Animal welfare in Belgium’s constitution: symbolic step or historic decision? | Animals

Allereerst: België is niet het eerste land dat dierenwelzijn in de grondwet opneemt. Een handvol Europese landen ging onze zuiderburen al voor. Zwitserland deed dat als eerste. Duitsland nam in 2002 al dieren op in de grondwet.

Sommige landen volgden het voorbeeld, andere niet. Maar volgens dierenrechtenexpert Janneke Vink is in de meeste landen de afgelopen jaren wel meer aandacht voor dierenwelzijn gekomen.

“Je ziet dat de grootste uitdagingen van onze tijd samenhangen met dieren”, legt ze uit aan NU.nl. Klimaatverandering, stikstofproblematiek, het verlies aan biodiversiteit: het zijn volgens Vink allemaal problemen die te maken hebben met hoe we met dieren omgaan. “Klimaatverandering wordt voor een belangrijk deel veroorzaakt door hoe we dieren houden in landbouw, bijvoorbeeld.” Daardoor gaan we anders naar de natuur en dieren kijken.

We must view the constitutional change in Belgium in that light. “It is sometimes said that these kinds of decisions are purely symbolic, but I think this certainly indicates that we humans are starting to take the rest of nature more seriously.”

Until now, animal welfare in Belgium has mainly depended on the political wind that blew. “There may already have been an animal welfare law, but theoretically it can be abolished overnight with a majority in parliament,” Vink explains. By enshrining it in the constitution, animal welfare is in fact indisputable.

Krijg een melding bij nieuwe berichten Stay informed with notifications

The big question is therefore: what consequences will the Belgian decision have? That’s not easy to say. Belgian parties opposed to the constitutional change feared that it could have major consequences for agriculture, hunting and fishing. But those fears are currently unfounded.

Vink: “This article in the constitution offers a hook to protect animal welfare, but that will not happen automatically. Political decisions will have to follow first.” For example, it may well be that hunting will be better regulated, but that does not just happen out of the blue. There is always a lot of room for how such a constitutional article can be interpreted by politicians.

Other interests may also be taken into account in such a political decision. The difference is that the legislator now has to account for how animal welfare has been taken into account in these types of decisions.

“Animal welfare is being moved up a bit in the hierarchy of law. But it is really not yet at the same level as people’s rights,” Vink explains. Animal welfare and fundamental human rights are in the same document – the constitution – but there is still a difference.

However, there are also a number of practical consequences of including animal welfare in the constitution. For example, animal welfare legislation should not be phased out. And the government must take animal welfare into account in legislation that affects animals.

In very specific cases, animal welfare could be considered more important than a basic human right. An example from Germany: in 2012, the German parliament wanted to ban sex with animals through a law. Some people then went to court because they felt that such a law violated their fundamental right to sexual autonomy.

But the judge found that their fundamental right did not outweigh the interests of animals in this case and so the law was allowed to go ahead. This was only possible because animal welfare was included in the constitution, and could therefore be weighed against fundamental human rights.

In the Netherlands, animal welfare is currently not included in the constitution. However, the Animals Act recognizes the “intrinsic value” of animals and states that the government must take this into account when making decisions.

“That is mainly theory, because in practice we see that this does not always happen,” says Vink. “The government sees animal welfare as something that is mainly up to the individual citizen. One is the owner of an animal, so that person bears the responsibility. And not primarily the government itself.”

From major European research in 2016, the Attitudes of Europeans towards Animal Welfare, it turned out that many Dutch people consider animal welfare important and that they want the government to play a role in protecting animal welfare, says Vink. Years later, the 2022 Council for Animal Affairs survey found that only 22 percent of more than 2,000 respondents thought the government was doing enough for animal welfare.

“In these times we think differently about our interactions with animals,” says Vink. “In that respect, it may be quite strange that animals have no place in our constitution. Based on our constitution alone, you cannot conclude that animals also live in our country. It is only about people.”

“By including animal welfare in the constitution, you are actually saying: we as Dutch people find this important. We are no longer going to argue about it, this is a shared principle,” says Vink. Animal welfare is always dependent on political changes. “It’s a subtle difference, but it’s important.”

Om een vraag te kunnen stellen dien je in te loggen. Log in of maak binnen 1 minuut jouw gratis account aan.