Equine activities – social licence to operate

Social licence to operate (SLO) is an unwritten contract between society and those who pursue an activity. It arose in relation to industrial activities about which an increasingly aware public might have concerns – think mining for precious metals or burning fossil fuels to generate electricity. One such activity is the use of animals by humans to serve the latter’s purpose, in ways ranging from slaughter for food to confinement for entertainment.

In the equine world SLO has largely been considered in the context of our use of horses for sporting purposes, in particular where such activities may place horses in the way of harm – think racing and eventing - in essence riding and jumping large obstacles at speed. In times past the approval of the general public, largely comprised of persons not engaged in the activity themselves, could be taken almost for granted, or perhaps not thought to matter. But attitudes change and the public’s opinion does matter. Those involved directly in equine sports may consider otherwise; but I suggest that such an attitude is itself outdated and could at best be described as naïve. The state of an industry’s SLO often determines its ability to operate with minimal formalised restrictions or constricting legislative provisions. Operating in such an environment should, in my opinion, be seen as an invaluable privilege, one to be guarded jealously and assiduously preserved.

Public attitudes toward animal welfare, and indeed animal rights, are changing and tolerance of animal welfare compromises (real or perceived) ever diminishing. Even if not funded by the public purse (and many equestrian activities are) we cannot ignore public perception and its view of ‘acceptable use of equines’. Whether they like it or not, those who keep and use horses for sporting purposes are exposed to increasing scrutiny and more widespread criticism. (Blame social media if you wish.) The consequences of a loss of public confidence leading to loss of privilege can be readily seen in the removal of jumps racing from the calendar in South Australia and the horse phase in modern pentathlon following events at the Tokyo Olympics.

But I’d like to broaden discussion of SLO and equines to a consideration of other common uses of equines by humans in order to ‘extract value’ from them. Take the management of mares on ‘blood farms’ to harvest eCG-rich plasma; the product may be destined for a high return market in a highly regulated environment (such as the EU) but the raw material is often extracted from horses far away and not subject to similar standards of scrutiny or oversight. As the hormone yield falls pregnancies are aborted, often brutally (and we vets know how difficult this is to do in mid trimester). Similar considerations apply to the wholesale slaughter and global trade in donkeys simply so their skins can be used to make ejiao. The Donkey Sanctuary advocates for a moratorium on this senseless practice. The keeping of wild animals, including asses, in zoo cages and use of animals, including horses, in circuses is under increased scrutiny: loss of SLO leads to legislative restrictions and bans. What of ‘equine-assisted activities’ – the use of horses and donkeys in the service of human health - what’s in it for them? What of equine welfare organisations keeping aging equines ‘safe’ in sanctuaries – is this always best for them? There is an increasing sense that we should look at matters more from their and not our perspective – fundamentally, what is it to be a horse or donkey?

‘Working equids’ is a category receiving some more positive consideration, as a sustainable alternative to fossil-fuel dependent power. But a category also not immune from criticism: I can vividly remember being berated on descending from a licensed horse-drawn carriage in a European city centre once and being criticised publicly for tacitly ‘endorsing’ the use of equines for tourism activities. The EU Platform on Animal welfare, whose equines subgroup I chair, has engaged in developing official guidelines for such use. Not everyone agrees with this approach. But we do have donkeys carrying tourists up steep hillsides on Greek islands as there are mules carrying supplies for trekkers up the Andes. Guides, education, training, engagement represent the pragmatic approach. Does it render such activities immune from criticism – no! Could such scrutiny in the future lead to increased restriction and/or regulation - possibly! Such is the very definition of loss of Social Licence to Operate.

The veterinary profession itself should not, I believe, consider ourselves above the fray. We don’t have a licence to operate with impunity, to do as we wish for reasons we alone choose. We must continue to examine the ethics of how we practice, of the surgical procedures we perform, of the life-prolonging treatments we apply, the medicines we supply, and ask ourselves – Why? Is this in the individual equine patient’s interest?

Is this ’advance’ in treatment in the equine species’ interest? None of us, nor the equine-related activities we engage in, are immune from public scrutiny, from criticism (warranted, well-informed or not) and none should be complacent about the loss of SLO and what the consequences might be. Trust is everything – hard won but easily lost!