While Flanders and Wallonia have had an Animal Welfare Code for several years, Brussels remains the only region in the country without a comprehensive and coherent legislative framework to protect animals — and, at the time of writing, without any real political debate in sight.
This delay is not due to a lack of proposals, nor to an absence of consensus on the need to act. The Brussels Animal Welfare Code, although ready and submitted in various forms, is gathering dust in the drawers of the regional Parliament. There have been no substantive discussions, no significant procedural progress and no clear timetable. Instead, persistent inertia prevails.
A code submitted… more than once
Contrary to what this paralysis might suggest, the Brussels Parliament is not short of initiatives. Over the past two years, three separate texts aimed at establishing a Brussels Animal Welfare Code have been submitted. A first proposal was introduced by Groen in 2024, followed by a second text tabled by DéFI at the beginning of 2025. More recently, in February, the N-VA in turn presented its own proposal for a Code.
These initiatives, coming from political parties with very different ideological backgrounds, reflect a shared diagnosis: Brussels needs a modern and coherent legal framework for animal protection. Yet despite this convergence, none of these proposals has led to a genuine parliamentary debate. The texts exist, but remain a dead letter, as if suspended in an institutional no man’s land.
Clear content, concrete measures
The draft Brussels Animal Welfare Code is neither vague nor improvised. The various proposals follow the same logic: to modernise legislation that is fragmented and outdated, and to address the fundamental needs of animals at every stage of their lives, drawing on current scientific knowledge and on frameworks already adopted in the other regions of the country.
The texts include a wide range of measures aimed at tangibly improving animal welfare. These include a ban on the importation of puppies and kittens from illegal breeding operations, tougher penalties for animal abuse, provisions relating to animal experimentation, specific protections for lobsters, a ban on the shredding and gassing of male chicks as well as on the stunning of pigs with carbon dioxide, a prohibition on keeping amphibians, and the introduction of an animal "ownership" permit. In total, around one hundred articles would cover the entire life of an animal, from birth to death.
Far from being radical, these measures largely mirror rules already in force in Flanders and Wallonia and respond to growing societal expectations for greater recognition of animal sentience.
Inertia that raises questions
Despite the existence of these texts and the clarity of their objectives, Brussels has still failed to engage in any meaningful debate. There is no visible ideological confrontation, nor an openly stated rejection. The issue appears simply to have been pushed to the background, as if the accumulation of proposals were enough to create the illusion of political action.
For GAIA, this situation amounts to unacceptable inertia. The organisation denounces a tendency to postpone indefinitely a file that is already mature, out of fear of alienating the Socialist Party (PS) and the Workers’ Party of Belgium (PTB), which it accuses of prioritising electoral clientelism. Each month of inaction results in insufficient controls, problematic practices that continue unabated, and sanctions that remain too weak to deter abuse.
The contrast with public opinion is striking. According to an IPSOS survey conducted for GAIA in 2024, 89% of Brussels residents believe that political parties must take measures to improve animal welfare in the region. The gap between citizens’ expectations and the political agenda is glaring.
Slaughter without stunning: the symbol of the status quo
The absence of comprehensive legislation also has very concrete consequences, particularly with regard to slaughter without stunning. While this practice has been banned in Flanders and Wallonia, Brussels has still failed to take what many consider an absolutely necessary decision. This lack of political positioning allows a practice to continue in the Region that is widely criticised by the scientific community for the suffering it inflicts on animals.
An IPSOS survey carried out in September 2024 shows that 76% of Brussels residents support, or do not oppose, a ban on slaughter without stunning. From a legal standpoint, the Belgian Constitutional Court, the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights have all upheld the bans adopted in Wallonia and Flanders. They confirmed that such bans do not constitute an infringement of freedom of religion and are neither discriminatory nor disproportionate, but legitimate and necessary in light of the objective pursued: animal welfare.
In this context, statements made last year further undermine arguments for continued inaction. In April, Taha Zaki, Vice-President of the Muslim Council of Belgium, told RTBF that ultimate responsibility lay with the legislator and that, if a ban were adopted in Brussels, Muslim representatives would respect the decision.
A matter of priorities
The question therefore becomes unavoidable: when will Brussels finally equip itself with genuine legislation to protect animals? The proposals exist. They come from several political parties. The measures are known. Public opinion is favourable. What is missing is a political decision — and above all, a wake-up call for Brussels’ MPs.
Continuing to do nothing is already a choice: the choice to maintain a legal vacuum with very real consequences for animals. By contrast, adopting a Brussels Animal Welfare Code would allow the Region to catch up and send a clear signal — that of a capital finally translating its values into action.
