One welfare: Linking poverty, equid ownership and equid welfare in the brick kilns of India

Abstract

The brick kilns in India are associated with extremely low pay, poor working conditions and a lack of regulation. Equids, however, may provide a route out of poverty by enabling workers to access a higher income. The relatively higher financial returns from healthy equids could also motivate welfare improvements. We used a mixed-methods approach including livelihoods questionnaires, semi-structured interviews and welfare assessments to investigate the links between poverty, equid ownership and equid welfare in the brick kilns of Ahmedabad, India. Whilst equid owners earned more than non-owners during the kiln season, the opposite trend was found for these workers for work conducted outside of the kilns during the off-season. Equid ownership was, however, strongly influenced by social factors and, within certain communities, equid ownership may be the only viable escape from extreme poverty. In terms of welfare, equid behaviour was better for owners with better financial security, likely due to the availability of resources. Equid health improved with longevity of ownership, suggesting that owners who view working with their equids as a long-term partnership are more likely to ensure their equids are kept in good health. For stakeholders aiming to improve both human health and equid welfare, a ‘one welfare’ approach which values the intrinsic connections between poverty and both equid ownership and equid welfare could greatly increase success.

Bonded labour and donkey ownership in the brick kilns of India: A need for reform of policy and practice

“…Reactions of fear and distress were elicited more frequently from equids with aggressive owners, as previously seen for working mules (Ali et al 2019 ; Norris et al 2020 ) and demonstrated here for donkeys. Previous assessments of the current cohort found that owners who are less financially secure, specifically those on lower wages or who rely on loans, tend to own donkeys with poorer welfare in terms of behaviour (Kubasiewicz et al 2022 ). Here, we add depth to that finding by suggesting that it is the owner’s behaviour itself which elicits such a response in their donkeys, potentially due to stress induced by their financial situation.…”

“…In the vast majority of cases, however, these earning are required to cover at least part of the off-season, with all but one donkey owner receiving an advance for their work in the brick kilns for basic living expenses during the off-season and to purchase equids upon which they rely financially. Off-season work has been described as ‘sporadic and poorly paid’ by the current cohort (Kubasiewicz et al 2022 ), increasing their reliance on, and potential exploitation by, the brick-kiln industry.…”

“…Following the identification of ‘shared suffering’ between humans and donkeys in the current cohort (Watson et al 2020 ), we then identify potential links between human and donkey behaviour, and review the living conditions of both humans and donkeys. In a separate analysis of the current dataset, we outlined the impact of donkey ownership on income poverty, providing a relative comparison of wealth between donkey-owning and non-owning kiln workers (Kubasiewicz et al 2022 ). Here, we provide a follow-up piece, outlining the position of donkey owners in relation to minimum wage thresholds and their unique experiences of debt-bondage.…”

The welfare and access to veterinary health services of mules working the mountain trails in the Gorkha region, Nepal

“…There seemed to be some relationship between body condition and behaviour where mules exhibiting ideal body condition displayed more positive behaviours compared to those with thin/ moderate and thin/poor condition. This could indicate a fragile mule-owner relationship in mules with less-than-ideal body condition, perhaps through financial insecurity, inadequate knowledge, or fear of handling (of both human and mule) and a resulting lack of adequate care (Kubasiewicz et al, 2022). Three mules showed apathetic behaviour, a negative welfare state where energy is being conserved due to a lack of available reserves (Upjohn & Wells, 2018) limiting an animal's responsiveness to stimuli and often associated with the presence of additional debilitating health conditions, pain, exhaustion (Pritchard et al, 2005), stress or learned helplessness (Burn et al, 2010;Hall et al, 2018;Swann, 2006); in our study one mule had a broken leg and others had nasal and eye discharge which indicated a potential infection, glanders was suspected.…”

“…Despite their presence, the prevalence of injuries, wounds and disease continues to pose a serious threat to mule health and welfare (AN, 2016). To understand the scale of the challenges facing working equids operating in this region this study utilised previously evaluated methodology (Kubasiewicz et al, 2022;Nye et al, 2021;Watson et al, 2020). The Equid Assessment Research and Scoping (EARS) tool (Raw et al, 2020) is used to assess welfare, livelihood surveys gather demographic information, and semi-structured interviews gain insight into owner perspectives about the management, health and care of their mules.…”