3.1 Introduction
The United Nations Environment Assembly’s (UNEA) Resolution on the animal welfare–environment–sustainable development nexus (Nexus Resolution), adopted in March 2022 in Nairobi,Footnote 1 has interchangeably been called a ‘landmark’ and ‘historic’ resolution.Footnote 2 The UNEA stands at the forefront of global environmental governance, serving as a pivotal platform for addressing pressing environmental challenges. Against the backdrop of escalating concerns over biodiversity loss, climate change, and the interplay between human activities and ecosystem health, the UNEA has emerged as a crucial arena for advancing holistic approaches to sustainability. Central to this endeavour is the recognition of the intricate nexus between animal welfare, environmental conservation, and sustainable development. In response to mounting evidence linking the well-being of animals to ecosystem resilience and human welfare, the UNEA has embarked on a landmark initiative to foster synergies between these interconnected realms. The Nexus Resolution represents a watershed moment in global environmental governance, signalling a paradigm shift towards more inclusive and integrated approaches that prioritise the protection of animals as integral components of healthy ecosystems and sustainable development pathways.
The manner in which different aspects of One Health have been connected via the Nexus Resolution is intriguing. Animal welfare, sustainable development, ‘One Health’, and the environment have all been investigated separately but are now for the first time aggregated in a comprehensive resolution. This multifaceted and integrative approach may prove helpful to truly achieve ‘harmony with nature’.Footnote 3
This chapter examines why the Nexus Resolution constitutes a significant milestone, and provides insights into its context, content, and implementation status. The chapter delves into the implications of applying an anthropocentric approach to accommodate the interests of non-human animals. What can we expect from this pioneering resolution and how does it further the One Health legal framework? It is the first time that the UNEA has adopted a resolution with explicit and inverbatim reference to animal welfare, indicating that animal welfare is finally gathering momentum at the UN level. This chapter examines why this long-awaited breakthrough has the potential to ultimately enable harmony with nature, including human and non-human animals.
3.2 The Nexus Resolution: Context and Content
3.2.1 The Emergence: African Nations as Driving Force
The adoption of the UNEA Nexus Resolution is rooted in the 2019 Africa Animal Welfare Conference.Footnote 4 The theme of this Conference was ‘Animals, Environment and Sustainable Development in 21st Century Africa: An Interlinked Approach’. During this conference and under the organisation of both the Africa Network for Animal Welfare (ANAW) and the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) more than 270 participants from various African countries had the opportunity to discuss the outcomes of the fourth United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA-4) and the expectations of fifth United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA-5). One of the concluding statements was that ‘Animal welfare issues have evolved into a topical issue of concern that merit global attention. It is clear that interaction between human society and the animal world are inextricably linked.’Footnote 5 Furthermore, the participants agreed to engage with the UNEP to ‘consult and provide input to member states that would champion any proposal of a resolution to be adopted at UNEA-5 on animal welfare’.Footnote 6
Following the deliberations at the 2019 Africa Animal Welfare Conference, ANAW, the African Union Inter-African Bureau for Animal Resources (AU-IBAR) and the World Federation for Animals (WFA) set up a steering committee in order to develop a first concept note for the resolution text.Footnote 7 In February 2021 the concept note was published and in March 2021 an accompanying fundraising campaign was launched.Footnote 8 The concept note provides valuable input and insights, which will be discussed in the next sections. One year later, as a result of the aforementioned collaboration and together with the pioneering core states of Burkina Faso, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Ghana, Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Senegal and South Sudan, the Nexus Resolution was adopted at the UNEA-5, which took place in Nairobi.
3.2.2 The Content: Inger Andersen Needs to Deliver the First Nexus Report
The Nexus Resolutions consists of a preamble of nine paragraphs and four substantive provisions. Although it seems rather small-scale to earn the title of being a milestone resolution, four strong provisions may be enough to spark an (animal welfare) revolution.
In general, the Nexus Resolution aims to map and gather information on a worldwide scale relating to the nexus between animal welfare, the environment, and sustainable development. Consequently, Article 1 requires the UNEP Executive Director (a role undertaken by Inger Anderson at the time of writing) together with key partners such as the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the World Health Organization (WHO) and the World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH), and the One Health High-Level Expert Panel to produce the first animal welfare nexus report. The remaining provisions require this report to: be peer-reviewed by UNEA member states (Article 2); intensive collaboration to take place between UNEP and the Tripartite Alliance (FAO-WHO-WOAH) in animal welfare related matters using a One Health approach (Article 3); and to present the first nexus report at the sixth session of the UN Environment Assembly (Article 4). UNEA 6 was held in February and March 2024 and failed to deliver the Nexus report. The latter is now expected at UNEA 7 in 2026.
The preamble of the final resolution included a topic which was absent in the initial draft provided by the Steering Committee: One Health. In this respect, the Nexus Resolution stipulates that ‘animal welfare can contribute to addressing environmental challenges, promoting the One Health approach and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals’ and that there exists an ‘increasing need to address these [the health and welfare of animals, sustainable development, the environment and human health and well-being] connections through the One Health approach, among other holistic approaches’.Footnote 9 Instead of thus emphasising the COVID-19 pandemic, the focus of the narrative lies on One Health and what role it can play as a pragmatic, albeit holistic, approach.
In the body of both texts, we identify a similar pattern. One Health is again absent in the initial draft resolution but it is incorporated in Article 3 of the final resolution as well as in Article 1, insofar that it is requested that a close collaboration needs to be set up between the FAO, the WHO, the WOAH, and the One Health High-Level Expert Panel. Article 2 of the initial draft specifically targets member states and asks them to take responsibility for protecting animals and their habitats, but this has not been reiterated in the final resolution. The active participation of member states is, however, not completely removed as the adjusted Article 2 assigns the member states to peer review the report of Executive Director of UNEP.
3.3 Evaluation: The Uniqueness of the Nexus Resolution
The analysis above does not reveal any of the extraordinary provisions that we would expect from a historic or landmark resolution. Why is it nevertheless referred to in that way and how should we now evaluate it? This section of the chapter provides an in-depth analysis of six topics that need more explanation to gain insights into the uniqueness of the Nexus Resolution.
3.3.1 The Global Animal Welfare Gap
The uniqueness of this resolution pertains to mitigating the prominent animal welfare gap that currently exists in international law. At a national level, about two-thirds of the countries in the world have some sort of animal protection legislation in place and at the regional level the African Union and especially the European Union are establishing a strong animal welfare policy with accompanying enforceable legal instruments.Footnote 10 The Nexus Resolution was the first instance of an international resolution making explicit and in verbatim reference to animal welfare. The title (‘5/1. Animal welfare-environment-sustainable development nexus’) of the resolution clearly communicates animal welfare (not species protection or animal health, as is already acknowledged in other international laws) as a core topic.
3.3.2 UN Institutionalisation
Moreover, the uniqueness of the resolution also concerns endorsement of animal welfare within the United Nations context in particular. In the past, there have been attempts to address animal welfare in legal instruments at the international level. Examples of two soft law proposals are the Universal Declaration of Animal Rights (UDAR) and the Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare (UDAW). UDAR was presented at the Paris headquarters of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 1978, but was never formally adopted.Footnote 11 The World Society for the Protection of Animals (now World Animal Protection) also relentlessly tried for UDAW (first proclaimed at the Animals 2000 World Congress in London) to obtain official UN status but without any success.Footnote 12 More recently, a legally binding UN instrument has been proposed: a United Nations Convention on Animal Healths and Protection (UNCAHP).Footnote 13 The Global Animal Law Association (GAL) hope to have their framework convention adopted in 2029 by the United Nations General Assembly.Footnote 14 In addition, legal scholarship has also suggested UN institutionalisation of animal welfare through the creation of a new international organisation as part of the UN system.Footnote 15 Brels, for instance, put forward the idea of a United Nations Animal Protection Programme (UNAPP), analogous to UNEP, or alternatively the expansion of UNEP to United Nations Environmental and Animal Protection Programme (UNEAPP).Footnote 16 The concept note preceding the initial draft also reflects a similar way of thinking and is convinced that ‘improving animal welfare must be fully incorporated into the UNEP Programme of Work in an integrated manner’.Footnote 17 Subsequently, the current UNEA Nexus Resolution may be the genesis for further UN institutionalisation. It is true that the inclusion of animal welfare may incur some costs (e.g. staff costs related to the recruitment of expertise in animal welfare).Footnote 18 It is nevertheless highly recommended to do so, as this would deliver significant social, environmental, and economic benefits in the long-term. The lack of animal welfare institutionalisation results in the absence of binding hard law that can tackle the extraterritorial and global nature of many animal abuses.Footnote 19
Current market mechanisms are failing to provide animal health and welfare as well as environmental protection with financial and economic value as they are not tradable and not restricted to tangible entities.Footnote 20 It is therefore the moral responsibility of the UN, as a universal global organisation that endorses an inclusive worldview of the environment, humans, and animals to not overlook animal welfare and its priceless worth.Footnote 21
3.3.3 Beyond the Environment–Animal Dichotomy
There exists a long-lasting debate about whether concern for the environment is in tension with concern for (individual) animals.Footnote 22 In recent years, emphasis has increasingly been placed on the reconciliation between animal ethics and environmental ethics. After all, it has been argued that despite theoretical differences between environmentalism and animal ethics, there are multiple areas of convergence and instead of dividing each other, the fight against common enemies (e.g. abolishing factory farming as this is a major contributor to climate change) can instead provide mutual benefits.Footnote 23 This is, for instance, also the idea behind the compassionate conservation movement, whose central aim is to safeguard Earth’s biological diversity while retaining a commitment to treating individuals with respect and concern for their well-being.Footnote 24 This Nexus Resolution appears to implicitly support that idea and displays animal welfare and environmental challenges as communicating vessels.
Paragraph 6 of the Nexus Resolution’s preamble states ‘Acknowledging that animal welfare can contribute to addressing environmental challenges’. The initially developed draft of the resolution specified that the ‘unsustainable use of domestic and wild animals is a key driver of the triple environmental crises of biodiversity loss, climate change and pollution’ (PDF available upon request).Footnote 25 The link between animal welfare and the environment is even more clearly described in paragraph 5 of the preamble of the initial draft: ‘Keeping in mind that there is a nexus between animals and the environment whereby animals are an essential part of our ecosystems and that ecosystems are balanced by nature if allowed to self-regulate, and that detrimental impacts on animals or their habitats can harm nature and our natural environment in various ways.’ The Nexus Resolution thus plays an important role in the further development of linking animal welfare and the environment, especially at the international level.
Previously, the reconciliation between attention for the environment and animals was limited to initiatives at the national level; predominantly Central and South American countries approached animal welfare as being part of environmental protection. In the Estrellita monkey case, for instance, the Ecuadorian Constitutional Court accepted the right to protect individual animals through the Rights of Nature.Footnote 26 Since 2008, Article 71 of the Ecuadorian Constitution recognises Nature or Pacha Mama as a rights holder and allows for standing to effectively enforce this provision. In 2022 the Ecuadorian Constitutional Court also accepted individual animals as subjects of rights protected by Article 71 of the Ecuadorian Constitution. The Court ruled that animal rights are ‘a specific dimension – with their own particularities – of the rights of Nature’ and clarified that ‘Animal rights protect specific members of the animal kingdom who are therefore part of Nature.’Footnote 27 ‘The conditions of their ecosystems, communities or habitats, also protected by the rights of Nature, necessarily affect them; just as the conditions of such individuals may eventually affect the systems in which they inhabit and their relationships.’Footnote 28 Constitutional environmental protection, especially in the context of Rights of Nature, offers an additional robust legal basis for also recognising the individual interests of animals. Similar to Ecuador where the (constitutional) Rights of Nature framework was used for advancing and acknowledging animal rights, Panama is attempting to follow and harness the new Rights of Nature Law as a legal means for animal rights groups to defend those rights.Footnote 29 In other Central and South American countries, it has been accepted that a constitutional obligation to protect the environment inherently also comprehends the constitutional obligation of animal protection.Footnote 30 For example, the Supreme Courts of Colombia and Costa Rica have ruled that the right to environmental protection not only protects fauna (wild animals) but also domestic animals.Footnote 31
These examples demonstrate the increased attention to the nexus between animals and the environment and how they can tackle challenges together in legal discourse at the national level, with the Nexus Resolution paving the way for such recognition at the international level. Eventually, it could inspire the UN to rename UNEP into UNEAPP after all. By expressly underscoring the interlinkage between animal welfare and the environment, the Nexus Resolution not only elevates the debate on the animal–environment dichotomy to the global level, it also clearly chooses to focus on unity instead of on division. Furthermore, the Nexus Resolution explicitly mentions the report of the Secretary-General on harmony with nature.Footnote 32 In this report, Secretary-General Guterres affirmed that ‘non-human animals are sentient beings, not mere property, and must be afforded respect and legal recognition’.Footnote 33 Taking into account the timeframe (July 2020), Guterres proposed to see COVID-19 and the process of recovery from COVID-19 as a unique opportunity and stepping stone for a global Earth-centred transition, in which the lives of all human and non-human species matter.Footnote 34 This is where the concept of One Health becomes pertinent.
3.3.4 One Health
Whereas the title of the resolution clearly emphasises the link between animal welfare, the environment, and sustainable development, this is not the case for One Health. Notwithstanding its absence, it nevertheless plays an important, albeit more disguised role that should not be overlooked. It may instead be considered the central linking pin and lens through which all three interrelated nexus concepts (animal welfare–environment–sustainable development) are shaped and approached. In this regard, the UNEA Nexus Resolution could, alternatively, have been titled ‘Animal welfare–environment–sustainable development–one health nexus’. In some literature, animal welfare is even considered the basis of One Health.Footnote 35
One Health has been defined as an approach aimed at tackling complex patterns of global change, in which the inextricable interconnection of humans, pets, livestock, and wildlife, along with their social and ecological environments, is evident. One Health solutions require integrated approaches to human and animal health and their respective social and environmental contexts.Footnote 36 The growing attention towards One Health after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic suggests the approach has an anthropocentric impetus.Footnote 37 One Health itself is less anthropocentric than one might expect as the ultimate aim is arguably to have interspecies health equity, which implies the development of a framework for biocentric social justice.Footnote 38 So both human and non-human health needs to be achieved for interspecies flourishing.
One Health possesses at least three valuable features (integrative, inclusive, and transdisciplinary) that can enable a transformative change and potentially even an animal welfare revolution.Footnote 39 The first is its integrative functioning. One Health can be used to overcome silos and build bridges between disciplinary and organisational boundaries instead. It not only acknowledges the inextricable interconnection between human, animal, and environmental health but it also suggests that only united efforts will lead to success. In addition, One Health also sets in motion another integrative approach, that of One Welfare, which admittedly can be even more meaningful for the animal welfare discourse. Similar to One Health, One Welfare aims to develop a broader integrative and interlinked framework aligning the welfare of humans, animals, and the environment.Footnote 40 The hard law proposal of UNCAHP incorporates both concepts in paragraph 7 of its preamble.Footnote 41
Another example of an integrative approach, which has been mentioned in the previous section, is compassionate conservation. The compassionate conservation narrative strives for a more inclusive and relational form of nature conservation that questions mainstream conservation practice given concerns for individual wild animal welfare.Footnote 42 As with compassionate conservation, One Health also promotes inclusivity and transcends traditional health pluralism approaches.Footnote 43 As indicated above, the key to One Health as an overarching inclusive framework is the untapped potential to establish interspecies health equity. Finally, a last core element of One Health is its transdisciplinary dimension. One Health combines multiple knowledge angles and tries to bring together both different scientific disciplines and different societal perspectives.Footnote 44 This transdisciplinarity is crucial to enhance the practical relevance of the One Health discourse in the policy, science, and legislation interface and warrants increased mutual understanding.
In the Nexus Resolution, One Health appears on the one hand as a means and on the other hand as an end. As a means, One Health can be conceived as an integrative and transdisciplinary technique that uncovers the interlinkages between animal welfare, the environment, and sustainable development.Footnote 45 One Health as an end relates to the idea of obtaining or generating interspecies (health) equity; the inclusive facet of One Health. According to paragraph 6 of the preamble of the Nexus Resolution, animal welfare can contribute to promoting the One Health approach. A similar idea can be retrieved from the Animal Welfare Strategy for Africa in which One Health (also One Welfare) is one of the three core areas of focus.Footnote 46
3.3.5 SDGs
In paragraph 6 of the resolution’s preamble, it is specified that animal welfare can contribute to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This statement can be framed in clarification of the animal welfare–sustainable development interlinkage. The relationship between animal welfare and sustainable development has been long ignored until recently. The first milestone pertains to the 2019 Global Sustainable Development Report (GSDR), which identified for the first (and only) time that animal welfare is a key issue missing in the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda.Footnote 47 The 2019 GSDR articulates: ‘The clear link between human health and well-being and animal welfare is increasingly being recognized in ethics- and rights-based frameworks. Strong governance should safeguard the well-being of both wildlife and domesticated animals with rules on animal welfare embedded in transnational trade.’Footnote 48 One would expect this message would be highlighted in the 2023 GSDR but remarkably this was not the case and animal welfare was missing altogether.Footnote 49 Notwithstanding this setback, the Nexus Resolution provided a new formal recognition of the animal welfare–sustainable development connection. Further, a recent UNGA resolution on agriculture development, food security, and nutrition made reference to the Nexus Resolution and emphasised that animal health and welfare can contribute to addressing challenges and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.Footnote 50
This relationship has already been proposed in legal scholarship.Footnote 51 Visseren-Hamakers, for example, discussed the creation of an 18th Sustainable Development Goal on animal health, welfare, and rights.Footnote 52 The animal welfare–sustainable development connection also received societal attention and support, which has been demonstrated in the framework of the Sustainable Development Goal consultation process when animal protection achieved the second highest score among several options for the seventeenth additional goal in the My World 2015 Survey.Footnote 53 In addition, several scientific studies have illuminated how animal welfare can positively impact the SDGs.Footnote 54 Although the Nexus Resolution only refers to animal welfare helping to achieve the SDGs, Keeling et al. revealed a mutually beneficial relationship between the SDGs and animal welfare.Footnote 55 The Swedish study discovered that on average the impact of achieving an SDG was slightly better at leading to improved animal welfare than the impact of improving animal welfare on achieving the SDG. However, the researchers mitigated this finding as they noticed that this result was not consistent across all SDGs and concluded that overall the mean score displayed an undeniable co-benefit.
3.3.6 Animal Welfare Science
The scientific value of animal welfare in the Nexus Resolution is twofold. On the one hand, the Nexus Resolution already confirms that there is a strong body of science supporting animal welfare.Footnote 56 On the other hand, the underlying idea behind the Nexus Resolution is to create and request interdisciplinary scientific analysis on animal welfare as well as sustainable development, the environment, and One Health. As One Health is inherently evidence-based, the evidence obtained in the framework of animal welfare science can equally inform One Health approaches. A good alignment of scientific parameters with law and policy may potentially allow for the transformation of the current soft law approach to a hard law instrument. The expected report will either provide a firm scientific basis to build on or an incremental jumping-off point for the next steps in future policy. In this regard, the concept note also pays attention to the scientific nature of the added value of the initiative: ‘The consideration of animal welfare within UNEP’s policy mandate would help to broaden and enrich its science-policy base, leading to better-informed and more effective policymaking and programme development. It will also help with the achievement of many SDGs and the prevention of future pandemics.’Footnote 57
3.4 Implementation Updates: Slow and Steady Wins the Race?
As mentioned above, to date no Nexus Resolution Report has been submitted. Consequently, the UNEP Director now has two more years to complete an effective report (in addition and in response to an initial scoping study). An explanation for not meeting the deadline can be found in the slow start of the Nexus Resolution. During UNEA 5 the animal welfare nexus resolution was not the only resolution adopted. In total 14 resolutions were adopted, including resolutions on sustainable nitrogen management,Footnote 58 future global environment outlook,Footnote 59 and a circular economy.Footnote 60 While UNEP prioritised the implementation of some UNEA 5 headline resolutions, such as Resolution 8 on the creation of a science-policy panel regarding the management of chemicals and waste,Footnote 61 and Resolution 14 on an international legally binding instrument to end plastic pollution,Footnote 62 the Nexus Resolution was not considered such a priority.Footnote 63 The implementation roadmap and indicative budget remains unclear and the process has so far not been transparent.
However, in July 2023, Major Groups and Stakeholders Consultations were held in Rabat (Morocco) as a preparatory event on the way to UNEA 6 which also included a progress overview on the UNEA 5 resolutions.Footnote 64 This meeting shed light on the (lack of) implementation of the Nexus Resolution.Footnote 65 It was communicated that some administrative actions had been taken, including high-level meetings between UNEP and WOAH, which confirmed the shared interest to work together to implement the Nexus Resolution, as well as the recruitment processes for facilitation and coordination roles. Resource mobilisation has also been considered. With these actions, the first hurdles appear to have been overcome and substance may have been given to Articles 1 and 3 of the Nexus Resolution. However, Article 2 (requiring the submission of the report for peer review by member states), as well as Article 4 (requiring presentation of the findings of the developed report at UNEA 6), have not been accomplished within the deadline of UNEA 6.Footnote 66
It is too early to speculate on what might be expected in terms of national implementation or what laws might be developed in response to the Nexus Report. Nevertheless, the mere adoption of the Nexus Resolution has triggered scholarship to delve deeper into the quest of animal welfare and sustainable development issues, both at the international and regional levels.Footnote 67 Notwithstanding the not-so-timely implementation proceedings, there also exists a proactive attitude with a group of member states as well as with NGOs. For example, following the one-year anniversary of the Nexus Resolution, the World Federation for Animals drafted a vision paper on the Nexus and the Nexus report process.Footnote 68 In tandem, the pioneering core states behind the Nexus Resolution together with ANAW and AU-IBAR created the group of Friends of the Nexus Resolution comprised (in November 2023) of 31 member states.Footnote 69 The Friends of the Resolution is an open-ended working group of member states who meet with various international organisations (WHO, WOAH, World Bank, UNEP, FAO) to keep the pressure high for the development of the Nexus report.
Although no full report has been presented so far, currently a scoping study has been published which ultimately needs to support the drafters of the full nexus report as it puts forward existing resources and knowledge regarding the animal welfare–environment–sustainable development nexus.Footnote 70 In the scoping study, it is repeatedly highlighted that the study is not meant to provide a report on the animal welfare–environment–sustainable development nexus, but should rather be conceived as an overview of useful sources and approaches that should be considered, and further developed when the full report is being established, which will require further multi-disciplinary scientific, practical and ethical expertise and research.Footnote 71 In the opinion of WFA ‘a process that includes iterative consultation and analysis in preparing the report is essential for developing a strong report and for ownership and acceptance of its findings by the UN system and Member States’.Footnote 72 With the additional two years to finalise an effective Nexus Report, it can be expected that slow and steady will win the race.
3.5 Conclusion
In March 2022 the ‘world’s parliament on the environment’ (UNEA) adopted at its fifth session a revolutionary resolution on the animal welfare–environment–sustainable development nexus. Several African nations were an important catalyst for this milestone resolution. It was the first time that animal welfare was explicitly recognised at the international level by the United Nations. As discussed throughout this chapter, the institutionalising of animal welfare by the UN as well as extending the scope of One Health to consider animal welfare can play a pivotal role in mitigating the existing global animal welfare gap. The UN’s support of animal welfare in this way is commendable; however, this is counterbalanced by the soft law nature of the Nexus Resolution. Another disadvantage is the lack of strong language and substantive provisions as only a mere commitment to establish a Nexus Report is established. Apart from preparing a report, it is yet to be seen whether concrete measures will be developed to strengthen the animal welfare–environmen–sustainable development nexus. Not meeting the deadline of UNEA 6 is also a setback that should not be underestimated, as these deadlines will be crucial to integrate animal welfare in efforts to tackle the triple environmental crises.
At first sight, One Health seems redundant within the Nexus Resolution, but this chapter has demonstrated the opposite when delving deeper into both the preamble and provisions of the Nexus Resolution. Due to COVID-19 the attention given to the One Health framework has increased exponentially. This chapter has argued that the integrative, inclusive, and transdisciplinary dimensions of the One Health framework are essential for the animal welfare–environment–sustainable development nexus. The increased attention directed towards One Health was coupled with a rise in scientific research and expertise, one of the principal aims of the Nexus Resolution. More than the intention to produce a report, the primary idea is to collect and disseminate information from experts on animal welfare in general and the nexus in particular. This can then be used as a building block for specific actions and next steps.
As a revolutionary document, the Nexus Resolution possesses plenty of (untapped) potential and has the ability to ensure change within the discipline of animal welfare. However, the extent of this change will depend on the effective implementation of the resolution which, as this chapter has demonstrated, has been delayed. The engagement of both NGOs and member states willing to fully participate, embody and embrace the animal welfare revolution has been perhaps the most encouraging aspect of the Nexus Resolution development and adoption, and it is this engagement that will ensure the Resolution does not remain a theoretical document only.
