Animal welfare - - Making of Public Policy a

							Animal welfare - - Making of
Public Policy and The Role of
 The Supreme Court - The
      Israeli Experience
Eran Ettinger, Legal Advisor, Ministry of Agriculture and
               Rural Development, Israel



 THE ECONOMIC AND TRADE IMPLICATIONS OF POLICY
         RESPONSES TO SOCIETAL CONCERNS
            OECD WORKSHOP 2-3/NOVEMBER 2009
                                                            1
    Animal Welfare (Protection of
        Animals) Act – 1994
Article 2(a): A person shall not
torture an animal, be cruel to an
animal or abuse an animal in any way;
 Article 19: when issuing regulations,
the Minister of Agriculture shall take
“agricultural needs” into account;



                                          2
  1997 - The Case of "fights"
Between a Man and an Alligator
Supreme court: Article 2(a) of the Animal Welfare
Act include three components:
A.   factual - causing suffering to animals;
B. mental - awareness of the nature of the actions;
C. legal - absence of necessity. Check is based on 3
components:       The     purpose,     the     mean,
proportionality between purpose and mean;



                                                    3
   The Supreme Court Ruled:
"Fights" between a man and an alligator for
  amusement purpose are prohibited
 The purpose – amusement - doesn’t justify the
  suffering (even it’s not severe);




                                             4
2003 - The Case of force-feeding of
         geese and ducks
   Raising animals, including Long accepted
    agricultural practices, falls under the
    provisions of the Animal Welfare law;
   In every given case, the relevant
    “agricultural needs” should be weighed
    against the suffering inflicted on the
    animal, as well as the type of suffering
    and its severity.



                                               5
   The Supreme Court Ruled:
 The Force-Feeding Geese Regulations
 deviate significantly from the
 purpose of the law. It has given
 excessive importance to the interest
 of “agricultural needs” and too little
 importance to animal welfare.
 Therefore the regulations are
 annulled;

                                      6
2009 - The Case of Laying Hen
The egg-laying industry –
1.   Covered by an overall planning framework
     [quotas, guaranteed price for farmers,
     regulated price for consumers];
2.   High percentage of small & not efficient
     enough growers;
3.   Mostly long-standing enclosures with
     insufficient veterinary, health and environmental
     standards.


                                                         7
       Investment support for relocating
        and rebuilding eggs enclosures
Began in 2009. Original purposes are:
I.       Wide-ranging adjustment of veterinary,
         health and environmental requirements;
II.      A significant enlargement of egg-
         production units;
III.     Relocation of farms at new areas out of the
         villages in order to enable farmers to
         develop other sources of employment;

                                                   8
      Original purposes [continuation]
IV.   Subsidy will be reduced gradually and will
      come to an end in 2012;
V.    Reduction of the regulated price for the
      farmers;

 Total investment in the reform is estimated to be 145 million
          EUR (USD 214 million), of which the government will
                         cover 70 million EUR



                                                                 9
And what about animal welfare?
 The  original reform has take into
  account the animal welfare aspect
  only marginally;
 NGO’S forced the government to
  consider and check seriously the
  necessity of an improvement on the
  farm level;

                                       10
Animal welfare at the laying-hen
           industry
 A professional committee learned and
checked the common growing systems
through 6 major considerations –




                                        11
         Major considerations
1.   Welfare of the hens at different growing
     systems;
2.   Veterinary aspects - disease prevention;
3.   Health requirements - eggs pollution;
4.   Environmental – pollution of soil & water;
5.   Area size needed;
6.   Economic aspects - investment needed
     and influence on consumer price;
                                              12
        Government decision
 Base on the recommendations of the
 committee, government decided:
 Tosee the EU Directive as a guideline and
 reference;
 Notto prohibit the use of battery-cages
 system, but to enlarge the hen’s space
 and add other facilities;

                                            13
Government decision [continuation]
 Firststage of the improvement plan would
  be implement through incentives
  (investment support);
 Only Second stage by compelling
  regulations;
 To  wait and learn from the European
  experience of implementation the EU
  directive;

                                         14
   New NGO’S Petition to the
        Supreme Court
 NGO’S   applied to the Supreme Court
 and request to stop the reform till the
 parliament will force the government
 to legislate regulations that will
 prohibit battery-cage system.
  The petition is being arbitrated in these
                    days.

                                              15
    Comments and Questions
The Issue is a typical societal concern:

 Bottom-up    process;

 Strongly    moved by lobbing groups;

 Different   ethical views;

 Lack   of agreed scientific knowledge;

                                           16
          Some major Questions
   What are the pro’s&con’s of each way:
    improvement of the laying-hen industry by
    government incentives or by compelling
    regulations?

    [Or maybe we have to let the market talk?]

   What Is the right arena to take the decisions?
    The Government? The parliament?

   What is the right role of the court in policy
    making? Process control? Ruling among
    values?
                                                     17