Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T12:35:34.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Non-economic incentives to improve animal welfare: positive competition as a driver for change among owners of draught and pack animals in India

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

JC Pritchard ,
L van Dijk ,
M Ali  and
SK Pradhan
JC Pritchard*
Affiliation:
The Brooke, 30 Farringdon Street, London EC4A 4HH, UK Animals in International Development, 45 The Glebe, Wrington, Bristol BS40 5LX, UK
L van Dijk
Affiliation:
Animals in International Development, 45 The Glebe, Wrington, Bristol BS40 5LX, UK
M Ali
Affiliation:
The Brooke (India), 2nd floor, A block, 223-226, Pacific Business Park, Dr Burman Marg, Plot no 37/1, Site IV, Sahibabad Industrial Area, Ghaziabad, 201010, Uttar Pradesh, India
SK Pradhan
Affiliation:
The Brooke (India), 2nd floor, A block, 223-226, Pacific Business Park, Dr Burman Marg, Plot no 37/1, Site IV, Sahibabad Industrial Area, Ghaziabad, 201010, Uttar Pradesh, India
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: joy.pritchard@thebrooke.org
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Since 2005, owners of draught and pack horses, mules and donkeys in nine districts of Uttar Pradesh, India, have received support from a UK-based charity, the Brooke. One thousand, three hundred and ninety-six village-level groups of owners and carers, responsible for 29,500 animals, were facilitated to develop their own welfare assessment protocols using a participatory learning and action process adapted from recognised good practice in human social development. Each group assessed the welfare of their animals collectively, using findings to generate action plans for improving equine health, husbandry and working practices. Welfare assessments were repeated at 1 to 3 month intervals. Competitiveness between participants to improve their animals’ welfare acted as a driver to increase the number of indicators and sensitivity of rating scales, enabling differentiation of small, incremental improvements in order to identify a ‘winner’ of each welfare assessment. Binary or three-point ‘traffic light’ (red-amber-green) scales evolved into a range of 5-, 10-, 20-point or continuous scales, then into multi-level and weighted measures to quantify the welfare improvements seen. Efforts to aggregate multi-dimensional indicators into a single ‘winning’ score led to indices describing welfare at individual animal level (‘welfare index’) and population level (‘village index’). Benefits of owner-driven monitoring include high levels of commitment and strong peer motivation or pressure to take action. Welfare monitoring and action to improve welfare are integrated within a single process carried out by the same people, in contrast to the separation of evaluation and implementation of welfare improvement seen in inspection or accreditation schemes. Challenges include aggregation of results from a variety of protocols for external analysis, reporting or certification.

Keywords

animal welfarecompetitiondonkeyhorseincentiveworking animal
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 21 , Issue S1: Proceedings of the UFAW International Symposium ‘Making animal improvements: Economic and other incentives and constraints’ Historic Dockyard, Portsmouth, UK, 2011 , May 2012 , pp. 25 - 32
Copyright
© 2012 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

References

Ali, M, Pradhan, SK and Pritchard, JC 2012 Working equine welfare groups in India: the role of common savings and loans in stabilising group membership and improving animal welfare. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare Symposium, Making Animal Welfare Improvements: Economic and Other Welfare Incentives and Constraints. 28-29 June 2011, Portsmouth, UKGoogle Scholar
Botreau, R, Bonde, M, Butterworth, A, Perny, P, Bracke, MBM, Capdeville, J and Veissier, I 2007 Aggregation of measures to produce an overall assessment of animal welfare. Part 1: a review of existing methods. Animal 1(8): 1179–1187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1751731107000535CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bryan, S, Hardyman, W, Bentham, P, Buckley, A and Laight, A 2005 Proxy completion of EQ-5D in patients with dementia. Quality of Life Research 14: 107–118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-004-1920-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chambers, R 2003 Participation and numbers. Participatory Learning and Action 47: 6–12Google Scholar
Duncan, I 2012 The Global Animal Partnership 5-Step Animal Welfare Standards: a welfare labelling scheme that allows for continuous improvement. Animal Welfare 21(S1): 113–116. http://dx.doi.org/10.7120/096272812X13345905673926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fabiano, PM 1994 From personal health into community-action, another step forward in peer health-education. Journal of American College Health 43(3): 115–121. http://dx.doi.org/10.! 080/07448481.1994.9939095CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
FAOSTAT 2009 United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation Statistical Database, Live Animals. http://faostat.fao. org/site/573/default.aspx#ancor. (Accessed 15 July 2011)Google Scholar
Gregson, S, Terceira, N, Mushati, P, Nyamukapa, N and Campbell, C 2004 Community group participation: can it help young women to avoid HIV? An exploratory study of social capital and school education in rural Zimbabwe. Social Science and Medicine 58(11): 2119–2132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2003.09.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoddinott, P, Allan, K, Avenell, A and Britten, J 2010 Group interventions to improve health outcomes: a framework for their design and delivery. BMC Public Health 10: 800. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-10-800CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hubbard, C and Scott, K 2011 Do farmers and scientists differ in their understanding and assessment of farm animal welfare? Animal Welfare 20: 79–87Google Scholar
Kandpal, D, Ali, M, Guha, K and Kumar, N 2010 Improving equine welfare through collective action: the role of community-based institutions in India. Proceedings of the Sixth International Colloquium on Working Equids: Learning from Others pp 126–132. 29 November-2 December 2010, New Delhi, IndiaGoogle Scholar
Kar, K 2003 Subsidy or self-respect? Participatory community sanitation in Bangladesh. IDS Working Paper 184, Institute of Development Studies, Brighton, UKGoogle Scholar
Kumar, S 2002 Methods for Community Participation: A Complete Guide for Practitioners. ITDG Publishing: Rugby, UKGoogle Scholar
Larkey, LK, Alatorre, C, Buller, DB, Morrill, C, Buller, MK, Taren, D and Sennott-Miller, L 1999 Communication strategies for dietary change in a worksite peer educator intervention. Health Education Research 14(6): 777–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lund, V, Coleman, G, Gunnarsson, S, Appleby, MC and Karkinen, K 2006 Animal welfare science: working at the interface between the natural and social sciences. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 97: 37–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meagher, RK 2009 Observer ratings: validity and value as a tool for animal welfare research. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 119: 1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Postma, L, van Wijk, C and Otte, C 2003 Participatory quantification in the water and sanitation sector Participatory Learning and Action 47: 13–18Google Scholar
Pritchard, JC 2007 Development and evaluation of welfare improvement strategies for working equids. PhD Thesis, University of Bristol, UKGoogle Scholar
Pritchard, JC, Lindberg, AC, Main, DCJ and Whay, HR 2005 Assessment of the welfare of working horses, mules and donkeys using health and behaviour parameters. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 69: 265–283Google ScholarPubMed
Rosemarin, A 2010 Sanitation ladders. In: Proceedings of the Sustainable Sanitation Capacity Development Workshop on Gender Equity and Communications p 3. 13-14 September 2010, Stockholm, SwedenGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, L and Pritchard, JC 2010 Designing programmes for sustainable animal welfare improvement. Proceedings of the Sixth International Colloquium on Working Equids pp 51–54. 29 November-2 December 2010, New Delhi, IndiaGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, L, Pritchard, JC, Pradhan, SK and Wells, KL 2011 Chapter 2: Interventions for lasting change; Chapter 3: Facilitation for collective action; Participatory Action Tools for Animal Welfare. In: Sharing the Load: a Guide to Improving the Welfare of Working Animals Through Collective Action pp 51–123. Practical Action Publishing: Rugby, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, AJF 2003 Assessment of animal welfare at farm and group level: introduction and overview. Animal Welfare 12: 429–431Google Scholar
White, S and Pettit, J 2005 Participatory methods and the measurement of well-being. Participatory Learning and Action 50: 88–96Google Scholar
Whitham, JC and Wielebnowski, M 2009 Animal-based monitoring: using keeper ratings as an assessment tool. Zoo Biology 28: 545–560Google ScholarPubMed