Ascribing sentience to fish: potential policy implications

2. Scope and approach

The purpose of this work is (i) to review the status of the evidence base for the ascription of sentience to fish; and (ii) to identify, on the basis of an evidence-based ascription, any inconsistencies in the legislation applicable to fish in comparison to other animals for which there is also conclusive evidence of sentience.

SAWC defines animal sentience as: ‘the ability to have physical and emotional experiences, which matter to the animal, and which can be positive and negative’. This includes suffering, recognising there may be a variety of experiences in different animals, and different cognitive and emotional capabilities, and thus differing species-specific or individual-specific needs and wants.

As described in SAWC’s position^[2], we use a combination of evidence from multiple sources, including: (1) phylogenetic ‘proximity’ to other species who are deemed sentient; (2) neuroanatomical functioning; (3) behavioural indicators and (4) Qualitative Behavioural Assessment. (QBA) This is comparable to other approaches, for example, the eight criteria for ascribing sentience previously described^[3].