Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Loading next page...
/lp/springer-journals/the-political-salience-of-animal-protection-in-the-netherlands-2012-FdfD7eQghQ
- Publisher
- Springer Journals
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s) 2023
- ISSN
- 1187-7863
- eISSN
- 1573-322X
- DOI
- 10.1007/s10806-023-09899-6
- Publisher site
- See Article on Publisher Site
Abstract
The Netherlands and Belgium are European Union (EU) states with a shared border and cultural similarities. Article 13 of the EU Treaty of Lisbon recognises animals as sentient beings. EU laws protect animal welfare and conservation, and member states can implement more stringent legislation. Political salience refers to the extent to which citizens are concerned about political issues. Issue salience can be meas- ured by assessing references to animal protection in party political manifestos. This research analyses the political salience of animal protection in the Netherlands and Belgium. It analyses over 2600 statements on animal protection in Dutch (2012– 2021) and Belgian (2010–2019) party manifestos across three consecutive national elections. Quantitative analysis reveals that in both the Netherlands and Belgium, animal protection became more salient during successive elections, with the total number of positive statements increasing and the total number of negative state- ments decreasing. Farmed animal welfare and wildlife/biodiversity were the most salient issues, although the focus in countries and regions differed. Dutch parties and those in the Walloon region of Belgium focused on farmed animal health and unnec- essary suffering; Flemish parties stressed intensive agriculture and animal welfare. In Belgium, wildlife/biodiversity statements stressed the protection of local species; Dutch statements were strongly linked to agriculture. In both the Netherlands and Belgium, left-wing parties had more progressive policy statements, whilst right- wing parties prioritised economic prosperity over animal protection. This research provides the first academic analysis of animal protection policies in political mani- festos in the Netherlands and Belgium. Keywords Animal protection · Animal welfare · Issue salience · Wildlife conservation · Netherlands · Belgium * Annick Hus A.Hus@sms.ed.ac.uk Extended author information available on the last page of the article Vol.:(0123456789) 1 3 4 Page 2 of 23 A. Hus, S. P. McCulloch Introduction Across the European Union (EU) around 4.7 billion animals are used in agriculture and 11 million in research. Furthermore, EU citizens keep 65 million dogs, 99 mil- lion cats, and 7 million horses (McCulloch, 2018). Article 13 of Title II on the func- tioning of the EU (The Lisbon Treaty) recognises that animals are sentient and man- dates member states to pay full regard to the welfare of animals in the formulation and implementation of policy in agriculture, fisheries, transport, internal market, research, and technological development (European Commission, 2007). The EU protects animals through legal directives and regulations in its areas of competence, though member states can implement more stringent animal welfare standards. This research investigates the political salience of animal protection by analys- ing political manifestos in the Netherlands (2012–2021) and Belgium (2010–2019). Both countries follow a multiparty political system, in which parties compete and are elected to govern under a proportional representation system. The Netherlands and Belgium, which formed the United Kingdom of the Netherlands until 1830, share a common border and important parts of their history and culture. Further- more, they were founding members of the European Coal and Steel Community in 1952, which developed into the EU under the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. In a 2016 European Commission Eurobarometer survey, 70% of respondents in the Neth- erlands and 53% in Belgium considered it a duty to respect all animals (European Commission, 2016). This research analyses the political manifestos in the Neth- erlands and Belgium. It then provides a comparative analysis of the manifestos in both countries to provide further insight into different theoretical perspectives which influence policy-making (Vogeler, 2019). Political salience is the degree to which citizens are concerned about a particular political issue and how this may influence their voting behaviour (Wlezien, 2005). Political parties draft manifestos with the aim to maximise electoral success. These programmes can thus be used as a measure of the importance voters attach to vari- ous policy issues (Däubler, 2012). They provide representative and accurate infor- mation on political parties’ viewpoints at a certain moment in time (Chaney, 2014a). This is especially true in recent decades, as political manifestos have evolved from a few sheets of paper to political reference works written by various experts, focus- ing on policy, public opinion, and voter preference (Däubler, 2012). Politicisation explains how a policy issue gains electoral prominence, enters the political agenda, and becomes the subject of inter-party competition (Carter, 2006). Issue salience is used as an indicator to assess party competition through manifesto studies (Chaney et al., 2020). The following section provides an overview of the literature on political salience and the development of policy in animal protection. It explores Chaney’s work in In this paper, the term ‘animal protection’ is used as an umbrella term to cover animal welfare, wildlife conservation, and animal rights. The manifestos of the most recent three elections in the Netherlands and Belgium were analysed. At the beginning of the study in 2021, these were 2012, 2017 and 2021 for the Netherlands, and 2010, 2014 and 2019 for Belgium. 1 3 The Political Salience of Animal Protection in the Netherlands… Page 3 of 23 4 the United Kingdom (UK) (). Next, it discusses Vogeler’s research on farmed ani- mal welfare in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland (2017a), animal welfare in Ger- man political party competition (2017b) and farmed animal welfare regulations in the UK, Germany, France, Italy, and Spain (2019). The paper then addresses the legal and political features relevant to animal protection governance and policy in the Netherlands and Belgium. Salience in Animal Protection Chaney (2014b) used a mixed methods approach, analysing parliamentary Early Day Motions (EDMs) and election manifestos, to examine the policy framework and importance of animal welfare in the UK. Furthermore, Chaney (2014a) exam- ined party politicisation of the environment, by analysing pledges in party manifes- tos for elections in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in the context of multi- level governance. Chaney et al. (2020) used the same approach to examine animal welfare. Vogeler conducted a systematic policy analysis of farmed animal welfare in Germany, Austria and Switzerland (Vogeler, 2017a), and a classification of the pol- icy field of animal welfare in German political party competition (Vogeler, 2017b). Vogeler (2019) also systematically compared farmed animal welfare regulations in the UK, Germany, France, Italy and Spain, identifying societal concerns and politi- cal parties’ emphasis on farmed animal welfare. Vogeler (2017b) noted that most governing parties addressed farmed animal wel- fare. Chaney et al. (2020) concluded that meso-level pledges indicate that all parties want to take advantage of the growing support for farmed animal welfare. Vogeler (2017b, 2019) and Chaney (2014b) found that left-wing parties generally show a greater tendency to promote animal welfare. Chaney (2014b) noted that right-wing parties in the UK rely on the individual actions of MPs. Vogeler (2017b) illustrated how farmed animal welfare received more attention in German politics when the Green Party was active in the government and ministries responsible for animal wel- fare. Furthermore, she noticed that animal welfare policies have the potential to gain importance against the backdrop of socioeconomic developments and a change in societal priorities. This study could reveal similar patterns in the Netherlands and Belgium. Chaney et al. (2020) noticed that animal welfare electoral politics are shaped by political parties’ relationships with different policy communities. Furthermore, the study found that multi-level electoral politics offers new political spaces to pro- mote animal welfare. Chaney (2014a) confirmed this trend, as the study showed that multi-level politics offers opportunities for greater environmental consideration. Vogeler’s (2019) systematic comparison of farmed animal welfare regulations in the UK, Germany, France, Italy and Spain revealed societal concerns and political parties’ emphasis on farmed animal welfare. Vogeler’s (2017a) systematic policy EDMs are one-sentence motions submitted by Members of Parliament (MPs) formally requesting a debate. It is unusual for EDMs to be debated due to Parliamentary time, but MPs can demonstrate sup- port by signing the EDM. Meso-level refers to community, county or in this case state level. 1 3 4 Page 4 of 23 A. Hus, S. P. McCulloch analysis of farmed animal welfare for Germany, Austria, and Switzerland showed how animal welfare policies differ between countries. It is expected that this research could show similar trends in the Netherlands and Belgium. This manifesto study complements the work of Chaney and Vogeler, as it exam- ines the animal protection trends and highlights the most salient animal protection issues in the Netherlands (2012 to 2021) and Belgium (2010 to 2019). Furthermore, it researches the relationship between parties’ political preferences and statements on animal protection, whilst comparing Belgian and Dutch party programmes regard- ing animal protection policies. The politicisation of animal protection is the process by which an issue enters the political agenda, becoming the subject of competition between parties (Carter, 2006). It is predicted that the examination of party mani- festos in the Netherlands (2012 to 2021) and Belgium (2010 to 2019) will reveal the politicisation of animal protection. Specifically, the research investigates the following four questions: 1. What are the trends of animal protection salience from 2012 to 2021 in the Neth- erlands and from 2010 to 2019 for Belgium? 2. What animal protection issues are politically salient in both nations? 3. What is the relation between the political leaning of parties and their animal protection pledges? 4. How do Belgium and the Netherlands party manifestos compare? The Netherlands The Netherlands is a unitary state with a parliamentary political system, a consti- tutional monarchy and a proportional representation system of government. Mark Rutte, leader of People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy, has been the Dutch Prime Minister since 2010. Over the past decades, the liberal People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy, the conservative Christian Democratic Appeal and the centre-left Labour Party have dominated the political landscape. The first two repre- sent agricultural interests; the latter favours a more environmentally conscious pol- icy. In addition, the centre party Democrats 66 and left-wing parties GreenLeft and Socialist Party have also focused on environmental policy, whilst the conservative Christian Union and the right-wing Political Reformed Party have ties with rural agricultural communities. The far-right Party for Freedom supports animal protec- tion policies but is sceptical about climate change issues (Otjes, 2016). Animal Protection in the Netherlands The Netherlands is Europe’s most livestock-dense country, farming 100 million chickens, 12.5 million pigs and 4 million cows (Tweede Kamer, 2021). Furthermore, it is the world’s largest exporter of live animals, with 363 million animals exported in 2017 alone (Levitt, 2020). The livestock industry has significantly affected biodi- versity, with little or no pristine natural environment remaining. About two-thirds of the reptile, butterfly, mayfly and mushroom species are on the International Union 1 3 The Political Salience of Animal Protection in the Netherlands… Page 5 of 23 4 for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List, many of which are not legally pro- tected (Government of the Netherlands, 2020). In 2006, the Netherlands became the first nation globally to have an animal advo- cacy party elected to its national parliament. Party for the Animals entered the Dutch Lower House with the aim of putting animal welfare on the political agenda (Otjes, 2016). It influenced the introduction of stricter rules for animal testing in 2013, the ban on mink breeding in 2020 and the revision of the Animals Act in 2021 (Par- tij voor de Dieren, 2022). According to the Animals Act, animals must have suffi- cient water, food and a suitable habitat with adequate space and good facilities. They should also be protected from injury, disease and stress, and have company from conspecifics. Transporting and killing animals must be done in a welfare-friendly manner (NVWA, 2022). Belgium Belgium is a federal state with three regions: northern Dutch-speaking Flanders, bilingual Brussels, and southern French-speaking Wallonia. It is a constitutional monarchy with a system of proportional representation in federal and regional gov- ernments. Political parties limit their electoral engagement to either Flanders or the Walloon region (van Haute et al., 2017). In the Brussels region, inhabitants can choose whether they vote for a Flemish or Walloon party. Therefore, this study only focuses on the Flanders and Walloon region. Animal Protection in Belgium The Belgian livestock industry is half the size of the Dutch livestock industry (Stat- bel, 2020). Due to heavy industrialization and urbanisation, Belgium’s wildlife bio- diversity is under serious threat. In 2014, the sixth state reform decentralized ani- mal welfare from the federal to the regional governments (Vlaamse overheid, 2021). Belgium became the first EU member state with regional animal welfare ministers, which has led to considerable regional differences. Walloon minister Carlo di Anto- nio (Humanist Democratic Centre) initiated the Walloon Animal Welfare Code, ban- ning cage systems for laying hens, dolphinariums and fairground ponies. Flemish minister Ben Weyts (New Flemish Alliance) introduced measures against animal abuse in slaughterhouses and implemented a positive list for reptiles kept as pets. Both ministers introduced a ban on unanaesthetised (non-stun) slaughter and fur farming, and mandated the compulsory neutering of cats (Gaia, 2019). Furthermore, both regions have animal welfare regulations for the keeping of pets and the breed- ing, transport and slaughter of farmed animals. There are also regulations for animal experimentation, zoos, fairs and circuses (Departement Omgeving, 2022). 1 3 4 Page 6 of 23 A. Hus, S. P. McCulloch Methodology Salience is a key concept in political science research. Issue salience refers to the importance of certain topics and the degree to which they are a problem (Wlezien, 2005). As an indicator to assess competition between political parties, issue salience can identify the importance individual parties attach to specific policy issues. Party manifestos provide information on parties’ viewpoints at a certain moment in time. Although manifestos can have limitations as data sources, they are useful for sys- tematic analysis over time (Chaney, 2014a). This study follows the approach of other election studies, like Chaney (2014a) and Chaney et al. (2020), in which issue sali- ence is determined by content analysis of manifestos (Neuendorf, 2002). It focuses on the absolute number of statements on animal protection. Research Design The research was conducted for three consecutive national elections: 2012, 2017 and 5 6 2021 in the Netherlands and 2010, 2014 and 2019 in Belgium. Only the manifes- tos of political parties that participated in all elections were included (see Table 1). Since 2014, the federal and regional elections in Belgium have taken place on the same day, with all parties launching one general election programme. The manifestos from the Netherlands and Flanders (Belgium) were published in Dutch, whilst those from the Walloon region of Belgium were in French. Manifes- tos were downloaded as PDF files from the Manifesto Project website or requested through the political parties. A quantitative analysis was conducted by identifying sentences related to animal protection, reading relevant sections, and entering key words and phrases in the search bar of the PDF. For example, search terms included ‘animal(s)’, ‘agriculture’, ‘fish(eries)’, ‘biodiversity’, ‘slaughter’, ‘transport’, ‘wild- life’, etc. In line with Chaney et al. (2020), and in accordance with established prac- tice in election studies (Volkens, 2004), the manifesto texts were broken down into quasi-sentences, i.e., the expression of a political idea or issue in verbal form. These quasi-sentences were tagged using a coding framework based on issues addressed in animal welfare policy literature (Chaney et al., 2020). Henceforth, these quasi- sentences are referred to in the paper as statements. Dutch manifestos included in the study: Christen-Democratisch Appèl (2012, 2017, 2021), ChristenU- nie (2012, 2017, 2021), Democraten 66 (2012, 2017, 2021), GroenLinks (2012, 2017, 2021), Partij van de Arbeid (2012, 2017, 2021), Partij voor de Dieren (2012, 2017, 2021), Partij voor de Vrijheid (2012, 2017, 2021), Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij (2012a, 2012b, 2017, 2021), Socialistische Partij (2012a, 2012b, 2017, 2021), Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en Democratie (2012, 2017, 2021). Belgian manifestos included in the study: Bonte (2010), Centre démocrate humaniste (2010, 2014, 2019), Christen-Democratisch & Vlaams (2010, 2014, 2019), Ecolo (2010, 2014, 2019), Groen (2010, 2014, 2019), Mouvement Réformateur (2010, 2014, 2019), Nieuw-Vlaamse Alliantie (2010, 2014, 2019), Open VLD (2010, 2014, 2019), Parti Socialiste (2010, 2014, 2019), Socialistische Partij Anders (2014, 2019), Vlaams Belang (2010, 2014, 2019). URL: https:// manif esto- proje ct. wzb. eu/ 1 3 The Political Salience of Animal Protection in the Netherlands… Page 7 of 23 4 Table 1 Dutch political parties that published manifestos for national elections in 2012, 2017 and 2021, which are analysed in this research, and their location on the political spectrum (Otjes, 2016); and Bel- gian political parties that published manifestos for federal elections (2010) and regional and federal elec- tions (2014 and 2019), which are analysed in this research, and their location on the political spectrum (van Haute et al., 2017) Political Political parties Neth- Political parties Belgium spectrum erlands Right Party for Freedom Flemish Interest (Vlaams Belang) (Partij voor de Vrijheid) Centre-right Political Reformed Reformist Movement (Mouvement Réformateur) Party (Staatkundig New Flemish Alliance (Nieuw-Vlaamse Alliantie) Gereformeerde Partij) People’s Party for Free- dom and Democracy (Volkspartij voor Vri- jheid en Democratie) Centre Christian Democratic Christian Democratic and Flemish (Christen-Democratisch & Appeal (Christen- Vlaams) Democratisch Appèl) Humanist Democratic Centre (Centre démocrate humaniste) Christian Union (Chris- Open Flemish Liberals and Democrats (Open VLD) tenUnie) Centre-left Democrats 66 Socialist Party Different (Socilaistische Partij Anders—since (Democraten 66) 2020 Vooruit) GreenLeft (Groen- Socialist Party (Parti Socialiste) Links) Labour Party (Partij voor de Arbeid) Party for the Animals (Partij voor de Dieren) Left Socialist Party (Social- istische Partij) Quantitative analysis may provide significant insights into the salience of ani- mal protection. However, it cannot register the statement made or the strength of a party’s position on a particular issue. To compensate for these limitations, a com- plementary qualitative analysis was used to reveal political intrigue between par- ties in their attempts to own an issue (Chaney, 2014a). Additionally, all statements were coded as pro or anti animal protection or neutral, using the notion of direction method. This method was first applied by Reingold (2000) to study the feminist, anti-feminist or neutral notion of parliamentary debates. All topics belonging to a certain issue category were clearly defined (see Table 2). Only statements explicitly referring to animals were tagged. For example, state- ments to improve biodiversity were only tagged when animals were directly men- tioned or involved. When certain statements were mentioned multiple times in the For example, Protect bees and bumblebees (Groen, 2019) received a tag. Our water must be cleaner (GroenLinks, 2021) did not receive a tag. 1 3 4 Page 8 of 23 A. Hus, S. P. McCulloch Table 2 Animal protection tags and corresponding issue categories Tag Issue categories Experimenting/testing Animal testing, genetic engineering Farmed animal welfare Livestock, fish, fur farming; use of medication; related regulations; pro- motion of meat replacers and plant-based diets Hunting/culling Related issues and regulations Sport Competitions with animals, related regulation Transport Live animal transport, import, export Pets Animals kept as pets: dogs, horses, exotic pets, related regulation Trade Import/export of animals and animal products, WTO, related regulation Slaughter Regulations regarding slaughterhouses, ritual slaughter EU Related regulation Wildlife/biodiversity Fishing industry; wild animals in nature, water and cities; insects; regula- tions referring to biodiversity and animal protection Regulation/criminal justice General animal protection rules; proposed changes to legislation, govern- ance structure; criminal law; food labelling; VAT rates for animal products; animal protection services (e.g., vet, rehoming); sanctions, punishments regarding animal abuse, neglect; support for animal pro- tection organizations; animal helplines, police, other services Entertainment Statements regarding circuses, (petting) zoos, dolphinariums, animal fairs same manifesto, for example those that were repeated in introductions and summa- ries, they were tagged once. Statements that referred to more than one issue were tagged once. The analysis of the manifestos was carried out by the first author, a native Dutch speaker with fluency in French and English. The second author is a native English speaker and does not speak or read Dutch and French. The analysis was conducted twice, in 2021 and 2022, to guarantee the robustness of the results. Limitations The methodological approach is in line with the work of Chaney et al. (2020), but differs in some respects. Chaney et al. (2020) coded statements twice or more when applying to different issue categories (for example, ‘we will legislate to introduce compulsory microchipping for dogs and cats’, was coded under regulation and pets). In contrast, in this research all statements were coded once only. The benefit of providing one code to each issue statement is that it provides a more reliable com- parison of the number of statements in manifestos across election years, in order to measure salience quantitatively. Nevertheless, the use of a single code raises the question of which tag to use when statements cover multiple policy issues (e.g., both EU and transport). Although all topics belonging to a certain issue category were clearly defined (see Table 2), at times, it was difficult to assign a specific tag. For example, when animal transport was mentioned without reference to the EU, the statement was labelled transport as it could also refer to regional legislation. When the EU was mentioned, the statement on transport was labelled EU. 1 3 The Political Salience of Animal Protection in the Netherlands… Page 9 of 23 4 Another limitation relates to the findings on the evolution of the number of state- ments over time. Since the size of manifestos is inconsistent, measuring the num- ber of statements only as an absolute number could be unreliable. In general, larger manifestos contain more statements. To rectify this, the election pages of each mani- festo were counted and used as a benchmark to improve the reliability of the state- ments covered in the discussion section. Findings The findings are reported in three parts. In the first section, the analysis of manifes- tos from Dutch elections in 2012, 2017, and 2021 is presented. In the second sec- tion, the analysis of the Belgian manifestos from 2010, 2014, and 2019 is presented. For both the Netherlands and Belgium, there are three subsections: trends in animal protection salience, analysis of salience of animal protection issues by issue, and party-political analysis. In the third and final part, the Dutch and Belgian manifestos are compared. The Netherlands Trends in Animal Protection Salience Figure 1 illustrates the increasing trend in political salience in Dutch national elec- tions. In total, there were 462 statements in 2012, 497 in 2017, and 573 in 2021. The total number of statements increased over the course of the election cycles, as did the number of positive statements. The number of neutral statements remained largely unchanged. The proportion of negative or anti-animal protection statements was relatively consistent, with 23 (5.0%) in 2012, 23 (4.6%) in 2017, and 22 (3.9%) in 2021 (see Fig. 1). The absolute figures are considerably influenced by Party for the Animals. Analysis of Salience of Animal Protection Issues by Issue In the Dutch national elections in 2012, 2017 and 2021, farmed animal welfare (27.9%) and wildlife/biodiversity (19.0%) were the most salient issues (see Fig. 2). While farmed animal welfare experienced a slight increase over election cycles, with 133 statements in 2012 and 148 statements in 2021, the focus on wildlife/bio- diversity fluctuated. The attention to slaughter, hunting/culling and entertainment grew gradually over successive elections, while the attention to other issue catego- ries fluctuated. The party considerably influenced the absolute figures, as it accounted for 184 statements in 2012, 271 in 2017 and 295 in 2021. Since its establishment, Party for the Animals has developed from a one-issue party to a political party with a comprehensive political programme. 1 3 4 Page 10 of 23 A. Hus, S. P. McCulloch Positive Neutral Negative 23 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 2012 2017 2021 Fig. 1 Number of positive, negative, and neutral animal protection statements in Dutch manifestos for the 2012, 2017, and 2021 national elections Party Political Analysis Regarding farmed animal welfare, most Dutch parties stressed the importance of animal health and the use of antibiotics. Left-wing parties favoured phasing out live- stock farming, alongside increased supervision of the sector, and more ambitious standards. Right-wing parties opposed restrictions on the number of farmed ani- mals, advocating self-regulation, and remaining within the remit of EU standards. Out of all the parties, Political Reformed Party made the most anti-animal protection statements over the three elections (38.2%), with the proposal to reverse the ban on beak cutting (Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij, 2017, p. 70) being one example. People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy represented 33.8% of the anti-animal protection statement, suggesting that there should be ’no legal requirement for graz- ing’ (Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en Democratie, 2021, p. 91). Other parties that made anti-animal protection statements were the Christian Union (14.7%), Christian Democratic Appeal (8.8%), Party for Freedom (1.5%) and Labour Party (2.8%). Concerning wildlife/biodiversity, right-wing parties focused on improving the fishing industry, whilst left-wing parties were concerned with improving biodi- versity and marine life. Party for Freedom demanded ‘no ban on pulse fishing’ (Partij voor de Vrijheid, 2021, p. 41), People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy stated that ‘no more fishing areas should be closed than required by European leg- islation’ (Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en Democratie, 2017, p. 82). Left-wing parties were determined to tackle harmful fishing methods, to promote marine conservation and ambitious Natura 2000 legislation. Right-wing parties considered Natura 2000 to be a threat and administrative burden for the fishing and farming industry. The party of Prime Minister Mark Rutte, the centre-right People’s Party for Freedom ‘Geen wettelijke verplichting tot weidegang’. ‘Geen verbod pulsvisserij’. ‘Er mogen niet meer visgebieden worden gesloten dan noodzakelijk is vanuit Europese wetgeving.’. Natura 2000 stands for a European network of natural and semi-natural areas, which are important as habitats for various animal and plant species. 1 3 The Political Salience of Animal Protection in the Netherlands… Page 11 of 23 4 4.2% 5.3% 11.3 % Experiment/tesng Farmed animal welfare Hunng / culling 27.9% Sport Transport Pets 19 % Trade Slaughter EU Wildlife / biodiversity Regulaon / criminal jusce 6.5% Entertainment 4.7 % 1.4% 4.6% 2.8% 4% 8.2% Fig. 2 Total number of animal protection statements per issue category, for the Dutch national elections of 2012, 2017 and 2021 combined and Democracy, paid increasing attention to animal protection. The party progressed from 11 statements in 2012 to 48 in 2021. Political Reformed Party followed a simi- lar pattern of increasing attention to animal protection. The far-right Party for Free- dom was responsible for 2.0% of the total number of statements (n = 1532), and did not comment on 40% of the issue categories. However, the party did pay attention to farmed animal welfare and wildlife/biodiversity during the 2021 elections, issue cat- egories that it had omitted in previous elections. Party for the Animals was the only Dutch party to address all issue categories (Fig. 3). Belgium Trends in Animal Protection Salience Looking at the absolute figures over the election cycles of the Belgian national elec- tions, there has been an increase in the salience of animal protection. Together, the Belgian political parties accounted for 115 statements in 2010, 454 in 2014, and 554 in 2019 (see Fig. 4). Especially in Flanders, it was not until 2014 that animal protec- tion became more prominent in party manifestos. As the decade progressed, animal protection statements became more detailed and covered more issue categories. In 1 3 4 Page 12 of 23 A. Hus, S. P. McCulloch 47 48 47 42 42 34 34 27 28 25 26 3 3 2012 2017 2021 Fig. 3 Total number of animal protection statements per political party for Dutch national elections in 2012, 2017, and 2021. Parties organised from most right-wing (Party for Freedom) on the left-hand side, to most left-wing (Socialist Party) on the right-hand side 2010, 4.3% of all statements were anti-animal protection, compared to 4% and 1.4% in 2019 (see Fig. 4). Analysis of Salience of Animal Protection Issues Wildlife/biodiversity (21.3%) and farmed animal welfare (19.9%) were the most sali- ent issue categories in Belgium (see Fig. 5). The focus on wildlife/biodiversity fluc- tuated, from 14 statements in 2010 to 129 in 2014, and 96 in 2019. The total number of statements on farmed animal welfare increased from 28 in 2010, 91 in 2014, to 105 in 2019. Apart from sport, an issue only mentioned by Green Party in 2014, all topics showed an upward trend from 2010 to 2019, with regulation/criminal justice being another notable outlier (9 statements in 2010, 34 in 2014 and 99 in 2019). 1 3 The Political Salience of Animal Protection in the Netherlands… Page 13 of 23 4 Positive 390 Neutral 46 Negative 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 2010 2014 2019 Fig. 4 Number of positive, negative, and neutral animal protection statements in Belgian manifestos for the 2010, 2014, and 2019 national elections 3.7% 6.8% 12.7 % Experiment/testing Farmed animal welfare Hunting / culling 19.9 % Sport Transport Pets Trade 21.3% Slaughter 5.4% EU 0.4% Wildlife / biodiversity 1.7% Regulation / criminal justice Entertainment 11.9 % 7.3% 3.8% 5% Fig. 5 Total number of animal protection statements per issue category, for the national elections of 2010, 2014 and 2019 combined Party Political Analysis The manifestos of six Flemish and four Walloon parties were analysed. In 2010, Walloon parties accounted for 78% of all animal protection statements (n = 115). New Flemish Alliance, Flemish Interest and Open Flemish Liberals and Democrats did not mention animal protection in 2010 and accounted for the fewest statements from 2010 to 2019 (see Fig. 6). When all elections were considered, only Green Party provided an animal welfare programme that covered all issue categories. 1 3 4 Page 14 of 23 A. Hus, S. P. McCulloch 38 38 34 35 34 29 29 20 11 11 00 0 2010 2014 2019 Fig. 6 Total number of animal protection statements per political party for Belgian national elections in 2010, 2014, and 2019. Parties organised from most right-wing (Flemish Interest) on the left-hand side, to most left-wing (Green Party) on the right-hand side Regarding wildlife/biodiversity, invasive species is a shared concern in Flanders and Wallonia. From 2010 to 2019, the fishing industry, Natura 2000 areas, and bee welfare became more salient. Walloon parties and the Flemish Green Party launched the most ambitious proposals to protect wildlife and biodiversity. In 2010, the right- wing Reformist Movement addressed the potential biodiversity loss as a result of invasive species, highlighting the pet industry as a possible culprit, stating regula- tions for keeping new pets should ‘take into account the welfare of these animals, but also the necessary protection of biodiversity’ (Mouvement Réformateur, 2014, p. 398). The second most salient issue category was farmed animal welfare, with Green Party and Walloon parties producing the most statements. Open Flemish Liberals and Democrats, New Flemish Alliance and Flemish Interest paid little attention to farmed animal welfare, although the two former parties considered aquaculture to be an emerging farming method, with New Flemish Alliance stating that ‘the devel- opment of dynamic aquaculture can increase the self-sufficiency of the sector’ (Nieuw-Vlaamse Alliantie, 2014, p. 20). Flemish parties emphasised intensive farm- ing and related animal welfare concerns. Walloon parties focussed on eradicating ‘Encadrer la détention des « Nouveaux animaux de compagnie», tenant compte du bien-être de ces animaux, mais aussi de la nécessaire protection de la biodiversité’. ‘De ontwikkeling van een dynamische aquacultuur kan de zelfvoorziening van de sector verhogen’. 1 3 The Political Salience of Animal Protection in the Netherlands… Page 15 of 23 4 12 3 Netherlands Belgium Fig. 7 Comparison of total number of animal protection statements for Belgian national elections in 2010 (1), 2014 (2), and 2019 (3) and Dutch national elections in 2012 (1), 2017 (2) and 2021 (3) diseases, restricting the use of antibiotics, improving farmed animal welfare, and preventing unnecessary suffering by focusing on education, research, and shorter food chains. The Walloon Socialist Party and the Flemish Green Party pursued the most ambitious agendas, highlighting farmed animal welfare regulations that go beyond EU minimum standards. For instance, in 2019, the Flemish Green Party pro- posed the following: ‘Farmed animals are kept in a way that allows them to exhibit species-specific behaviour’ (Groen, 2019, p. 11). Comparing Manifestos of Political Parties in The Netherlands (2012–2021) and BELGIUM (2010–2019) Issue Salience From 2010 to 2019, animal protection has become increasingly salient in Belgium. In the Netherlands, parties already made a significant number of statements dur - ing the national elections of 2012 (see Fig. 7). Dutch political parties paid more attention to farmed animal welfare (27.9%), compared to Belgian political parties (19.9%). Whilst farmed animal welfare salience remained stable in the Netherlands, it became increasingly salient in Belgium. For wildlife/biodiversity, the attention was comparable, with 21.3% of Belgian and 19% of Dutch statements referring to the issue. However, the salience of the issue fluctuated in both countries. In addition, the increasing focus on animal protection can also be observed from the average number of statements per election, and the average number of pages per manifesto. In the Netherlands, the average number of manifesto pages fluctu- ated, from 64.8 in 2012 to 83.1 in 2017 and 72.8 in 2021. The average number of ‘Landbouwdieren worden zo gehouden dat zij soorteigen gedrag kunnen vertonen’. 1 3 4 Page 16 of 23 A. Hus, S. P. McCulloch statements on animal protection increased across election cycles, from 46.2 in 2012 to 49.7 in 2017 and 57.3 in 2021. In Belgium, the average number of pages per manifesto varied, from 141 in 2010 to 323.5 in 2014 and 220.5 in 2021. The average number of statements increased from 11.5 in 2010 to 45.4 in 2014 and 55.4 in 2019. Thus, while the total number of manifesto pages fluctuated, the number of state- ments on animal protection increased. Partisan Differences There were both similarities and differences between the Netherlands and Belgium in the context of parties’ political leaning. The Dutch Party for the Animals, the Flemish Green Party and the Walloon Socialist Party were responsible for the most animal protection statements. These left-wing parties had a broader and more in- depth view of animal protection. They paid more attention to the different issue categories, and provided more detailed statements to introduce new policies, and improve existing policies. In absolute figures, the Walloon Socialist Party was the most animal friendly party in Belgium, accounting for 225 statements over the last three elections. Both in the Netherlands and Belgium, centre, centre-right and right parties were in favour of animal protection, provided that measures would not affect the local economy and employment. However, the Walloon centre party Humanist Democratic Centre had a more positive attitude towards animal protection than its political ally Christian-Democratic and Flemish, which is situated more to the right. In the Netherlands, conservative parties and especially Reformed Political Party were often inclined to oppose measures they considered too far-reaching. The Dutch Party for Freedom and Flemish Interest (both far-right parties) placed particular emphasis on tougher penalties and higher fines for animal abuse and neglect. Fur - thermore, they wanted to give law enforcement authorities the ability to intervene more quickly and harshly. Nevertheless, both parties neglected to mention issues, such as sports, transport, and entertainment. Discussion Trends in Animal Protection Salience During three consecutive national elections, animal protection has become a more salient issue in both the Netherlands (2012–2021) and Belgium (2010–2019) (see Fig. 7). Under the growing influence of Party for the Animals, the Netherlands saw the number of statements gradually increase, from 462 in 2012 to 573 in 2021 (see Fig. 3). Belgian political parties paid more attention to animal protection in consec- utive elections, from 115 in 2010, to 554 in 2019, making more positive statements in the manifestos as the decade progressed (see Fig. 7). In both nations farmed animal welfare and wildlife/biodiversity received the most attention. Whereas left- wing parties tended to be in favour of more progressive animal protection measures, 1 3 The Political Salience of Animal Protection in the Netherlands… Page 17 of 23 4 right-wing parties had a more conservative view on the matter, resulting in less ambitious statements. Especially in the Netherlands, right-wing parties Political Reformed Party and People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy have in some cases pledged to roll back animal-friendly policies as they might hamper the economy. Whilst the devolution of animal welfare may have affected the issue salience of ani- mal protection in Belgium and Party for the Animals could have influenced the total number of animal protection statements in the Netherlands, other factors could also have influenced the increasing attention for animal protection. Politically Salient Topics of Animal Protection Farmed Animal Welfare Farmed animal welfare was the most salient issue category in the Netherlands, the most livestock-dense country (Tweede Kamer, 2021) and the largest exporter of live animals worldwide (Levitt, 2020). Following outbreaks of Q fever (van der Hoek et al., 2010) and highly pathogenic avian influenza in recent years (National Insti- tute for Public Health and the Environment, 2021), animal health in agriculture has been a major area of concern in the Netherlands. Chaney et al. (2020) noticed the same course of events in the UK, with the salience of statements referring to animal diseases increasing in the 2003 elections, as a response to the 2001 Foot and Mouth disease outbreak. The increased attention to farmed animal welfare in the Nether- lands may also be due to Party for the Animals, as Otjes’ (2016) research suggested that the party’s entrance into the national parliament may have led to increased attention to the issue. In Belgium, farmed animal welfare was the second most salient issue and received more attention after the devolution of animal welfare in 2014. From that moment on, Flemish political parties emphasized intensive farming and related welfare concerns, whilst Walloon parties focused more on eradicating diseases, restricting antibiotics use and preventing unnecessary suffering of animals. Popula- tion density and physical conditions may explain these regional differences. Flan- ders is characterized by high population density and sandy plains, where farming is dominated by intensive farming of pigs, poultry and dairy cows. The less populated Wallonia is a region with loamy soils and medium to large-scale (mixed) livestock farms for meat production, where farmers are seen as an important part of the local and regional development (Van Hecke et al., 2000). These findings are consistent with Chaney et al. (2020), who argued that electoral politics at multiple levels pro- vides new political space to promote animal welfare. As Vogeler (2017b) noted, that farmed animal welfare was addressed by most governing parties in Germany, this research has found that in both the Netherlands and Belgium, all political parties addressed farmed animal welfare as elections progressed. 1 3 4 Page 18 of 23 A. Hus, S. P. McCulloch Wildlife/Biodiversity Wildlife/biodiversity was the most salient issue in Belgium, and the second most sali- ent issue in the Netherlands. In the Netherlands, wildlife/biodiversity was strongly linked to agriculture. Whilst left-wing parties often pledged to reduce the number of livestock and connecting nature sites, right-wing parties tended to be less focused on nature, and preferred greater space for agriculture and other economic activities. Measures to increase agricultural productivity, such as the use of fertilizers and the drainage of wet areas, along with pollution and overfishing, have led to a significant decline in biodiversity. This has resulted in nearly 40% of the native species being threatened to a greater or lesser extent (Sanders et al., 2019). In Belgium, many manifesto statements referred to the protection of local spe- cies, the dangers of invasive species, and the importance of protecting natural areas and biodiversity. Again, regional differences are evident. Walloon parties, along with the Flemish Green Party, proposed the most ambitious policies. This may be explained by the fact that 78.9% of the 700,000 ha of Belgian forests are in Wallonia (Koninklijke Belgische Bosbouwmaatschappij, 2021). Nevertheless, both Flanders and Wallonia introduced positive lists for both mammals and reptiles, taking into account the concerns about invasive species and the protection of native species (Toland et al., 2020). These findings are in line with those of Chaney (2014a), who indicated that multi-level systems can facilitate greater attention to environmental issues at the meso-level, encouraging parties to compete with each other with dis- tinctive proposals. Political Leaning and Animal Protection In the Netherlands and Belgium, the far-right parties Party for Freedom and Flem- ish Interest put the issue of ritual slaughter on the political agenda, resulting in an increasing salience over the past decade. Although both parties played a decisive role in the debate on ritual slaughter, the parties’ programmes did not express con- cern for other issues related to farmed animals. As Zúquete (2008) noted, greater political attention to Islam also led to greater opposition to the ritual slaughter of animals, a theme that far-right parties tend to emphasise. Dutch and Flemish con- servative parties were opposed to banning non-stun slaughter, based on respect for religious freedoms. Centre and centre-right parties in both the Netherlands and Flan- ders in particular tended to put farmers first. These parties formulated statements that protected farmers and the economy. They were also willing to counter or reverse animal protection measures that would hamper the sector. These findings are con- sistent with those of Vogeler (2017b) and Chaney et al. (2020), who argued that electoral policies on animal welfare are determined by political parties’ relationships with different policy communities. Vogeler’s analysis (2017a) of partisan differences on farmed animal welfare also referred to the close connection between conservative parties and farmers’ unions. Richardson (2000) also found that new initiatives may pose a certain threat as they can disrupt existing policy systems, policies, and power relationships. This could possibly reveal why some liberal parties were also hesitant towards far-reaching animal welfare statements. 1 3 The Political Salience of Animal Protection in the Netherlands… Page 19 of 23 4 Nevertheless, there was a clear distinction between Dutch liberals on the left and right, as the centre-left D66 proposed more animal-friendly and ambitious policies than the centre-right People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy. In Belgium, it was the other way around, the centre-right Reformist Movement put forward more ani- mal-friendly proposals than the centre Open Flemish Liberals and Democrats. This may be due to the fact that the Walloon parties pay more attention to animal protec- tion. The subject may therefore be discussed more extensively, with more concrete proposals instead of vague terms, which is more typical for Flanders. Along with the Dutch Party for the Animals, the Walloon Socialist Party (PS) and the Flemish and Dutch green parties made the most ambitious statements, which is in line with previ- ous research. Vogeler (2017a) found that green parties in Germany and Austria are more likely to focus on animal welfare, with detailed proposals on policy changes. Chaney et al. (2020) also confirmed the progressive role of the Green Party in the UK. Furthermore, Vogeler (2017a) highlighted that concrete policies vary from country to country, which aligned with variations found between concrete policies in the Netherlands and Belgium. Conclusion The quantitative and qualitative analysis of party manifestos for the Netherlands (2012–2021) and Belgium (2010–2019) reveals that animal protection is becoming a more salient policy issue in both countries. In the Netherlands, the participation of Party for the Animals in the Lower House of Parliament may have influenced the politicisation of animal protection and motivated other parties to debate, and even compete on animal protection issues. Further factors may have influenced the increased attention to animal protection, as the Netherlands has experienced several zoonotic disease outbreaks and is struggling with an ongoing decline in biodiversity. Whilst right-wing parties tend to favour economic growth, and further expansion of the agricultural sector, left-wing parties support greater protection of wildlife/biodi- versity, and a less intensive agriculture sector. The same trend can be seen in Bel- gium, where left-wing parties are launching more ambitious statements to protect biodiversity and wildlife, whilst showing a preference for phasing out the intensive livestock industry. Although it is not clear whether the devolution of animal wel- fare in Belgium has led to a significant increase in policy statements, it has resulted in more region-specific differences, with Walloon parties making noticeably more statements. Even though the salience of animal protection has increased over elec- tion cycles, both in the Netherlands and Belgium, further research is needed to con- firm this upward trend. Declarations Conflict of interest The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as 1 3 4 Page 20 of 23 A. Hus, S. P. McCulloch you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com- mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/. References Christen-Democratisch Appèl (2012). Iedereen. Retrieved 8 May 2021, from https:// www. parle ment. com/ id/ viyya dlrlt n1/ tweede_ kamer verki ezing en_ 2012 Christen-Democratisch Appèl (2017). Keuzes voor een beter Nederland. Retrieved 8 May 2021, from https:// www. parle ment. com/ id/ vk1wl jxti6 u9/ tweede_ kamer verki ezing en_ 2017 Christen-Democratisch Appèl (2021). Nu doorpakken. Retrieved 8 May 2021, from https:// dnppr epo. ub. rug. nl/ 13268/ Bonte, H. (2010). We moeten weer vooruit. sp.a. Carter, N. (2006). Party politicization of the environment in Britain. Party Politics, 12(6), 747–767. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 13540 68806 068599 Centre démocrate humaniste (2010). Un pacte pour sortir les Belges de crise. Centre démocrate humaniste. Centre démocrate humaniste (2014). Programme cdH pour les élections européennes, législatives et régionales 2014. Centre démocrate humaniste. Centre démocrate humaniste (2019). Pour une région plus humaine, plus juste et plus durable. Centre démocrate humaniste. Chaney, P. (2014a). Party politicisation and the formative phase of environmental policy-making in multi-level systems: Electoral discourse in UK meso-elections 1998–2011. Political Studies, 62(2), 252–272. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ 1467- 9248. 12028 Chaney, P. (2014b). Public policy for non-humans: Exploring UK state-wide parties’ formative policy record on animal welfare, 1979–2010. Parliamentary Affairs, 67(4), 907–934. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ pa/ gss108 Chaney, P., Rees Jones, I., & Fevre, R. (2020). Sentience and salience–exploring the party politiciza- tion of animal welfare in multi-level electoral systems: Analysis of manifesto discourse in UK meso elections 1998–2017. Regional and Federal Studies. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13597 566. 2020. 18531 Christen-Democratisch & Vlaams (2010). Nooit opgeven. Christen-Democratisch & Vlaams. Christen-Democratisch & Vlaams (2014). Het 3D plan van CD&V - economische groei met sociale vooruitgang. Christen-Democratisch & Vlaams. Christen-Democratisch & Vlaams (2019). Ceder - Verkiezingsprogramma CD&V Vlaamse, federale& Europese verkiezingen 2019. Christen-Democratisch & Vlaams. ChristenUnie (2012). Voor de verandering. Retrieved 8 May 2021, from https:// www. parle ment. com/ id/ viyya dlrlt n1/ tweede_ kamer verki ezing en_ 2012 ChristenUnie (2017). Hoopvol Realistisch - Voorstellen voor een samenleving met toekomst. Retrieved 8 May 2021, from https:// www. parle ment. com/ id/ vk1wl jxti6 u9/ tweede_ kamer verki ezing en_ 2017 ChristenUnie (2021). Kiezen voor wat écht telt. Retrieved 8 May 2021, from https:// dnppr epo. ub. rug. nl/ 86151/ Departement Omgeving (2022). Wetgeving dierenwelzijn. Retrieved 5 Oct 2022, from https:// www. vlaan deren. be/ diere nwelz ijn/ werki ng- en- beleid/ wetge ving- diere nwelz ijn# algem een European Commission (2007). Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing ) the European Community, Official journal of the European Union 1 (2007). Retrieved 11 Aug 2021, from https:// eur- lex. europa. eu/ legal- conte nt/ EN/ TXT/? uri= celex% 3A120 07L% 2FTXT European Commission (2016). Attitudes of Europeans towards animal welfare. Retrieved 20 July 2021, from https:// op. europa. eu/ en/ publi cation- detai l/-/ publi cation/ 9bc3a 0b7- ec17- 11e5- 8a81- 01aa7 5ed71 a1/ langu age- en 1 3 The Political Salience of Animal Protection in the Netherlands… Page 21 of 23 4 Däubler, T. (2012). The preparation and use of election manifestos: Learning from the Irish case. Irish Political Studies, 27(1), 51–70. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 07907 184. 2012. 636183 Democraten 66 (2012). En nu vooruit. Retrieved 8 May 2021, from https:// www. parle ment. com/ id/ viyya dlrlt n1/ tweede_ kamer verki ezing en_ 2012 Democraten 66 (2017). D66 Verkiezingsprogramma 2017–2021. Retrieved 8 May 2021, from https:// www. parle ment. com/ id/ vk1wl jxti6 u9/ tweede_ kamer verki ezing en_ 2017 Democraten 66 (2021). Een nieuw begin. Retrieved 8 May 2021, from https:// dnppr epo. ub. rug. nl/ 13269/ Ecolo (2010). Démocratie et Gouvernance. Ecolo. Ecolo (2014). Tous les Livres, tous les Chapitres. Ecolo. Ecolo (2019). Programme de campagne 2019. Ecolo. Gaia (2019). Ben Weyts 16/20, Bianca Debaets 14/20 en Carlo Di Antonio 17/20. Retrieved 20 July 2021, from https:// www. gaia. be/ nl/ nieuws/ ben- weyts- 1620- bianca- debae ts- 1420- en- carlo- di- anton io- 1720 Government of the Netherlands (2020). Number of threatened and extinct species in The Netherlands, by 2020. Retrieved 12 Sept 2021, from https:// www. clo. nl/ en/ indic ators/ en1052- number- of- threa tened- speci es? ond= 24989 Groen (2010). Positieve Energie. Groen. Groen (2014). Samen beter doen. Groen. Groen (2019). Plan A menselijker eerlijker gezonder. Groen. GroenLinks (2012). Groene Kansen voor GroenLinks. Retrieved 8 May 2021, from https:// www. parle ment. com/ id/ viyya dlrlt n1/ tweede_ kamer verki ezing en_ 2012 GroenLinks (2017). Tijd voor verandering. Retrieved 8 May 2021, from https:// www. parle ment. com/ id/ vk1wl jxti6 u9/ tweede_ kamer verki ezing en_ 2017 GroenLinks (2021). Tijd voor nieuw realisme. Retrieved 8 May 2021, from https:// dnppr epo. ub. rug. nl/ 13270/ Koninklijke Belgische Bosbouwmaatschappij (2021). De Belgische bossen. Retrieved 12 July 2021, from https:// www. srfb. be/ nl/ infor matie- over- de- bossen/ de- belgi sche- bossen/ Levitt, T. (2020). Two billion and rising: the global trade in live animals in eight charts. Retrieved 21 May 2021, from https:// www. thegu ardian. com/ envir onment/ 2020/ jan/ 20/ two- billi on- and- rising- the- global- trade- in- live- anima ls- in- eight- charts McCulloch, S. P. (2018). Brexit and animal protection: Legal and political context and a framework to assess impacts on animal welfare. Animals, 8(11), 213. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ ani81 10213 Mouvement Réformateur (2010). Programme du MR. Mouvement Réformateur. Mouvement Réformateur (2014). Programme général. Mouvement Réformateur. Mouvement Réformateur (2019). Un pays stable, prospère et innovant. Mouvement Réformateur. Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The Content Analysis Guidebook. Thousand Oaks. Nieuw-Vlaamse Alliantie (2010). Nu durven veranderen. Nieuw-Vlaamse Alliantie. Nieuw-Vlaamse Alliantie (2014). Verandering Voor Vooruitgang. Nieuw-Vlaamse Alliantie. Nieuw-Vlaamse Alliantie (2019). Voor Vlaanderen. Voor Vooruitgang. Brussels: Nieuw-Vlaamse Alliantie. NVWA (2022). Dierenwelzijn. Retrieved 5 Oct 2022, from https:// www. nvwa. nl/ onder werpen/ diere nwelz ijn Open VLD (2010). Een nieuwe start Ambitie 2020 welvaart creëren, welvaart verdelen. Open VLD. Open VLD (2014). Vlaanderen vleugels geven. Open VLD. Open VLD (2019). Het land van de doeners. Open VLD. Otjes, S. (2016). The hobbyhorse of the party for the animals. Society and Animals, 24(4), 383–402. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1163/ 15685 306- 12341 415 Partij van de Arbeid (2012). Nederland sterker & socialer. Retrieved 8 May 2021, from https:// www. parle ment. com/ id/ viyya dlrlt n1/ tweede_ kamer verki ezing en_ 2012 Partij voor de Vrijheid (2012). Hún Brussel, óns Nederland. Retrieved 8 May 2021, from https:// www. parle ment. com/ id/ viyya dlrlt n1/ tweede_ kamer verki ezing en_ 2012 Partij voor de Dieren (2012). Hou vast aan je idealen. Retrieved 8 May 2021, from https:// www. parle ment. com/ id/ viyya dlrlt n1/ tweede_ kamer verki ezing en_ 2012 Partij voor de Dieren (2017). Plan B - Hou vast aan je idealen. Retrieved 8 May 2021, from https:// www. parle ment. com/ id/ vk1wl jxti6 u9/ tweede_ kamer verki ezing en_ 2017 Partij van de Arbeid (2017). Een verbonden samenleving. Retrieved 8 May 2021, from https:// www. parle ment. com/ id/ vk1wl jxti6 u9/ tweede_ kamer verki ezing en_ 2017 Partij voor de Vrijheid (2017). Nederland weer van ons. Retrieved 8 May 2021, from https:// www. parle ment. com/ id/ vk1wl jxti6 u9/ tweede_ kamer verki ezing en_ 2017 1 3 4 Page 22 of 23 A. Hus, S. P. McCulloch Partij voor de Vrijheid (2021). Het gaat om u. Retrieved 8 May 2021, from https:// dnppr epo. ub. rug. nl/ 86180/ Partij voor de Dieren (2021). Plan B. Idealisme is het nieuwe realisme. Retrieved 8 May 2021, from https:// dnppr epo. ub. rug. nl/ 13291/ Partij van de Arbeid (2021). Ons plan voor een eerlijker en fatsoenlijker Nederland. Retrieved 8 May 2021, from https:// dnppr epo. ub. rug. nl/ 13266/ Partij voor de Dieren (2022). Successen. Retrieved 8 May 2021, from https:// www. parti jvoor dedie ren. nl/ succe ssen Parti Socialiste (2010). Un pays stable des emplois durables. Parti Socialiste. Parti Socialiste (2014). Plus forts ensemble, pour un avenir plus juste. Parti Socialiste. Parti Socialiste (2019). Elections du 26 mai 2019 - Programme PS. Parti Socialiste. Richardson, J. (2000). Government, interest groups and policy change. Political Studies, 48(5). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ 1467- 9248. 00292 Sanders, M. E., Henkens, R. J. H. G., & Slijkerman, D. M. E. (2019). Convention on biological diversity: Sixth national report of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Wot Technical Report. https:// doi. org/ 10. 18174/ 499170 Socialistische Partij (2012a). Nieuw vertrouwen. Retrieved 8 May 2021, from https:// dnppr epo. ub. rug. nl/ 536/ Socialistische Partij (2012b). Nieuw vertrouwen. Retrieved 8 May 2021, from https:// www. parle ment. com/ id/ viyya dlrlt n1/ tweede_ kamer verki ezing en_ 2012b Socialistische Partij (2017). Pak de macht. Retrieved 8 May 2021, from https:// dnppr epo. ub. rug. nl/ 10868/ Socliastische Partij (2021). Stel een daad. Retrieved 8 May 2021, from https:// dnppr epo. ub. rug. nl/ 13280/ Socialistische Partij Anders (2014). Sociale welvaart. Socialistische Partij Anders. Socialistische Partij Anders (2019). Zekerheid voor iedereen. Socialistische Partij Anders. Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij (2012). Daad bij het Woord. Retrieved 8 May 2021, from https:// www. parle ment. com/ id/ viyya dlrlt n1/ tweede_ kamer verki ezing en_ 2012 Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij (2017). Vóór het leven. Retrieved 8 May 2021, from https:// www. parle ment. com/ id/ vk1wl jxti6 u9/ tweede_ kamer verki ezing en_ 2017 Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij (2021). In vertrouwen. Retrieved 8 May 2021, from https:// dnppr epo. ub. rug. nl/ 13235/ Statbel (2020). Kerncijfers Landbouw. Retrieved 1 April 2022, from https:// statb el. fgov. be/ nl/ nieuws/ kernc ijfers- landb ouw- 2020 Toland, E., Bando, M., Hamers, M., Cadenas, V., Laidlaw, R., Martínez-Silvestre, A., & van der Wielen, P. (2020). Turning negatives into positives for pet trading and keeping: A review of positive lists. Animals, 10(12), 1–45. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ ani10 122371 Tweede Kamer (2021). Dierenwelzijn. Retrieved 12 July 2021, from https:// www. tweed ekamer. nl/ kamer leden- en- commi ssies/ commi ssies/ vaste- commi ssie- voor- landb ouw- natuur- en- voeds elkwa liteit-2 van der Hoek, W., Dijkstra, F., Schimmer, B., Schneeberger, P. M., Vellema, P., Wijkmans, C., Hackert, V., & van Duynhoven, Y. (2010). Q fever in the Netherlands: An update on the epidemiology and control measures. Eurosurveillance. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2807/ ese. 15. 12. 19520- en van Haute, E., Deschouwer K., Pilet, J.B. (2017). Party families in a split party system. Retrieved 20 May 2022, from https:// www. resea rchga te. net/ publi cation/ 32290 9865_ Party_ famil ies_ in_a_ split_ party_ system Van Hecke, E., Meert, H., & Christians, C. (2000). Belgian agriculture and rural environments. Belgeo, 1, 201–218. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4000/ belgeo. 14010 Vlaams Belang (2010). Vlamingen Eerst! Vlaams Belang. Vlaams Belang (2014). Uw stok achter de deur. Vlaams Belang. Vlaams Belang (2019). Eerst onze mensen. Vlaams Belang. Vlaamse overheid (2021). Staatshervorming. Retrieved 20 June 2021, from https:// www. vlaan deren. be/ staat sherv orming# overd racht- van- bevoe gdhed en Vogeler, C. S. (2017a). Farm animal welfare policy in comparative perspective: Determinants of cross- national differences in Austria, Germany, and Switzerland. European Policy Analysis, 3(1), 20–47. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ epa2. 1015 Vogeler, C. S. (2017b). Parteiendifferenz in der deutschen Tierschutzpolitik-Gestaltungsspielraum der Länder in neuen Politikfeldern? Zeitschrift Für Parlamentsfragen, 48(3), 634–656. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5771/ 0340- 1758- 2017-3- 634 1 3 The Political Salience of Animal Protection in the Netherlands… Page 23 of 23 4 Vogeler, C. S. (2019). Why do farm animal welfare regulations vary between EU member states? A com- parative analysis of societal and party political determinants in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK. Journal of Common Market Studies, 57(2), 317–335. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ jcms. 12794 Volkens, A. (2004). Policy Changes of European Social Democrats, 1945–1998. In G. Bonoli & M. Pow- ell (Eds.), Social Democratic Party Policies in Contemporary Europe (pp. 20–42). Routledge. Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en Democratie (2012). Niet doorschuiven maar aanpakken. Retrieved 8 May 2021, from https:// dnppr epo. ub. rug. nl/ 543/ Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en Democratie (2017). Zeker Nederland. Retrieved 8 May 2021, from https:// www. parle ment. com/ id/ vk1wl jxti6 u9/ tweede_ kamer verki ezing en_ 2017 Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en Democratie (2021). Samen aan de slag. Nieuwe keuzes voor een nieuwe tijd. Retrieved 8 May 2021, from https:// dnppr epo. ub. rug. nl/ 13263 Wlezien, C. (2005). On the salience of political issues: The problem with ‘most important problem.’ Elsevier, 24(4), 555–579. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. elect stud. 2005. 01. 009 Zúquete, J. P. (2008). The European extreme-right and Islam: New directions? Journal of Political Ide- ologies, 13(3), 321–344. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13569 31080 23770 19 Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Authors and Affiliations 1 2 Annick Hus · Steven P. McCulloch Steven P. McCulloch Steven.McCulloch@winchester.ac.uk Edinburgh Medical School - Biomedical Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH8 9XD, United Kingdom Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Winchester, Winchester SO22 4NR, United Kingdom 1 3
Journal
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics – Springer Journals
Published: Mar 1, 2023
Keywords: Animal protection; Animal welfare; Issue salience; Wildlife conservation; Netherlands; Belgium