Malta ranks 29th for animal rights, according to new study

San Francisco-based insurance comparison website, The Swiftest, has ranked Malta 29th out of 67 countries in its recently released Animal Rights Index. 

The comprehensive analysis explores animal rights across 67 countries, detailing the welfare of all animals, not just domestic animals like cats and dogs, but also animals used for farming and wildlife.  

The nine factors used to evaluate each country were: recognition of animal sentence; recognition of animal suffering; any laws against animal cruelty; national fur-farming ban; support for the Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare; meat consumption per capita (negative factor); percentage of protected areas; pesticide usage per hectare of cropland (negative factor); environmental Performance Index Score  

Malta ranked about midway, right behind Italy, Portugal, and Cyprus but ahead of Tanzania, Chile, Brazil, Mexico, and Canada. Malta received a “B” letter grade and 416 points out of a possible 600. 

The only countries to receive A grades were Luxembourg, the United Kingdom, and Austria.  

Malta gained full points for its recognition of animal sentience and animal suffering as well as having laws against animal cruelty. 

According to researcher Matthew H. Nash, while no nation received perfect grades, central and Western European countries in addition to the United Kingdom and Malta, mostly have more progressive laws and better environments for animal welfare. 

Malta’s Animal Welfare Act of 2002 indicates a commitment to “protect the life of animals and to prevent and punish acts of ill-treatment in their regard. In particular the state shall protect such animals from undue labour and work practices which are beyond and not consonant with their nature.” 

Having a legal precedent for animal protections benefited Malta’s overall ranking. Where Malta lost points is because of its relatively high meat consumption per capita and pesticide use in agriculture. 

Malta has some of the highest pesticide use out of all countries in the study, at 12 kilograms of pesticide per hectare. The only countries that used more pesticides were China (13.1 kgs/hectare) and Israel (12.6 kgs/hectare). Pesticides are known to have damaging effects on all living organisms. 

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the people of Malta eat an average of 82.05 kilograms of meat per capita per year. This meat consumption is relatively high (though nowhere near as high as the 120+ kgs per capita per year in the United States and Australia).  

“Malta also ranked 12th best on the percentage of protected areas,” Nash said. Over 30% of Malta’s land area is considered protected by the government in the form of wildlife sanctuaries, national parks, natural reserves, and more. Protected land is a positive factor for animal welfare, as it allows wildlife to roam freely. 

Other factors include support for the Universal Declaration of Animal Welfare, for which Malta gained a “partial” rating. 

Malta scored the equivalent of a “B” letter grade on the Yale University Environmental Performance Index (EPI), which ranks countries on 40 different factors. These factors include air quality, waste management, pollution, agriculture, climate change, and more. 

“Malta ranked above countries like the USA, Canada, Israel, and Australia. So, while Malta still has a long way to go in terms of animal welfare, there is some room for celebration regarding its legal protections of animals, conservation efforts, and high EPI ranking,” Nash said. 

So who came in last place? China was given the lowest score primarily due to its complete lack of animal protection rights and excessive use of pesticides. Vietnam, Iran, Azerbaijan, Belarus, and Algeria were also given “F” letter grades. 

“The bottom ten performed poorly in ranking due to lack of any protections for animal welfare. Implementing laws that recognize animals can suffer and feel pain would be a large step in a positive direction,” Nash said. 

There is plenty of room for improvement across the globe regarding animal rights. Even the highest-ranked country, Luxembourg, still fell short over 80 points from the maximum score.