» Articles » PMID: 27669313

Moving Beyond the "Five Freedoms" by Updating the "Five Provisions" and Introducing Aligned "Animal Welfare Aims"

Overview
Journal Animals (Basel)
Date 2016 Sep 27
PMID 27669313
Citations 41
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Although the Five Freedoms paradigm has been very influential in shaping animal welfare thinking for the last two decades, it has two key disadvantages. First, the focus on "freedom" from a range of negative experiences and states has been misunderstood in a number of quarters to mean that complete freedom from these experiences and states is possible, when in fact the best that can be achieved is for them to be minimised. Second, the major focus of the Freedoms on negative experiences and states is now seen to be a disadvantage in view of current understanding that animal welfare management should also include the promotion of positive experiences and states. The challenge therefore was to formulate a paradigm that overcame these two main problems and yet was straightforward enough to be accessible to non-specialists, including members of the lay public who are interested in animal welfare. This was achieved by highlighting the Five Provisions, originally aligned with the Five Freedoms, but now updated to direct welfare management towards activities that both minimise negative experiences or states and promote positive experiences or states as specified by particular Animal Welfare Aims assigned to each Provision. Aspects of the four welfare principles from the European Welfare Quality assessment system (WQ (®) ) and elements of all domains of the Five Domains Model for animal welfare assessment have been incorporated into the new Five Provisions/Welfare Aims paradigm. Thus, the paradigm is easily understood and provides clear guidance on beneficial objectives for animal welfare management. It is anticipated that the paradigm will have application to many species found in a wide range of circumstances.

Citing Articles

The Dark Side of the Moon: A Good Adoption Rate Conceals the Unsolved Ethical Problem of Never-Adopted Dogs.

Corsetti S, Natoli E, Malandrucco L Animals (Basel). 2025; 15(5).

PMID: 40075952 PMC: 11899169. DOI: 10.3390/ani15050670.


Assessing and Improving Animal Welfare Using Applied Ethology.

Fabrega E, Hotzel M Animals (Basel). 2025; 15(2).

PMID: 39858213 PMC: 11759149. DOI: 10.3390/ani15020213.


Mitigating the Effects of Maternal Loss on Harbour Seal Pups in Captive Care.

Wilson S, Alger R Animals (Basel). 2024; 14(22).

PMID: 39595316 PMC: 11591290. DOI: 10.3390/ani14223264.


Conceptual foundations for a clarified meaning of the 3Rs principles in animal experimentation.

Louis-Maerten E, Rodriguez Perez C, Cajiga R, Persson K, Elger B Anim Welf. 2024; 33:e37.

PMID: 39347486 PMC: 11428052. DOI: 10.1017/awf.2024.39.


Horse Sector Participants' Attitudes towards Anthropomorphism and Animal Welfare and Wellbeing.

Fiedler J, Ayre M, Rosanowski S, Slater J Animals (Basel). 2024; 14(17).

PMID: 39272267 PMC: 11393865. DOI: 10.3390/ani14172482.


References
1.
Parker R, Yeates J . Assessment of quality of life in equine patients. Equine Vet J. 2011; 44(2):244-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.2011.00411.x. View

2.
Mellor D . Positive animal welfare states and reference standards for welfare assessment. N Z Vet J. 2014; 63(1):17-23. DOI: 10.1080/00480169.2014.926802. View

3.
Mellor D, Stafford K . Integrating practical, regulatory and ethical strategies for enhancing farm animal welfare. Aust Vet J. 2002; 79(11):762-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1751-0813.2001.tb10895.x. View

4.
Mellor D . Positive animal welfare states and encouraging environment-focused and animal-to-animal interactive behaviours. N Z Vet J. 2014; 63(1):9-16. DOI: 10.1080/00480169.2014.926800. View

5.
Yeates J, Main D . Assessment of positive welfare: a review. Vet J. 2007; 175(3):293-300. DOI: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2007.05.009. View