiapo's Achievements 2012
    FIAPO’S ACHIEVEMENTS 2012 - 2013 FEDERATION OF INDIAN ANIMAL PROTECTION ORGANISATIONS EMPOWERING GROUPS AND ENGAGING WITH THE COMMUNITIES TO END ANIMAL SUFFERING CONTENTS FIAPO Member Organisations ...........................2 A Message from Our Chairperson ......................3 Aashray, Jaipur Help in Suffering, Jaipur LEAF India, Jaipur Building A Movement........................................4 RAKSHA, Jaipur Seva Smarpan, Jaipur Animal Aid Unlimited Trust, Udaipur Captive No More ..............................................5 Tree of Life for Animals (TOFLA), Ajmer Gujrat SPCA, Vadodara Putting The Farm Back In Farm Animals ...........6 A Companion For Life ......................................7 Living In A Cruelty Free World ..........................8 India For Animals Conference And Exhibition ...8 Animals Matter to Me, Mumbai Bombay SPCA, Mumbai Responding To Emergencies .............................9 In Defence of Animals, India (IDA), Mumbai Save our Strays, Mumbai Welfare of Stray Dogs, Mumbai Indian Society for Human Animal Welfare, Nagpur Meet The Team ...............................................10 PARTH, Netiwali Kalyan (E) PAWS, Dombivili Thane SPCA, Thane Conclusion.......................................................13 People for Animals Goa, Mapusa Goa Animal Welfare Trust, Salcete International Animal Rescue Goa, Bardez Animals Birds Nature Foundation, Bangalore Compassion Unlimited Plus Action, Bangalore Samabhava, Bangalore Wildlife Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre, Bangalore Animal Rescue Kerala (ARK), Trivandrum
    [Show full text]
  • Roots of Human Resistance to Animal Rights: Psychological and Conceptual Blocks
    \\Server03\productn\L\LCA\8-1\LCA105.txt unknown Seq: 1 14-MAY-02 15:16 ROOTS OF HUMAN RESISTANCE TO ANIMAL RIGHTS: PSYCHOLOGICAL AND CONCEPTUAL BLOCKS By Steven J. Bartlett* Animal law has focused attention on such interconnected issues as the prop- erty status of nonhuman animals, juristic personhood, and standing. These subjects are undeniably central concerns that dominate discussions of animal rights, but they do not relate to the most fundamental factors that are responsible both for human resistance to animal rights and for our spe- cies' well-entrenched, cruel, and self-righteous exploitation and destruction of nonhuman animals. In this comment, the author reviews recent advocacy of animal rights and offers the first study of human psychological and con- ceptual blocks that stand in the way of efforts on behalf of animal law and legislation. Paying long overdue attention to these obstacles provides a real- istic framework for evaluating the effectiveness of attempts to initiate mean- ingful change. I am in favour of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the way of a whole human being. ÐAbraham Lincoln I. INTRODUCTION: ANIMALS AS PROPERTYÐIS THIS THE PROBLEM? Animals are property. These three wordsÐand their legal implications and practical ramificationsÐdefine the most significant doctrines and cases . and the realities for current practitioners of animal law.1 For many people in our society, the concept of legal rights for other animals is quite ªunthinkable.º That is because our relationship with the * Senior Research Professor of Philosophy, Oregon State University; Visiting Scholar in Psychology & Philosophy, Willamette University; Previously Professor of Philosophy, St.
    [Show full text]
  • Applied Ethics in Animal Research: Philosophy, Regulation, and Laboratory Applications John P
    Purdue University Purdue e-Pubs Purdue University Press e-books OLD Purdue University Press 1-1-2002 Applied ethics in animal research: Philosophy, regulation, and laboratory applications John P. Gluck Tony DiPasquale F. Barbara Orlans Follow this and additional works at: http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/press_ebooks Gluck, John P.; DiPasquale, Tony; and Orlans, F. Barbara , " Applied ethics in animal research: Philosophy, regulation, and laboratory applications" (2002). Purdue University Press e-books OLD. Paper 16. http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/press_ebooks/16 This document has been made available through Purdue e-Pubs, a service of the Purdue University Libraries. Please contact [email protected] for additional information. Gluck, DiPasquale, Orlans Gluck, DiPasquale, Applied Ethics / Veterinary Studies Few contemporary issues arouse as much passionate rhetoric as the ethics of labo- ratory animal use. These essays challenge people of good faith to face the issues Applied Ethics in relevant to the ethics of using animals in biomedical and behavioral research. They discuss issues of philosophy, statutory regulation, and laboratory application of ethics in ways depleted of sheer rhetoric and attempts to manipulate. The result is an open dialogue that allows readers to reach a deepened understanding of the Animal Research issue and to form their own opinions. “This is an excellent compilation of analyses from some of the leading thinkers in Applied Ethics in Animal Research the world on animal research ethics. I would recommend it as a useful addition to anyone’s library.”—ANDREW N. ROWAN, PH.D., Senior Vice President, Philosophy, Regulation, Humane Society of the United States “This book advances our understanding of an inherently compelling, complex, and and Laboratory Applications conflicted field.
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Influence II
    AntennaeIssue 22 - Autumn 2012 ISSN 1756-9575 Animal Influence II Merritt Johnson – This Was Never a Knife Fight / Marten Sims – Seal Sees the Sea / Giovanni Aloi – Animal-Human-Machine-Plant / Sandra Semchuck – Bison Crossing / Deke Weaver interviewed by Maria Lux – The Unreliable Bestiary / Karolle Wall – Mollusks / G.A. Bradshaw – Pas De Deux / Myron Campbell – Distant Air / Carol Gigliotti and Marc Bekoff – In Conversation / Paolo Pennuti – Rubbernecking / Julie O’Neill – A Compassionate 2012 Antennae The Journal of Nature in Visual Culture Editor in Chief Giovanni Aloi Academic Board Steve Baker Ron Broglio Matthew Brower Eric Brown Carol Gigliotti Donna Haraway Linda Kalof Susan McHugh Rachel Poliquin Annie Potts Ken Rinaldo Jessica Ullrich Advisory Board Bergit Arends Rod Bennison Helen Bullard Claude d’Anthenaise Petra Lange-Berndt Lisa Brown Rikke Hansen Chris Hunter Karen Knorr Rosemarie McGoldrick Susan Nance Andrea Roe David Rothenberg Nigel Rothfels Angela Singer Mark Wilson & Bryndís Snaebjornsdottir Global Contributors Sonja Britz Tim Chamberlain Concepción Cortes Lucy Davis Amy Fletcher Katja Kynast Christine Marran Carolina Parra Zoe Peled Julien Salaud Paul Thomas Sabrina Tonutti Johanna Willenfelt Copy Editor Maia Wentrup Front Cover Image: Julie Andreyev,2 Tom and Sugi Julie Andreyev EDITORIAL ANTENNAE ISSUE 22 This issue of Antennae is the second instalment dedicated to Animal Influence, the theme of Interactive Futures (IF)'11, held November 17-19, 2011 in Vancouver, B.C. Canada at Intersection Digital Studios (IDS)
    [Show full text]
  • Turning Points in Compassion
    Covering a range of topics from politics and Turning Points in Compassion “ law, to spiritual and social change, Turning Points in Compassion makes a compelling case for the recognition of the beauty, sentience and intelligence of all things… This volume is essential reading for anyone interested in, or committed to, the ethics, politics and life of veganism.” Dr Shannon Brincat, Research Fellow at Griffi th University, Queensland. This inspirational collection of personal stories challenges our widespread perceptions about our relationship with animals. With a powerful blend of compassion and honesty, the writers in Turning Points in Compassion share pivotal moments that awakened them to a life-changing awareness. Each one’s life has been enriched beyond measure as a result of their journey. With open eyes, hearts and minds, they describe their entry to a new world of compassionate living where they no longer see animals as their food or their property. Their description of a life lived with awareness Personal Journeys of Animal Advocates of animals as equally feeling beings who have conscious awareness and lives that matter to them will touch the hearts of people everywhere. No readers will be left unchallenged by this book. All profi ts from sales are donated to animal sanctuaries and rescue groups. Praise for Turning Points in Compassion This collection of awakenings and acknowledgements of our innate compassion, sourced worldwide from many of the most eloquent, passionate and intellectually progressive voices in today’s growing Animal Rights movement, then crafted into a beautiful tapestry by the editors, is bound to be the turning point for many to become, as Matthew Scully explains, “radically kind.” —Dr Craig Quarmby, A Gentle Place, Tasmania, Australia.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Letter to Members of Parliament and the House of Lords
    ADVOCATES FOR ANIMALS Making full use of the law to help animals 14 April 2021 Dear Members of Parliament and the House of Lords Introduction 1. Advocates for Animals (AfA) is the UK’s first law firm dedicated to ensuring that animals are given the protection intended by the legislature. 2. This Response is written on behalf of animal protection organisations and concerned individuals named in the Annex. 3. The Response focuses on the parts in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill 2021 (the Bill) of most relevance to the signatories. Areas of Concern in the Bill Protest 4. Protests already have rigorous requirements placed on them, the police can impose conditions on marches and demonstrations and can even ban a demonstration or march with the approval of the local authority and the Home Secretary. 5. The police also already have a range of powers they can rely on to ensure a protest is kept under control. For example, it is already an offence to use threatening or abusive words or behaviour or to display any sign which is threatening or abusive under the Public Order Act 1986. 6. Further, those who organise a march must give at least seven days’ notice to the police, unless it is “not reasonably practicable” to do so, although you should still give as much notice as possible. The notice should include the name and address of at least one of the organisers and the route and it is an offence not to provide this. 1 7. The new law proposes significant changes that could see protests prevented and stopped for minor and trivial reasons.
    [Show full text]
  • End the Global Commercial Trade in Wild Animals to Protect Biodiversity and Ensure Sustainable Development
    Dear UN Member States Summit on Biodiversity – End the Global Commercial Trade in Wild Animals to Protect Biodiversity and Ensure Sustainable Development Opening The undersigned organisations, including World Animal Protection, Humane Society International extend their compliments and would like to draw your attention to the upcoming Summit on Biodiversity and the urgent need to address a key threat to biodiversity: the global commercial trade in wildlife. We are calling for a phase out leading to a global ban on cross-border wildlife trade, which would be a big step towards achieving the vision for the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Platform, namely for humanity to truly live in harmony with nature. Set up An alarming number of wild animals have been incorporated into the commodification of nature1. The driving force responsible for this global phenomenon is consumer demand, and the commercial forces that promote and supply it2. Today, an increasing number of the global population of seven billion people are consuming wild animals. The exploitation of wildlife has occurred throughout human history, leading to biodiversity loss and extinctions. However, we are now at a turning point where humans have exploited such a large quantity of wildlife over the past 50 years that the rate of biodiversity loss has accelerated sharply and to an industrial scale that is no longer sustainable for wildlife and our planet3. The most overexploited species include marine fish, invertebrates, tropical vertebrates hunted for bushmeat, and species harvested for the medicinal and pet trade4. However, other consumer demand also extends to the use of wildlife as entertainment, luxury fashion and food5.
    [Show full text]
  • Alternative Methods V1
    UPF-CAE Recommendations Sources on alternative methods to replace vivisection Research team Supervising & Editing: Núria Almiron, Paula Casal, Marta Tafalla, Montserrat Escartín, Catia Faria, Eze Paez, Laura Fernández, Sandra Amigó. Researchers: Tugce Ataci & Núria Almiron Image on the front page: Public domain January 2018 UPF-CAE Recommendations: Sources on alternative methods to replace vivisection (v1) Table of contents Introduction 4 The vivisection industry 5 This report 6 Lists of sources 7 1. Authorities for validating alternative methods 7 2. Research centers and consortiums involved in alternative methods 9 3. Organizations that fund research on alternative methods 11 4. Animal rights organizations focused on alternative methods 15 5. Databases of alternative methods 17 6. Academic journals reporting on alternative methods 18 7. A recommended bibliography 19 Introduction Every year millions of nonhuman animals are used in experiments across the world for the purposes of vivisection – i.e. the live cutting or any other harmful or invasive use of their bodies, with or without anaesthetic, including psychological and trauma testing in laboratory, military, educational or other environments. Experiments on nonhumans can last from hours to months and consist of practices involving all sorts and degrees of psychological and physical pain, including forcibly restraining, isolating, shocking, addicting to drugs, starving, infecting, burning, shooting, poisoning, damaging brain tissue, blinding and genetically manipulating, among others. The ethical dilemmas raised by these practices are enormous and generate growing opposition to animal testing as well as increasing interest in alternatives. These alternatives and the growing interest in them are by no means new; organisations and scientists have been involved in new drug designs and experimental research methods that promote humane alternatives for decades.
    [Show full text]