The British public voted to leave the European Union (EU) in a 2016 referendum and the United Kingdom (UK) is set to leave in March 2019. The UK has been part of the EU or the European Communities (EC) before it for around 50 years. Britain has had a major impact on EU animal protection laws and the UK as a member state has been substantially influenced by EU law. Brexit represents a major political change that will affect animal protection in the UK, the EU and internationally. Given the far greater numbers of animals used in agriculture, the impact of the UK’s departure from the EU on farm animals will determine whether Brexit is overall good or bad for animal protection. A major threat that Brexit poses is importing lower welfare meat and dairy products to the UK. A major opportunity post-Brexit is reform of agricultural policy to reward high animal welfare outside of the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). A soft Brexit, where the UK remains aligned to the EU in policy and trade, reduces the risks Brexit poses to animal protection. A hard Brexit means major threats to animal welfare are more likely to materialise. Further research is required to investigate whether the various threats and opportunities are likely to materialise and whether Brexit will be, all things considered, good or bad for animal protection.The British people voted to leave the European Union (EU) in a 2016 referendum. The United Kingdom (UK) has been a member of the EU since the Maastricht Treaty was signed in 1993 and before that a member of the European Communities (EC) since 1973. EU animal health and welfare regulations and directives have had a major impact on UK animal protection policy. Similarly, the UK has had a substantial impact on EU animal protection. Brexit represents a substantial political upheaval for animal protection policy, with the potential to impact animal welfare in the UK, EU and internationally. Brexit’s impact on farmed animals will determine the overall impact of Brexit on animals. A major threat to animal welfare is from importing lower welfare products. A major opportunity is reform of UK agricultural policy to reward high welfare outside the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). A soft Brexit, in which the UK remains in the single market and/or customs union, mitigates the threat of importing lower welfare products. A harder Brexit means threats to animal welfare are more likely to materialise. Whether threats and opportunities do materialise will depend on political considerations including decisions of key political actors. The Conservative Government delivering Brexit has a problematic relationship with animal protection. Furthermore, Brexit represents a shift to the political right, which is not associated with progressive animal protection. There is significant political support in the Conservative Party for a hard Brexit. Further research is required to investigate whether the various threats and opportunities are likely to materialise. The British people voted in a 2016 referendum to leave the European Union (EU). The United Kingdom (UK) has been a member of the EU since the Maastricht Treaty was signed in 1993 and before that a member of the European Communities (EC) since 1973. EU regulation has had a major influence on UK animal health and welfare policy. Similarly, as one of the larger members of the EU and with a history as a leader in animal welfare, the UK has had a substantial influence on EU animal protection policy [The European Union (EU) is a political and economic union composed of 28 member states. The total human population in the EU is around 510 million. Based on its size and economic importance, the EU has been described as an emerging superpower .Independent economic analyses have forecast that Brexit will have a negative economic impact in the medium term. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has reported that Brexit has been associated with a weakening of Sterling, reduced business investment and lower growth . The govIn Theresa May’s Chequers 2018 agreement, the government put forward a policy that was effectively a soft Brexit for agriculture. The government proposed that goods, including agricultural goods, would remain in alignment with the EU’s rules – essentially following the single market .In the context of animal protection, a number of reports have been published on the potential impacts of Brexit ,10,11,12This paper is structured in nine sections. To provide context for further discussion, especially for readers outside of the EU and UK, this section includes two opposing vignette characterisations of the Brexiteer case to leave the EU and the Remainer case to stay in the union. These sections are characterisations of Brexiteer and Remainer arguments and further analysis is required to investigate the validity of the various claims.The UK is a world leader in animal welfare. She is held back in her ambitions by being part of the EU. For instance, the EU prevents the UK from banning live animal exports. Similarly, membership of the EU means the UK cannot ban the importation and sale of foie gras, the production of which is effectively banned in the UK. When the UK leaves the EU, she will be free to ban live animal transport and the importation and sale of foie gras.The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of the EU supports intensive farmers and large landowners. When the UK leaves the EU, she will be able to reward farmers for high animal welfare and export her high quality produce to the rest of the world. The UK will be free to independently trade with traditional allies like the US and Australia. The UK government has stated it will protect animal welfare standards after Brexit. If the UK does import US and other nation’s products as part of a trade deal, British consumers will be free to not purchase them, if they wish. Regardless, if chlorinated chicken is good enough for Americans, it should be good enough for Brits too.EU membership means that the UK cannot control her own borders and unscrupulous pet smugglers from Eastern European member states transport thousands of sick puppies and kittens into Britain each year. When the UK leaves the EU she will be able to make laws to clamp down on this practice.The UK is a world leader in animal welfare. She has used her position in the EU to influence animal protection policy in the largest trading bloc in the world. For instance, the UK was the driving force behind Article 13 of the Treaty of Lisbon, which recognises animals as sentient beings. Based on the Treaty of Lisbon, the EU and member states must pay full regard to the welfare of animals when formulating and implementing policy.The EU has some of the highest welfare standards in the world. The EU has banned barren battery cages for laying hens, calf crates for veal production and limits the use of sow stalls for pregnant pigs. Member states are free to implement even higher welfare standards, which the UK has in many cases taken advantage of. The EU prohibits hormone-treated beef, chlorine-washed chicken and growth promoters in pigs. The EU has fought trade battles with the US to prevent these products from entering the single market because they are associated with lower food safety and animal welfare standards.Outside of the EU, the US—with its powerful agricultural lobby—will force the UK to import US goods produced with far lower welfare and food safety standards. Where there is doubt the EU protects its citizens by applying the precautionary principle, whereas the US supports large agri-business. Chlorinated chicken will swamp British supermarket shelves. Brits will be consuming hormone-treated beef for their Sunday dinner.Finally, the EU has banned the importation and sale of dog, cat and seal fur based on public morality. It has some of the most stringent regulation on animal experimentation in the world. The EU has prohibited the testing of cosmetics and ingredients on animals and their import and sale, as this practice is impossible to justify on moral grounds. It funds an agency that shares data to avoid the unnecessary duplication of animal experiments for medical and toxicological research.These vignettes are useful to provide some context on the impact of Brexit on animal protection in the UK and further afield. The passages also hints at how the polarised debate on Brexit permits opposing sides to make claims related to animal protection to serve their purposes. For this reason, in order to investigate such claims, it is important to use a framework to assess them. The following section provides such a framework.What is the current relationship between the UK and the EU in animal health and welfare policy, that is, what is the status quo?What is the political context of Brexit, that is, what are the political considerations that are likely to determine the impact of Brexit on animal protection?What are the threats and opportunities to animal protection of Brexit?What are the threats and opportunities to animal protection of Brexit to different categories of animals?What are the threats and opportunities to animal protection of different forms of Brexit?What are the threats and opportunities to animal protection of Brexit geographically, that is, in the UK, the EU and internationally?What are the magnitude of the various threats and opportunities of Brexit?How likely are the various threats and opportunities of Brexit to animal protection to materialise?All things considered, will Brexit be a net positive or negative for animal protection in the UK, EU and internationally?Brexit is an enormous political upheaval between the UK and the EU. There are various categories of animals and species at play. Brexit will affect animals in the UK, in the EU27 and in future trading nations and blocs. There are substantial political and legal uncertainties. The following questions provide a comprehensive framework for assessing the impact of Brexit on animals:How Brexit impacts animal welfare will be influenced by a number of factors that are complex and interrelated. Some of these factors will be related to and under the control of the UK government and Parliament; others will not. Broadly, these factors include first, the form of Brexit which the UK and EU conclude. Whether the UK and EU conclude a hard or a soft Brexit, for instance, will have a very substantial impact on animal welfare. Secondly, the political nature of the UK government and Parliament, now and in the medium term, will have a substantial impact on animal protection. Thirdly, EU policy toward the UK during and after the Brexit negotiations will have a major impact on animal protection. Fourthly, the policy of third countries such as the US, during Brexit negotiations and when negotiating free trade agreements, will have a major impact on animal protection. Fifthly, in addition to these factors, there are additional uncertainties such as how WTO rules on animal protection will be interpreted going forward.The discussion in the remainder of this paper focuses on questions 1–5 in the framework above. The paper discusses the legal and political context of Brexit. It describes how soft and hard forms of Brexit might impact animal protection. It also reviews threats posed and opportunities presented by Brexit discussed in a number of reports on the subject. Before discussing the legal and political context of Brexit, the next section of the paper aims to provide some focus based on the categories of animals that are more likely to be affected, positively or negatively, by Brexit. If, for instance, the impact on one particular category of animal is far greater than that on the other categories of animals, then we can focus our attention on that category.For the sake of convenience, I have adopted the following classification in accordance with human use of, or relationship with, animals: (i) animals in farming, (ii) animals in research, (iii) wild animals and (iv) companion animals (including equines). Farm animals represent ninety-eight percent of the animals raised and killed in the United States. Compared to farm animals, the number of animals hunted, kept as companions, used in labs, reared for the fur industry, raced and used in zoos and circuses is insignificant. The “animal-welfare issue” is thus numerically reducible to the “farm-animal-welfare issue”.(p. 326) The numbers of animals in each of these categories are very substantial. We should remember that each of these animals is an individual sentient life. Government policy has the potential to affect the lives of all categories of animals ,26. HoweOf course, despite these numbers, it might be the case that Brexit disproportionately impacts not farm animals but wild, experimental or companion animals. This scenario, however, would be extremely unlikely. Indeed, Brexit will impact farm animals as a category more than other categories of animals. EU member states trade in the internal single market. To enable a level playing field, EU member states have substantial regulatory alignment in agriculture ,27. The The second major point to make based on the numbers in The next section reviews some of the key findings of authoritative reports on Brexit and animal protection.Brexit: getting the best deal for animals is a wide-ranging report published by the Wildlife and Countryside Link (Link) and the UK Centre for Animal Law (A-Law). The report is a product of a large coalition of leading UK animal protection NGOs including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), Compassion in World Farming (CIWF), World Animal Protection (WAP) and the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW). The report describes how Brexit presents a major juncture in the history of UK animal protection:As the UK prepares to leave the EU, the welfare of animals is at a critical crossroads and selecting the route ahead will determine the welfare of billions of animals. We have a once in a lifetime opportunity to either define or undermine our country’s identity and reputation as a global leader in animal welfare science and standards.(p. 5) The report is authoritative and details potential reforms for the four major categories of animals: farmed, wildlife, research and companion. The report does not, however, assess the probability of the various opportunities and threats actually materialising. Rather, the report has been written after the referendum vote in 2016, with a view to maximising the benefits for animals. This quotation also highlights how many in the animal protection community view Brexit as an opportunity in a broad sense to campaign for reforms in animal protection policy. Thus, many of the opportunities discussed in the reports are not related to policy that could not be made before Brexit, with the UK as a member state of the EU. Rather, Brexit as a major political event is considered as an opportunity for reform.Two factors will be decisive in determining the post-Brexit level of animal welfare: trade issues and the arrangements for farm support payments that replace the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).(p. 24) In the section on Animals in Agriculture the report states:The authors writing these words are referring to animals in agriculture. Despite this, given that the impact of Brexit on animal protection is reducible to its impact on farm animals, the above statement is arguably applicable to animal welfare per se. Trade issues and arrangements for farm support payments are therefore critical to focus on when assessing whether Brexit is likely to have net positive or negative impacts for animal protection.Brexit and animals: Opportunities and threats, UK animal welfare under different models of relations with the European Union (EU) is a report produced by a smaller number of animal protection NGOs, including the RSPCA, CIWF and WAP. The report very usefully sets out the status quo on UK farm animal protection as an EU member state:The arrangement the UK currently has inside the EU is a high level of animal welfare standards protected by external tariffs. This should be retained in any future trade arrangement the UK will have with the EU and with other trade partners, to prevent the race to the bottom that could arise from a surge in imports of products produced to lower animal welfare standards.(p. 4) This concise description of the status quo is elaborated on later in this paper. The situation of the UK as a member of the EU with high tariffs preventing the importation of agri-goods produced in lower welfare standards is a fundamental baseline to judge how Brexit might impact animal welfare. Brexit: farm animal welfare describes farm animal welfare standards in the UK and the broad stakeholder support to retain these after Brexit:The UK has some of the highest farm animal welfare standards in the world. UK producers are rightly proud of these standards and there is cross-sector support for maintaining high levels of farm animal welfare after Brexit.(p. 3) A 2017 House of Lords report The Taskforce report assesses animal welfare under different models of Brexit. It assesses the following models of UK-EU relations: (i) continued EU membership; (ii) European Economic Area (EEA), or the ‘Norway model’; (iii) the ‘Swiss model’; (iv) continued membership of the EU customs union; (v) a deep and comprehensive free trade agreement (DCFTA); and (vi) WTO rules. The animal welfare issues included in the table are formulated such that a tick is generally positive for animal protection. For instance, banning live exports for fattening and slaughter under the ‘Swiss model,’ the DCFTA or under WTO rules is positive for animal protection. In contrast, a cross is generally negative for animal protection. For instance, continued membership of the EU, the ‘Norway model’ or the ‘Swiss model’ all preclude the possibility of method of production labelling. Method of production labelling is supported by animal protection NGOs because it provides information for consumers that is likely to reduce the purchase and consumption of lower welfare products and increase that of higher welfare products.The post-Brexit model of the UK-EU relationship in some cases has little or no impact on animal protection. For instance, The UK does not lose or gain an ability to defend trade restriction based on animal welfare or to promote better welfare in partner countries based on each scenario. However, this ability might seriously decrease with the loss of the access to the EU market as leverage particularly for farm animals. This could have a very detrimental long-term impact on animal welfare in the UK… but it cannot be represented in the table.(p. 10) The impact of Brexit on animal protection can be considered in two ways. First, there is the nature of the divorce between the UK and the EU and the deal or agreement on the future relationship. Secondly, there are trade deals that the UK will negotiate, both with the EU27 and with non-EU nations such as the US. As discussed later in this paper, these two considerations are related but distinct. Related to this distinction, in the context of Given the impact of Brexit on animal protection will be reducible to its effect on farm animals, this is a major point. Furthermore, trade deals will influence animal protection on an international basis, which means potentially impacting a far greater number of animals. Hence, access to the EU market as leverage will be critical to how Brexit impacts animal protection.The Brexit and Animals Taskforce also report how leaving the EU affects the UK’s access to key animal protection agencies. Under all scenarios aside from remaining a member state of the EU, the UK will no longer have full access to the Trade Control and Expert System (TRACES). TRACES is a system used by EU member states to monitor the movement of animals commercially into and within the union. TRACES also underpins the Tripartite Agreement regulating trade in horses between the UK, France and Ireland. The loss of TRACES may lead to a significant increase in checks at borders . IncreasA better Brexit for farm animals: What the Government must do to protect welfare standards [TradeAgricultural subsidiesConsumer support for higher welfare products based on labelling by method of productionPublic procurement Continuing political commitment to animal welfareFinally, Peter Stevenson has published tandards . StevensA Written Ministerial Statement refers to the Government’s ambition to “set a global gold standard for animal welfare as we leave the EU.” However, future trade deals may make these ambitions very difficult to realise in practice.(p. 6) Early in his report, Stevenson summarises how the UK government’s stated political ideals may be difficult to realise in the real world:will be positive or negative for animal protection. How likely is it that the various threats and opportunities discussed in the reports cited above will materialise? This question is informed by the legal context of the EU and UK regulatory landscape, as well as the political context of Brexit. These four reports are well researched and are either informed or written by leading experts. They provide an indispensable resource on the potential impacts of Brexit on animal welfare. This paper is informed by these reports but seeks to go beyond the reports by providing a firm basis to investigate whether, all things considered, Brexit The UK as a Member State of the EU: The Status Quo and Animal WelfareThe UK has been a member of the EU or its precursor the European Economic Community (EEC) and EC for around fifty years. EU and UK animal protection regulation, especially on farmed animals, has co-evolved during the last 43 years, when the first farm animal welfare regulation was passed. Around 80 per cent of UK animal protection regulation is based on EU laws ,30. Of tAs an EU member state, regulations and decisions are applicable to UK law without national implementation. For instance, Regulation (EC) No. 1/2005 on the protection of animals during transport and related operations was directly applicable. Directives are implemented by member states to satisfy the policy objectives of the EU directive. For instance Directive 2008/120/EC laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs is transposed into English law via The Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007 and The Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (England) Regulations 2007. Since animal health and welfare policy is a devolved responsibility in the UK, similar regulations are in place in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.The UK has been a beacon for animal protection in the EU, being instrumental to a progressive culture for animal welfare policy and providing the political impetus for reform. In effect, the UK has leveraged its progressive animal welfare stance to benefit a much larger community of currently 510 million people ,32. For On a global basis, the EU has very high welfare standards relative to other nations. The EU has general farm animal welfare legislation for animals on farm, in transport and at slaughter. It has species-specific legislation for veal calves, pigs, broiler chickens and laying hens. In most areas of on-farm animal welfare policy, EU member states are free to implement more stringent animal welfare laws. Indeed, the UK and some other member states have on a number of occasions transposed EU directives into national laws in terms that are more stringent than those mandated by the EU. There is substantial trade in live animals and animal products between the UK and the EU. The UK is the largest export market for animal products of the EU27 (The EU27 refers to the 28 EU member states minus the UK). Similarly, the EU27 is the largest export market for animal products of the UK. The UK imports around Euros 11 billion in livestock products from the EU and exports around Euros 5.2 billion. Hence, the UK and EU27 currently have a very substantial trade relationship in animal products, with the EU27 having a significant trade surplus with the UK .The EU largely prevents the importation and sale of animal products produced with lower food safety and animal welfare standards by setting high tariffs to protect its farmers and prohibiting through legislation imports of products such as beef from cattle injected by hormones that are illegal in the EU. Article 12 of Council Regulation 1099/2009 provides that imported meat products need to have been from animals slaughtered to welfare standards that are at least equivalent to those of the EU. Regulation (EC) No 1523/2007 prohibits the importation and sale of products which contain dog or cat fur. EU policy restricts the importation of certain other products: Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin prohibits chlorine-washed chicken; Directive 96/22/EC as amended by Directive 2003/74/EC prohibits hormone-treated beef; and EC Directive 96/22/EC as amended by Directive 2003/74/EC prohibits ractopamine pork. These are common agricultural practices in the US, Australia and New Zealand. However, it is high tariffs that prevent the importation of most animal products. For instance, the EU has tariffs of over 40% for pig meat and 50% for sheep and dairy products. Without such high tariffs, the EU would be flooded with animal products produced with far lower animal welfare and food safety standards .In other policy areas, the EU has progressive animal welfare regulation. For instance, Directive 2010/63/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2010 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes prevents duplication of animal testing. The European Union Reference Laboratory for Alternatives to Animal Testing (EURL-ECVAM) is the EU agency that helps to implement the Directive 2010/63/EU. EU law also prohibits the testing of cosmetic products or ingredients on animals, as well as banning the importation and sale of the same.The 2016 UK referendum on EU membership was in large part motivated by an internal Conservative Party issue. Since the 1990s, the Conservative Party has been divided on Europe, with a significant right wing Eurosceptic faction . ConcernTheresa May called an earlier than expected general election in 2017, with the objective of increasing her working majority of 17 seats in Parliament to give her government leverage on Brexit. Despite this aim, the Conservative Party lost 13 seats. Both the Conservatives and Labour, the two largest parties in UK politics, had manifesto pledges to leave the single market and the customs union. The Liberal Democrats and the Green Party had pledged to hold a second referendum on EU membership. At the time of writing (November 2018), Theresa May is the Prime Minister of a minority Conservative Government. The Conservative Party is supported in a confidence and supply arrangement by 10 Democratic Ulster Unionist (DUP) Members of Parliament (MPs). Jeremy Corbyn leads the Labour Party, which forms the Official Opposition. Corbyn’s Labour Party has effectively supported the government to deliver Brexit, though its policy is for a softer Brexit that maintains regulatory alignment with the EU to protect workers and the environment .Of the two main parties, it is the centre-left Labour Party that is generally identified with more progressive animal protection policy ,40,41. CIn contrast, the Conservative Party has a problematic relationship with animal protection policy. For instance, the Conservative leadership pledged a free vote on the fox hunting issue in the 2017 general election campaign . TheresaWhat of the current Conservative Government, which if it remains in power will have substantial influence on animal protection policy during Brexit? In late 2017 the Conservative Party launched a pro animal welfare publicity campaign . This waIn November 2017 the Conservative Government was hit by a media furore on the issue of animal sentience. The European Union  Act 2018 repeals the European Communities Act 1972, which led to the UK formally joining the EC in 1973. At the same time, it nationalises EU laws onto the UK statute. EU regulations on animal welfare policy, such as on transport and slaughter, are therefore transposed into UK legislation. (EU directives were implemented onto the UK statute at the time they were passed).Article 13 of the Treaty of Lisbon recognises that animals are sentient and mandates member states to pay full regard to animal welfare when formulating and implementing policy . In contThe Conservative Party position on the Lucas amendment caused substantial public controversy and was widely reported in the media. The government argued that Article 13 is unnecessary, since UK laws, such as the Animal Welfare Act 2006, recognise animals as sentient. However, the government’s position was roundly criticised by animal protection groups . The AniUltimately, the government published its own draft Animal Welfare (Sentencing and Recognition of Sentience) Bill. This, in turn, was roundly criticised, including by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee (EFRA Committee) for being ‘not properly thought through’ ,52. MoreThe foxhunting pledge in the manifesto and the furore related to rejecting the sentience amendment meant that the Conservative government was under the spotlight. From an electoral perspective, animal protection is an increasingly salient policy issue, especially amongst younger voters ,55. TherThe Defra Secretary Michael Gove is a leading Brexiteer in government. Aside from animal experimentation and food labelling, Defra has responsibility for all animal health and welfare policy, including farm animals. As a leading Brexiteer now at the helm of the UK Government’s food and farming policy, Michael Gove has a considerable stake and influence in whether Brexit goes well for animal protection. Michael Gove is a politician that divides opinion. As Education Secretary he was a controversial figure for his policy of free schools and faced down opposition from the educational establishment . At DefrHowever, during 2017–2018 the Conservative Government has made some genuinely progressive animal welfare policy. After being criticised for omitting a pledge to ban the sale of ivory in the UK, Theresa May’s government has committed to passing legislation to effectively prohibit the trade. Boris Johnson, then Foreign Secretary and touted as a future leader of the Conservative Party, made preventing poaching elephants in Africa one of his key policies whilst in office . The Man(p. 29) [(p. 47) [Wookey has discussed the opportunities and threats Brexit offers for animal welfare in the UK. He argues that the potential opportunities Brexit presents should be viewed with ‘scepticism and scrutiny’ . He offe(p. 29) . Ultimat[(p. 47) .At the time of writing, the UK has not completed a divorce agreement with the EU. As a member state of the EU, the UK is not able to negotiate free trade agreements with third countries until it formally leaves the EU . The EU2A major issue relating to post-Brexit trade policy for the UK is that US and EU agricultural policy is not aligned. EU regulation is based on higher food safety and animal welfare standards . In areaThe form Brexit takes will have a substantial impact on whether threats and opportunities to animal protection materialise. This section discusses how a soft and hard Brexit might impact animal protection. A hard Brexit includes the possibility of a so-called ‘no deal’ Brexit, in which the UK and EU fail to agree on the Brexit terms. This means that trade between the UK and the EU and indeed between the UK and non-EU nations, would be on WTO terms.A soft Brexit means that the UK remains close to the EU in regulatory terms once it leaves the EU ,76. For A soft Brexit therefore avoids the major risk of importing animal products that were raised and slaughtered in lower welfare standards compared to the EU/UK . A soft The above point about live animal transport and foie gras, however, should be considered in context. Simply because a soft Brexit permits the UK to prohibit live animal transport and the importation of foie gras does not mean that the government will implement these policies. Indeed, there will be significant political pressures to maintain the status quo. To illustrate, despite membership of the EU and therefore the single market precluding the prohibition of the importation of foie gras, nations that export the product, such as France, might challenge any UK prohibition at the WTO. The WTO is discussed in a later section.A hard Brexit means that the UK does not remain close to the EU in policy terms after leaving it ,76. For Like a soft Brexit, a hard Brexit also means that the UK can determine its own agricultural policy outside of the CAP . At leasPost-Brexit, the UK government will aim to negotiate free trade deals with the EU and non-EU nations and trade blocs. The Department of Trade, led by the Atlanticist Liam Fox, has already launched consultations on free trade deals with the US, Australia and New Zealand . Under fThe WTO promotes free trade and its rules are concerned with preventing governments making policy to protect their own national industries at the expense of others. The UK has more progressive animal protection laws compared to most of the rest of the world. The more stringent regulation generally means it costs more for British farmers to produce meat and dairy products compared to international competitors with lower standards. For this reason, it is rational for the UK government to argue that animal welfare is a legitimate reason to restrict the importation of products produced to lower animal welfare standards. For instance, the UK government might insist that imports meet UK animal welfare standards, or it might erect protective tariffs for imports that do not . If the US-shrimp case, where the WTO Appellate Body ruled that it was permissible to condition market access based on methods with comparable effectiveness under WTO Article XX. Similarly, in the EC-Seal Products case, the Appellate Body of the WTO ruled that animal welfare is a legitimate issue of public morality in the EU [However, whether the WTO will view animal welfare as a legitimate reason to restrict trade is open to dispute. There is case law that does support animal welfare being considered as a legitimate reason to restrict imports . These in the EU . DespiteGiven the UK’s decision to leave the EU, this paper has had three broad aims: (i) to provide a framework to investigate whether, all things considered, Brexit will be a net positive or negative for animal protection; (ii) to discuss the legal context of animal protection in the UK as a member state of the EU; and (iii) to discuss the political context of Brexit, which is key to investigating whether potential threats and opportunities related to Brexit and animal protection are likely to materialise.Brexit is a major political event and the UK’s departure from the EU has the potential to have substantial and longstanding implications for animal protection. This is the case particularly because the UK is a relatively large nation in terms of population size and is an economically and politically powerful state. Furthermore, the UK has been a global leader in the area of animal protection, which is the object of our concern.As a political event per se, Brexit therefore has enormous implications for animal protection. However, the EU-UK relationship and Brexit might serve as a useful case study to illustrate broader principles about animal protection policy making in a supranational body such as the EU versus that outside such a body. Indeed, the same or similar principles might apply to policy making in a federation of states, such as the US or Australia, compared to a non-federal state outside any supranational body, such as the UK post-Brexit.As a member state of the EU, animal protection policy from the UK perspective is characterised by three considerations. First, as a powerful member state, the UK has leveraged its progressive animal protection stance to have a greater impact than it could otherwise have outside of the EU. The UK, with a human population of 67 million people, has positively influenced animal protection policy in the much larger EU of 510 million people. In effect the UK has leveraged its membership of the EU to impact animal welfare on a market seven to eight times the size of the UK itself. Indeed, the positive impact of the UK within the EU does not end there. The EU has itself used its status as the largest economic bloc in the world to influence animal protection internationally. Thus, as a member state of the EU, the UK has been able to multiply its progressive stance on animal protection to have a far greater impact than it could have achieved outside of the union.Secondly, as a member state of the EU, the UK has in some cases been hampered in its more progressive stance on animal protection. The EU is composed of 28 member states that are involved in policy making in the various EU institutions. Whether voting is by qualified majority or by unanimity, less progressive EU members can hamper progressive reforms. This can leave some nations frustrated at either not being able to implement progressive reforms or being at a competitive disadvantage if they do so. In the EU, the member states in the north of Europe and in particular the UK, Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands tend to be more progressive on animal protection. These nations sometimes implement EU directives earlier and/or with more stringent conditions compared to other EU member states.Thirdly, the EU is a single market without borders for goods, people, services and capital. The rationale is to improve economic performance within the bloc by reducing barriers to trade. However, the single market also means that the UK as a member of the EU cannot restrict the importation of goods from the EU27 even in areas where it has higher standards of animal protection. For instance, the UK has effectively prohibited the production of foie gras on welfare grounds. Despite this, the UK is unable to prevent the importation and sale of foie gras from France and other EU nations, because of the single market.We can call these three considerations first the leverage, secondly the inertia and thirdly the single market principles. The leverage and the inertia principle appear to be universal principles, in that they apply to any supranational body or federal nation that pool sovereignty to make common laws for economic and other advantages. In any supranational body or federal nation, the principle of leverage can be used either to reform or obstruct animal protection. The UK has used its membership of the EU to reform animal protection based on its progressive stance. However, a conservative or regressive nation or member, if sufficiently powerful, could employ the same leverage principle to obstruct such reforms. In contrast to the leverage principle, the inertia principle will, however, act to obstruct potential reforms that more progressive members lobby to have implemented. and the importation of eggs produced in battery cages. California Proposition 12, the Farm Animal Confinement Initiative, establishes minimum space requirements for egg-laying hens. It also prohibits the importation of eggs into California produced from hens raised in confined conditions. The prohibition of the importation of eggs includes those produced in the other 49 states in the US. Proposition 12 also establishes minimum space requirements for calves raised for veal and breeding pigs [The single market principle does not appear to be universal. The single market is a key element of the EU, which considers the free movement of goods, capital, services and labour as sacrosanct. Despite this, the free movement of goods, for example agricultural products, is not a necessary condition for a supranational body, including a federation. For instance, in 2018 the US state of California has effectively prohibited the production ing pigs .These considerations about principles of policy making on animal protection both within supranational bodies and outside of them are key factors to consider when investigating whether Brexit is, all things considered, a net positive or negative for animal protection. The considerations also, however, have far wider relevance, in that they may be applicable in a broader sense outside of the EU-UK and Brexit context.Brexit represents a major political upheaval for UK governance. It has the potential to have substantial impacts on animal protection policy not only in the UK but also in the EU and internationally. This paper has reviewed the relation between animal protection regulation in the EU and UK. A number of informed reports have been published on the threats and opportunities that Brexit presents. Whether these threats and opportunities materialise is dependent on a range of political factors. The paper therefore reviewed the political context of Brexit with a view to further research on whether the various threats and opportunities are likely to materialise.The UK has been a member of the EU since 1993 and before that a member of the EC since 1973. Around 80 per cent of UK animal protection regulation is based on EU law. The European Union  Act 2018 has nationalised the great majority of this law, although there are concerns about the powers the Act gives to ministers to amend legislation where relevant to make it appropriate after Brexit. Article 13 of the Treaty of Lisbon recognises animals as sentient beings and confers a duty on the EU and member states to pay full regard to animal welfare when formulating and implementing policy. Article 13 is part of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU) and therefore has not been carried over to UK law in the European Union  Act 2018.The UK referendum on EU membership was motivated by the Eurosceptic right wing of the Conservative Party and the rise of the UK Independence Party (UKIP). Since the referendum, Theresa May, who replaced David Cameron as Prime Minister, has appointed a number of right wing Eurosceptics to Cabinet to deliver Brexit. Key figures in the UK Government that will influence the impact of Brexit on animal protection are Theresa May, the Prime Minister, Michael Gove, the Defra Secretary and Liam Fox, the International Trade Secretary. The Conservative Government has made official policy statements to maintain and enhance animal protection after Brexit. However, the Conservative Party has a problematic relationship with animal protection. For instance, it faced a media furore after voting against a Green Party amendment to include Article 13 in the European Union  Bill. Ultimately, the Government was forced to publish its own Bill, which contained a watered down version of Article 13. Similarly, the Conservative leadership faced widespread criticism over its decision to pledge a free vote on foxhunting in its 2017 general election manifesto. The Conservative Party has responded with a communications campaign to improve its image on animal welfare. The Government has published a number of consultations on animal protection issues.The impact of Brexit on animal protection will be determined by its impact on farm animals. This is because of the far larger numbers of farm animals and also the reality that Brexit is more likely to impact animals used in agriculture more than experimental, wild and companion animals. Furthermore, the impact of Brexit on animal protection may be determined by its impact on animals in the EU and internationally. This is because there are far larger numbers of animals in the EU and internationally compared to the UK. For instance, whilst around 1 billion farm animals are raised and slaughtered in the UK annually, the figure for the EU is 4.7 billion and for the US 10 billion. A major threat of Brexit is the importation of lower animal welfare products, for instance from the US, after the UK leaves the EU. A major opportunity that Brexit presents is the potential for major reform of UK agricultural policy based on a subsidy system focused on rewarding animal welfare as a public good. Softer forms of Brexit, in which the UK remains in the single market and/or the customs union of the EU or their equivalents, mitigate this major threat. A soft Brexit, with respect to agriculture, makes it very unlikely that the UK will import lower welfare animal products. Theresa May’s Chequers agreement, which established the policy of the UK Government on Brexit in June 2018, is effectively a soft Brexit for agriculture and therefore effectively for animal protection. Trade in goods, including agricultural goods, would be governed according to a ‘common rule book.’ This effectively would mean a continuation of the single market for agriculture.The potential for Brexit having an international impact on animal welfare was demonstrated during the visit of the US President, Donald Trump, to the UK. Trump was publicly critical of May’s Chequers agreement soft Brexit. The US is a major exporter of agricultural products such as beef. Based on trade considerations, a hard Brexit is far more favourable to Trump and the US, than a soft Brexit where the UK continues regulatory alignment with the EU.Brexit is highly unstable and its impacts on animal protection are uncertain. This paper has provided an overview of the EU and UK regulatory relationship on animal protection to provide a baseline of the status quo. Whether the various threats and opportunities that Brexit presents will materialise depends on a range of political factors. This paper has discussed the political context of Brexit to inform that issue, which has the potential to affect the welfare of billions of animals in the UK, the EU and internationally. Further research is needed to assess if the major threats and opportunities related to Brexit are likely to materialise.


The above-average proportion of people with opioid use disorder living in prisons is a worldwide reality, and the need to treat these people was recognized internationally more than 20 years ago. Studies have shown that substitution therapies are best suited to treat opioid use disorder and reduce the risk of HIV and hepatitis C transmission and overdose. However, huge health inequalities exist in and outside of prison due to the different implementation of opioid substitution therapy (OST). People living in prisons are entitled to the best possible health care. This is established by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and by the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Solely the imprisonment, and not the loss of fundamental human rights, constitutes the punishment.A qualitative literature search using PubMed and Google Scholar was performed in order to identify relevant publications.This review shows the inequality in availability of opioid substitution therapy for people living in prison compared with people outside of prison in Germany. It also gives possible reasons and evidence for this inequality, showing that continuing or initiating OST in prison is more beneficial for the health of people living in prison than abstinence-oriented treatment only.It is important that drug use disorder is treated as a serious illness also in prison. Joint efforts are needed to provide people living in prison with the best possible treatment and to minimize the adverse effects of drug use. Therefore, with laws, policies, and programs that conform to international human rights standards, each state must ensure that people living in prison receive the same health care as people outside of prison. The criminalization of drug use leads to an over-representation of opioid use disorder in people living prison . Opioid Subsequently, OST became an established treatment for people outside of prison but not for people living in prison. The need for OST to treat people with opioid use disorder living in prisons was internationally endorsed in 1993 and confirmed by UN agencies including the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), the World Health Organization (WHO), and others in 2013: “Considering that opioid substitution therapy is the most effective drug dependence treatment for people dependent on opiates, where it is available in the community, it should be accessible in prisons.” , the EurMr. Wenner (born in 1955) had been using heroin for 17 years. From 1991–2008 he received treatment with methadone and benefited significantly from this therapy, but subsequently resumed his illicit drug use. After being sentenced to 6 years imprisonment for drug trafficking to finance his own consumption, he asked for the resumption of substitution therapy in prison. The Bavarian judicial authorities and courts refused and instead ordered treatment based exclusively on abstinence. This decision turned out to be a mistake because Mr. Wenner subsequently consumed a number of psychoactive substances available on the black market of the prison. He continued to demand methadone. Because his request was still denied, he demanded his health status and treatment to be assessed by external specialists. This was also rejected. It was not until the end of 2014, when Mr. Wenner was released from prison, that his methadone treatment was resumed. Mr. Wenner lodged his appeal with the Court, arguing that the two refusals he had received during his imprisonment infringed Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In its judgment of 1 September 2016, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that, indeed, the refusal to provide an indicated substitution therapy during the prison sentence violates Art. 3 of the ECHR. In particular, the prison should have consulted independent experts.One of the best-known court cases in Germany where substitution therapy was refused in prison is that of “Wenner versus Germany” :Mr. WennIn the case of Mr. Wenner, who had received a successfully functioning OST for more than 16 years, the therapy should therefore have been continued in prison. Although this judgment does not prejudge a medical decision for each individual case, it emphasizes the principle of equivalence and defines the lack of  assessment or appraisal despite different assessments of the indication of substitution therapy as a human rights violation.The court case of Mr. Wenner, which is representative of many others, raises a fundamental question: Why is the care for people with drug use disorder living in prison not equivalent to the care provided to people outside of prison? This question is all the more important since there is a plethora of such social inequalities. For example, people living in prison and preventive detention in Germany are generally not covered by health and long-term care insurance, although they are obliged to work and many of these people do work. In addition, people living in prison do not have a free choice of doctor. Outside the prison, a patient may change doctors or report a violation of the regulations to the Medical Association. This review illustrates the different acceptance of OST in prisons in the various German federal states on the basis of surveyed data and deals with the reasons for the unequal treatment compared with people outside of prison. Moreover, this review provides evidence in favor of equal treatment of people outside of prison and people living in prison.We performed a qualitative literature search using PubMed and Google Scholar in order to identify relevant publications. The number of people with opioid use disorder living in German federal state prisons who receive OST was obtained from official prison data , 14–17, Opioid use disorder is a serious chronic disease. Usually, it requires lifelong treatment in which physical, psychological, and social aspects must be considered equally , 19. SubFor OST, opioid agonists are mainly used, including methadone, levomethadone, buprenorphine (mixed agonist/antagonist), retarded morphine, diamorphine, and codeine , 21.The most effective treatment for the opioid use disorder involves maintenance therapy with the opioid agonist methadone and the mixed opioid agonist/antagonist buprenorphine –24, but Both buprenorphine and methadone are associated with reduced in-prison risk behavior, increased post-release treatment retention, and reduced ongoing opioid use, overdose, and death . When deIn recent years, health inequalities have become a central theme of research, reporting, and politics. Social epidemiology has been established as an independent research discipline focusing on the analysis of health inequalities . Health From a public health and health policy perspective, reducing health inequality is an important goal. Monitoring current social epidemiology developments can help to identify new or emerging health inequalities and thus also possible target groups and settings for interventions. This is all the more important because the experience of recent years has shown that many measures and interventions, especially in the field of prevention and health promotion, do not sufficiently reach the socially disadvantaged population groups . DespiteIn Germany, about 64,000 people are in imprisonment (reference date 31.08.2016) and about 30–40% of people living in prisons have a drug use disorder , 34. AssThe implementation of OST in the prison sector varies considerably between the individual federal states and the individual prisons. The northern federal states in particular show high OST rates whereas OST is carried out less frequently in the Saarland, Bavaria, and eastern federal states. Data on OST in prisons are available from 15 federal states (Table In Bavaria, OST is offered very rarely and then only in exceptional cases , for exaIn a decision by the European Court of Human rights, it was emphasized that whether withholding OST is acceptable must be examined particularly thoroughly in people who have been dependent for many years , 40. ThiThe demand for continuing OST started by people outside of prison or for starting a substitution treatment in prison corresponds to the current state of medical research. It is also contained in the guidelines of the German Medical Association on substitution therapy in people with opioid use disorder: “In the event of a change to hospital treatment, rehabilitation measures, imprisonment, or other form of inpatient accommodation, continuity of treatment must be ensured by the institution taking over.” .The inequality in availability of OST for people living in prison compared with people outside of prison has multiple causes. For some decision makers, methadone, buprenorphine, and other substitution medications are merely mood-altering substances like any other addictive drugs, the accessibility of which delays the personal development needed for a drug-free life . SometimAnother major problem is staff scarcity and side-consumption . Side-coMany of the concerns raised about substitution programs have proven to be unfounded. Thus, studies have shown that the renunciation of illicit drug use and prevention of mortality are better in methadone treatment than in detoxification programs: The risk of all-cause mortality among people with opioid use disorder is 2–3 times lower when people receive opioid agonist therapy than without . In an EAnother study shows that between 70 and 98% of those who are imprisoned for drug offences and receive no treatment in prison relapse within 1 year of release , 51. TheOST also reduces the spread of HIV and hepatitis C. Due to overcrowding, poor nutrition, inadequate precautions, continued use of illicit drugs, and unprotected sexual contacts, the risk of HIV infection in prisons is extremely high . IntraveInterestingly, according to the DRUCK study in eight German cities, 11% of people who inject drugs started intravenous consumption in prison .Intravenous drug use is the most common route of transmission of hepatitis C today . HepatitBy focusing overall attention on HIV, the risk of hepatitis has been massively underestimated in recent years: In prison, there are considerable risks for a spread of hepatitis that can already be described as “typical for prisons,” especially among intravenous drug users . ChronicOther arguments put forward for adequate substitution therapy in prison are as follows : substanFor the above-mentioned reasons (summarized in Fig. People with opioid use disorder living in prison, who are denied OST, may appeal against the decision of the prison. Ready-made letters of complaint are available, for example, from Deutsche AIDS-Hilfe . Since pThe supply of OST inclusive psychosocial support in prison is still inadequate and falls short of the therapy standard for people outside of prison. There is still a gap between the number of people living in prison in need of substitution therapy and those receiving it, although benefits such as reduced risk of death in the post-release period, reduced risk of transmission of infectious diseases, and reduced reoffending have been shown. Physicians working within correctional facilities are caught in a “dual loyalty conflict” wherein the punitive aspect of the correctional facilities’ mission and the best interest of their patients often oppose each other . It is iJoint and coordinated efforts by the health system, the judicial system, and public health authorities are needed to ensure the best possible treatment of people living in prison and to minimize the adverse effects of illicit drug use. People living in prison who use illicit drugs should be informed by factsheets, videos, or discussion with health professionals about the services offered by the medical care and about strategies for obtaining the best possible treatment of their illness in prison and after release from prison.


A prototype of a non-fluid based mechanical toilet flush was tested in a semi-public, institutional setting and in selected peri-urban households in eThekwini municipality, Republic of South Africa. The mechanism's functionality and users' perception of the flush were assessed. User perception varied depending on background: Users accustomed to porcelain water flush toilets were open to, yet reserved about the idea of using a waterless flush in their homes. Those who commonly use Urine Diversion Dehydration Toilets were far more receptive. The user-centred field trials were complemented by a controlled laboratory experiment, using synthetic urine, -faeces, and -menstrual blood, to systematically assess the efficiency of three swipe materials to clean the rotating bowl of the flush. A silicone rubber with oil-bleed-effect was found to be the best performing material for the swipe. Lubrication of the bowl prior to use further reduced fouling. A mechanical waterless flush that does not require consumables, like plastic wrappers, is a novelty and could – implemented in existing dry toilet systems – improve acceptance and thus the success of waterless sanitation.  •Prototype mechanical toilet flush successfully user-tested in households and lab•User feedback positive but dependent on toilet habit•Removal of fouling from soft faeces not satisfactory•Surface lubrication improves fouling removal. Safely managed sanitation is defined as “an improved sanitation facility that is not shared with other households, and where excreta are disposed of in situ or transported and treated off-site” . The entProviding sanitation for low income- and informal settlements in fast-growing cities of the Global South poses particular challenges: while the population in these areas is increasing, access to piped water and sewers is often limited . Pit latA solution could be a waterless toilet flush. Such a flush, as ‘user interface’, would be the physical barrier between the user and the faecal material inside the toilet, and thus have the potential to resolve problems of odour, of unpleasant visual contact with faeces and fouling, and of the danger of children falling into the pit. There currently are marketed applications of dry toilet flushes which seal the faeces in consumable materials, like the Dry Flush©, designed for camper vans or cottages not connected to sewers  or the LHowever, all of these technologies have problems with applicability to common dry toilet technologies used in cities of the global south: They either rely on at least some infrastructure for water, electricity, or both, or rely on specific consumables, such as plastic wrappers to contain the faeces. There currently are no published patents or research articles on purely mechanical, non-fluid based flush systems. This may be because a mechanical flush requires further storage or treatment of excreta on site, whereas water allows transport of the faecal material to a centralised treatment facility. Secondly, the development of a waterless flush is a challenging task, as faeces can be highly adhesive to various surfaces . NonetheAnother factor to consider is a flush's ability to convey solid waste, e.g. menstrual absorbents. While the disposal of solid waste into pit latrines and other sanitation systems is detrimental to transport and treatment of the faecal sludge, and is therefore discouraged, it frequently happens nonetheless. The reasons for this vary, but the lack of alternative solid waste disposal options and the stigma surrounding menstrual hygiene are two common examples . A flushTo address these diverse challenges, based on an exploratory field study using household surveys in Kumasi, Ghana, Agile Innovation methods were employed to develop a mechanical flush which conveys faecal material from the toilet bowl and shields the users from the sight and odour of previous users' faecal matter . A protoField trials are indispensable for the testing of prototypes in real-life scenarios  and in tIn exploration of the interface between design-based prototyping techniques and controlled experimental research, this paper presents the results of user-centred field testing and experimental evaluation of a mechanical toilet flush, which will inform the next design-iteration regarding user acceptance and swipe efficiency.22.1ALCHEMIX® VC 3341; Alchemie Ltd., Warwick, England), a plastic often used in temporary sanitation systems, i.e. chemical toilets. A smooth, white surface finish resulted in an appearance similar to that of a porcelain water flush toilet, as can be seen in The test object was a prototype pedestal incorporating the mechanical flush system, which is activated by moving the toilet's lid. Gears connect the lid to a rotating bowl that turns downward as the lid is closed. A swipe situated inside the pedestal is connected to the bowl-lid-gear-system. As the bowl rotates, the swipe moves downward, clearing remaining faeces out of the bowl. This mechanism acts as a barrier for visual and olfactory irritation of the user. 2.2The inhabitants of eThekwini municipality, Republic of South Africa, represent a potential target customer group, as its peri-urban population is to a great extent not currently connected to sewered sanitation: in 2016/17, the municipality with a population of 3,820,174 provided 247,079 households with access to free basic level sanitation services, through UDDTs, existing ventilated improved pit latrines (VIP), or ablution blocks .Hence, the prototype was tested in field trials in eThekwini. Firstly, one prototype unit was installed at the University of KwaZulu-Natal (UKZN) where it was situated in a designated toilet room adjacent to the laboratory facilities of the Pollution Research Group (PRG), and used by staff, students, and visitors for a total of 8 weeks. Following the first month of testing at UKZN, two prototype pedestals  were successively tested in UDDT outhouses of six households in a low income community in a peri-urban region of the eThekwini municipality. The municipality supplies the water and sanitation services to the households, including construction, emptying, and maintenance of the UDDT facilities. Each household is supplied with 200 L of water per day, via a standpipe with a water restrictor, making water a limited resource too valuable to use for toilet flushing. The municipality, UKZN researchers and staff of Khanyisa Projects jointly identified households suitable and willing to participate in the study. Suitability was assessed on accessibility of the household, number of users of the toilet, and condition of the existing outhouse and pedestal. The prototypes replaced the UDDT-pedestals and flushed directly into the faecal sludge vaults underneath. At each household, the unit remained installed for one month.2.3Testing in an institutional setting at UKZN was considered the first real-use trial for the prototype, before it could be installed in households. Most importantly, the proper functionality of the flush had to be ensured, as the prototype would replace the households' only toilet pedestal. While the original pedestal remained with the families to be re-installed after the trial period, and in case the prototype malfunctioned, this would be an undesirable event for the families and was to be avoided.2.4Poly PT FlexPolyurethane Rubber , Essil 291/292Silicone Rubber, and Essil 291/292Silicone Rubber with oil-bleed-effect (SOB), with the oil-bleed-effect creating a constant lubrication of the swipe's surface   .Table 1FALCHEMIX® VC 3341 polyurethane), which could not be alternated during the trials. Hence, to compare lubrication of the bowl's surface prior to use to the unlubricated surface, a pump-action spray bottle (as commonly used for disinfectant in laboratories and household toilets) filled with a solution of 10 g/L liquid hand soap in tap water was placed next to the pedestal and labelled “please give two sprays into the bowl before using the toilet” on 54% of trial days  and the rubber swipes The data collected on swipe functionality were:As the input of faeces throughout a given day could not be determined, the effectiveness of the swipe was measured on a polar scale only, i.e. whether the photograph of the toilet bowl at the end of the day showed a clean bowl or not. After the daily photograph was taken, the bowl was cleaned.2.5Surveys and interviews captured details of users' experience of, and attitude towards, using the prototype:Short survey questionnaires were provided in the toilet room, and users were asked to fill one out every time they entered, even when they then decided against using the toilet. The intention was to gather information on the users' perception of the prototype's cleanliness, odour, ease of use and how they compared it to their usual toilet. A copy of the questionnaire used can be found in the Eight of the users agreed to participate in semi-structured interviews about their experience using the toilet and their attitude towards it. The topics covered in the interview are listed in the The interviews were conducted in English, recorded and transcribed. The transcripts were then coded to identify recurring themes of observations and attitudes of the users, as described by Both the questionnaire and the interview topics were developed by the interdisciplinary author team of social scientists, designers and engineers. They were designed to gather information on the user experience in relation to the prototype, particularly those components which could be re-designed if users were dissatisfied. The questionnaire was reviewed by a social scientist of UKZNs School of Built Environment Development Studies who has experience working with communities in the peri-urban settlements of Durban, who confirmed that the questions being posed were both clear and culturally appropriate. The interview topics were reviewed by a Team Leader within PRG at UKZN who confirmed that members of the Pollution Research Group would understand and be open to answering them.To further ensure that they were understood correctly, the questionnaires were publicly presented at the PRG offices at the beginning of the study and discussed informally during the trials. The interviews were held in a semi-structured manner specifically to ensure that the questions were understood correctly and that answers provided the information we needed.2.6By replacing the UDDT pedestal, the prototype became the only available toilet for the household, and was thus used by all members of the household. Detailed instructions were provided by UKZN researchers and a representative of eThekwini municipality in person, and printed user instructions were also posted on the inside of the outhouse doors in isiZulu, the participants' native language. The families were provided cleaning equipment and asked to clean the prototype as they saw fit, but to use as little water as possible. Part of the instruction was to not use water when flushing the toilet.After the initial tests at UKZN, the SOB swipe was considered to be the most promising with regard to cleaning effectiveness and resistance to fouling. Therefore, swipes of this material were used in the household units throughout the trials.-Written observations of the mechanism's functionality-Photographs of the bowl's cleanliness-Survey questionnaires in isiZuluAnalogous to the test at UKZN, the data collected during visits twice a week were:2.7-Simulant faeces in three consistencies, simulating solid, soft glutinous, and liquid faeces , respectively , see App-Synthetic urine as a secondary lubricant for the toilet bowl-Toilet paper-Tampons saturated with synthetic menstrual fluid-The influence of lubricating the bowl's surface was tested by spraying a solution of 10 g/L liquid hand soap in tap water into the bowl before adding the simulant loadsTo further compare the three swipe materials: polyurethane, silicone, and SOB, they were tested in controlled laboratory experiments using:A modified version of the mechanical flush prototype was used, which included the toilet lid, -seat, and flush mechanism, but had no connection to a sewer or faecal sludge vault. Instead, the simulant loads were flushed directly into a bucket underneath the rotating bowl. Photographs of the inside of the bowl were taken a) beforehand, b) after dropping in the simulant load, and c) after flushing the simulant load. This methodology was based on tests used during the development of the mechanical flush .ImageJ software  (covered is the area covered with faeces and Abowl is the area of the bowl. Both were measured in pixels. Tests were conducted in triplicate.Using Madison) , the fouMadison) . Thus, a2.7.1synthetic faeces, an adapted formula of the recipe proposed by For Urine was simulated using an isotonic NaCl-solution (9 gNaCl/L) with 3 drops/L green food dye  in deionised water.Synthetic Menstrual Fluid (SMF), with the exception of medical research, e.g. , as well as the European Disposables and Nonwovens Association (EDANA), dictate the formula as “10 grams sodium chloride, 0.5 gram Certified Reagent Acid Fuchsin, 1,000 milliliters distilled water” , 10% glycerol , and 50% isotonic NaCl-solution was prepared. An informal panel of colleagues who menstruate agreed that its viscosity, color, and staining properties sufficiently resembled those of real menstrual fluid. Medium absorbency tampons  were fully saturated in this liquid, and then dropped into the toilet bowl from seat-level. This left a spatter pattern in the bowl. While tampons are far from being the most commonly used menstrual products in eThekwini municipality , and flu2.8The methodologies used for this study were approved by the Cranfield University Research Ethics Committee , and the Biomedical Research Ethics Committee at UKZN . Written, informed consent was obtained from all participants in either English or isiZulu, whereby the supplied information sheets emphasized the voluntary nature of participation and the option to leave the study at any time or opt out of answering any questions.33.13.1.1171 visits to the toilet room were recorded by means of collected survey sheets. Out of those, 167 times the user decided to use the toilet. The users were mostly staff of the PRG laboratories, several of whom used the prototype multiple times. Therefore, the number of individual users was likely much smaller than the recorded number of visits. As can be seen in 3.1.2total), the toilet bowl was observed clean at the end of the day (dclean) more often than not, and without lubrication, the SOB swipe exhibited better performance than the other two materials. Lubrication prior to use improved all swipes' performance, and both silicone swipes performed better than the polyurethane swipe. In total, the bowl was observed to be clean at the end of 30 out of 39 days (77%).As can be seen in 3.1.3a)Odour: The majority of surveys reported no negative odour. It should be noted that in the laboratories outside the toilet test room, analyses of faecal samples were conducted on most days, and this may have influenced the users' ability to detect odour changes inside the toilet room.b)Cleanliness: Two thirds of user responses reported a clean toilet, while the remaining replies were evenly split between reporting a dirty toilet and an undecided reply.c)Ease of use: the clearest result was achieved for the question on ease of use, where 87% of submitted responses considered the prototype easy to use and only 2% replied that it was not. It should be noted that the perception of ease of use likely changed over time as participants used the toilet multiple times and became acquainted with it.d)Toilet preference: The only question that had the highest percentage of replies as “neutral” (68%) was on toilet preference. Of the remaining replies, three times more said to prefer the prototype toilet (24%) than their own (8%).Since some users used the toilet multiple times, they also completed multiple questionnaires. With this pseudo replication, and with a relatively small population size, statistical analysis, e.g. on the impact of gender on a certain user response, was deemed inappropriate. However, the collected answers, , can giv3.1.4Eight users were interviewed about their experience with and attitude towards the prototype. There were four male and four female interviewees, none had a gender expression different from their sex; four were in the age group 30–40 years, three 20–30 years, and one 60–70 years. While the interviewees were from diverse age groups and nationalities, they all had an academic background in sanitation research, and were all accustomed to water flush toilets at home as well as at work.Most aspects about which interviewees were questioned yielded both positive and negative views .Fig. 4PoOnly the four women, believed to be the four interviewees having first-hand experience with menstruation, were questioned about their attitude towards the prototype with regard to menstrual hygiene. All said that they would not mind flushing menstrual absorbents into the toilet if they were permitted to do so. On the other hand, they acknowledged that cleaning menstrual fluid out of the bowl could prove difficult and that blood stains would be of particular concern (compared to faeces). While this was their main concern about using the prototype for menstrual hygiene, they also mentioned the lack of a bin in the toilet room as a barrier.While some interviewees voiced uncertainty about how the flush mechanism works, a majority said that they had no physical difficulties using the prototype, and that its use was easy to understand. None of them said they had any cultural or religious problems using the prototype: seven out of eight thought if they were to install it in their homes, they would install it in their usual toilet's location, which in the case of all interviewees was inside the house.All interviewees agreed that they would have liked cleaning equipment to be supplied in the toilet room, or that it would be necessary if they used this pedestal in their homes. Most interviewees mentioned that they thought cleaning would have to be more frequent than, or at least different to, that of a water flush toilet. However, half of the interviewees mentioned that they did not consider cleaning the waterless toilet would be any more difficult or unpleasant than cleaning a water flush toilet.In six interviews, there was a mention of negative odour being detected at some point during the trial period, but half of all interviewees reported that odour was either neutral or at least tolerable, meaning that odour levels were not exceeding those of a water flush toilet in a similar institutional setting. Two users claimed to have noticed a positive smell (“It smells nice”).The importance of saving water was discussed in six interviews, and this was the only aspect that was not seen as problematic by any of the interviewees. However, only one interviewee explicitly mentioned they would not mind changing their behaviour for the sake of water preservation.The novel, clean, design, similar to that of a porcelain toilet was praised, but there was also criticism of the small size and depth of the entire toilet pan, as users disliked the proximity to the excreta.3.1.5During the trials, some unexpected issues with the prototype design were discovered. One complaint that was raised by several users, both in person as well as in handwritten comments on the survey sheets, was that they had to aim throwing the toilet paper into the opening of the rotating bowl. If paper fell into any other part of the pan, it would stick there on the damp surface, and the lack of flush water would mean the user would have to remove it manually. One male user complained about having physical contact with the shallow front of the toilet pan when sitting down. Many users mentioned they thought the spray bottle that was provided was helpful, and they suggested incorporating an automated spray into the system, as this could also solve the problem of toilet paper getting stuck. Another observation was a small accumulation of urine residue at the lip of the toilet pan towards the edge of the rotating bowl. This was due to the shape of the pan and should be easily remediated in an updated design.3.23.2.1The two household prototypes were tested in parallel, in three sets of two households. They were well received by four households  and appeared very clean at almost every visit. However, this was likely impacted because the families used water to keep the toilets clean: During visits water droplets were found on the units' seats and bowls. This was later observed in all households.In the second set of households, both units started exhibiting signs of fatigue: In household 3, a V-belt ruptured and had to be replaced. The bowl could be observed to have a little fouling when checked during visits. In household 4, the bowl had a failure at the connection point to the gear mechanism. The top half of the unit was replaced with the unit at UKZN, which was out of use by that time.In the third set of households, while user surveys indicated contentment with the prototypes, water was also used to maintain a cleaner bowl. Both units were observed to have fouling in the bowl during one of the visits, showing that the performance of the swipe and flush mechanism was not always satisfactory. One of the units suffered another failure at the swipe mechanism, which was mitigated by replacing a set of screws.In all households, blockages occurred of the prototype pedestal's outlet into the vault underneath. This led to material filling up underneath the rotating bowl and eventually impacted the prototype's cleanliness. The blockages could be cleared upon discovery, but might have impacted the users' perception of the prototype.3.3The removal rates as determined with Eq. The tests with synthetic menstrual fluid produced no significant results. None of the swipe materials, with or without lubrication, were able to effectively remove blood stains from the rotating bowl's surface. The tampons were successfully flushed out of the bowl, but most staining remained. Therefore, the calculation of removal rates was deemed unnecessary.4The mechanical flush is part of the Nano Membrane Toilet (NMT) project at Cranfield University . The NMTThe flush's effectiveness in removing faecal matter from the bowl was demonstrated, and the laboratory tests confirmed the preliminary findings regarding the efficiency of swipe materials and use of a lubricating spray. The SOB swipe was least susceptible to fouling, likely due to the oil bleed effect reducing the adhesion of faeces. It also had the best overall removal efficiency, which corresponds to All swipe materials had difficulties removing soft-glutinous synthetic faeces, and the tests using synthetic menstrual fluid highlighted a problem removing blood-stains from the bowl. The fact that the families participating in the household tests used water to keep the prototype clean emphasizes that the dry swipe alone does not yet provide satisfactory cleaning performance. Considering that there is a distinction between actual cleanliness and perceived cleanliness,  a thorouomniphobic surfaces is ongoing  was chosen for practical reasons of prototype manufacture and will likely change in the final product, e.g. to reduce the adhesion of faeces. A material or functionalised surface has to be both hydrophobic and oleophobic to fully repel faeces, as they contain both fats and water . Researcing e.g. , and couDuring household testing, the materials used in the prototype exhibited fatigue, causing failures in moving parts and reduction in swipe efficiency. This is another indicator that further research in material selection is required. The prototype was mainly produced from polyurethane. This is not an unusual choice: portable chemical toilets tend to be made from polyurethane, the UDDT pedestals used in the eThekwini municipality are made from polypropylene , and the ‘Blue Diversion Toilet’ developed by The surveys and interviews at UKZN need to be analysed in the knowledge that most users of the prototype, and all interviewees, were members, students, or affiliates of the PRG at UKZN. This means they were well used to working with faecal material and likely perceived sanitation systems differently to the general public. While their opinions are therefore not necessarily generalizable, they likely possessed valuable insights into important aspects of a well-working sanitation technology for use in a water-scarce setting. In addition, these users might be more likely to openly discuss toilet-related matters than the general public. This makes their opinions a useful resource for the next design-iteration of the mechanical toilet flush. Analysing their perception and opinions showed that most users in an institutional setting, who are accustomed to water flush toilets, thought the prototype was easy to use and found odour and cleanliness to be acceptable. However, hygiene, and the process of keeping the toilet bowl clean from both faecal material and menstrual fluid, was a significant concern for these users. The complete lack of water seemed to be problematic to many of them, several of whom suggested installing an automated version of the pump action spray bottle. This highlights the importance of perceived cleanliness  – it seeThe swipe tests in the laboratory were a useful simulation of different bodily excreta being flushed, and they confirmed the preliminary findings from the field trials. However, using photography and image analysis to gauge removal rates does not produce perfect results, since the bowl's three-dimensional surface is analysed in a two-dimensional photograph. Photogrammetric methods to develop a three-dimensional image from several two-dimensional photographs of the same object, for example used in medical  and foreEven though the tests with SMF were inconclusive, they produced the valuable information that the mechanical flush is not yet able to clean blood stains from the toilet bowl. It should, however, be noted that the SMF is only an approximation of real menstrual fluid, and a tampon in real use would not always be as fully soaked as in this experiment (nor would it necessarily be flushed down a toilet). As research into menstrual hygiene management progresses, more accurate methods of simulating menstruation may be developed. Considering the taboos around the subject , the effThe mentioned lack of a bin in the toilet room at UKZN likely contributed to the decision of those who menstruate to avoid using the prototype during menses. This was clearly an oversight by the installation team, none of whom menstruate. It indicates a need for greater awareness of menstrual hygiene management issues during preparation of field testing.4.11.An automated lubricant spray, activated upon opening and/or closing the toilets lid, could improve the cleanliness in the bowl by lubricating the bowls surface prior to use and moving toilet paper from the pan into the bowl. Additionally, this could improve the perception of cleanliness for users accustomed to water flush toilets. This would, however, require a small reservoir of lubricant, and the flush would no longer be completely dry.2.Deepening the toilet pan/bowl would leave more space between the user and the faeces and reduce the risk of physical contact between the user and the bowl.3.A change in the pan's geometry would eliminate the issue of urine residue in the pan.4.Increasing the size of the swipe would increase the contact between swipe and the bowl's surface, and thus the swiping activity.5.The material for the rotating bowl and the swipe should be resistant to fouling, e.g. with an omniphobic surface, and have a high mechanical strength. If the adhesion of faeces and menstrual fluid is sufficiently low, this could replace the need for the automated lubricant spray.6.User Guidance on cleaning a waterless toilet could help to ensure that no excess water or inappropriate cleaning chemicals are used.The identified issues with the current prototype design and the users' attitudes translate into several design recommendations:These recommendations are the result of combined field- and laboratory testing, and will serve as basis for the re-design process of the mechanical flush's next iteration. A re-designed prototype pedestal can then be tested to assess whether the performance and user perception have improved.Considering the number of design-decisions that have yet to be made in refining the current prototype, for example the selection of materials, the design for manufacture at larger scale, and the location of production, a realistic estimate of the cost of the final product cannot be made at this point.5-It was effective in moving most faecal matter out of the toilet bowl and provided an acceptable odour barrier between faecal material underneath and the environment. Fouling in the bowl was still a persistent problem.-The laboratory tests gave insight into the selection of swipe material, showing that silicone-based swipes performed better than a polyurethane rubber. They also demonstrated the value of lubricating the bowl before use.-All swipe materials tested could not sufficiently clean soft-glutinous faeces or blood stains off the bowl's surface, emphasising the difficulty to develop a waterless flush.In field trials and controlled laboratory experiments, the functionality of a mechanical flush prototype was evaluated.Further research should focus on improving the bowl's resistance to fouling as well as the swipe's ability to remove any fouling left in the bowl. Valuable lessons were learned about the potential areas of improvement, and design recommendations were made to inform the next iteration step in developing the mechanical waterless flush. Implemented into other waterless sanitation systems, it could significantly improve their acceptance. Altogether, this study serves as an example of the effective combination of different approaches to increase the insight gained from testing a prototype.None.