Event Review: CEVA Training

Price: ****

Ease of use: ****

Value for EAA beginners: ****

Value for EAA pros: ***

As ever, this post reflects my own views, not those of my employer.

On the 1st and 2nd of September, I attended a two-day training session by the Center for Effective Vegan Advocacy, hosted by ProVeg UK. The training was led by Melanie Joy and Tobias Leenaert. You can see the agenda here. Many relevant resources – either similar to the talks themselves, or recommended as relevant to the content – can be found here.

The talks

Tobias kicked off the sessions with an excellent, concise summary of some of the key principles of Effective Altruism, and how these might apply to animal advocacy in broad terms. His talks on the second day were mostly either summarising some of the key ideas in his book, How to Create a Vegan World, or adding some supplementary ideas, which he shares at various points on his blog (and which mostly repeated the talk he had given in London last year, on the same title as his book). These talks were all excellent for those unfamiliar with EA and EAA (if this applies to you, then see this list of introductory materials), his book and blog, although for those who were already aware of these ideas, they had little to add.

Melanie Joy spoke about effective communication. This is a topic that I find people who are new to veganism or to EAA are often keen to talk about or find additional resources on (hence why I wrote this post). A lot of the talk focused on theories of ways to break down, understand and reflect upon communication in general. This was then supplemented with some more practical tips. For example, one idea which many attendees seemed keen to focus on putting into practice was the idea of whole messages. In discussions going forward (whether about veganism or not!) I plan to try and focus on consistently implementing a simplified version of this, where I lead with neutral, objective observations before explaining my interpretation or feelings arising from that observation, and before moving onto any relevant requests or suggestions for my audience. Indeed, some of these ideas are likely as useful for personal communication as they are for communication about veganism. Melanie’s talks did not drill down much into the evidence-base of her claims and suggestions. This made the talks more accessible for practical advice on communication, but made them less persuasive if any of her views about the foundational questions in EAA differed from your own; speaking to a few individuals in the breaks, they were unhappy with some of the suggestions to focus on tactics which fell short of an explicit, comprehensive “vegan” ask, and there was little evidence in the talks which might have changed their minds.

Melanie also gave a talk about sustainable activism. I did not take any notable lessons away from this talk; it felt as if the purpose was simply to reinforce the importance of not burning out as an activist. Melanie did recommend some resources for further use, however, such as the book Trauma Stewardship, and these could be useful for many individuals.

Other benefits

An additional benefit of the training is in building connections, community and communication between the attendees themselves. For those new to animal advocacy or interested in becoming active as advocates for the first time, the training offers the chance to meet other advocates, and perhaps to find out about opportunities for engagement. For those more heavily involved in animal advocacy, the event could provide great opportunities to meet others and to build up relationships which support more coordinated action. This might especially be the case if the training has not been run in your area before or if your country does not have a very established or well-connected animal advocacy community. CEVA could possibly have made more of these potential benefits: perhaps by formally hosting a meetup or discussion group around the main events, for those working in animal advocacy (although Tobias suggested to me that they do do this sort of thing for countries with a less well-established animal advocacy community); perhaps simply by providing a list of attendees before the event itself, so that attendees could see if there were particular individuals or organisations that they wanted to connect with at the event (this would have been very useful for me).

Summary of benefits for different types of attendees

Those new to animal advocacy will probably benefit most from the talks, especially Tobias Leenaert’s introductory content. The only potential negative of the training for newcomers, apart from the reasonable fee and the time commitment, is that by focusing on “communication”, it focused inevitably on individual discussions about veganism, which may reinforce the assumption (which I would argue is mistaken) that individual vegan outreach is an effective use of marginal resources (see here for a summary of that debate).

For those working in animal advocacy organisations but unfamiliar with the concepts of Effective Altruism and pragmatic approaches to animal advocacy, Tobias’ talks would be very useful. For those who work directly in communications about veganism (whether that be in designing materials, in marketing, or in corporate outreach), then Melanie’s talks may have been very useful. For those well acquainted with EA ideas and not involved in work requiring “effective communication”, then the talks of the training don’t offer much of direct value.

The training weekend probably offers decent value in terms of community-building and networking for all attendees, although to varying extents, depending on your personal and professional situation. For the reasonable price to attend, this probably makes attending worth it for many people.

Personally, as someone who works full time in EAA research, I found it a vaguely productive use of a weekend where I otherwise wouldn’t have done much work relating to EA. I also thoroughly enjoyed the events and socialising in the evening. That said, I wouldn’t have attended if I had had to sacrifice working days to attend.

Advertisements

Book review: Melanie Joy (2008) Strategic Action For Animals (Lantern Books: New York)

Price: ****
Ease of use: *****
Value for EAA beginners: *
Value for EAA pros: *

This is a book which focuses on strategy for organisations advocating for animals, but which also considers many ideas about individual activism and effectiveness. By the end of the book, Melanie Joy summarises that the book has “examined how social movements evolve and win; the difference between animal liberation and human liberation movements and how this impacts animal advocacy; the divide-and-conquer counterstrategy that makes the movement kill itself; how to maintain a strategic organization and run strategic campaigns; why and how to start your own animal liberation organization; how to be a strategic advocate for animals; and how to make sure your activism is sustainable.”

The book, consisting of 147 small pages with large font, does indeed consider all of these topics, though without much depth. The book primarily consists of some common sense thinking and some checklists of ideas to consider for each of these respective issues. The checklists may be useful if you are having to consider any of these issues, for instance tips on pages 44-46 about holding valuable “strategic meetings”, or ideas for ensuring that your campaigns have a clear goal and focus on pages 56-68. The disadvantage is that these checklists seem to be based primarily off of common sense and past experience, with only occasional reference to external literature, and no explicit reference to any particular kind of research. As a result, the checklists act more as toolkits and lists of ideas that you might like to consider, rather than as a go-to guide for the most important research or factors for each particular area.

The book is clearly subtitled – if you are soon to face any of the issues described, and don’t have much experience in the area yet, then you might find the checklists useful. A Google search might provide similarly useful information, although at least with this book you can have faith that the reflections come from an experienced and intelligent animal advocate. As with the animal activists’ handbook, this book is old enough to pre-date the majority of effective altruism writings and EAA research; whilst I am sure it was an excellent resource for its time, I probably would not recommend this book to anyone who didn’t have a specific need that I thought the book was particularly focused on.

I have copied photos of the contents below, in case any parts of the book seem particularly relevant to your needs.

Joy contents

Book Review: Nick Cooney (2011) Change of Heart: What Psychology Can Teach us About Spreading Social Change (Lantern Books: New York)

Price: ****
Ease of use: ****
Value for EAA beginners: *****
Value for EAA pros: ****

 

This book by Nick Cooney is an excellent resource for understanding how psychology affects our work in social movements. It draws primarily on external psychological studies, combined with Cooney’s personal advocacy experience, primarily for the Humane League (he had worked for or helped to found many organisations by 2011, and done so for more since then) and some strategic thinking and common sense.

The book is intended to be applicable to any social movement, with his examples frequently alternating between animal advocacy, environmentalism and other causes. This does not significantly detract from its value for animal advocates (even if some of the specific suggestions aren’t directly relevant), although I suspect that advocates for other causes might find that the book focuses on issues most pertinent to animal advocacy.

The structure of the book is simple. Chapters 1 to 3 lay out a variety of cognitive biases that affect how successful various types of advocacy efforts are likely to be. This section leaves you with the impression that successful advocacy is incredibly difficult, and that you shouldn’t rely on your intuitions.

After building up your sense of the gravity of the problems (in the manner of a successful salesman?), Cooney then moves on to demonstrating solutions for the issues. Chapters 4 to 7 all list a huge number of “Tools of Influence” to support our advocacy. The final three chapter then contain wider social scientific learnings and business strategy ideas which put the ideas from the rest of the book into context.

The book is therefore packed full of useful information. Here are some of those who might benefit, organised roughly in order of who I think would benefit most:

  • Advocates hoping to increase the effectiveness of their individual outreach, or increase their chances of success in discussions with corporate, institutional or governmental contacts, partners and targets
  • Those currently working for non-profit organisations who might want to read through to see if the ideas contained might help to streamline their work, and improve efficiencies.
  • Aspiring social scientists, EAA researchers, or those working in non-profits interested in measuring the impact of their own programmes, to read through the first few chapters to broaden their understanding of how cognitive biases might affect their research.
  • If you are already familiar with both psychology and the animal advocacy movement, you might not learn as much from this book, although I imagine that it might still piece some ideas together in ways that you had not already done yourself.

The wide appeal of the book necessarily means that it won’t be consistently 100% useful, word for word, for any one reader. It contains an overwhelmingly large number of useful new ideas for those new to the field of psychology, which makes the book almost intimidating to use.

For those under time pressure, I’d encourage you to follow one of these two strategies to get the most out of the book:

  • Read this list I have created of 23 of the different cognitive biases and 42 of the tools referred to in the book. This list cuts out much of the useful explanation and examples given in the book, but condenses the key concepts. You could copy and paste the information into a separate Excel/Google sheet and add an additional column for the relevance of the concepts to your work. I would advise also buying the book, so that you can look up the specific examples and relevant studies, as and when appropriate.
  • Flick through the book, looking at the clearly labelled subtitles, and stopping to read those strategies which seem most useful for you.

As usual for such books, the Kindle edition is relatively cheap, but the paperback is more expensive than most paperbacks. It gets 4*s anyway, because the book is so packed full of information, most readers would easily get their money’s worth!

For those looking for easier (i.e. less research-heavy) introductions to effective animal advocacy outreach, I’d recommend starting with Friedrich and Ball’s Handbook or Leenaert’s book.

Note, that whilst I am fairly unreservedly endorsing the helpful information and advice contained within Cooney’s book, I am not endorsing his personal conduct. Although I know very little about the issue beyond hearsay, this article addresses some of the concerns. It is a complicated issue, so if you are engaging with it, I encourage you to read to the bottom of the article, which includes some replies. The accusations are grave, but we should not stop benefiting from Cooney’s (otherwise unrelated) productive work – to do so would be to prioritise personal purity over effectiveness in reducing animal suffering.

An additional criticism might be that some of Cooney’s suggestions essentially accept (and therefore, implicitly endorse?) certain assumptions and prejudices. To reject these strategies in favour of challenging privilege might lead to reduced effectiveness in the short term, but might be considered important for the long-term health of the movement, or for its intrinsic value. I don’t have strong views on this issue, but if your views are stronger than mine then you might reject some of the advice in the book, although only a relatively small proportion of the book would be affected. Those interested in the topic might find Melanie Joy’s new essays on privilege useful.

There are some other reviews of Cooney’s book. This one has some interesting rough and ready estimates about the (meta level) impact that this book might have on the effectiveness of animal advocates.

Event review: 50by40 Corporate Outreach Summit

Price: *****
Ease of use: ****
Value for EAA beginners: **
Value for EAA pros: *****

The 50by40 Corporate Outreach Summit in Berlin was a conference for those focused on corporate or institutional outreach to encourage greater provision of vegan food. It was organised jointly by ProVeg International and the Humane Society of the United States. “50by40” refers to the aim to reduce animal product consumption by 50% by 2040.

This review is intended to help animal advocates decide whether they’d like to attend the next conference, and reflect on the usefulness of such conferences in general. If you’re hoping for a concise summary of what was shared in the talks at the conference, you may find this article by Tobias Leenaert more helpful.

As Sebastian Joy explained in his speech, the conference was intended to provide “loose collaboration”, focusing on “shared goals”, rather than on “shared values”. This is an area that he believes there has been a gap for.

The talks

The weekend consisted of several days’ worth of talks. In comparison to EA Global, there was a greater emphasis on all attendees listening to each talk. There was no overlap, so I attended every talk. You can see the agenda here.

The talks were all filmed and so I am hoping that they will be put online soon. You can access the slides here.

All of the talks were extremely interesting, and some of them were extremely personally useful. Many of the talks on the first day overlapped in their content, since they mostly focused on institutional outreach, encouraging university caterers to increase their provision of vegan offerings. To this end, I think that slightly more specific briefs for the talks would have helped to make the day more productive for all. Nevertheless, the overlap was helpful in that it showed some clear consensus on some issues. For example, many of the speakers emphasised the importance of not only initial networking, but really building strong relationships with the clients (i.e. their advocacy targets). Whilst HSUS started by cold calling, they later built up strong relations with their clients, and emphasised the helpful offerings that they had. This was then followed up by offering to help their clients’ own connections. Several of the speakers emphasised the importance of clear planning and tailoring your research and message to the individual company’s needs. They also seemed to emphasise the importance of introducing vegan meals of high quality, to ensure that the change is liked and is lasting, with HSUS hiring chefs to advise their clients.

The following days were more varied. Hearing May Mei of Goal Blue (a Chinese environment NGO) speak made me more optimistic about the opportunities for international non-profits’ efforts in China, as long as good local partners were found. The talks that I was most excited by in the conference were Mahi Klosterhalfen’s talk on the work that he is doing for the Albert Schweizer Foundation, which includes creating a ranking of supermarkets on their vegan offerings, as well as Melanie Jaecques of Ethical Vegetarian Alternative talking about the research into veganism and supermarkets in Belgium. It was interesting to hear that the work of Albert Schweizer Foundation, GFI and Compassion In World Farming all involves various forms of rankings of their partners. This was seen as a useful way to encourage competition among companies to improve their vegan offerings, as well as to lead to useful conversations between the advocacy groups and the companies. One interesting avenue that I had never considered before was that raised by Pablo Moleman of ProVeg Netherlands, of working with the food industry to replace animal ingredients such as eggs or gelatine from their production. His estimate, from data received from one company, was that leaving out chicken eggs from a large vegetarian meat alternative company would save 260,000 animal lives per year, for example.

An additional benefit of the talks was hearing about the work going on in various countries. This included the huge success of Meatless Mondays in Brazil, and the passing of a law making caterers obliged to provide vegan meals for people upon request in Portugal, as well as the work of various organisations in Asia. Similarly it helped attendees to stay up to date with the current campaigns of more familiar organisations (I learned lots about ProVeg and HSUS that I didn’t previously know, for example), which will facilitate coordination and mutual support, as well as preventing overlap and duplication.

It would be good for future conferences to have greater opportunities for more focused talks (given the experienced audience), as well as for workshops, idea-sharing and discussion. Additionally, an input from researchers into the effectiveness of different intervention types would have been helpful to give a sense of overall strategy. The conference felt inclined more towards applause of all organisations’ previous efforts than to asking tough questions about how to prioritise different actions and time inputs, for example.

Networking and useful conversations

Due to the small size of the conference, it was incredibly easy to meet people with shared or similar experiences and role focus. This meant that it was easy to share ideas, reflections and tips. With 3 full days of talks (and their subsequent evenings), there was time to meet lots of individuals. There was no sense of pressure to make the conversations especially useful, although attendees mostly seemed quite determined to do this anyway, so there was a nice balance of both focused discussion and more informal, friendly conversation.

There was relatively little experimentation with methods of facilitating networking, beyond a task early in the conference where attendees were divided into small groups and played a game where they had to explain their values to each other. Although the values exercise felt a little forced, it was useful as an opportunity to meet some new people. Despite the relatively small size of the conference, I still only managed to speak to between one-third and one-half of the attendees, at a guess (although I might have been able to speak to more, had I been more determined).

It would have been helpful to have a list of attendees and their roles in advance, so that attendees could structure and plan their conversations and networking. I realised from my experience at EA Global that planning for such conversations can be helpful.

Value for money?

The conference was free to attend. Even if the price of accommodation and travel pushed the price of the conference into the hundreds, I personally think that the conference was better value for money than EA Global was for me, and certainly worth the cost (see my review of EAG for a discussion of why the price of conferences matters).

Workshop: Introduction to Effective Animal Advocacy

I created these resources with the intention that other Effective Altruism / Effective Animal Advocacy local groups could use them to run their own workshops, as well as using them myself.

The “cause prioritisation cards”, combined with the powerpoint, are themselves useful for those new to Effective Animal Advocacy to read through and use.

Download the full set of resources here.

Veganuary: An Effective Charity?

Price: *****
Ease of use: ****
Value for EAA beginners: ****
Value for EAA pros: ***

Explanation and resource links

“Veganuary: An Effective Charity” was a talk that I hosted with Effective Animal Altruism London, where Matthew Glover, the co-founder of Veganuary, made the case that his charity was indeed a charity on a par with Animal Charity Evaluators’ top-rated charities in terms of reducing animal suffering. This was then followed by a question and answer session with myself and representatives of Animal Charity Evaluators, Animal Equality and Open Cages.

“EAA beginners” may be interested in the talk itself, but will mostly likely find some of the questions discussed in the Q&A more helpful. “EAA pros” and large donors may find the conclusions of the talk (and this post) interesting and encourage them to shift their understanding of the effectiveness of Veganuary, and possibly the wider intervention type of month-long vegan pledges.

The full video of the talk can be seen here. You can see the Q&A here.

You can also listen to the audio of the talk here (start listening from 2.15 minutes in) and of the Q&A session here.

You can also see Matthew’s slides here. These come with notes attached which cover the majority of Matthew’s points. You can also see my introductory talk (no sound recorded) here.

The rest of this post is mostly a summary of the talk itself, with a few additional reflections.

 

Summary of the talk

Early in the talk, Matthew noted that Veganuary faces funding difficulties. Many people do not realise that Veganuary is a charity, or needs funding. But they also haven’t successfully attracted much funding from the Effective Altruism community yet. In 2016, Veganuary was reviewed by ACE – you can see the review heresee the review here – which included the estimate that “Veganuary spares between 5 and 20 animals” from life on a farm per pound sterling spent (which translates to between 3.8 an 15.2 animal lives spared per dollar, at current exchange rates). This compares very favourably to ACE’s top recommended charities. The (more recent) rough estimate for Animal Equality is that they spare “between -2 and 2 farmed animals per dollar spent”, for example. Nevertheless, these estimates are not precise calculations of cost effectiveness, and ACE has a variety of criteria in their evaluation process. As a result of these other considerations, Veganuary did not receive a recommendation as either a top charity or a standout charity.

Matthew then went on to consider some of the weaknesses that ACE identified, and suggest that there had been progress on these issues. He also confirmed that the strengths identified by ACE have been subsequently entrenched or developed.

 

Difficult to assess capacity for growth

When the review was carried out, Veganuary was a relatively young charity, with limited evidence of successes to date or of capacity for growth. Following the review, participant numbers grew from 23,600 in 2016 to over 165,000 in 2018. Veganuary has also become a UK-registered charity and created a more robust organisational structure, developing this capacity for further growth. Their website and social media results also suggest growth.

The average cost per sign up has decreased each year, from £12.12 in 2014 to £2.06 in 2018.

 

Opportunities to expand corporate outreach and PR work

Many UK supermarkets have launched new veg*n ranges this year. Some of this was supported by direct communication with Veganuary.

There are also many examples of the pledge leading restaurants to promote Veganuary off of their own efforts. For example, Zizzi promoted in both 2017 and 2018, this time launching a new vegan pizza and offering 2 for 1 on vegan dishes during January.

Their joint campaign with The Humane League aims to support corporate outreach to restaurants, with a catering guide, window stickers and cards to leave in restaurants to encourage vegan options.

 

Veganuary’s own impact estimates reconsidered

In February of 2017, Veganuary analysed their survey results and publicised that they had spared roughly 14m animals through the 2017 campaign. This led to an estimate of Veganuary sparing 108 animals for every £1 spent, which would put their cost effectiveness far above that of ACE recommended and standout charities.

This figure was derived from the number of participants and the self-reporting of omnivores and pescetarians as to whether they were likely to stay vegan. It factored in a recidivism rate of 85%, based off Faunalytics’ study.

With support from an economist engaged with the effective altruism community, Matthew has adjusted these calculations to come to a more conservative estimate of 5 animals spared per £1 for those going vegan directly as a result of Veganuary, and the total impact of Veganuary’s spending on likely being somewhere between 5 and 20 animals spared per pound sterling donated – similar to ACE’s initial calculation in 2016.

The downgrade of Veganuary’s direct impact

The downgraded figure of £1 came from three downward adjustments. Firstly, factoring in the likelihood that average Veganuary participants likely consume fewer animal products than average omnivores (estimated at 50% fewer). Secondly, that Veganuary likely did not cause many people to go vegan, but rather sped up their transition to veganism (estimated at the transition happening 2 years earlier). Thirdly, that various biases and data collection issues misrepresented how many participants stayed vegan (estimated to have inflated the figures by 50%). To see these ideas in more depth, see Matthew’s slides 58-66 here.

The potential importance of Veganuary’s indirect impact

The total estimate of 5 to 20 animals per dollar is to allow for the – so far unquantified – factors suggesting Veganuary’s wider impact than their own survey data suggests.

These include the fact that many people attempt Veganuary without signing up to the website. In the UK, there is a mass of anecdotal evidence of veganism gaining in popularity and mainstream recognition. The Google trends spike for the word “vegan” in January 2018 is larger in the UK, where most of Vegauary’s advocacy is, than for the rest of the world. It seems likely that Veganuary is responsible for a large part of this.

Additionally, supermarket and restaurant product changes encouraged by Veganuary further encourage veganism. Matthew made the point that many people take part in Veganuary without signing up directly. The Vegan Society undertook a survey last Summer suggesting that 1.3m had taken part in Veganuary 2017, and the real figure seems likely to be somewhere in between this figure and Veganuary’s own records of 59,500 for that year.

Widespread mainstream media attention likely encourages further dietary change.  Since the 2016 review, Veganuary have written a book entitled How to go Vegan, expanded their online publicity and resources, paid for posters on public transport, as well as had high-profile radio interviews, TV, press coverage and TV appearances.

All of these changes likely also encourage many omnivores and pescetarians to decrease their consumption of animal products without going fully vegan – or to try veganism and give up, but to consume fewer animal products than they did previously. As Veganuary’s direct influence grows, these knock-on effects will quite possibly grow proportionately.

Indeed, it would seem likely to me that these changes account for a far larger reduction in animal product use consumption than Veganuary’s official sign ups do; perhaps even more than the increase Matthew’s estimates have accounted for.

 

Resulting adjusted comparison to ACE recommended charities

This puts Veganuary’s own estimates back in line with Animal Charity Evaluators’ initial estimate of 5 to 20 animas spared per dollar.

Nevertheless, Veganuary has improved on a number of measures and concerns that ACE had in 2016, that might make it a much safer bet as an effective use of donations for reducing animal suffering.

Initially, ACE was concerned that Veganuary was a relatively young charity, which limited its track-record of success and made it difficult to assess its capacity for growth. In the subsequent years, Veganuary has quite clearly shown its rapid growth, and capacity for further increases in efficiency, as mentioned previously. Veganuary’s own targets for 2018, based off their growth so far, is for 300,000 participants (up from 165,000) and £1.50 per sign up (down from £2.06).

Another concern was the difficulty of interpreting Veganuary’s own survey findings; these problems have not been solved, but further analysis has made progress on this (and I know from personal conversations that Matthew is seeking solutions to improve the collection of reliable feedback and data). This may have led to some progress in the uncertainty around month-long pledges.

Given this uncertainty, ACE also noted concern that 95% of the budget was invested in the pledge. In response to this, Veganuary has conducted 3 undercover investigations like this one, which is an intervention that ACE recommends “in most instances when done by experienced organizations”. In a broader sense, they have expanded the variety and reach of their promotion of veganism, as noted above.

My quick reflections and conclusions

I haven’t checked the calculations myself, but it certainly seems plausible that Veganuary is one of the most cost-effective charities for saving animal lives. The steady growth and improvements reassure me that ACE’s concerns have been met. Even if they weren’t met sufficiently for an ACE recommendation, I think it would make sense for knowledgeable donors to meet funding gaps Veganuary would have.

Additionally, I believe that this intervention type has a place within the Effective Animal Advocacy movement. Even if minimal resources were put into expanding and publicising pledges like this, then it makes sense to have them in operation, to redirect interested people towards. Nevertheless, it seems likely that some of Veganuary’s most significant impact comes from the knock-on effects of its publicity efforts, so I do think that these are worth pursuing too.

(Outdated post) Call to action: Response to the UK government consultation on the draft Animal Welfare (Sentencing and Recognition of Sentience) Bill

Previously, I posted about the need to pressure the government about suitably protecting consideration for animal sentience after Brexit. The government responded by announcing a new bill. PETA have written a great guideline for responses to the consultation here. I have mostly followed their wording, but have made a few additions, which I have copied below.

Enter your responses to the consultation here.

If you are short on time, please simply copy and paste responses from PETA (and perhaps any additions that I have made below, if you like. If you have a little more time, it would be best to personalise responses.

Note that I have only included answers below which differ from PETA’s original wording – otherwise I have simply copied their guide responses.

  1. If you answered ‘yes’, what definition should we use?

It is important that the Bill recognises that sentience can be applied to most non-human animals (see next answer).

Otherwise, PETA’s suggestions for wording defining sentience itself are good:

“the capacity to feel or perceive things, including but not limited to awareness of one’s surroundings, relationships with others, and both physical and emotional sensations such as pain, fear, and distress.”

  1. If you answered ‘yes’, what definition should we use?

I would suggest extending it to as far as the closest thing to “consensus” of the scientific community goes, in terms of which animals are considered sentient, but that where there is doubt, assuming that those non-human animals are sentient. E.g. it seems fairly clear that many invertebrates are capable of at least physical suffering, and so should be included within the bill. The following survey of the scientific literature may be useful in summarising the existing scientific understanding.

https://was-research.org/writing-by-others/invertebrate-species-feel-pain/

Therefore, PETA’s suggestion seems good: “ To avoid doubt, this definition should at the very least incorporate all mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, cephalopods, and decapod crustaceans and should be defined so as to allow additional invertebrate groups to be included based on appropriate scientific evidence.”

  1. If you answered ‘yes’, what definition should be used, and should the list of needs in the Animal Welfare Act 2006 be changed?

I support PETA’s suggestions: “The list of needs in Section 9(2) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 should serve as a starting point to bring animal-welfare legislation in line with public opinion and contemporary scientific understanding of sentience. For example, the need for animals to be explicitly protected from emotional and physical pain, suffering, injury and disease should be incorporated into the definition. The legislation should also recognise the desire of animals to hold personhood, bodily liberty, and self-determination in light of scientific consensus that these traits exist in species including but not limited to great apes, grey parrots, elephants, dolphins, and cetaceans.”

I would also add that it is a huge priority that the definition of “unnecessary suffering” in the Animal Welfare Act 2006 be tightened up. Currently, this legislation permits (in practice) huge amounts of unnecessary suffering, through both regular farming practices which keep animals in intensive confinement and suffer painful interventions, but also due to mistakes, which are not prosecuted: an estimated 1.8 million pigs regain consciousness on the slaughterhouse production line each year after stunning and being fully conscious as they die from blood loss.

  1. Do you have any views or comments on the consequences of this new duty?

The duty as it stands in the draft bill requires Ministers of the Crown solely to take animal sentience into account during the decision making process. This requirement should apply to all public policymakers – including but not limited to ministers, local authorities, and devolved legislatures.

It is of vital importance that the bill does not offer important protections on paper whilst permitting loopholes in the law which allow other policy makers to bypass its requirements. To guarantee that the requirement to recognise sentience is being adhered to correctly, a mechanism must be put in place to ensure the government’s full and consistent execution of this duty.

  1. Do you have any views about whether a different formulation or approach might achieve the policy objectives? Views would also be welcome on how the approaches adopted in other countries might apply here.

I suspect that amendments and tightening up of the initial Animal Welfare Act 2006 might be better (especially as I think that many of the definitions contained within that Act need significant tightening), but I am not confident about this (or indeed if this is possible).

Otherwise, I agree with PETA that the Animal Welfare (Sentencing and Recognition of Sentience) Bill should be used as the backbone to introduce other forward-thinking animal-protection measures to ensure that the United Kingdom is at the forefront of global animal welfare.