Traditional Home Slaughtering of Animals in the Framework of EU Legislation. Evidence from Bosnia and Herzegovina

Introduction

Traditional slaughter of animals in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) is identified with different practices and customs. The most frequent are the seasonal slaughter of pigs (svinjokolj) among the Christian populations, Muslim religious slaughter of sheep or cows (Qurban/Festival of Sacrifice), and the slaughtering mainly of lambs during civic holidays, such as 1 May, the International Labour Day, which are celebrated across a wide spectrum of society and across all ethnic and religious groups. In addition to the slaughtering of animals, the practice of traditional production of smoked meat products (prosciutto ham, sausages), as well as other animal products (milk, cheese), is widespread.

Traditional slaughter of animals is a good example of an informal practice that is on the one hand subject to new EU rules, and on the other linked to local traditions and values. Observed from the perspective of institutions, thetradition resonates with strong informal institutions that are governed by social norms, which originate and are implemented through informal channels, and, in contrast, with formal institutions that are governed by rules and procedures that are created and implemented through official channels and authorities. These include state institutions (courts, legislation, administration) and rules that are implemented at state level (constitutions, laws, regulations). Informal and formal institutions should not be understood as two separate and unrelated units. They interact, complement or oppose one another, depending on actors in a particular institutional context. ^[1]

Traditional slaughter is an important cultural component of social life, as it creates and strengthens solidarity in the community. Knowledge created through the process of socialization, transmitted through social norms and rituals, is important in rural development as it helps to strengthen informal social networks and relationships in promoting social cohesion. ^[2] In times of unstable social conditions and change, individuals are able to develop and activate different forms of capital in order to adapt to new situations and times of hardship. ^[3] The overlapping of social spheres allows for increased reflexivity of activity, and thus produces new creativity and innovation. It can be said that change creates new actions, and modifies and creates new behaviour in a slightly different way. ^[4] Changes in formal rules regarding slaughter cause changes in the behaviour of individuals and groups in the effort to adapt to the new circumstances. Depending on the strength and size of cultural and social capital, adaptation will occur at a faster or slower pace. ^[5] Cultural capital accumulated in tradition will slow down changes, but change will inevitably happen.

Traditional slaughter of animals is generally performed within the household, or outside registered slaughter facilities (abatoirs). According to EU standards, domestic (traditional) slaughter of animals is not acceptable, except in cases where such meat is intended for personal consumption. It is precisely because of the above limitations that there are misunderstandings and differences in field practices and formal regulations. This article aims to determine, on thebasis of the research conducted, the differences between formal regulations and present practice, and seeks to propose measures to overcome misalignments, with reference to the differences between formal and informal institutions. It focuses on pig slaughter and on religious slaughter, as these are the two most common practices in BiH.

After describing the research method, I offer a brief overview of the relevant literature with a theoretical view of the research problem. This is followed by an analysis of the EU legislative framework and harmonized BiH regulations. The next section explains the practices of traditional animal slaughter in BiH, while the two final sections describe the impact of traditional slaughter on social and cultural capital and explain the attitude towards the EU. This is followed by a conclusion involving recommendations for policy makers in the EU and BiH.

A Note on Method

The methodological approach applied in this article is based on the model of Europeanization, whereby the initial research questions were structured according to the basic stages of the process: EU rules → adoption of EU rules → harmonized regulations → limitations → application of rules → behaviour change. ^[6] Studies dealing with the issue of Europeanization through the implementation of EU rules focus mostly on the formal transposition of EU rules into domestic legislation but tend not to deal with actual effects of these rules on the ground, that is, whether and how these rules function in people’s everyday lives. ^[7] This article combines the exploration of EU and domestic regulations governing the slaughter of animals with the restrictions arising from EU directives and domestic legislation, as well as discussing how these restrictions reflect on everyday life and tradition.

Using qualitative analysis, I first review the EU directives and regulations that are relevant for the investigation of the home slaughtering of animals. In the next stage, I analyse these legal contents regarding the regulation of the stunning of animals before slaughtering, in addition to the regulation of donating and selling meat. In the third stage, I evaluate relevant legal documents at the national level and compare national regulations with EU directives. Finally,I examine the regulations and harmonizations of rules of religious slaughter and meat division.

The data on the examined practices that are identified on the ground were collected through semi-structured interviews. The interviews were conducted during the period from October to November 2016 in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Different locations, religious communities, and societal strata were taken into account to capture the heterogeneity of the country in focus. All interviews were recorded, transcribed, and stored in the project database.

The study was conducted with a sample of fourteen respondents, including the following: seven small farmers (F_06, F_07, F_10, F_11, F_20, F_21, and F_22); two veterinarian experts (E_08 vet inspector and E_09 vet expert of welfare and protection of animals); one religious authority (E_17); one certified butcher (E_19); one controller for halal slaughter (E_23); and two consumers (C_14 and C_18). The codes are used here to preserve the anonymity of the interviewees. Analysis of the interviews identified the field practices as well as the mismatch between formal and informal institutions.

Review of the Literature and Research Problem

There is still a widespread practice of home slaughter of animals during religious and seasonal holidays in BiH. Many people view these events and the sharing of meat with a feeling of nostalgia. One of the interviewees describes this:

‘The time I remember is not that long ago, but it still affects the period of the former state [i.e. Yugoslavia], and it was traditionally related to the Statehood Day of the former state on 29 November. People worked everywhere in the field, and for various companies. There were two, three days of for those holidays, which were in the winter, an ideal period for slaughter because temperatures are low so meat and fat and other products can be easily disposed of. And it was the ideal moment for family, neighbours, and friends to gather. It had a social character, when people would spend time together. But above all these benefits, it has always been in people’s mind that it’s a cheaper way to get better quality food.’ (C_14)

Existing research on the implementation of EU regulations concerning the traditional slaughter of animals (pigs and sheep) indicates the complexity of relationships in everyday practices, that is cultural rooting and communal solidarity. The social phenomena arising from the practices differ in certain aspects and in their impact on society, culture, the economy, and politics. ^[8] Local food production establishes direct contact between farmers and consumers and creates a bond of trust and mutual benefits among them. Exchanging food is asold as humanity itself and continues to play an important role in the social life of local communities across the world. ^[9]

Jewish and Muslim communities have specific requirements when it comes to religious slaughter of animals. Kosher and halal slaughter (Qurban) are carried out without stunning of the animal. Both religions emphasize the necessity of humane treatment of animals, with the slaughtering process as the most responsible act. The animal slaughtering system in accordance with Islamic regulations is widespread and is known as halal slaughter. The halal food market exceeds the value of 632 billion US dollars, with the tendency for further growth. ^[10] Kosher and halal slaughter use similar methods and procedures, with halal slaughter having a more liberal attitude when it comes to stunning. The fatwa of the Mufti of Delhi from 1935 said that stunning does not violate the religious law, because stunning does not kill animals. The later would be contrary to Islamic slaughter rules, while ‘stunning’ without killing was found to be acceptable. Another authoritative Islamic statement referring to religious slaughter is the pronouncement of the rector of the Al-Azhar University in Cairo in 1982, according to which stunning is not contrary to Islam. ^[11] In some parts of the world (New Zealand, Australia) there is a growing number of slaughterhouses using methods of electric stunning of livestock (catle and sheep). The meat from these slaughterhouses is exported to countries in the Middle East, countries in which the original Islamic tradition continues to exist. ^[12] Research has shown that the practice of slaughtering without stunning causes problems related to the welfare of animals, such as stress, pain, or suffering before and during slaughter. To reduce the suffering of animals, some countries (for example Australia) prescribe the obligation of stunning immediately after the act of slaughter. ^[13]

The legal prohibition of religious slaughter without stunning animals before slaughter is a significant challenge for international law in relation to the freedom of religion. ^[14] This prohibition is not only important for the EU, as it involves the legal status of minority religious communities in other countries as well. ^[15] The EU legislation, guided by the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights (minority groups), has opted for a balanced approach between religious freedom and the welfare of animals. ^[16] The solution is found in providing the option for individual countries to prescribe stricter rules than those valid in the EU. Advocates for animal welfare have succeeded in codifying their beliefs into laws in many European countries, for example in Switzerland in 1893, in Norway in 1930, and in Sweden in 1938. ^[17] In any case, it is uncertain which religious interpretation is considered to be correct and how much change is permitted in order to improve the welfare of animals. Nonetheless, religious slaughter can be significantly improved through the use of ‘Total Quality Management’, as well as continuous and gradual improvements in the slaughter process through new knowledge and technological innovation. ^[18]

The prohibition of domestic slaughter and the closure of small slaughterhouses and processing facilities, as well as the elimination of income for rural households, has increased the risk of unemployment and poverty among the rural population. ^[19] Eliminating not just one but several important sources of livelihood for rural residents, the rigorous application of these regulations would jeopardize the long-term survival of people in their homes. ^[20] For example, in the case of Slovenia, the cost of slaughtering increased more than four times when compared to the cost of previously practised farm slaughter. ^[21] On the other hand, the presence of infectious diseases in the Western Balkan countries requires compliance with regulations or hygiene packages. Trichinosis, caused by Trichinella spiralis, is a parasitic disease that is often fatal for the infected persons. In domestic animals and humans, the disease has been reported in Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro, Romania, BiH, and Croatia. From 2001 to 2010, 1,353 cases of animal trichinosis were reported in BiH at 1,242 sites. The percentage of reported cases for domestic pigs among the entities that compose this country was 94.6% in the Republika Srpska and 5.4% in the Federation of BiH (FBiH). ^[22] This disproportion is explained by the fact that most of the population in the FBiH do not include pig meat in their diet. The unfavourable epidemiological- situation is a consequence of the widespread culinary customs and non-implementation of valid inspections of meat and meat products in households, as well as illegal sales. ^[23] Yet the occurrence of trichinosis is a consequence not only of culinary habits and poor veterinary control, but also of the economic conditions as well as the demographic and political changes in the Western Balkan countries. The regulatory potential of legal interventions in everyday life proved to be crucial in the process of Europeanization, as it was confirmed that earlier regulations had not been sufficiently secure. ^[24]

The harmonization of standards creates an environment in which domestic and foreign competitors are equal, an explicit aim of the EU policies. However, there are opinions that standards often create new barriers that effectively favour multinational capital at the expense of local producers. The creation of an informal market and political organization to counter such barriers may provide an answer. Personal connections to farmers, producers, and suppliers can create an informal network in order to avoid the EU-imposed standards and taxes: ‘In food and other products regulated by standards, grey markets may be arising as a direct result of standardization.’ ^[25]

Opponents of the introduction of EU regulations use cultural and social complexity as an argument against a ‘technocratic’ European policy. They suspect an ‘intentional’ suppression of food production, in order to import and sell products of suspicious quality and poor taste. ^[26] A large number of the population in BiH live in the countryside, with many aspects of life still being conducted in the ‘old way’. With the favouring of multinational companies, domestic agricultural production on individual and small farms is endangered. The neglect of family farms will also contribute to increasing informal market activity. ^[27]

In the formerly communist countries of the Western Balkans, small farms are commonplace, and agricultural work is a means of survival for many families. A mixed structure of production, a combination of trade and agriculture, hasallowed the population to survive the economic and political changes.^[28] There is no doubt that they offer a smaller part of their production to the informal market and thus provide additional income for their family.^[29] Unlike large farms, on small farms a farmer can pay more attention to each animal, and the animal spends more time in the open space, which contributes to their well-being.

In order to overcome the problem of ‘inequality’ and to ensure the application of standards, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) was formed.^[30] Access to funding is conditioned by the existence of a national strategy for rural development. One of the ways to support rural development policy is the employment of the rural population outside agriculture.^[31] BiH used a similar model, setting up industrial plants in rural areas and thus allowing the population to remain in their place of residence. During the conflicts in the 1990s, many facilities were destroyed and the population was left unemployed. Today, BiH should learn from its previous experiences and develop a rural development strategy that ensures the survival and development of the villages and reduces the emigration of the rural population as well as the pressure on urban areas.

EU Legislative Framework for Domestic Animal Slaughter

Within the EU, animal slaughter is subject to regulations relating to the welfare of animals and to food hygiene (hygiene package). EU Directive 1099/2009,^[32] which came into force on 1 January 2013, prescribes the principles and rules of the EU legislature governing the protection of animals during slaughter. Directive 1099/2009 replaced an earlier directive, 93/119/EC from 22 December 1993.^[33] Directive 1099/2009 treats not only animal slaughter (excluding poultry, hares, and rabbits) but also other procedures that are carried out by the owners of animals, or people responsible for them, as well as controls outside the slaughterhouse for meat that is used only for private household consumption (Article 10). Directive 1099/2009 prescribes that the following articles must be observed during slaughter:

‘Article 3(1): Animals shall be spared any avoidable pain, distress or suffering during their killing and related operations. […]

Article 4(1): Animals shall only be killed after stunning in accordance with the methods and specific requirements related to the application of those methods set out in Annex I. The loss of consciousness and sensibility shall be maintained until the death of the animal. […]

Article 4(4): In the case of animals subject to particular methods of slaughter prescribed by religious rites, the requirements of paragraph (1) shall not apply provided that the slaughter takes place in a slaughterhouse. […]

Article 7(1): Killing and related operations shall only be carried out by persons with the appropriate level of competence to do so without causing the animals any avoidable pain, distress or suffering.’ ^[34]

As outlined above, the method of stunning animals must be applied before a home slaughter. The obligation to apply the stunning procedure is excluded when slaughter is carried out for religious reasons, as long as the slaughter is performed in a slaughterhouse. Application of Article 4(4) of the directive implies that slaughtering outside the slaughterhouse shall not be carried out without a prior stunning procedure. In addition, the EU hygiene package covers all processes for breeding, production, distribution, and marketing of foods for human consumption. The hygiene package is regulated by Directive 852/2004, which provides general food hygiene rules and requirements for registered food business operators. ^[35] An operator (entity) in food business is a natural or legal person registered to perform certain activities related to food business in a responsible manner to ensure the smooth implementation of the provisions of the food regulations. Directive 853/2004 lays out specific rules for the hygiene of animal origin food, relating to the specific requirements for business suppliers for products of animal origin. ^[36] Directive 854/2004 sets out specific rules for the organization of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption. ^[37] Directive 2004/41/EC abolished the earlier directive concerning- hygiene and conditions for production as well as placing on the market of certain products of animal origin intended for human consumption, along with the amendments to Directives 89/662/EEC, 92/118/EEC, and 95/408/EC. ^[38]

As the hygiene package sets out the rules for food business operators, private consumption is excluded. ^[39] Therefore, EU Directive 853/2004 indicates that meat used for human consumption must originate from a licensed slaughterhouse. Thus, only meat originating from registered entities can be marketed, if placing on the market means ‘the holding of food for the purpose of sale, including offering for sale, or any other form of transfer, whether free of charge or not, and the sale, distribution, and other forms of transfer themselves’. ^[40] Hence, due to the increased risks of food safety arising from home slaughter, only the owners and members of their family living in the same household can consume the meat; such meat cannot be sold or donated.

Traditional Slaughter. Practices in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Based on the above corroboration of perspectives and prescriptions, it can be concluded that both the regulator and the individual have a mutual interest in consuming quality meat and healthy food. However, when it comes to breeders and producers, other interests, such as profit, may play a role. There is always a potential danger of deviating from the rules and encountering adverse effects. The slaughter process must be observed in a series of activities that begin before the act of slaughter, including the treatment of animals, the selection of an animal, the slaughter procedure, and ultimately the division of the meat. Households that are engaged in cattle breeding are able to make animal selection much earlier than those who are not, thereby showing additional attention to a selected animal.

Interestingly, all respondents in the sample of this study preferred the consumption of meat derived from their own production to commercial procurement. In addition, a generally accepted view prevailed that meat coming from domestic breeding is better and healthier. The ‘expert group’ in the sample (veterinarians) agreed with this view too, because the breeder controls the animal and its diet, and will not use means that will affect the quality of the meat:

‘The more delicious meat is the one you breed, you slaughter, you know about what the animal ate, and you know that it is natural meat without any of those medicines inside; I think it is better, a hundred times better.’ (E_08)

‘Always what is domestic, but controlled domestic, breeding, […] I would be the happiest person if I could rear animals myself, but when I choose meat it is certainly of domestic, but controlled breeding.’ (E_09)

Without laboratory analysis, it is difficult to determine the differences in meat quality. However, while cooking, one can notice differences in meat that contains certain unwanted components such as antibiotics or growth hormones. This kind of meat has a characteristic scent, a consequence of the method used to feed the animal. In addition to meat quality, respondents pointed out the economic importance of the traditional slaughter practices of households and cattle breeders:

‘He has one or two animals; he slaughters as much as he needs, or maybe he needs the entire animal. But as he has nothing to live from, he will leave one half for himself, and the other half he will sell to me.’ (E_09)

‘If I did not sell those Qurbans, I would not have anything.’ (F_11)

Social and Cultural Capital

Traditional slaughter has an important cultural, social, and economic impact on families and communities. All respondents emphasized the importance of traditional slaughter for the strengthening of social capital. It is an occasion for family reunion and wider social gathering:

‘It has a characteristic of tradition, and it is a very nice gathering […] it is a social event that usually ends up late in the evening with singing and cheering.’ (F_21)

‘It is a true holiday where we enjoy the gathering; it is a sociological phenomenon, which, I think, is among the most beautiful.’ (F_22)

‘I look forward to that day for a simple reason, and this is because all our neighbours and friends gather together, and then of course, followed by a relaxed conversation, socializing, a glass of good wine or homemade brandy […], and certainly this act of socializing is extremely important and significant.’ (C_14)

The gathering of people during traditional slaughter remains a special memory for children as well, and thus is a cultural tradition passed on from an early age:

‘I as a child, and now as an adult man, have been so happy on those days; it was not only I that felt this way but all the children from my village.’ (F_22)

‘The fact that small children go from door to door to congratulate Eid (Bayram) and to get some money or sweets is special. In fact, it shows that the children feel the charm of the holiday.’ (C_18)

The division of the meat from the traditional slaughter also plays an important role in this strengthening of social capital:

‘Naturally we give a part of the meat to the butcher who slaughtered, but we also share it with people in our neighbourhood. We would usually go and give them a piece of meat, because someone had brought us a piece of meat, a piece of bacon, or a piece of ham.’ (F_22)

Unlike other traditions where the emphasis is on socializing and sharing, religious slaughter also has an enhanced social dimension. The sharing of the Qurban meat follows two primordial principles: it is shared among neighbours and the poor, and it is shared regardless of religion and nation. The act of sharing Qurban meat places a priority on helping the socially vulnerable. In addition to this emphasized social sensitivity, the sharing of Qurban meat positively contributes to the strengthening of neighbourly, friendly, and family relations. As the religious authority in my sample of respondents (E_17) observed, present-day society is characterized by greed, selfishness, ruthlessness, and recklessness. In the social sense, Qurban is precisely the opposite. It signals that all that is done is in the name of the Creator (God), and shall serve the people in their moral and social upbringing:

‘The rules of the religion require that we leave one third for our family, one third for the relatives, one third for the poor […], and if there are also members of another religion in the neighbourhood, then we share with them too, because this is a way of respecting other religions, but also an act of good neighbourly relations.’ (F_07)

‘People are definitely glad to be part of it, […] those who do not need this, we do not share with them. But the ones who do are truly happy for it.’ (F_20)

‘I know a lot of people who sit and have a fine dinner when they get Qurban meat.’ (C_18)

Thanks to the development of science and technology, it is possible to sort, process, and store meat for a longer period of time. In this way, it is possible to send and distribute Qurban meat around the world, thus extending the humanitarian impact to other countries in need. The practice has created humanitarian organizations that take on the responsibility of organizing the slaughter and distribution of Qurban meat to those in need:

‘So, when this meat is sent, it is sent to the poorest parts of the world according to the UN criteria.’ (E_17)

‘They come, pay, and some part of this goes to Merhamet [a humanitarian organization], some for other public kitchens and so on.’ (F_06)

‘It happens that sometimes Qurban meat is sent to certain homes, orphanages, Merhamet, where there is a public kitchen. When we give the meat to these locations, there must be a test result confirming that the animal was healthy.’ (F_07)

The commercial sale of Qurban meat is not allowed, otherwise the religious meaning and the purpose of slaughtering the Qurban is not fulfilled.

Attitudes to the EU and Its Regulations

As the interviews revealed, people are not sufficiently familiar with the regulations of slaughtering, and this can create problems on the ground. People struggle to follow the frequent changes in regulations and compliance with EU directives. On the other hand, the EU accession process requires adaptation in other areas as well, which increases the general awareness of the issues involved. Considering the complexity and also the inefficiency of both the EU and the local administration, the reasons why people are often not familiar with the regulations are quite clear. What is more, it is unclear who is responsible for monitoring and implementing the EU regulations. None of the respondents had ever been sanctioned or knew anyone who had been sanctioned for failing to comply with the regulations. Most respondents preferred to respect the traditional values rather than the regulations, although they did stress the importance of complying with the hygiene package because it concerns human health:

‘I know very little about these laws and regulations, because they change every day and every year, and who would remember all of that?’ (F_20)

‘I told you that 70% of the people are unfamiliar with them, this is the main problem.’ (E_09)

‘We have a tradition of alternation; we are […] always looking for a loophole somewhere.’ (E_23)

‘I mean, in this area, I am absolutely certain that these directives should be implemented, in order to introduce some order, but the traditional aspect cannot be eradicated, and I do not think it necessary to move in that direction.’ (C_14)

Generally, respondents had a positive atitude towards the EU regulations. Some thought they were too complicated, and that previous regulations (in former Yugoslavia) were more concrete, simple, and reasonable (E_08; E_09). They perceived a practice of replicating legislation or ‘pressuring’ decision makers without prior analysis of what already exists. Consequently, harmonization with the existing situation can lead to misunderstandings in the application on the ground. Any short-term acceptance and implementation of EU legislation for countries in transition or in the accession phase seemed too complicated. Ratherthan enforcing regulations in a rigorous ad hoc manner, gradual implementation seems more appropriate.

This is not least because the institutions of traditional slaughter differ in their practices, which are rooted in the respective communities. Religious slaughter is more deeply ingrained and less susceptible to change, while other practices may be more easily influenced. As noted, there is a positive shift in attitude towards the EU and an awareness of the need to implement EU directives to ensure food safety. However, solutions need to be found that are more in line with religious requirements and the preservation of tradition. Although there are differences between the two realms, it seems possible to overcome them by improving practice through the implementation of knowledge and technological innovation.

Conclusion and Recommendations

In Bosnia-Herzegovina, the harmonization of traditional slaughter, including traditions based on religion, with the existing EU directives has largely been achieved, except in the mater of stunning and the distribution of meat that does not originate from registered slaughterhouses. My suggestion is that, for traditions rooted in different religions, the respective religious communities should prepare comprehensive documents (ordinances) in order to regulate and improve the practices of religious slaughter. This could be done, for example, through the inter-religious councils and in collaboration with the Veterinary Office of BiH. Such ordinances could eliminate ambiguities and incorporate new standards in animal welfare with the elimination of potential risks (waste treatment), so as not to undermine the basic goal of the hygiene package. This could also ensure safety and healthy food for human consumption. In traditional slaughter, the process of accepting general principles, that is formal rules, is hardly questioned, and the existing differences are in fact minimal.

Some progress in implementing the EU standards in Bosnia-Herzegovina is evident, as is a need for further development. The EU directives need to be better implemented to ensure the regulation of slaughter practices, but also to preserve traditional values and customs. Excessive regulatory practice, and as a consequence insufficient knowledge of the regulations as well as uncertain responsibilities in enforcing the regulations, have led to deviations in practice. As the fieldwork revealed, if there is a tension between formal institutions and informal practices, priority is usually given to the traditional values rather than the legal regulations.

Policy makers are advised to acknowledge citizens’ positive approach towards the EU and intensify their efforts towards adopting unambiguous and realistic regulations. Furthermore, policy makers could be more proactive in supporting the more general development of rural areas and the modernization of small farms, including a greater engagement in utilizing national and EU funds available for this purpose. In order to achieve substantial good practice, the process needs to respect the informal practices that have been operating well in Bosnian society. Last but not least, the evidence also suggests that nurturing traditions and social relationships contributes to the strengthening of social capital on the ground, and thereby to overall social stability.