For most of the modern history of emergency management, animals in disasters existed in a legal blind spot. Floods, earthquakes, fires and storms took a predictable toll on companion animals, livestock, working animals and wildlife, but statutory frameworks either ignored them or mentioned them in passing as property, biosecurity risks, or incidental welfare concerns. Over successive events—from Hurricane Katrina in the United States to the Canterbury earthquakes and Edgecumbe flood in Aotearoa New Zealand—it became clear that this silence had measurable, repeatable and avoidable consequences for both animals and people.
Against this background, Animal Evac New Zealand launched the Protecting Animals through Disaster Law (PADL) initiative to answer a simple but ambitious question: what would an evidence‑based, internationally relevant model law for animal‑inclusive disaster management look like? The aim was not just to document good practice, but to distil it into statutory wording that legislators could adapt and enact, and to pair that wording with a way to track whether countries were actually implementing animal‑inclusive arrangements on the ground.
The early phase of PADL focused on mapping the problem space: identifying legal gaps, doctrinal shortcomings and operational failure points across multiple jurisdictions. This work drew on:
Comparative analysis of existing emergency management, animal welfare, civil defence, biosecurity and local government statutes.
Case studies and after‑action reviews from major events (Katrina, Christchurch, Edgecumbe, Australian bushfires, Nelson fires, etc.), highlighting patterns such as owners refusing to evacuate without their animals, illegal re‑entry to rescue pets, and prolonged psychological harm when animals were lost or destroyed.
Emerging international standards and policy instruments, including the Model Animal Welfare Act, World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) disaster management work, and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction.
This stage confirmed a core diagnosis: most jurisdictions had fragmented, under‑specified and weakly enforced provisions on animals in disasters. Responsibilities were scattered across agencies, funding was ad hoc, and there was rarely any statutory duty to learn from events or to implement lessons identified.
On the basis of that diagnosis, PADL moved from analysis to design. Two complementary instruments were envisaged:
A Model Animal Disaster Management Act – a framework law, structurally aligned with the Model Animal Welfare Act, that would:
Cover mitigation, preparedness, response, recovery and capacity development in a single coherent statute.
Embed animals explicitly into national and sub‑national plans, incident management, evacuation, sheltering, reunification, veterinary care, recovery and funding.
Clarify roles and responsibilities between emergency management authorities, animal welfare authorities, veterinary services, approved organisations and owners/keepers.
Treat animal protection in disasters as both an ethical imperative and a practical instrument for human safety, livelihoods, food security and One Welfare.
An Animal Disaster Protection Index (ADPI) – a scoring tool that would sit alongside the Act and allow jurisdictions to be assessed against key dimensions such as:
Legal coverage (which phases and animal categories are actually covered in law).
Policy and planning (existence and quality of animal‑inclusive plans at national and local levels).
Funding and oversight (sustainable mechanisms, independent review, transparency).
Training, research and institutional learning (integration into responder and veterinary curricula, use of after‑action reviews, implementation of recommendations).
The pairing of a model law with an index was deliberate: law alone does not guarantee implementation, and indices alone lack normative guidance. Together, they provide both a template and a yardstick.
The next phase involved drafting and iterative refinement. The model act was prepared using a comparative law approach, drawing wording and structure from:
Existing animal‑inclusive or adjacent statutes (e.g., US PETS Act, national disaster laws that reference animals, animal welfare acts).
Recent reforms such as Colombia’s Law 2474 of 2025, which amended disaster risk management legislation to include animals.
Academic and professional literature on animal disaster management, One health, human–animal bond, and disaster risk reduction.
International experts, practitioners, and representatives from animal protection organisations—were invited to critique early drafts. Feedback addressed issues such as:
How to balance human‑life primacy with a meaningful, enforceable duty to protect animals.
The need for explicit provisions on custody, statutory holding periods, and humane disposition in disasters to avoid animals being trapped in legal limbo.
Ensuring biosecurity, zoonotic disease and environmental considerations were integrated, not treated as competing agendas.
The importance of sustainable funding and independent oversight (to avoid the “funding cliff” where animal initiatives are starved once political attention moves on).
This feedback loop shaped both the guiding principles and the detailed section‑by‑section wording.
The final structure of the Model Animal Disaster Management Act reflects this evolution. It is organised into seven chapters and accompanied by explanatory notes:
Preliminary provisions – title, purposes, scope, interpretation and fundamental principles, including all‑hazards/all‑species planning, science‑based standards and shared responsibility.
Risk reduction and mitigation – national strategy, hazard mapping, mainstreaming animal welfare into disaster risk policies, and duties on owners/keepers to reduce risk.
Preparedness – national and sub‑national animal disaster management plans, duties on owners, identification and registration, public awareness, and resilient facilities.
Response – priority for animal rescue and welfare, evacuation and sheltering, reunification, veterinary care, humane euthanasia, custody and coordination.
Recovery – sustainable funding, accountability and oversight; reunification, trapping and deceased animals; wellbeing and accommodation; restoration of habitats.
Capacity development – training and integration (Section 23), research and development (Section 24), and after‑action review/accountability (Section 25).
Offences, penalties and final provisions – offences, penalties, regulations, international cooperation and review.
Part 3 of the publication provides explanatory notes and rationale for each section, allowing drafters to understand the intent behind the text and adapt it to their own constitutional and statutory environment.
Sections 23–25 reflect a core PADL insight: legislation must not only prescribe structures and powers; it must also hard‑wire learning and improvement.
Section 23 integrates animal disaster management into responder and veterinary training, ensuring that the skills and doctrine needed to implement the Act actually exist in practice.
Section 24 promotes research and development, recognising that the evidence base is dynamic and that new hazards, technologies and social patterns will continue to emerge.
Section 25 establishes after‑action review and accountability duties, directly confronting the recurring problem that lessons are “observed” but not “learned” unless there is a statutory requirement to examine performance, implement recommendations, and report publicly.
These provisions link institutional learning explicitly to transparency, funding and oversight, and allow any independent body established under the Act’s funding and oversight clauses to commission or review after‑action reviews and provide assurance.
In parallel with the Act, the Animal Disaster Protection Index was developed as a practical scoring tool. It uses the Act’s structure to define indicators and grading criteria—for example, whether a country:
Has a current national animal disaster management plan aligned with human‑focused plans.
Provides for sustainable funding with independent oversight and public reporting.
Mandates animal‑inclusive evacuation, sheltering, reunification and custody arrangements.
Integrates animals into hazard mapping, risk reduction, training and research.
Used in conjunction with the Animal Protection Index, The ADPI is designed to be used by governments, NGOs and researchers to compare progress across jurisdictions, identify gaps, and build a case for reform.
In July 2026, after this multi‑year project, Animal Evac New Zealand published the first edition of the Model Animal Disaster Management Act and its companion ADPI. The publication signals the transition from project development to implementation and influence:
Governments now have a ready‑made framework law and index to guide reform.
Legislators can lift wording, principles and concepts directly into bills and regulations.
Practitioners and advocates can use the Act and ADPI as reference points when arguing for animal‑inclusive changes to disaster law and policy.
From here, PADL’s focus is on supporting adaptation and uptake, documenting emerging practice, and refining the index as countries begin to legislate and implement animal‑inclusive disaster management. The long‑term goal remains constant: to help build a world in which animals are recognised in disaster law, protected in disaster practice, and understood as integral to the safety, wellbeing and resilience of the communities that live with them.
Click on the image below to be directed to the download page for the Model Animal Disaster Management Act.
