tag:theconversation.com,2011:/id/topics/live-export-598/articlesLive export – The Conversation2021-07-07T20:08:45Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1638112021-07-07T20:08:45Z2021-07-07T20:08:45ZShould slaughterhouses have glass walls? The campaign for greater farm transparency goes to the High Court<p>An Australian animal advocacy group is taking its campaign for greater transparency in animal-use industries <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/animal-rights-activists-rally-in-melbourne-cbd-20180428-p4zc8x.html">from the streets</a> <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/jun/29/high-court-to-hear-bid-to-overturn-new-south-wales-ag-gag-laws">to the High Court</a>.</p>
<p>Last week, the <a href="https://www.farmtransparency.org/">Farm Transparency Project</a> filed a case to challenge the <a href="https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-2007-064">Surveillance Devices Act 2007</a> (SDA), a New South Wales law that restricts the use of cameras and audio recorders on private premises. If the bid is successful, it’ll be the first time so-called “ag-gag” legislation in Australia will be challenged in the High Court.</p>
<p>Animal rights groups <a href="https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/exposing-agricultural-brutality-an-interview-with-chris-delforce/">claim</a> laws like the SDA are increasingly silencing those advocating for greater transparency around animal-use industries. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, organisations representing animal-use industries, such as the National Farmers Federation, say covert footage represents a “<a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-21/animal-rights-group-aussie-farms-online-map-farmers-backlash/10731560">huge breach of privacy</a>”.</p>
<p>Balancing the interests of animal advocacy groups and animal-use industries will not be easy. However, the way to resolve this impasse is not to silence animal advocacy groups. Instead, it’s to make their actions unnecessary by ensuring meaningful transparency in the industry.</p>
<h2>What are ag-gag laws?</h2>
<p>“<a href="https://voiceless.org.au/hot-topics/ag-gag/">Ag-gag</a>” describes laws that can be used to target animal advocates and whistleblowers bringing operations of commercial animal-use industries, especially intensive factory farms, to light.</p>
<p>The United States was the first country to pass ag-gag legislation, with a <a href="https://www.animallaw.info/statute/ks-ecoterrorism-chapter-47-livestock-and-domestic-animals">Kansas law</a> in 1990 criminalising the act of taking covert pictures or film in animal facilities. Since then, ag-gag legislation has been introduced in <a href="https://www.aspca.org/improving-laws-animals/public-policy/what-ag-gag-legislation#Ag-Gag%20by%20State">most US states</a>, and is in effect in several states.</p>
<p>But since 2013, pressure from animal advocacy groups has seen courts in a handful of US states <a href="https://www.npr.org/2019/01/10/683847157/court-strikes-down-iowas-ag-gag-law-that-blocked-undercover-investigations">strike down ag-gag laws</a> as an unconstitutional infringement on freedom of speech under the First Amendment.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/410057/original/file-20210707-21-vu0eds.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Protests sitting outside Flinders station in Melbourne" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/410057/original/file-20210707-21-vu0eds.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/410057/original/file-20210707-21-vu0eds.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/410057/original/file-20210707-21-vu0eds.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/410057/original/file-20210707-21-vu0eds.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/410057/original/file-20210707-21-vu0eds.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/410057/original/file-20210707-21-vu0eds.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/410057/original/file-20210707-21-vu0eds.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Animal welfare activists have taken their campaign from the streets to the High Court.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Australia has followed the trend by repurposing existing laws (such as the SDA) as ag-gag laws, or passing new and explicitly anti-animal activist laws. </p>
<p>The latter includes the <a href="https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/html/bill/5acc5468-d528-49a9-bd43-0567bf2284a7">Right to Farm Bill 2019</a> in NSW, which introduced harsh penalties for trespassing on agricultural land, and the <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2019A00067">Criminal Code Amendment (Agricultural Protection) Act 2019</a> at the federal level, which creates an offence of using, for instance, a phone or the internet to encourage others to trespass on agricultural land.</p>
<h2>What are the activists arguing?</h2>
<p>The first Australian animal activist to be charged under Australian ag-gag legislation — in this case, the SDA — was Chris Delforce, the executive director of the Farm Transparency Project. </p>
<p>Before <a href="https://www.farmonline.com.au/story/4842862/animal-activists-let-off-charges-due-to-technicality/">a NSW court</a> dismissed the charges, Delforce faced a maximum of five years in prison for allegedly publishing footage purportedly taken from intensive piggeries and abattoirs in NSW.</p>
<p>Unlike in the US, the Australian constitution has no explicit right to freedom of expression. In <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/RP9697/97rp10">1992</a>, however, the High Court recognised the constitution contains an “<a href="https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/rights-and-freedoms/freedom-information-opinion-and-expression">implied freedom</a>” to discuss political matters. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/not-just-activists-9-out-of-10-people-are-concerned-about-animal-welfare-in-australian-farming-117077">Not just activists, 9 out of 10 people are concerned about animal welfare in Australian farming</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>After another <a href="https://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/showCase/2001/HCA/63">High Court case in 2001</a>, this implied freedom of political communication was recognised as extending to animal welfare issues. </p>
<p>In the current High Court bid, the Farm Transparency Project argues the NSW law represents an unreasonable restriction on the implied freedom of political communication. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.farmtransparency.org/media/19-animal-advocates-mount-landmark-high-court-challenge-australias-ag-gag-law">According to the group</a>, the SDA unduly restricts this implied freedom because, unlike similar laws in other Australian jurisdictions, the NSW law doesn’t exempt material published in the public interest.</p>
<h2>Failures in animal welfare regulation</h2>
<p>It might be argued even if animal advocacy groups are trying to bring instances of animal abuse to light, they’re not appropriately placed to do so. After all, animal industries already face the scrutiny of police and the RSPCA, bodies tasked with ensuring compliance with, and prosecuting violations of, animal welfare standards.</p>
<p>But, as Australians have seen over the past few years, this regulatory framework doesn’t always work so well in practice.</p>
<p>Recent scandals surrounding the mistreatment of animals in the <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/4corners/4c-full-program-bloody-business/8961434">live export</a>, <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/4corners/making-a-killing/6127124">greyhound racing</a>, and <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/7.30/the-dark-side-of-the-horse-racing-industry/11614022">horse racing</a> industries weren’t uncovered in the course of standard compliance processes. Instead, it took covert footage to capture evidence of abuses. </p>
<p>This, in turn, led to <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-07/the-downfall-of-nsw-greyhound-racing-after-live-baiting-scandal/7577250">widespread condemnation</a> of the industries and, finally, to <a href="https://coalitionprotectgreyhounds.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/nsw-fact-sheet-greyhound-racing-industry-nsw-special-commission-of-inquiry.pdf">formal investigations</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/new-findings-show-australian-sheep-face-dangerous-heat-stress-on-export-ships-137598">New findings show Australian sheep face dangerous heat stress on export ships</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Given the failures in Australia’s animal welfare regulatory and compliance systems, advocacy groups are clearly playing a <a href="https://theconversation.com/assessing-australias-regulation-of-live-animal-exports-16427">crucial and neglected role</a> in revealing systemic animal mistreatment, both legal and otherwise, in a range of industries.</p>
<h2>What have they got to hide?</h2>
<p>The advocates’ goal to protect the implied freedom of political communication is not the only interest at stake in the High Court bid. </p>
<p>Take for example the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/18/business/18recall.html">largest recall of beef</a> in US history, which occurred in 2008. Footage covertly obtained by an animal advocacy group revealed cows too sick to walk were being slaughtered, with some of the meat sold to use in school lunch programs. </p>
<p>Given such revelations of breaches of food safety laws in animal processing facilities, consumers have a strong interest in having access to information about how their meat, dairy and eggs are produced.</p>
<p>On the other hand, those working in animal facilities also have an interest in ensuring their privacy isn’t infringed by activists or whistleblowers collecting footage.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/410088/original/file-20210707-15-g882pk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/410088/original/file-20210707-15-g882pk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/410088/original/file-20210707-15-g882pk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/410088/original/file-20210707-15-g882pk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/410088/original/file-20210707-15-g882pk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/410088/original/file-20210707-15-g882pk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/410088/original/file-20210707-15-g882pk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/410088/original/file-20210707-15-g882pk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Advocacy groups are playing a crucial and neglected role in revealing systemic animal mistreatment.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But we should differentiate between the privacy of an individual and that of a business. </p>
<p>Many farmers live and work on their properties. However, there’s no evidence to suggest animal advocacy groups are filming or recording footage of private homes instead of animal processing operations.</p>
<p>In the 2001 High Court case, most justices agreed businesses don’t have a right to privacy. Instead, they saw privacy as something associated with the notion of human dignity. In filming their business operations, farmers’ or workers’ human dignity is arguably not being infringed.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/national-plan-to-allow-battery-cages-until-2036-favours-cheap-eggs-over-animal-welfare-163552">National plan to allow battery cages until 2036 favours cheap eggs over animal welfare</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>At the end of the day, these activists are <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/religion/democracy-free-speech-and-australian-ag-gag-laws/12713458">filling a regulatory gap</a>. Putting barriers between consumers and animal-use industries by criminalising the activists’ actions won’t encourage trust in such industries. </p>
<p>As Paul McCartney once claimed, “if slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be a vegetarian”. Failing to prioritise transparency will reinforce the idea these industries have something to hide.</p>
<p>Rather than attempting to silence groups such as the Farm Transparency Project with laws like the SDA, animal-use industries should respond by developing and enforcing stringent standards of transparency and compliance.</p>
<p>Only this will demonstrate they have nothing to hide.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/163811/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Serrin Rutledge-Prior is a volunteer with the Animal Defenders Office (ACT). She ran as a candidate for the Animal Justice Party in the 2020 ACT election. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tara Ward is the co-founder and volunteer managing solicitor with the Animal Defenders Office, a volunteer-run community legal centre. Tara has also worked in the offices of the Hon. Mark Pearson MLC and the Hon. Emma Hurst MLC, members of Animal Justice Party NSW.</span></em></p>Advocacy groups play a crucial and neglected role in revealing systemic animal mistreatment. We need to make their actions unnecessary by with better transparency in the industries.Serrin Rutledge-Prior, PhD Candidate; Sessional Academic, Australian National UniversityTara Ward, Lecturer, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1432122020-07-22T11:38:37Z2020-07-22T11:38:37ZNoisy Nationals score a win over Attorney-General Christian Porter on court appeal<p>A group of Nationals has won a fight to prevent the government appealing against a court judgment finding Labor’s 2011 suspension of live cattle exports to Indonesia was unlawful.</p>
<p>Attorney-General Christian Porter had favoured an appeal because of fears the decision could set a precedent limiting ministerial power.</p>
<p>But after a strong campaign spearheaded by Nationals senators, cabinet decided against appealing.</p>
<p>Sources said the push against an appeal had general support in the Nationals, including the backing of Agriculture Minister David Littleproud.</p>
<p>Scott Morrison was key to the outcome, wanting to ensure that Nationals leader Michael McCormack, whose leadership has been fragile, did not face a revolt over the issue.</p>
<p>In a statement on Wednesday, Porter said that as Morrison had said, live cattle exporters had been treated “egregiously” by the Gillard government. “The Coalition government will not jeopardise the outcome they have won in this case,” he said.</p>
<p>Former resources minister Matt Canavan, an instigator of the Nationals’ push, said in response to the decision, “You bloody beauty. It’s a great outcome”.</p>
<p>In his statement, Porter made clear his deep concern about the legal judgement, saying the government disagreed with some of the principles applied by the court.</p>
<p>“The court’s reasoning in this matter represents a departure from existing legal principles governing both the validity of delegated legislation and the tort of misfeasance in public office.</p>
<p>"The government reserves its right to press its view of the relevant legal principles if an appropriate case arises in the future,” he said.</p>
<p>But “while the decision raises some important issues of legal principle, they are far outweighed by the very real pain and hurt that the live export ban inflicted on our cattle industry”.</p>
<p>A letter signed by the party’s Senate leader, Bridget McKenzie, and other Nationals senators, had asked Porter to take into account not just the law but also “the hurt and pain a previous commonwealth government’s decision inflicted on the hard-working men and women of our live cattle industry.”</p>
<p>McCormack and Littlepround said in a joint statement on Wednesday the decision “is an outcome the Nationals in government fought hard to secure”.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/143212/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A group of Nationals has won a fight to prevent the government appealing against a court judgment finding Labor’s 2011 suspension of live cattle exports to Indonesia was unlawful.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1239982019-09-24T20:13:34Z2019-09-24T20:13:34ZThe ban on live sheep exports has just been lifted. Here’s what’s changed<p>The ban on live sheep exports was only ever intended to be temporary. The Australian government enacted the ban earlier this year to prevent sheep from being shipped to the Middle East from the beginning of June through to September 22 – the highest heat stress risk period.</p>
<p>During this time, sheep are adapted to the cooler temperatures of a southern Australian winter. And for this reason they find it difficult to cope with the sudden increase in temperature and humidity as the transport vessels undertake the two week journey to the Persian Gulf region.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/can-meat-exports-be-made-humane-here-are-three-key-strategies-96213">Can meat exports be made humane? Here are three key strategies</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>This ban affected any voyages where the vessel would travel through waters in the Arabian Sea north of latitude 11°N at any time – effectively stopping the Middle East sheep trade as the entrance to the Gulf of Aden is at 12°N.</p>
<h2>Why are Australian sheep shipped to the Middle East?</h2>
<p>It seems outwardly strange to ship live animals (and their feed) across an ocean just for them to be slaughtered for meat shortly after arrival. </p>
<p>But there is a demand for live Australian sheep in the Middle East, which means it’s economically viable for exporters to ship animals from southern Australia, particularly out of Fremantle, but also from ports including Portland and Adelaide. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/government-suspends-licence-of-biggest-live-sheep-exporter-98782">Government suspends licence of biggest live sheep exporter</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Western Australian farmers received an average price of A$117 for <a href="https://thewest.com.au/business/agriculture/new-live-export-shipping-rules-cost-up-to-25-per-sheep-ng-b881011537z">each exported sheep</a> during 2018, so the price of each sheep at the other end must be substantively greater. </p>
<p>There are significant animal welfare challenges in successfully live exporting sheep. Part of the problem has been that <a href="https://theconversation.com/can-live-animal-export-ever-be-humane-19804">the location</a> of the greatest concern for animal welfare is the Australian public. But the Australian public have no consumer power, they’re not the ones buying the sheep. </p>
<p>So, the Australian government has been required to “push” animal welfare requirements down the industry supply pipeline, rather than having these requirements being “pulled” through by market demand.</p>
<p>What we do not know is how the economics would change and whether additional market lines would open up for boxed meat – rather than live sheep – if the live trade were to be stopped. </p>
<h2>Why was the ban put in place for the first time in 2019?</h2>
<p>The ban was one of the consequences for the live sheep trade after disturbing <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/jan/31/live-exports-government-refuses-to-release-video-showing-heat-stress">video footage</a> was revealed in April 2018. The graphic video showed sheep suffering and dying due to apparent heat stress on voyages from Australia to the Middle East. </p>
<p>The government immediately commissioned a review into the <a href="http://www.agriculture.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/biosecurity/export/live-animals/mccarthy-report.pdf">conditions for the export of sheep</a> to the Middle East during the northern hemisphere summer. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/government-to-announce-increased-penalties-for-live-sheep-trade-96121">Government to announce increased penalties for live sheep trade</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>That review made a number of recommendations, which were then implemented by the government, <a href="http://www.agriculture.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/biosecurity/export/live-animals/response-mccarthy-review.pdf">including</a> increases in space allowance for sheep on board and independent auditing of ship ventilation systems. Government-appointed observers were also included on voyages, and the notifiable mortality threshold reduced from 2% to 1% of animals during a voyage.</p>
<p>A key recommendation was that the regulatory framework should change from minimising mortality from heat stress to, instead, safeguarding animal welfare. </p>
<p>The government then commissioned further reviews to determine how to implement this recommendation, including an independent technical reference group. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.agriculture.gov.au/export/controlled-goods/live-animals/livestock/history/review-northern-summer">This report</a> was released on September 20, and the government has stated it will be used along with other information to determine the regulations for how (or if) live sheep shipments occur during the northern summer of 2020.</p>
<h2>Are the changes sufficient?</h2>
<p>The live export industry <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/australia-has-resumed-live-sheep-exports-to-the-middle-east-despite-criticism">argues</a> they have succeeded in making substantial changes to how it operates since the original footage was revealed in 2018. </p>
<p>Whether these will be sufficient to prevent further revelations of heat stress incidents or other adverse animal welfare outcomes remains to be seen. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-history-of-live-exports-is-more-than-two-centuries-old-94730">Australia's history of live exports is more than two centuries old</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Including <a href="http://www.agriculture.gov.au/export/controlled-goods/live-animals/livestock/regulatory-framework/compliance-investigations/independent-observations-livestock-export-sea">independent observers</a> on voyages to keep an eye on animal welfare should increase the transparency of what happens to sheep during live export shipments. Although, there has been <a href="https://www.sheepcentral.com/frustration-over-delayed-live-export-independent-observer-reports/">criticism</a> of the delay in reporting from this initiative.</p>
<p>The new arrangements in place since 2018 and the temporary ban from June to September are unlikely to satisfy animal welfare advocates who are against live exports. On the other hand, the live export industry argues the sector is important for Australian livelihoods, including supporting sheep farmers. </p>
<p>What’s more, the current coalition government has repeatedly stated its commitment to maintaining a live export industry. Interestingly, the 2019 federal election was the first time there was a clear policy difference on the issue between the major parties, with the ALP committed to a phase-out of the live export sheep trade.</p>
<p>It will be interesting to watch whether this policy difference will remain after the ALP’s review of its 2019 election policies.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-alp-promises-to-phase-out-live-sheep-export-96049">The ALP promises to phase out live sheep export</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>But in terms of what more needs to be done, it’s likely impossible for policy-makers to satisfy all parties in the live export debate. </p>
<p>New <a href="http://www.agriculture.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/animal/department-response-asel-review.pdf">overarching standards</a> for the export of livestock from Australia are scheduled to be introduced soon, covering more than just heat stress risk. </p>
<p>However, those who are against the trade in live animals are unlikely to be persuaded to desist in their efforts. A repeated history of damaging incidents and revelations serves as a reminder of what may happen again in the future if the industry does not get to grips with its animal welfare responsibilities.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/123998/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Fisher received funding in 2008 from Meat and Livestock Australia in relation to reviewing their live export heat stress risk model. He has provided professional advice on expert panels to Government on live export and associated animal welfare issues, and was part of the Technical Review Panel advising the Government on live export heat stress risk assessment.</span></em></p>Independent observers will be on board the ships exporting live sheep to keep an eye on animal welfare.Andrew Fisher, Professor of Cattle & Sheep Production Medicine, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1162612019-05-01T20:17:45Z2019-05-01T20:17:45ZCan Labor’s animal welfare plan improve Australia’s lacklustre record?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/271915/original/file-20190501-142989-1714gr3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Labor plans to create a national strategy on animal welfare.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/farming-ranch-angus-hereford-cattle-1147701242?src=vGOwcpjj7GosnzOnO_cokQ-1-4">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Labor has released a <a href="https://www.alp.org.au/policies/national-leadership-on-animal-welfare/">six-point plan</a> intended to re-establish national leadership on animal welfare.</p>
<p>This plan would reverse the direction set by the Abbot government, which withdrew funding from the <a href="http://www.agriculture.gov.au/animal/welfare/aaws">Australian Animal Welfare Strategy</a> (AAWS) and disbanded the entire Animal Welfare Unit within the Department of Agriculture. These moves made animal welfare chiefly the responsibility of the states and territories.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/can-live-animal-export-ever-be-humane-19804">Can live animal export ever be humane?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Since then, the Coalition government has slightly redeemed itself, largely focusing on heat stress in live export, proposing <a href="http://www.agriculture.gov.au/about/media-centre/media-releases/draft-report-live-sheep-hsra">new regulations around temperature</a>. This renewed attention to livestock welfare could have far-reaching consequences if rolled out to other sectors of animal husbandry, such as land transport.</p>
<p>Labor has argued creating an independent office overseeing livestock welfare and a nationally consistent welfare strategy can improve Australia’s poor record on animal well-being. </p>
<h2>A brand new office</h2>
<p>Labor’s plan would create an independent office overseeing livestock welfare and pursue a nationally consistent welfare strategy. The first point of the plan commits Labor to establishing an independent Inspector-General of Animal Welfare (IGAW) and Live Animal Exports. Labor has pledged A$1 million a year to establish the IGAW as a statutory position operating independently within the federal Department of Agriculture. </p>
<p>The IGAW would report directly to the agriculture minister and advise on the protection of animals in all Commonwealth-regulated activities (which notably excludes racing and companion animals) with a focus on live exports and welfare standards and guidelines. </p>
<p>The Inspector-General would also work with the states and territories to establish an independent Office of Animal Welfare to oversee animal protection and welfare nationally. </p>
<p>The independence of this office is particularly significant in light of the recent government-funded Futureye report on <a href="http://www.agriculture.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/animal/farm-animal-welfare.pdf">Australia’s shifting mindset on farm animal welfare</a>, the <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2018-10-31/live-export-review-littleproud-responds-to-moss-report/10447724">Moss Review</a> and the <a href="https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/agriculture/report/agriculture-overview.pdf">Productivity Commission report</a>, all of which questioned whether the government has a conflict of interest when both supporting the agricultural industry and promoting good animal welfare standards.</p>
<h2>The return of cooperation</h2>
<p>Secondly, it has pledged to re-establish state and territory cooperation on animal welfare matters (as was the case under the former Labor government). This system saw the Commonwealth, states and territories cooperating on animal welfare matters to grant them a consistent national approach.</p>
<p>Thirdly, Labor will collaborate with state and territory governments, industry and animal welfare groups to “update and renew” (and hopefully fund) the Australian Animal Welfare Strategy, which has been in mothballs since September 2013.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/live-sheep-exporters-get-longer-grace-period-for-sub-standard-ships-97858">Live sheep exporters get longer 'grace' period for sub-standard ships</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The strategy facilitates round-table discussions among industry, governments, professional associations, service providers, researchers and welfare organisations, all volunteering their time to assess welfare problems and possible solutions.</p>
<p>Those of us who have contributed to AAWS meetings in the past generally agree that face-to-face collaborations with such a broad range of stakeholders were invaluable. The Animal Welfare League Australia has described the <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/BudgetReview201415/Animal">the AAWS</a> as worth “tens of millions [to Australia], given the huge amount of pro bono and in-kind support the working groups provided.”</p>
<h2>Transparency and change in live exports</h2>
<p>Fourthly, Labor has pledged to conduct a review of the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System (ESCAS). Introduced in May 2011, in response to an <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-05-30/doco-reveals-australian-cattle-tortured-overseas/2737644">ABC Four Corners program</a> that exposed horrific scenes of cruelty in Indonesian abattoirs, the ESCAS is designed to protect animal welfare from the farm gate to slaughter.</p>
<p>The need for close scrutiny of such assurance schemes was highlighted last month when <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-04/australian-dairy-cattle-sent-to-sri-lanka-dying-malnourished/10936258">hundreds of Australian and New Zealand cattle died</a> after being exported to Sri Lanka. This has led RSPCA Australia to repeat previous calls to <a href="https://rspca.org.au/media-centre/news/2019/rspca-calls-urgent-action-address-major-live-export-loophole">extend ESCAS protections to breeding and dairy cattle</a>. </p>
<p>On the other hand, it is unclear why there is any need to <a href="https://www.alp.org.au/policies/national-leadership-on-animal-welfare/">review ESCAS top to bottom</a> as another point in Labor’s plan is to immediately ban the northern summer live sheep trade, and phase out live sheep trade entirely within five years.</p>
<p>Given 58% of Australians surveyed on the <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-26/vote-compass-live-exports-almost-two-thirds-support-ban/11046230">ABC’s Vote Compass wanted to see an end to live export</a>, Labor may be accused of not going far enough in planning an end to all live exports and failing to support growth in on-shore meat processing, particularly in the north of Australia.</p>
<h2>Regular farm reports</h2>
<p>Finally, Labour has committed to more transparency and accountability in farm animal welfare matters by ensuring the Minister for Agriculture provides quarterly reports to the Parliament on:</p>
<ul>
<li>new and emerging markets</li>
<li>the numbers of livestock exported</li>
<li>allegations of breaches of animal welfare standards and investigations undertaken </li>
<li>any actions taken for breaches of Australia’s animal welfare standards. </li>
</ul>
<p>These would feed into the emerging calls for industries that use animals to <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-horse-racing-in-australia-needs-a-social-licence-to-operate-79492">maintain a social license</a> to do so.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-horse-racing-in-australia-needs-a-social-licence-to-operate-79492">Why horse-racing in Australia needs a social licence to operate</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Catching-up to do</h2>
<p>Labor’s claim their plan will “confirm Australia as a leader in our region for the care and protection of animals” is a lofty goal – especially given how poorly Australia ranks in World Animal Protection’s international listing of <a href="https://api.worldanimalprotection.org/">animal welfare performance</a>. </p>
<p>Under this scheme, countries are scored on, among other attributes, recognition of animal sentience, the importance of animal protection as a social value within the country and government regulation against cruelty. On a scale from A to G, Australia currently has a C rating, on a par with China.</p>
<p>Currently, the costs of Australia’s dropping the ball on animal welfare issues are difficult to pin down. Monitoring animal welfare science and meeting community expectations, as proposed in the Labor plan, may prove critical for the next government, regardless of its leaning. </p>
<p>The cost of picking up the ball as animal welfare matures as a political issue may make Labor’s welcome, but modest, pledges look like great value for money.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/stop-the-sheep-trade-in-the-northern-summer-veterinarians-say-96227">Stop the sheep trade in the northern summer, veterinarians say</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p><br></p>
<hr>
<p><em>This article was corrected on May 2, 2019. The Coalition government’s proposed regulations on temperature stress have not yet been implemented.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/116261/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paul McGreevy consults on a voluntary basis to the RSPCA Australia and is a lifetime member of the RSPCA NSW. He receives funding from the Australian Research Council and is a board member of Vets Against Live Exports</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Clive Phillips consults to the Federal Department of Agriculture and Water Resources on live export through the Heat Stress Risk Assessment Committee, he also chairs the Queensland government's Animal Welfare Advisory Board. He is on the Scientific Panel for Voiceless. He consults to the Department of Agriculture and Food, WA, on live export and has received in kind support from several live export companies. He receives funding from the Open Philanthropy Organisation and has received funding previously from Humane Society International, Humane Slaughter Association, Livecorp, and Meat and Livestock Australia for work on livestock export. He is affiliated with the University of Queensland. </span></em></p>Labor hopes their six-point plan could turn around Australia’s poor international reputation on animal welfare.Paul McGreevy, Professor of Animal Behaviour and Animal Welfare Science, University of SydneyClive Phillips, Professor of Animal Welfare, Centre for Animal Welfare and Ethics, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/968492018-05-18T05:37:52Z2018-05-18T05:37:52ZThe live export trade is unethical. It puts money ahead of animals’ pain<p>Last month millions of Australians saw <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-10/9634420">footage</a> of sheep dying slowly from heat and thirst while being shipped on the Awassi Express from Fremantle in Western Australia to Doha, Qatar. The voyage was last August, and what viewers saw was a very small portion of the suffering undergone by the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/09/world/australia/qatar-sheep-deaths.html">2,400 sheep who reportedly died</a> on that one voyage. The suffering came to light only because a whistleblower working on the ship was so disturbed by what he saw that he took video and sent it to Animals Australia.</p>
<p>Federal Agriculture Minister David Littleproud, a <a href="http://davidlittleproud.com.au/about/">Nationals MP from rural Queensland with a background in agribusiness</a>, said he was “<a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-05/agriculture-minister-david-littleproud-live-export-sheep-deaths/9623202">shocked and gutted</a>” by the footage. As Littleproud’s reaction shows, it is not just those at the vegan/animal-rights/green end of the political spectrum who are horrified by these scenes.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/liberal-rebel-will-proceed-with-bill-after-government-preserves-sheep-trade-96788">Liberal rebel will proceed with bill after government preserves sheep trade</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>On many other occasions, I have <a href="https://www.peta.org/about-peta/learn-about-peta/ingrid-newkirk/animal-liberation/">argued</a> that we ought to give the same weight to the suffering of animals as we give to similar forms of human suffering. In my view that means that in most circumstances we shouldn’t be eating animals at all, but that is not the main issue here. Even those who think that human interests normally override the interests of animals can see that what happened on the Awassi Express was wrong and ought not to be allowed to happen again.</p>
<p>So what did Littleproud do? He set up an inquiry. Fair enough. But to head the inquiry and make recommendations, he appointed Michael McCarthy, a vet who has spent most of his career working as a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/23/live-exports-review-animal-welfare-groups-criticise-vets-appointment">paid contractor to the live export industry</a>, including work for Emanuel Exports, the company that stocked the Awassi Express. </p>
<p>It wasn’t a surprise, therefore, to read yesterday that McCarthy <a href="http://www.agriculture.gov.au/export/controlled-goods/live-animals/livestock/history/review-northern-summer">did not recommend an end to the live export trade</a>. He didn’t even go along with the recommendation of the Australian Veterinary Association, which favoured <a href="https://theconversation.com/stop-the-sheep-trade-in-the-northern-summer-veterinarians-say-96227">suspending the trade for the northern summer</a>. The association said that during those months there is no way to eliminate the risk of sheep suffering and dying from heat stress.</p>
<p>Instead, McCarthy ignored a <a href="http://www.animalsaustralia.org/features/mp-live-export-mccarthy-review.php">decade of data</a> showing that lower stocking densities do not overcome the welfare problems that frequently occur in hot weather. He recommended that the trade continue, with lower stocking densities and some other requirements, none of which can guarantee even a minimally decent standard of animal welfare.</p>
<h2>The suffering goes on</h2>
<p>After seeing the suffering of the sheep, Littleproud said: “This cannot go on.” But under McCarthy’s recommendations, it will go on. We’ve seen it all before. In July 2016, <a href="https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/a-one-off-for-the-awassi-express#gs.8LKnikY">more than 3,000 sheep died</a> on the same ship, the Awassi Express. It’s a recurring pattern: every few years more evidence of the suffering of the sheep comes to light, there are expressions of shock and outrage, new conditions are imposed on the industry, things go quiet for a while, and then it all happens again.</p>
<p>Why? In the moral framework in which the trade operates, sheep are cargo, something to be moved from A to B because you can get more money for them at B than you can at A. Of course, the less you pay for the transport the more you profit, so exporters are always going to try to cut corners.</p>
<p>Sheep are not iron ore or wheat. They are sentient beings who cannot protest against what we are doing to them, except by dying. We are handing them over to people who have no special concern for their well-being, on a ship far from the eyes of the media. We may put veterinarians or other observers on board, but on a long voyage it is only human nature to try to get along with the others on board and not cause problems. The mistake is to put the sheep in such a vulnerable situation in the first place.</p>
<p>Even the sheep who survive the journey and are landed in the Middle East remain vulnerable. Once landed, we have no control over how they are treated and slaughtered. No regulations can prevent Australian sheep being taken to a place where they may be bought at a local market, trussed by the legs, dumped in the boot of a car and driven home to have their throats cut, fully conscious, by an inexperienced person celebrating <em>Eid al Adha</em>, the Festival of Sacrifice.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/stop-the-sheep-trade-in-the-northern-summer-veterinarians-say-96227">Stop the sheep trade in the northern summer, veterinarians say</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>If we were living in desperate poverty, we might have some excuse for putting our survival ahead of the suffering of sheep. But Australia is one of the world’s wealthiest countries. We do not need to continue this trade, and it is not difficult to see that what we are doing is wrong.</p>
<p>The best hope now lies in a bill that Liberal MP Sussan Ley is <a href="https://theconversation.com/liberal-rebel-will-proceed-with-bill-after-government-preserves-sheep-trade-96788">planning to move in parliament</a> to end or at least phase out the live export trade. Senator Derryn Hinch and the Greens have also been strong supporters of halting the trade. </p>
<p>This is every bit as much a question of ethics as same-sex marriage, and members of parliament should be free to vote in accordance with their conscience. If a majority votes against the trade they would remove a stain from our national conscience too.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/96849/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Singer does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In choosing not to ban the live export trade even in the hottest northern months, the federal government is allowing animals to be put in conditions where they cannot possibly escape suffering.Peter Singer, Professor of Ethical Issues in Biotechnology, Justice and the Human Good, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/962132018-05-09T02:17:41Z2018-05-09T02:17:41ZCan meat exports be made humane? Here are three key strategies<p>Horrific footage of animals dying in <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/boiled-alive-new-footage-shows-full-scale-of-live-exports-horror-20180503-p4zd9q.html">extreme heat</a> aboard ships has raised fresh questions over the future of Australia’s live export industry.</p>
<p>Federal Agriculture Minister David Littleproud has announced a <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/foreign-affairs/littleproud-blasts-shortens-call-for-live-sheep-export-ban/news-story/b405ab26bd75d4f7c8c3b0f78b19824b">review of the sheep trade</a> to the Middle East, while the federal Labor party has promised to <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2018-05-08/how-new-zealand-banned-live-export-trading/9733146">ban the trade</a> if it wins the next election. Farmers’ groups argue that the industry is <a href="http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/farmers-argue-against-banning-live-exports/news-story/981d4578cde8b0987d689f5d745bf02c">too important</a> to halt. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-alp-promises-to-phase-out-live-sheep-export-96049">The ALP promises to phase out live sheep export</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>So what do we need to do to humanely sell Australia’s meat to the world? Can the meat be processed on our shores? And with many of Australia’s livestock destined for the Middle East or Indonesia, can religious slaughter requirements be met while avoiding unnecessary animal suffering?</p>
<p>We asked three experts: an agricultural specialist, a veterinarian and a religious scholar.</p>
<h2>Increase regional Australian meat processing</h2>
<p><strong>Andrew Butt, Associate Professor in Sustainability and Urban Planning, RMIT University</strong></p>
<p>Meat exports, particularly beef, have increased considerably in recent decades, overtaking wheat to become Australia’s <a href="http://data.daff.gov.au/data/warehouse/agcstd9abcc002/agcstd9abcc0022017_IugZg/ACS_2017_v1.1.0_lr.pdf">largest agricultural export by value</a>. </p>
<p>However, only about <a href="http://data.daff.gov.au/data/warehouse/9aal/2017/aaim17_20171121/AusAgIndMap2017_v.1.1.0.pdf">20% of beef exports by carcass weight</a> are live, mostly to Indonesia. For sheep meat (lamb and mutton), the proportions are similar, with about 20% by carcass weight comprising live exports going almost exclusively to Middle East markets. Lamb exports have increased fivefold over the past two decades, while domestic consumption has remained flat. </p>
<p>The national figures nevertheless conceal considerable regional variation. In some places, most or all of the production happens within the same local areas. </p>
<p>The regions of New England and of Toowoomba and Darling Downs, for example, have relatively high levels of employment in both agriculture and meat processing. Conversely, 10% of outback Queensland’s workforce is in beef cattle farming – the highest in Australia – but local processing employment is virtually non-existent. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-alp-promises-to-phase-out-live-sheep-export-96049">The ALP promises to phase out live sheep export</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>In many regions, the abattoir and meat-processing industries are seeing changes common to other industries: rationalisation and <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2017-08-22/nolan-meats-expands-fully-automated-cold-storage-facility/8829772here">automation</a>.</p>
<p>We have an opportunity to improve the way we handle meat processing in Australia. Orthodox regional development policy would seek to retain as many stages of production as possible in the local region – in this case growing, feed production, transport, slaughtering and packing of meat products. By increasing meat processing in areas with large farming communities, we can strengthen these chains.</p>
<p>Live sheep and cattle exports are contingent on the cultural preferences <em>and</em> supply-chain limitations of key overseas markets. That is, some countries may not have the reliable refrigeration needed to keep processed meat fresh.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/can-live-animal-export-ever-be-humane-19804">Can live animal export ever be humane?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>It may be possible to seamlessly substitute this trade for domestically slaughtered and processed meat, but this should be considered in the context of a highly differentiated industry with pronounced regional differences.</p>
<h2>Improve shipping conditions</h2>
<p><strong>Andrew Fisher, Professor of Cattle and Sheep Production Medicine, University of Melbourne</strong></p>
<p>The welfare challenges for sheep during the current live export process are centred around five issues: </p>
<ol>
<li>failing to eat during the voyage </li>
<li>salmonella infection of the gastrointestinal tract (often linked to failure to eat) </li>
<li>heat stress </li>
<li>other onboard conditions related to lying space, lying conditions and ease of access to food and water </li>
<li>handling and conditions in the receiving country, including treatment at slaughter.</li>
</ol>
<p>Heat stress was the primary cause of the recently revealed sheep deaths on board the Awassi Express in August 2017. </p>
<p>Sheep exported from Australia during the southern winter are at greater risk of heat stress. This is because the animals are adapted to cooler conditions before being exposed to the climate of the Equator and the Middle East, which is hottest at that time of the year.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/stop-the-sheep-trade-in-the-northern-summer-veterinarians-say-96227">Stop the sheep trade in the northern summer, veterinarians say</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The risk of heat stress causing suffering and death can be reduced to some extent by reducing the stocking density of the sheep on a voyage. This enhances airflow around the animals and reduces the build-up of humidity and ammonia from the accumulating manure. The actual space available to each sheep would vary with the weight of the sheep and the ventilation design of the ship.</p>
<p>Eliminating almost all risk of heat stress would probably mean having much lower stocking densities all the time, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/stop-the-sheep-trade-in-the-northern-summer-veterinarians-say-96227">avoiding shipments entirely during the Australian winter</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-history-of-live-exports-is-more-than-two-centuries-old-94730">Australia's history of live exports is more than two centuries old</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The use of very low stocking densities or even air-conditioned ships may be technically feasible (just as it is for human passengers). In practice, however, the economics of this may prompt a shift away from the mass live export of sheep for slaughter.</p>
<h2>Engage with religious leaders</h2>
<p><strong>Shakira Hussein, McKenzie Postdoctoral Fellow, National Centre for Excellence in Islamic Studies, University of Melbourne</strong></p>
<p>A large portion of Australia’s live exports go to Muslim-majority Middle Eastern countries and Indonesia. (As previously noted, one major reason is limited refrigeration facilities outside major cities.)</p>
<p>Another factor is the need for meat to be slaughtered according to religious rules, making the meat either halal or kosher.</p>
<p>Halal and kosher slaughter is supposed to provide the animal with a quick and humane death. But there is some dispute over the exact details, so not all of the “halal-certified” meat processed in Australia is regarded as acceptable by all Muslim communities. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-halal-and-how-does-certification-work-36300">Explainer: what is halal, and how does certification work?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Broadly speaking, for both halal and kosher meat, the animal’s throat must be cut and the blood drained (as the consumption of blood is prohibited). Animals should be slaughtered individually so they are not subjected to the sight of other animals being killed.</p>
<p>The major issue is that Australian regulations require that animals be stunned before being killed. Some Islamic scholars argue that this is not halal, on the grounds that it may kill the animal before the blood has been fully drained. </p>
<p>However, all halal chicken and the vast majority of halal livestock slaughtered in Australia are pre-stunned. This includes meat for both the export and domestic markets.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-the-ethics-of-ritual-slaughter-2101">Explainer: the ethics of ritual slaughter</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>A small number of Australian slaughterhouses have been granted exemptions from the requirement to pre-stun animals, to provide for halal and in particular kosher slaughter. Kosher slaughter does not accommodate pre-stunning. In these cases, cattle are stunned after the throat is cut, while sheep must be stunned if the animal does not quickly lose consciousness.</p>
<p>Refrigerated meat cannot entirely substitute for live exports because freshly slaughtered meat is regarded as being higher quality. The festival of <em>Eid al Adha</em> also involves the slaughter of livestock as part of the ritual. </p>
<p>If Australia were to end live exports, it would be important to reduce the negative impact on societies such as Indonesia by supporting the development of the local livestock industry and of refrigeration facilities in regional areas. </p>
<p>Local Muslim community organisations and leaders can also play a crucial role by emphasising that the compassionate treatment of animals is a core element of Islam and that unnecessary cruelty is not halal.</p>
<p><br></p>
<hr>
<p><em><strong>Correction:</strong> This article was updated at 4:47pm on May 9. A previous version of the article omitted the qualifier “by carcass weight” when stating the percentage of live meat exported from Australia. This error was introduced during the editing process.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/96213/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Fisher received funding in 2008 from Meat and Livestock Australia in relation to reviewing their live export heat stress risk model. He has provided unpaid professional advice on expert panels to Government on live export and associated animal welfare issues.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Butt and Shakira Hussein do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In the face of shocking footage of animals dying on ships, it seems impossible that our live export trade will remain as it is. Here are three areas to address.Andrew Butt, Associate Professor in Sustainability and Urban Planning, RMIT UniversityAndrew Fisher, Professor of Cattle & Sheep Production Medicine, The University of MelbourneShakira Hussein, McKenzie Postdoctoral Fellow; Writer and researcher, National Centre for Excellence in Islamic Studies, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/947302018-04-10T19:58:00Z2018-04-10T19:58:00ZAustralia’s history of live exports is more than two centuries old<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/214023/original/file-20180410-75767-1u99jz6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A sheep undergoing live export in 2017.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Animals Australia</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>A recent episode of <a href="https://www.9news.com.au/national/2018/04/08/21/06/60-minutes-live-export-sheep-vessel">60 Minutes</a> has captured public attention and the political agenda by airing dramatic video footage from Animals Australia, showing the fate of Australian animals in the live export trade.</p>
<p>Video shot secretly by a crew member shows sheep on five separate voyages from Fremantle to the Middle East last year. They are buffeted by the movement of the ship, strain to breathe in the hot, noisy and acrid atmosphere between decks and trample the dead and dying under their hooves.</p>
<p>But while these glimpses inside a transport ship are new, the practice of live animal export is as old as the European colonisation of Australia. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/can-live-animal-export-ever-be-humane-19804">Can live animal export ever be humane?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Animals of the new colony</h2>
<p>The first arrival of animals that would later be exported from Australia, including sheep, cattle and goats, can be dated with unusual precision to January 1788. </p>
<p>Like the convict workforce who made up the bulk of the human cargo on the First Fleet, the livestock, purchased mainly at the Cape of Good Hope, were considered necessary to transplant a British society and economy in Antipodean soil. Live animal import from other colonies, like India and Batavia, and from Europe continued throughout the first century of colonisation. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/214031/original/file-20180410-75793-1his9jf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/214031/original/file-20180410-75793-1his9jf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/214031/original/file-20180410-75793-1his9jf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=479&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/214031/original/file-20180410-75793-1his9jf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=479&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/214031/original/file-20180410-75793-1his9jf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=479&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/214031/original/file-20180410-75793-1his9jf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=602&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/214031/original/file-20180410-75793-1his9jf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=602&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/214031/original/file-20180410-75793-1his9jf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=602&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Hoists were used to load and unload live animals in ports without purpose-built ramps. This photograph demonstrates the practice in India in 1895.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/wtc.4a02965.">Source: William Henry Jackson, World’s Transportation Commission photograph collection. Library of Congress</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Breeds that suited the climate and their roles in the colony, especially those that helped displace native plants and animals and Indigenous peoples, were sought after and carefully nurtured.</p>
<p>Gradually the inward flow of animals reversed. Flocks and herds increased to the point where some could be <a href="http://www.whpress.co.uk/EH/papers/830.pdf">sold on to other destinations</a>. Initially, this was to the other colonies Britain was establishing in the region, such as Van Diemen’s Land (now Tasmania), Western Australia, New Zealand and South Australia. These animals were primarily traded to establish new populations at their destinations.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.whpress.co.uk/EH/papers/830.pdf">Animals from New South Wales</a> were also sent to the French colony of New Caledonia, and in small numbers farther afield to Russia, Japan and India. As numbers rose, larger-scale live export for consumption became established. </p>
<h2>A hidden process</h2>
<p>As in the present, this trade had distinct phases, some more visible than others. The process began where the animals were raised, generally on lightly stocked rangelands in the interior. They were driven on foot or loaded onto rail carriages to be taken to ports, where they waited in open yards to be loaded onto ships. </p>
<p>Thus far, the animals were moving through public spaces, where their treatment and conditions could be seen and in some cases recorded. Members of the public could register their concerns and seek to have mistreatment addressed. And even in a period when animal welfare was still an emerging concept, some did. </p>
<p>Railcars laden with frightened stock led to <a href="http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article1367032">complaints</a> about overcrowding and lack of access to food and water. One observer labelled such treatment “as gross a case of cruelty as it is possible to conceive”.</p>
<p>However, once the animals were hoisted or walked onto ships, they became invisible. No outsider could see them. Only those involved with the voyage knew how densely they were packed, how secure their pens were, whether their dung was cleared away, or how much food and water they received over journeys that could last for weeks. In the case of sheep, the advice was to pack them like wool bales, so tightly pressed together that they prevented one another from falling over. </p>
<p>In many cases, the animals were barely seen at all, except by one another, being left to their own devices on short voyages. During longer trips they would be tended to minimally, because of the toxic environment created below deck by what were termed their “exhalations of carbonic gases”. </p>
<p>Even the evidence of how many died on the voyages was hidden. Their bodies were thrown overboard before reaching port and few records were kept. </p>
<p>Animals carried on open decks could be seen while at the docks and had access to better-quality air, but were more vulnerable to high seas and inclement weather.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/214032/original/file-20180410-75764-109qbzt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/214032/original/file-20180410-75764-109qbzt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/214032/original/file-20180410-75764-109qbzt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=449&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/214032/original/file-20180410-75764-109qbzt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=449&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/214032/original/file-20180410-75764-109qbzt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=449&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/214032/original/file-20180410-75764-109qbzt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=564&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/214032/original/file-20180410-75764-109qbzt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=564&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/214032/original/file-20180410-75764-109qbzt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=564&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Animals carried on open decks could be seen while at the docks and had access to better-quality air, but were also vulnerable to high seas and inclement weather. Sheep in pens on a ship’s deck, Sydney Harbour, circa 1929.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Sam Hood photograph, State Library of New South Wales, Home and Away, 4066.</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>At the other end of the journey, the exported animals came back into view. This was often when the most useful accounts were recorded. Complaints about their poor condition, reduced numbers or the loss of entire shipments of animals were considered worthy of writing about in local newspapers by those who had eagerly awaited their arrival. It is at the receiving end of the export process that <a href="http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article128922323">accusations</a> of flimsy pens, overcrowding or the loading of animals that were not fit for the voyage can be found. </p>
<p>Taking this longer view of the Australian live export trade shows just how extraordinary the opportunity to see what happens during live export is. Animals Australia has <a href="https://secure.animalsaustralia.org/documents/aamedia/20006_animals-australia-background-briefing-sheep-export.pdf">noted</a> that “Australia’s live sheep trade has operated for over five decades with only those financially invested in the trade having visual access to the conditions and welfare implications for the sheep on-board”. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/assessing-australias-regulation-of-live-animal-exports-16427">Assessing Australia’s regulation of live animal exports</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>This has been an issue for much longer than 50 years, but it’s now possible for outsiders – including farmers, politicians and members of the public – to see the appalling conditions of the live export trade for themselves. </p>
<hr>
<p><em>This article is based on a blog post originally published by <a href="https://whitehorsepress.blog/2018/02/19/hazardous-commodities-australian-live-animal-export-from-the-long-nineteenth-century-to-today/">White Horse Press</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/94730/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nancy Cushing has received funding from the State Library of NSW. </span></em></p>Footage of sheep transport conditions have shocked many, but live export has a long history in Australia.Nancy Cushing, Associate professor, University of NewcastleLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/622842016-07-11T19:38:22Z2016-07-11T19:38:22ZGreyhound ban shows need for joined-up thinking across all animal industries<p>There is <a href="http://www.greyhoundracinginquiry.justice.nsw.gov.au">ample evidence</a> of systematic cruelty and regulatory failure with which to justify the New South Wales government’s <a href="http://www.greyhoundracinginquiry.justice.nsw.gov.au/">decision to ban greyhound racing</a>. But this is a single industry in a single state – if we step back and look at the wider picture we see a telling lack of consistency in animal welfare policy and practice around the nation.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2015/02/16/4178920.htm">ABC Four Corners investigation</a> that sparked the NSW inquiry found <a href="https://theconversation.com/greyhound-racing-in-disgrace-as-riches-push-trainers-to-barbarity-37652">wrongdoing in multiple jurisdictions</a>. Yet only the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-07/greyhound-racing-has-no-future-in-act-chief-minister-says/7578196">ACT is set to follow NSW’s lead in banning the greyhound industry</a> rather than simply pledging to increase oversight. </p>
<p>How many trainers will simply move interstate, taking the animal welfare problems with them?</p>
<p>Even within states, there is considerable inconsistency in the regulation of different animal sectors. The Baird government has rightly condemned the <a href="http://www.greyhoundracinginquiry.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/fact-sheet-greyhound-racing-industry-nsw-special-commission-of-inquiry.pdf">killing of up to 68,000 greyhounds over the past 12 years</a>. Yet <a href="http://www.olg.nsw.gov.au/public/dogs-and-cats/companion-animal-taskforce">tens of thousands of cats and dogs are killed</a> every year in NSW because the government has failed to control their breeding and sale.</p>
<p>The government has already held two inquiries into this issue: first by the <a href="https://www.olg.nsw.gov.au/public/dogs-and-cats/companion-animal-taskforce">Companion Animals Taskforce</a>, which reported in 2012, and then by a <a href="https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/committees/listofcommittees/Pages/committee-details.aspx?pk=161">parliamentary committee on companion animal breeding practices</a> in 2015. But in contrast to the swift response on greyhounds, the recommendations have been timid and government action glacial.</p>
<p>Still in NSW, but on a very different issue, the increased land clearing likely to accompany <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-nsw-government-is-choosing-to-undermine-native-vegetation-and-biodiversity-59066">proposed changes to native vegetation laws</a> will have significant impacts on the habitat of native animals. Why is this not also a major animal welfare issue?</p>
<p>Inconsistent policy and practice are not confined to NSW. In Victoria, while the state government has <a href="https://www.viclabor.com.au/media-releases/puppies-safer-under-labor-the-crackdown-continues/">tightened laws governing pets</a>, it continues to allow <a href="http://theconversation.com/jumps-racing-what-a-waste-1252">jumps racing for horses</a> and the recreational shooting of ducks. Both activities are banned in many other parts of the country.</p>
<h2>Philosophical anomalies</h2>
<p>Policy inconsistency reflects anomalies at the philosophical level. Without a hint of irony, the NSW inquiry <a href="http://www.greyhoundracinginquiry.justice.nsw.gov.au/">condemns the treatment of greyhounds</a> as “commercial commodities, not animals to be cherished and loved”. However, this legal property status underpins the regulation of all domestic animals. </p>
<p>This is most clearly evident in livestock industries, with the routine commodification of animals and acceptance of mass “wastage”. This is precisely the issue cited as the <a href="https://theconversation.com/greyhound-racing-ban-nsw-is-looking-at-the-industry-from-the-dogs-point-of-view-62197">main rationale for the greyhound ban</a>.</p>
<p>How to explain this different thinking, when livestock animals are as individual as pets and just as capable of feeling pleasure and pain? If it is necessary to rely on animals as our main source of food and fibre – and this idea is <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-arent-more-people-vegetarian-58367">increasingly contested</a> – does not their sentience demand at the very least a much greater measure of humane treatment? </p>
<p>In any case, if greyhounds are considered more deserving because they are dogs rather than cows, pigs or chickens, this brings us back to the question of why breeders of pet dogs and cats haven’t met with similarly strong action as those who breed dogs for racing. </p>
<h2>Barriers to reform</h2>
<p>The NSW greyhound inquiry has also raised another issue that cuts across animal industries: the conflict of interest that arises when one body is responsible both for promoting the industry and for regulating welfare within it. It is no coincidence that examples of animal cruelty in the live export and greyhound racing industries have both been exposed by animal activists and the media, rather than the regulators.</p>
<p>Premier Mike Baird has <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/greyhounds-voters-led-mike-baird-to-crackdown-on-industry-20160707-gq0t2s.html">acknowledged</a> his failure to pay sufficient attention to the concerns of animal advocates, including the dissenting views of John Kaye, the late Greens MLC and deputy chair of a <a href="http://23.101.218.132/greyhoundracing">2014 parliamentary inquiry</a> into greyhound racing. In that inquiry, the majority report found that “the incidence of greyhound cruelty and neglect is minimal”, despite <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-28/greyhound-inquiry-member-critical-of-welfare-inaction/5353088">compelling submissions to the contrary</a>.</p>
<p>It is heartening to note Baird’s <a href="https://www.facebook.com/mikebairdMP/posts/1135211593273747">recognition</a> of the importance the public attaches to animal welfare. Unfortunately, belated and inconsistent government conduct tends to trigger cynicism even if the action is properly informed and courageous; witness Baird’s subsequent denials that it was all a <a href="http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/nsw-greyhound-racing-to-resume/news-story/b14db0de0fff14dcb7e243544c43328b">ruse to hand dog tracks to property developers</a>. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-09/greyhound-racing-ban-competitions-to-recommence-next-week/7583080">reaction to the ban by industry</a> and the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-11/greyhound-racing-ban-opposition-leader-vows-to-fight-plan/7585196">NSW Labor opposition</a> make it clear that a conservative government is not immune to the kind of political and legal backlash that followed the federal Labor government’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/australia-owes-indonesia-an-apology-over-live-export-calamity-4802">2011 suspension of live exports to Indonesia</a> over animal welfare issues.</p>
<p>None of this is conducive to the sustained reform that is urgently needed. Moreover, it is symptomatic of a regulatory framework that is showing its age. A more coherent strategy is required, one that identifies animal welfare problems consistently and proactively, with long-term planning and nationally consistent implementation. The establishment of an independent office of animal welfare, ideally at federal level, is critical to leading this kind of change.</p>
<p>Better planning and greater consistency would improve animal welfare as well as minimising the negative impact on human lives when changes are made. This would also prove advantageous for governments, by helping to shield action taken in good faith from attacks by political opponents and vested interests.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/62284/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Elizabeth Ellis is a life member of the RSPCA and a member of the Australasian Animal Studies Association and Animals Australia. </span></em></p>New South Wales’ ban on greyhound racing is a response to the high rate of animal deaths in the industry. But what about other states, and other animal industries, where the problem is prevalent too?Elizabeth Ellis, Honorary Senior Fellow, School of Law, Faculty of Law, Humanities & the Arts, University of WollongongLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/612042016-06-17T06:50:16Z2016-06-17T06:50:16ZCattle ‘sledgehammering’ in Vietnam raises yet more questions over live export<p>Recent revelations about the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2016/s4483472.htm">sledgehammering to death of what seem to be Australian cattle</a> in Vietnam provide <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/live-exports">further evidence</a> of the government’s inability to control how exported livestock are slaughtered overseas.</p>
<p>An Animals Australia investigation reported by ABC’s 7.30 showed what are reportedly Australian cattle being slaughtered in three abattoirs. Australia has <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/live-cattle-trade-to-vietnam-suspended/news-story/20f084d44a80d00ee949dda10c732de4">suspended trade to the facilities</a> while they are investigated. </p>
<p>The government’s tool to try to ensure humane slaughter is known as the <a href="http://www.agriculture.gov.au/export/controlled-goods/live-animals/livestock/information-exporters-industry/escas">Export Supply Chain Assurance Scheme (ESCAS)</a>. This requires cattle to be killed in accordance with <a href="http://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=chapitre_aw_slaughter.htm">World Animal Health Organisation standards</a>. Killing cattle by hitting with a sledgehammer, although common practice in Vietnam, is not allowed by the standards.</p>
<p>The other requirements of ESCAS offer little reassurance to the Australian community that welfare will be safeguarded. Under the standards, cattle must be traced. This means we should know which cattle are Australian, and be able to control and audit the supply chain.</p>
<p>There are problems with this model. Supply-chain control is desirable but potentially contravenes the principles of the World Trade Organisation. Auditing is only as good as the manner in which it is undertaken, and <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-25/government-reduces-audits-live-export-facilities-escas/6347444">there has been much recent debate</a> about this.</p>
<p>But beyond problems with Australian regulations, there are broader issues with sending live cattle overseas, and to Vietnam in particular. </p>
<h2>What do people in Vietnam think about slaughter?</h2>
<p>Vietnam is a relatively poor country, and has been even poorer in its recent history. There is little culture of caring for animal welfare when human welfare is the primary concern. Of even greater concern regarding the animals is the fact that Vietnam now acts as a staging post for Australian cattle that are ultimately en route to China and other Asian markets.</p>
<p>In <a href="http://www.livecorp.com.au/LC/files/30/30bad784-dce7-4ec2-a8a7-c65094d284cc.pdf">2015, Australia exported 311,523 cattle to Vietnam</a>, up from 3,353 in 2012. That’s a hundred-fold increase in just three years. Increasingly these exports are of young “feeder” cattle, which need an additional period of feeding before they are ready for slaughter. </p>
<p>At the Centre for Animal Welfare and Ethics (CAWE) at the University of Queensland, we have led a World Animal Health Organisation project to run <a href="http://www.animalwelfarestandards.org/">training courses in Vietnam on livestock slaughter last year</a>. This included research into Vietnamese attitudes to livestock slaughter, in comparison with other Southeast and East Asian countries.</p>
<p>For a forthcoming scientific paper, we surveyed future stakeholders in the industry – veterinary and animal science students. We found that those in Vietnam are more accepting of livestock transport by ship and road than those in China, Malaysia and Thailand. They also more readily agree that exporting livestock from a developed country to developing countries is acceptable.</p>
<p>In another survey, we investigated attitudes of those directly involved in the livestock slaughter and transport industry in Vietnam, Malaysia, Thailand and China. Over 1,000 respondents took part, including 210 from Vietnam.</p>
<p>Similar to respondents from China, Vietnamese respondents were not confident that they could make improvements to the welfare of animals in their care, whereas those from Malaysia and Thailand were. Vietnamese respondents had the least agreement with the survey statement: “In the past I have tried to make improvements to the welfare of the animals in my care.”</p>
<p>In Malaysia, respondents identified religious beliefs as one of the motivations for improving slaughter. For Vietnamese respondents, the main factors were the law, their knowledge, the attitudes of co-workers and company approval.</p>
<p>Vietnamese respondents also rated having the right tools and resources as less important in welfare improvement. This suggests that lack of access to stunning machines isn’t a major factor. </p>
<p>While all respondents thought that welfare improvements would work best when driven by legislation and government, those in Vietnam (and China) also thought that the police played an important role.</p>
<h2>Phasing out live export</h2>
<p>Our surveys indicate the major differences between the attitudes of the cattle industry in Vietnam and Australia. The police play almost no role in livestock welfare improvement in Australian abattoirs, yet they are considered an important player in Vietnam. Unlike Muslim countries, there is no argument in Vietnam that exports support religious festivals. </p>
<p>By sending young cattle to Vietnam, the Australian agriculture industry is losing out on jobs from growing them to a mature weight and processing them before sending them overseas. There is now a state-of-the-art killing and processing facility in Darwin to achieve this; the first new cattle abattoir to be built in Australia in 50 years.</p>
<p>The latest revelations should act as a signal that Australia should phase out the export of livestock, not immediately, but over five to ten years. This would enable exporters to build trade relations for meat export, delivering a high-quality product to overseas markets for the benefit of Australian producers, the consumers and the Australian conscience.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/61204/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Clive Phillips is a member of the Voiceless Scientific Expert Advisory Panel, is on the Board of Minding Animals and has recently received funding from Australian and New Zealand governments for provision of training and conducting research on livestock transport and slaughter in SE and E Asia. </span></em></p>Australian cattle may have been killed with sledgehammers in Vietnam.Clive Phillips, Professor of Animal Welfare, Centre for Animal Welfare and Ethics, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/611682016-06-16T12:15:46Z2016-06-16T12:15:46ZProtections for Australian cattle found wanting – yet again<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/126957/original/image-20160616-15086-11sg2vm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">An Australian bull pictured in a Vietnamese abattoir before slaughter. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Animals Australia</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The latest horrific footage of the appalling treatment of cattle sent for slaughter in the live export trade is a fresh indictment of Australian authorities.</p>
<p>Animals Australia has exposed that in Vietnam cattle are being sledge-hammered to death and subjected to other brutal practices.</p>
<p>The Australian public will be sickened by these revelations – years after protections were supposed to have been put in place.</p>
<p>Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce earlier in the election campaign attacked Labor’s suspension of the live cattle trade to Indonesia. The new footage brings the message that while the minister was slagging off at his political opponents, Joyce and his department as well as the industry were falling down on their responsibilities to ensure proper standards.</p>
<p>Animals Australia’s investigators have documented “extensive live export regulation breaches throughout Vietnam”. They found the sledge-hammering to death of Australian cattle, and “Australian cattle in 11 non-accredited abattoirs, including in a notorious slaughter village where sledge-hammering and water-forcing [pouring water into the cattle with a hose shortly before slaughter to illegally increase the meat weight] are prevalent”.</p>
<p>Joyce said on Thursday night that his department had begun an investigation immediately after receiving the complaint and has met with Vietnamese authorities, which were also inquiring into the allegations.</p>
<p>He said the abattoir at the centre of the most serious allegation was a non-approved facility and it was alleged that Australian cattle were being supplied there “against Australia’s strict rules”.</p>
<p>The industry has suspended the supply of cattle to three abattoirs.</p>
<p>Alison Penfold, CEO of the Australian Livestock Exporters’ Council – chaired by former Labor primary industries minister Simon Crean – said said she couldn’t “believe we are back here again after all the work that has gone into control and traceability of Australian cattle over the past 12 months in Vietnam”. That work followed earlier evidence of cruelty.</p>
<p>Penfold said that a plan has been announced in April 2015 to try to address “emerging concerns” as the Vietnamese market grew rapidly.</p>
<p>However elaborate that plan, it has clearly not been adequate.</p>
<p>Animals Australia’s Lyn White argues the agriculture department is “hopelessly conflicted” between policing and promoting the export trade. “Nobody can claim they didn’t know it was happening – the exporters knew, the department knew and the minister knew,” she said.</p>
<p>White says an independent office of animal welfare is needed within the attorney-general’s department so it can investigate, prosecute and withdraw licences, and also calls for a full judicial review of the live export industry.</p>
<p>Labor is promising if elected to review the regulatory regime that it put in place five years ago, including its sanctions. It also says it would appoint an inspector-general of animal welfare, as well as have the minister make quarterly reports to parliament on the live export trade, including any allegations or investigation of animal cruelty.</p>
<p>Joyce has been desperate to open new markets and expand existing ones. While the government and industry profess concern that there should be proper control and supervision of stock through the supply chain of the trade, it’s clear they are unable to match their words with effective action.</p>
<p>One has to ask why Animals Australia seems to have a better grasp of what’s going on than the industry, the government or the minister. This has been the case for years. Either those who should be policing standards are incompetent, or animal welfare is pushed down the list of priorities until those supposedly responsible are called out.</p>
<p>Coalition politicians are all too ready to see animal welfare as one of those issues promoted by Greens or independents – unless they feel the public’s anger, when pictures come to light.</p>
<p>The gold standard would be for Australia to phase out of the live export industry instead - in the case of cattle, having processing done in northern Australia. But given this is not going to happen, at the very least the government and industry should raise its oversight ability to the competency displayed by Animals Australia.</p>
<p><em>Postscript: By chance, Malcolm Turnbull and Joyce are due to be campaigning together on Friday.</em></p>
<iframe src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/h7i43-6003b1?from=yiiadmin" data-link="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/h7i43-6003b1?from=yiiadmin" height="100" width="100%" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" data-name="pb-iframe-player"></iframe><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/61168/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
The latest horrific footage of the appalling treatment of cattle sent for slaughter in the live export trade is a fresh indictment of Australian authorities. Animals Australia has exposed that in Vietnam…Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/493682015-10-23T03:14:40Z2015-10-23T03:14:40ZThe Senate committee that deals with animal welfare is riding roughshod over dissenting views<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/99307/original/image-20151022-7989-nw1tvr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">You don't have to work in a paddock to have a valid opinion on animal welfare.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ACSIRO_ScienceImage_3145_Hand_feeding_sheep_in_paddock.jpg">Carl Davies/CSIRO/Wikimedia Commons</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>A Senate committee last week <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Rural_and_Regional_Affairs_and_Transport/Voice_for_Animals_Bill_15/Report">effectively killed off</a> a proposal to create an independent animal welfare authority for Australia.</p>
<p>Without the committee’s support, the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_LEGislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=s1006">Voice for Animals Bill</a> introduced by the Greens has no hope of being enacted. But the Senate inquiry that preceded the report gave a valuable insight into how animal welfare issues are viewed within our political and wider culture.</p>
<p>The inquiry was conducted by the <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Rural_and_Regional_Affairs_and_Transport">Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee</a>. Senators who have had direct involvement in livestock industries and/or represent states that are closely aligned with rural agricultural interests played a dominant part in the process.</p>
<p>This situation forms a microcosm of a wider problem with existing animal welfare regulation: that primary industries and agriculture departments administer and, in some cases, enforce animal welfare laws. They also advise governments on animal welfare, with <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-are-australian-livestock-still-turning-up-in-places-where-they-are-treated-cruelly-49442">significant input from industry</a>.</p>
<p>While most animal welfare regulation is state-based, the Commonwealth adopts the same model, with the <a href="http://www.agriculture.gov.au/">Department of Agriculture and Water Resources</a> bearing responsibility for most national animal welfare matters, including <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/live-exports">live exports</a>. Yet the department’s predominant role is to support and promote agricultural and other industries – the very conflict of interest that the Greens’ bill was seeking to avoid.</p>
<h2>Cut off the ear or shoot the sheep?</h2>
<p>Agricultural and industry interests were prominent at <a href="http://parlview.aph.gov.au/mediaPlayer.php?videoID=275719">last month’s Senate hearing on the bill</a>. But many questions to witnesses representing animal protection bodies lacked obvious relevance and the tone was sometimes hectoring.</p>
<p>Liberal senator Bill Heffernan, in the chair, set the scene by asking: “If I have a ewe down in the paddock with a cancer ear, should I cut the ear off or shoot the sheep?” Similar questions to the panel followed: would they shoot a ewe with a prolapse? Do they object to poisoning and shooting pigs that eat newborn lambs? Queries as to the questions’ relevance were met with responses such as: “Have a bit of guts and have a crack.”</p>
<p>Another Liberal senator, Chris Back, a former livestock veterinarian, expressed “deep disappointment” at the suggestion that vets employed by live export companies could be professionally compromised, but did not pursue other pertinent matters, such as <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/aug/03/alive-and-kicking-australias-animal-export-trade-booms-despite-persistent-claims-of-cruelty">the department’s heavily criticised approach to enforcement of the rules governing live exports</a>.</p>
<p>Labor members of the committee also chose not to engage substantially with key issues. Instead, WA ALP senator Joe Bullock chose to ask representatives of animal welfare groups about their sources of funding, and to press them on whether they would shoot Heffernan’s hypothetical pig. </p>
<h2>Paying respects</h2>
<p>In contrast, the six senior Department of Agriculture representatives received a more respectful reception. The department’s deputy secretary was invited to sidestep the hypothetical farmyard questions, which he duly did on the basis of being a “humble economist” – a self-deprecating assessment that did not stop him offering his opinions about the relationship between industry and animal welfare.</p>
<p>This deferential attitude to those with industry connections was also on show at a <a href="http://parlview.aph.gov.au/mediaPlayer.php?videoID=261736">hearing by the same Senate committee back in May</a>, when it discussed proposed new laws to enforce reporting of animal cruelty. Although framed in terms of animal protection, this <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bills/s994_first-senate/toc_pdf/1500520.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22legislation/bills/s994_first-senate/0000%22">bill</a>, introduced by Senator Back, <a href="https://theconversation.com/australias-new-bill-to-protect-animals-will-do-anything-but-38103">is widely regarded as intended to protect industries from animal activism</a>. </p>
<p>It is unlikely to succeed, at least in its current form, given <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Rural_and_Regional_Affairs_and_Transport/Animal_Protection_Bill/Report">Labor’s lack of support</a> and <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Rural_and_Regional_Affairs_and_Transport/Animal_Protection_Bill/Submissions">the overwhelming number of submissions detailing its shortcomings</a>. </p>
<p>But again the hearing showed an evident disdain for animal protection bodies, including the RSPCA, on whom state governments rely to enforce animal cruelty legislation.</p>
<h2>Who speaks with authority?</h2>
<p>Perhaps the most striking feature of the inquiry into the Voice for Animals Bill is its irony: an inquiry into a bill to establish an independent animal welfare office by a committee with a vested interest in industry and agriculture. More broadly, this prompts the wider question of who is entitled to speak with legitimacy and authority about animal welfare.</p>
<p>The logical inference from Heffernan’s questioning is that only those with farming or industry experience are qualified to make decisions about animal welfare – that only those who have been down in the paddock or worked directly with livestock industries are worth listening to. </p>
<p>Implicit in this view is the idea that farmers and livestock vets are beyond reproach, and that the agriculture department’s expertise is a given. These attitudes reflect a culture that accepts some animal cruelty as normal and belittles those who view it otherwise.</p>
<p>The creation of an independent office of animal welfare would be a good start in helping to change this culture. This does not preclude industry input, but ensures that other expertise is recognised.</p>
<p>In their <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Rural_and_Regional_Affairs_and_Transport/Voice_for_Animals_Bill_15/Report">dissenting report</a>, the Greens noted that their Bill could be improved by incorporating some of the submissions to the inquiry. And an independent office of animal welfare is <a href="http://www.alp.org.au/national_platform">already part of Labor’s platform</a>. </p>
<p>If politics could be set aside, these two parties could work together to put an independent animal welfare office at the forefront of public debate.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/49368/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Elizabeth Ellis is a life member of the RSPCA and a member of the Australasian Animals Study Group and Animals Australia.</span></em></p>With animal welfare issues routinely handled by Senate committees with strong links to agriculture, how can we ensure that those outside the industry are being properly listened to?Elizabeth Ellis, Honorary Senior Fellow, School of Law, Faculty of Law, Humanities & the Arts, University of WollongongLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/494422015-10-20T19:37:33Z2015-10-20T19:37:33ZWhy are Australian livestock still turning up in places where they are treated cruelly?<p>Recent days have seen <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2015/s4331082.htm">yet more revelations</a> of irregularities in the live export of Australian animals, and a <a href="http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/10/17/australians-rally-against-live-exports">fresh round of protest against the trade</a>. Last week, the ABC’s 7.30 reported that many animals shipped to the Middle East are individually sold for private slaughter, rather than going through the Australian-approved abattoir system.</p>
<p>This system, called the <a href="http://www.daff.gov.au/export/live-animals/livestock/information-exporters-industry/escas?wasRedirectedByModule=true">Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System</a> or ESCAS, was a Gillard Government initiative introduced in the wake of the ABC’s <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/special_eds/20110530/cattle/">2011 exposé</a> of the treatment of Australian cattle in Indonesia, which prompted a <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/environment/animals/live-cattle-ban-to-stay-20110607-1fr8b.html">temporary suspension of the trade to Indonesia</a>. </p>
<p>ESCAS was part of a peace deal brokered between an outraged community and the live export industry. Before then, the industry was largely self-regulated. ESCAS might best be described as “enforced self-regulation” – but, as we will see, the enforcement aspect is problematic. </p>
<h2>Policing the system</h2>
<p>ESCAS is designed to ensure that Australian animals exported live overseas are held in Australian government-approved feedlots and slaughtered at Australian government-approved abattoirs. These facilities are accredited, audited, and operated under welfare standards set out by the <a href="http://www.oie.int/">World Organisation for Animal Health</a>. </p>
<p>When Australian animals are found outside ESCAS it is referred to as “leakage”. The theory is that these animals can be tracked, via their ear tags, to their original exporter, who can then have their licence revoked or suffer some other sanction without the need to suspend the entire trade. </p>
<p>As Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon has <a href="http://knowinganimals.libsyn.com/protecting-animals-2-senator-lee-rhiannon-from-the-australian-greens">observed</a>, the system sounds good in theory. But she has also pointed out the impossibility of policing the movement of millions of animals in other countries.</p>
<p>And as I have <a href="https://theconversation.com/live-animal-export-rules-are-useless-without-enforcement-27278">previously argued on The Conversation</a>, Australia’s government appears not to be even trying. </p>
<p>According to the <a href="http://www.daff.gov.au/export/live-animals/livestock/regulatory-framework/compliance-investigations/investigations-regulatory-compliance?wasRedirectedByModule=true">most recent available figures</a>, the agriculture department has received 90 complaints of leakage incidents since 2012. Of these, 34 were from exporters themselves; 30 came from Animals Australia; 12 were from industry peak bodies; seven from “external third parties; three were from "the public”, two from the RSPCA; one from a media report; and one from the department itself.</p>
<p>In short, everybody else with an interest in live export seems to know more than the government about what’s happening to Australian animals in Asia and the Middle East. </p>
<p>What’s more, after three years and 90 reported incidents, no export licence has ever been suspended or revoked. </p>
<h2>Industry takes charge</h2>
<p>This lack of action now seems to be generating resentment within the industry, as well as outside it. </p>
<p>For the first two years of ESCAS, the bulk of complaints came from Animals Australia. But in mid-2014 that began to change. For reasons that are unclear, exporters began self-reporting their own breaches. Then, this year, industry peak bodies took up the running – in the past five months, 12 of the 31 complaints have been made by industry groups against individual exporters. </p>
<p>It seems that some exporters and industry representatives are increasingly feeling that those trying hardest to comply with ESCAS are suffering an unfair market disadvantage relative to those who are non-compliant. In the absence of government attempts to enforce its own rules, it falls to the exporters themselves to try and maintain a level playing field. </p>
<p>Alison Penfold, chief executive of the Australian Livestock Exporters’ Council, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2015/s4331082.htm">told the ABC</a>: “We have people on the ground, not only in our supply chains but also outside of our supply chains, looking for problems. And they found problems and we reported the problems.” </p>
<p>It would appear, then, that enforcement of ESCAS has now veered back towards industry self-regulation. </p>
<h2>The future of live export</h2>
<p>Perhaps the industry’s new strategy aims to ensure the trade’s survival in the face of accusations of poor animal welfare, by outing those outfits with the worst animal welfare records. This could result in further monopolisation of an already small sector. But the real risk, from a regulatory perspective, is that ESCAS may become even more vulnerable to industry capture. If the government continues to perceive itself as having no role to play in enforcement then industry will once again be in a position to call all the shots. </p>
<p>More broadly, it is rapidly becoming clear that nobody is capable of remaining in charge of Australian animals once they arrive in the chaos of the developing world. What is euphemistically referred to as “leakage” is more like a burst water main. </p>
<p>There seems to be no problem finding animals outside ESCAS, and there is no shortage of horrific stories of animal suffering. </p>
<p>Meanwhile the battle of wills continues, with industry apparently engaging a new strategy. At the same time, the Australian public appears no less distressed by the images of cruelty seemingly so easily captured, and the Australian government continues to appear to be at best reactive, and at worst entirely absent.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/49442/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Siobhan O'Sullivan receives funding from Voiceless. </span></em></p>After the 2011 live export crisis, Australia brought in rules designed to keep animals in accredited abattoirs. But with breaches widespread, there is little evidence that the rules are being policed.Siobhan O'Sullivan, Lecturer in Social Policy, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/413572015-05-19T04:24:53Z2015-05-19T04:24:53ZWhy exporting live cattle to the United States is a bad idea<p>Currently, about one in 12 cattle born in Australia is exported alive to be slaughtered in a foreign country. But Australia’s live export industry is looking to expand significantly, partly spurred on by a major drought in the United States last year, which <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-01-31/u-s-cattle-herd-shrinking-to-63-year-low-means-record-beef-cost">reduced the breeding herd dramatically</a>.</p>
<p>One representative of the Australian live export industry <a href="http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/business/cattle/live-trade-best-way-to-deliver-protein-to-asia-says-beef-australia-in-rockhampton/story-fnkeqfz1-1227336943268">recently commented</a> that “there is a strong possibility (live exports) could become the dominant market for (cattle) producers”. </p>
<p>Speaking at a recent <a href="http://beefaustralia.com.au/">beef industry meeting</a> in Rockhampton, Wellard Rural Exports Asia general manager Scot Braithwaite explained that there has been considerable investment in the live export industry, with more than A$570 million spent on live export ships in the past 10 years. He even cast doubt on Australia’s ability to sustain a processing industry in the long term, suggesting that it could go the way of the car and steel industries. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, federal agriculture minister Barnaby Joyce has thrown his weight behind a <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-07/joyce-live-export-australia/6452364">major new export facility in Queensland</a>. </p>
<p>Another driving force is the <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-trans-pacific-partnership-21168">Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement</a> between Australia and the United States. Although not yet ratified, it aims to eliminate all export taxes for agricultural goods. This would overcome one hurdle to the development of a live export industry between the two countries. </p>
<h2>Higher welfare standards</h2>
<p>However, the US market is very different to the Asian markets that Australia’s live exporters are used to supplying. </p>
<p>The basic slaughtering standards, limited health restrictions and poor capacity to offload and transport the animals in Asia mean that animal welfare standards are questionable. In 2011 <a href="https://theconversation.com/live-animal-export-ban-doesnt-go-far-enough-1581">Australian live cattle exports to Indonesia</a> were halted after an explosive <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/special_eds/20110530/cattle/">report of animal cruelty</a> in local abattoirs. </p>
<p>Steve Kay, editor of the US marketing magazine Cattle Buyers Weekly, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-21/live-export-speculation-usa-steve-kay/6408976">believes the logistical difficulties in importing cattle</a> to the US are too great. </p>
<p>Australian cattle would probably have to enter the United States via Mexico or Canada because cattle can only enter US ports on US-flagged ships. Kay also believes the US cattle herd is <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/ranchers-beef-up-cattle-herds-1431370873">recovering rapidly after the drought</a>. Major health requirements would also have to be met, as well as extensive traceability legislation.</p>
<p>Furthermore, the United States is one of several countries around the world where beef consumption has actually been declining, down almost 40% over the past 40 years.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82166/original/image-20150519-25444-1ilcxwo.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82166/original/image-20150519-25444-1ilcxwo.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82166/original/image-20150519-25444-1ilcxwo.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82166/original/image-20150519-25444-1ilcxwo.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82166/original/image-20150519-25444-1ilcxwo.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82166/original/image-20150519-25444-1ilcxwo.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=507&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82166/original/image-20150519-25444-1ilcxwo.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=507&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/82166/original/image-20150519-25444-1ilcxwo.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=507&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">US meat consumption per person.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">CME Group</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>No reasons for live exports to US</h2>
<p>The reasons given for exporting live cattle export to Asia (as opposed to carcasses butchered in Australia) don’t apply to the United States.</p>
<p>The argument that live cattle export is the best way to deliver protein to the undernourished people of Asia isn’t relevant for people in the United States, who consistently <a href="http://www.forbes.com/2007/02/07/worlds-fattest-countries-forbeslife-cx_ls_0208worldfat.html">top the world’s obesity league</a>. </p>
<p>The argument that livestock are needed for religious festivals also doesn’t hold up. There is no American equivalent of the Islamic Eid-al-Addha feast at the end of Ramadan, in which meat is distributed to the poor. The Australian live export industry has dubbed this “<a href="http://www.beefcentral.com/live-export/australian-exporters-prepare-for-eid-festival-of-sacrifice/">charity slaughtering</a>”. </p>
<p>Unlike many villagers in Indonesia, who buy their meat daily in “wet markets”, the United States has sufficient refrigeration capacity for storing meat safely.</p>
<h2>Cattle suffer during shipping</h2>
<p>Consumers are concerned about the ethics of producing beef. There are <a href="https://theconversation.com/can-live-animal-export-ever-be-humane-19804">welfare problems</a> in feedlotting and transporting cattle long distances, raising animals creates <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-arent-we-talking-about-meat-and-climate-change-6725">large amounts of greenhouse gas</a>, and animal protein is an <a href="https://theconversation.com/vegetarians-cause-environmental-damage-but-meat-eaters-arent-off-the-hook-6090">inefficient use of energy and water</a>. </p>
<p>A typical shipping journey from Australia to Indonesia takes six days, but it would take <a href="http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/business/cattle/us-live-cattle-shipping-times-calculated-as-trade-looms/story-fnkeqfz1-1227326445764">20-25 days to reach the United States</a>.</p>
<p>During the journey, ammonia from the animals’ accumulating faeces and urine will gradually rise in the atmosphere, causing cattle to <a href="http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2011/em/c1em10425j#!divAbstract">cry, cough and develop lung and eye infections</a>.</p>
<p>Heat stress is likely to affect the cattle as they enter the Gulf of Mexico. Most ships would leave Australia in winter and enter the Gulf in summer, when daytime temperatures are too hot (average 32C) and humid (about 75%) for cattle, with little respite at night.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.agriculture.gov.au/export/live-animals/livestock/regulatory-framework/compliance-investigations/investigations-mortalities">average mortality of Australian cattle</a> at sea over the last five years was 0.13%. </p>
<p>Over a six-day journey this is 0.022% per day. Mortality would therefore be about 0.52% for a 24-day journey to the United States. </p>
<p>In comparison, <a href="http://www.animalhealthaustralia.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Feedlot-Manual3_0-10Proof27Apr10.pdf">cattle in a feedlots</a> have a mortality rate of less than 1% over a period of approximately 90 days, or 0.011% per day. This is less than half the mortality rate at sea. </p>
<p>If the trade builds up to one exporter’s <a href="http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/business/cattle/us-live-cattle-shipping-times-calculated-as-trade-looms/story-fnkeqfz1-1227326445764">anticipated level of 200,000 per year</a>, we can expect 1,040 animals to die during the voyage. If they had remained in Australia in a feedlot for this period, we would expect just 533 animals to die. </p>
<p>Thus we can predict that roughly 507 animals would die unnecessarily each year as a result of exporting cattle alive to the United States. </p>
<p>However, in the light of the many welfare problems on the voyage and the ongoing travel, feedlotting and slaughter in the United States, this might be a relief to the animals concerned. </p>
<h2>Consumers want to be ethical</h2>
<p>It is hard to imagine that the American public would willingly accept beef from animals that have suffered this much. </p>
<p>The Australian cattle industry believes that it can gain public acceptability simply by <a href="http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/business/beef-australia-live-export-forum-told-to-change-publics-perception-of-the-trade/story-fnkeqfxg-1227342180294">changing the marketing message</a>. This can only be achieved by keeping quiet about suspected animal welfare issues in the live export trade. </p>
<p>More research needs to be undertaken so consumers can make an informed choice about the ethics of live exported meat. </p>
<p>No-one has ever measured stress levels in cattle undertaking long distance shipments. My research colleagues have been trying to gain permission to measure these, but so far none of the exporters are willing. We are currently exploring the possibility of receiving funds from the Malaysian government to investigate the issue, which Malaysia sees as a necessary step before it embarks on a major beef importation program. </p>
<p>Although last week the rhetoric was flowing thick and fast at Rockhampton’s Beef Week about Australia growing its live export industry into the United States, turning this into practice may prove beyond even the most determined of governments. </p>
<p>Fortunately for the animals’ welfare, American beef farmers can expect most of their competition from Australia to arrive as carcasses rather than as live animals on a ship.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/41357/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Clive Phillips is a member of the Scientific Council for Voiceless. He has previously received funding from MLA/Livecorp for live export research and is currently receiving funding from the Australian and New Zealand governments, the EU, World Animal Protection, Universiti Putra Malaysia and the World Animal Health Organisation (OIE) for research and training in livestock slaughter and transport in Asia. </span></em></p>Australia’s cattle industry is keen to begin live exports to the United States. But America is very different to existing live export markets such as Indonesia, making the move much more ethically fraught.Clive Phillips, Professor of Animal Welfare, Centre for Animal Welfare and Ethics, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/339472014-11-10T19:30:04Z2014-11-10T19:30:04ZMore cattle will suffer under Australia-China live export deal<p>The number of animals exported live out of Australia is set to increase as Australia prepares to enter into a A$1 billion <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-07/billion-dollar-beef-deal-china/5873496">trade agreement with China</a>. Agriculture minister Barnaby Joyce has claimed up to a million Australian cattle may in the future be exported each year. </p>
<p>Live animal exports has been a divisive political issues in recent years. Passions reached boiling point when Prime Minister Gillard temporarily suspended the trade following a <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2011/s3228880.htm">Four Corners exposé</a> based on footage gathered by Lyn White and her team at Animals Australia. </p>
<p>Since then, the trade has recommenced. The former Labor Government introduced a live export tracking system called the <a href="http://www.agriculture.gov.au/biosecurity/export/live-animals/livestock/information-exporters-industry/escas">Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System</a> (ESCAS); Lyn White has been awarded an <a href="http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/anticruelty-crusader-lyn-white-made-a-member-of-the-order-of-australia-in-queens-birthday-honours/story-fni0fit3-1226948060176">Order or Australia</a>; and under the Abbott government live animal exports have expanded, including into China as a new market. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, the community appears <a href="https://theconversation.com/live-animal-export-rules-are-useless-without-enforcement-27278">not to have changed it’s mind</a> that live animal exports are cruel and a serious question mark hangs over the government’s ability to police, and enforce, its own rules under the assurance system. </p>
<p>In my view the deal with China is likely to increase the suffering of Australian cattle.</p>
<h2>Animal welfare in China</h2>
<p>Unlike Australia, China has no comprehensive animal welfare law. </p>
<p>On March 1 2010, a draft of China’s first animal welfare law, called the Animal Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China, was submitted to the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress. </p>
<p>The Standing Committee is a de facto legislative authority with considerable political power. That draft law received quite vocal opposition from sections of the community and some members of China’s ruling elite. In particular, a prohibition on the slaughter of dogs for meat (for human consumption) was controversial. </p>
<p>As a result of that opposition, three months later on 10 June 2010, a second, more watered-down version of the original draft law was presented to the same Standing Committee. </p>
<p>The second law, called the <em>Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Law of the People’s Republic of China</em>, contains markedly fewer prohibitions against cruelty to animals and permits the slaughter of dogs as meat. </p>
<p>An examination of both draft laws reveals that whereas the first proposed law had 53 clauses relating to animals raised for economic purposes, the second has only 29.</p>
<p>However, this may be a moot point as in the four years since being submitted for consideration, neither law has shown any sign of progressing through the Chinese political process and neither is likely to become law anytime soon. </p>
<h2>Kill cows in Australia</h2>
<p>The world’s first modern animal welfare law was introduced in the UK in 1822. That law was enacted following more than two decades of legislative advocacy and followed several earlier, failed attempts, at getting similar laws through parliament. </p>
<p>The law that was eventually enacted in 1822 was a political compromise and contained only a small proportion of the provisions included in the unsuccessful bills. </p>
<p>If the UK experience is anything to go by it could be many decades before China has an animal welfare law, and even then it is likely to be extremely weak. </p>
<p>Of course Australia was not exporting cattle to the UK in 1822, yet it appears that we will soon be sending our animals to China. </p>
<p>While Australian animals who find themselves in China will not have to face the horrors of ritual slaughter, as they do in the Middle East, they will nonetheless face the possibility of being killed by people who have minimal skill, little-to-no training and who may be working in very basic conditions. </p>
<p>As we have seen <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2014/s4112678.htm">in the Middle East</a>, not all exported Australian animals make it to a slaughterhouse. </p>
<p>Yet, even if Australian animals do find themselves in the most modern Chinese slaughterhouse they will die in a country with zero rules prohibiting animal cruelty. If we think prohibitions against cruelty serve a purpose, this should be a troubling scenario.</p>
<p>I’m a strict vegetarian. I’m not for killing cows. But if I were an Australian cow, and I were to be killed, I would prefer to be killed in Australia than to take my chances in China. </p>
<p>I don’t think China is a good place for cows, particularly Australian cattle. Australian animal welfare laws are far from perfect, but at least they exist.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/33947/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Siobhan O'Sullivan has received funding from Voiceless.
Sections of this article are based on an article co-authored with Dr. Yangzi Sima. It is currently being prepared for peer review. </span></em></p>The number of animals exported live out of Australia is set to increase as Australia prepares to enter into a A$1 billion trade agreement with China. Agriculture minister Barnaby Joyce has claimed up to…Siobhan O'Sullivan, Research Fellow, School of Social and Political Sciences, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/272782014-05-29T20:41:19Z2014-05-29T20:41:19ZLive animal export rules are useless without enforcement<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/49770/original/xz8jp4pg-1401348636.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">After a tip-off from an Egyptian vet, Animals Australia sparked a government investigation into what an industry leader described as "horrific" slaughtering practices in Egypt last year. Tougher rules have now been promised.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.animalsaustralia-media.org/upload/photos/egypt-live-export-investigation_2013/">Animals Australia</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Australia looks set to resume exporting live sheep to Iran, after <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-28/iran-australia-livex-agreement/5484528">Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce</a> this week flagged the end of a 40-year ban following <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/28/australia-live-sheep-exports-iran">Iran’s Islamic revolution</a>. </p>
<p>Flanked by the chief executives of the Australian Livestock Exporters Council and the Sheepmeat Council of Australia, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-28/iran-australia-livex-agreement/5484528">Joyce stressed that</a> the deal would be a win, win, win: good for Australian sheep producers; good for the people of Iran; and – he stressed – good for animal welfare.</p>
<p>But is the Agriculture Minister right? Given controversies over Australian cattle being <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/special_eds/20110530/cattle/">violently mistreated in Indonesian</a> and <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/environment/animals/live-exports-to-egypt-suspended-20130504-2izb0.html">Egyptian abattoirs</a>, can Australians be confident about the welfare of animals shipped overseas?</p>
<p>Judging from the Department of Agriculture’s own figures, there are good reasons to be concerned about how well Australia’s animal welfare rules will be enforced under this new deal.</p>
<h2>Live export rules</h2>
<p>Australia’s <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-28/barnaby-joyce-seeks-to-restart-saudi-arabian-live-sheep-trade/5414888">live export welfare regulations</a> are often referred to as “ESCAS”, which stands for the <a href="http://www.daff.gov.au/biosecurity/export/live-animals/livestock/information-exporters-industry/escas">Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System</a>. ESCAS has four pillars: </p>
<ul>
<li>adherence to World Organisation for Animal Health animal welfare standards</li>
<li>exporter control of the supply chain, including at the point of slaughter</li>
<li>a traceable supply chain </li>
<li>and an independent audit of the supply chain. </li>
</ul>
<p>The Agriculture Minister said that once feedlot and abattoir facilities in Iran won approval under Australia’s ESCAS welfare rules, exports could resume. And, he said, that would mean improved animal welfare outcomes overall.</p>
<p>Curiously, while Joyce was able to produce two industry representatives <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/226703764/Untitled">to appear at his media conference</a>, no comparable representative was there to comment on his animal welfare claims. Notably absent was either the RSPCA or <a href="http://www.animalsaustralia.org/media/press_releases.php?release=205">Animals Australia</a>, two well-known, well-respected and highly politically-engaged animal welfare organisations. </p>
<p>Without Animals Australia, the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-05-30/doco-reveals-australian-cattle-tortured-overseas/2737644">mistreatment of Australian livestock</a> in both Indonesia and Egypt would not have been uncovered at all.</p>
<p>Only a year ago, the live cattle trade to Egypt was voluntarily halted after what Australian Livestock Exporters Council chief executive Alison Penfold described as <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/environment/animals/live-exports-to-egypt-suspended-20130504-2izb0.html#ixzz334w0P56v">“horrific” acts of “outrageous cruelty”</a> against Australian cattle. </p>
<p>That came about after an <a href="http://banliveexport.com/features/egyptian-vet-speaks-out.php">Egyptian veterinarian</a> contacted Animals Australia last year, concerned about the methods being used to slaughter Australian cattle, <a href="http://banliveexport.com/egypt">graphic footage</a> of which triggered an <a href="http://www.daff.gov.au/about/media-centre/dept-releases/2014/egypt-livestock-investigation-report-released">Australian government investigation</a> that found “one abattoir did not conform to international standards for animal welfare”.</p>
<p>The ban was <a href="http://www.daff.gov.au/biosecurity/export/live-animals/advisory-notices/2014/2014-02">lifted in March this year</a>, with Egyptian abattoirs now working to comply with the ESCAS rules.</p>
<h2>How well does ESCAS protect animal welfare?</h2>
<p>Putting aside some of those recent controversies, one animal welfare concern worth noting is that some animals travel better by boat than others – and sheep are not natural seafaring animals.</p>
<p>Every six months, the minister must table in Parliament a report from the department that includes livestock mortalities on every sea voyage. The table below summarises those reports to Parliament, showing that 14,067 or 0.74% of the sheep exported in Australia’s live trade died at sea – an improvement on the massive losses a decade ago, but still a high toll.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/49756/original/ykmyqkj9-1401343352.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/49756/original/ykmyqkj9-1401343352.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/49756/original/ykmyqkj9-1401343352.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=133&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49756/original/ykmyqkj9-1401343352.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=133&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49756/original/ykmyqkj9-1401343352.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=133&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49756/original/ykmyqkj9-1401343352.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=167&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49756/original/ykmyqkj9-1401343352.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=167&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/49756/original/ykmyqkj9-1401343352.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=167&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Live sheep exports, 2000 to 2013.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.daff.gov.au/biosecurity/export/live-animals/livestock/regulatory-framework/compliance-investigations/investigations-mortalities">Department of Agriculture</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Indeed, in 1985, an Australian Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare conducted an inquiry into the live animal export industry. Its report was not complimentary. It included <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-live-export-of-animals-will-always-be-a-bloody-business-10547">the observation that</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>if a decision were to be made on the future of the trade purely on animal welfare grounds, there is enough evidence to stop the trade. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>However, this week Joyce said Australia is now <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-28/iran-australia-livex-agreement/5484528">“leading the world in animal husbandry”</a>, thanks to our ESCAS rules.</p>
<p>So just how well is ESCAS performing? As any first year legal student can tell you, laws without an accompanying enforcement mechanism are of little value.</p>
<p>Yet enforcement – or making sure there is an “independent audit” of the supply chain in the importing country, just as the ESCAS rules promise – appears to be a big challenge for Australia’s Department of Agriculture.</p>
<h2>Who’s really policing our animal welfare rules?</h2>
<p>The <a href="http://www.daff.gov.au/biosecurity/export/live-animals/livestock/regulatory-framework/compliance-investigations/investigations-regulatory-compliance">Department’s website records 34 complaints</a> between February 2012 and May 20 this year about live animal welfare in relation to live animal exports. </p>
<p>Of those 34, 19 were made by Animals Australia; seven by exporters; three by the public; two by the RSPCA; two by an external party; and one by the media. </p>
<p>Based on this, Animals Australia appears to be doing a disproportionate amount of unpaid enforcement work on behalf of the Australian government, the Australian people and industry. And you have to ask: what exactly is the Department of Agriculture itself doing to enforce the ESCAS system?</p>
<p>Those figures, and the fact that “horrific” mistreatment has been uncovered by animal activists rather than by officials, raise the question of who’s really policing these standards. If the federal government is serious about ensuring our animal welfare standards are the best in the world, perhaps it could consider funding Animals Australia to continue upholding the “independent audit” fourth pillar of the ESCAS system.</p>
<p>While the exclusion of any kind of animal welfare organisation from the minister’s press conference was disappointing, both <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-29/nrn-iran-livex-reax/5486516">the RSPCA and Animals Australia</a> have since made their views clear.</p>
<p>“The government is talking about opening a new market when there is no one even policing the old markets,” Animals Australia said in a statement.</p>
<p>And <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-29/nrn-iran-livex-reax/5486516">RSPCA Australia chief executive Heather Neil warned</a> that ESCAS is not a guarantee that animals will be treated well.</p>
<p>“I think there’s enough examples with ESCAS going terribly wrong and the government doing really very little in order to bring exporters into line and to take away their licences, when they’ve shown time and time again to be getting it wrong.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/27278/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Siobhan O'Sullivan has received funding from Voiceless</span></em></p>Australia looks set to resume exporting live sheep to Iran, after Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce this week flagged the end of a 40-year ban following Iran’s Islamic revolution. Flanked by the chief…Siobhan O'Sullivan, Research Fellow, School of Social and Political Sciences, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/158712013-07-08T20:42:03Z2013-07-08T20:42:03ZThe northern cattle industry: no longer Rudderless<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/27044/original/5gv7zj5m-1373255362.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Indonesian cattle transport and slaughter practises are not acceptable by Australian standards of welfare.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Clive Phillips</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Kevin Rudd advocated a return to a strong live cattle export trade between Australia and Indonesia at a business breakfast in Jakarta on Friday. Maybe he thought the Australian public wouldn’t notice. </p>
<p>Australians gave the trade with Indonesia a resounding thumbs down after videos were released showing <a href="https://theconversation.com/live-animal-export-when-others-do-the-killing-for-us-1562">cattle being cruelly slaughtered</a> in local abattoirs.</p>
<p>The Prime Minister avoided using the words “live” and “export”, but simply referred to Indonesia having “some of the very best intensive feedlots in the world” and Australia having “extensive grazing lands and traditions of pastoral excellence”.</p>
<p>Mr Rudd focused his talk on the ever-increasing growth in the Indonesian economy, which will in future dwarf Australia’s home market for beef. “Indonesia should become a vast market place for Australian goods”, he said. He foretold of an Indonesian middle class of 135 million by 2030 and of Australia and Indonesia taking on the world’s beef markets together. </p>
<p>At the same time Mr Rudd promised A$60 million to grow Indonesia’s own beef industry. This will probably go to feedlots that will fatten cattle exported from northern Australia. The only way Indonesia could produce enough feed to fatten Australian cattle is to convert native rainforest into cultivable land, threatening soils, carbon stocks and critically endangered animals like orang-utan. </p>
<h2>Slaughter in Indonesia</h2>
<p>If Kevin Rudd is to rescue the northern beef industry from its current plight he must focus on a carcass trade, because neither of the two problems in the live trade to Indonesia – slaughter methods and the shipping process – can be easily solved.</p>
<p>The reality of slaughter in Indonesia is far from what the Australian public consider acceptable. The slaughter of Australian cattle is done by members of the poorer classes under third world conditions. </p>
<p>Slaughter methods are subject to religious and political constraints that are difficult to solve right now. Some Muslim Indonesians see any attempt to impose stunning of the cattle before slaughter as an infringement of their religious freedom. </p>
<p>In the Hadith,the supplement to the Koran, cattle are required to die by a knife cut to the throat. Done well, this kills after 15-20 painful seconds in the majority of animals, longer in some. Done badly and the animal will suffer a slow and agonizing death. Stunning is still controversial and most methods of stunning would potentially cause irreversible damage to some animals. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.oie.int/doc/ged/D2703.PDF">Slaughter guidelines</a> developed by the World Animal Health Organisation have been adopted by the Australian government to underpin its standards since 2011. Whilst it is good that Australia is seeking to gain support for international standards, the guidelines utilised are not rigorous enough for the Australian public.</p>
<p>Last year Australia introduced the <a href="http://www.daff.gov.au/biosecurity/export/live-animals/livestock/escas">Export Supply Chain Assurance Scheme</a> to verify that OIE standards are abided by. Some other major destinations for our livestock, such as Saudi Arabia, have not yet accepted the scheme and may never do so.</p>
<p>Any attempt to impose overseas standards for slaughter and monitoring systems is likely to be seen as an attack on Indonesian liberty and values. Mr Rudd touted free trade as the objective of the renewed collaboration with Indonesia. But Australia is imposing its standards on Indonesian slaughter practices through the supply chain scheme.</p>
<h2>Live export</h2>
<p>The live export process itself is inherently damaging to the welfare of the animals. The high stocking density, required for economic transport of the animals, results in <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20622182">rapid accumulation of ammonia</a>, which irritates the animals’ (and the crew’s) throat, nose and eyes. An inflammation establishes itself in the lungs and the eyes of sheep become encrusted with conjunctivitis. Increasing the ventilation rate is one possibility, but already the vessels have difficulty achieving enough air movement, which they do with noisy, high powered fans that are likely to stress the animals. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/27045/original/ysktknp5-1373255470.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/27045/original/ysktknp5-1373255470.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/27045/original/ysktknp5-1373255470.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/27045/original/ysktknp5-1373255470.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/27045/original/ysktknp5-1373255470.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/27045/original/ysktknp5-1373255470.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/27045/original/ysktknp5-1373255470.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Live cattle being transported between islands in Indonesia.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Clive Phillips</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Within Indonesia cattle are often shipped between islands. Loading onto ships may be done by roping their heads together and hoisting the rope (with bodies dangling) aboard using a small crane. Offloading may even occasionally consist of forcing the cattle off the ship with no option but to swim ashore.</p>
<h2>Focus on carcass trade</h2>
<p>Indonesia’s growing prosperity will ensure that the middle class households emerging will have refrigerators, no longer requiring them to buy meat daily in the “wet” markets. A strong carcass trade may yet emerge as the solution to the woes of Australia’s cattle trade.</p>
<p>Meanwhile low meat prices caused by the reduced overseas market, in particular in Indonesia, are discouraging Australian producers from buying animal feed to avoid cattle dying in the current wintry weather in Victoria, as they did in drought-ridden northern Queensland earlier in the year. Producers have a moral responsibility to act in such emergencies, but in desperate times this may favour the bullet rather than the feed option.</p>
<p>As Mr Rudd works to end the boat trade bringing asylum seekers to Australia, he would do well to remember that the boats taking cattle from Australia also need his urgent attention.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/15871/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Clive Phillips consults to Voiceless. He has recently received funding from MAF, RSPCA, Voiceless, the Humane Slaughter Association and Humane Society International. He is affiliated with the Queensland Animal Welfare Advisory Committee.</span></em></p>Kevin Rudd advocated a return to a strong live cattle export trade between Australia and Indonesia at a business breakfast in Jakarta on Friday. Maybe he thought the Australian public wouldn’t notice…Clive Phillips, Centre for Animal Welfare and Ethics, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/139822013-05-07T02:10:10Z2013-05-07T02:10:10ZCattle slaughter in topsy turvy land<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/23295/original/2m43j4z8-1367886307.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Cruel slaughter of Australian animals in countries where abattoir workers face poor economic conditions can only be stopped with the long-term ban of live exports.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Flickr/Joe Shlabotnik</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In Enid Blyton’s Magic Faraway Tree, Jo, one of the child adventurers, has a spell cast upon him that forces him to walk upside down on his hands in Topsy Turvy land. Jo survives the ordeal as most humans would. But in the less than magic faraway land of Egypt, recent footage of Australian cattle being turned upside down before slaughter is far more concerning.</p>
<p>This latest <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2013/s3753039.htm">distressing footage</a> from Animals Australia of cruelty to cattle being slaughtered in Egypt has confirmed that abattoir exposures are here to stay, or at least as long as Australia continues to export live cattle to far distant developing countries.</p>
<p>On this occasion, cattle are shown being inverted 180 degrees before the lethal cut to their throat, the knife cut that all cattle must die from in Egyptian abattoirs. The argument in favour of this cruel practice is that the knife cut is easier and safer in a downward motion, rather than an upward cut to a standing animal.</p>
<p>In cattle the position of the internal organs, in particular the rumen, means that inversion will result in severe distress. Unlike horses, they cannot even lie on their sides for any period of time. The respiratory system is the most affected, with potential inhalation of digesta and blood. Even if we do not yet fully understand its implications for the animals, the impact of the evident fear that inversion causes cannot be ignored.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.defra.gov.uk/fawc/files/Cattle-inversion-for-religious-slaughter.pdf">Additional problems</a> include inadequate restraint, pressure on internal organs and prolongation of the already stressful slaughter process. One of the animals in the Animals Australia footage escapes and takes an agonising 90 seconds to be eventually apprehended, despite its head hanging off following the knife cut. </p>
<p><a href="http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=1BB4E8C22C558261660414F23E44397D.journals?fromPage=online&aid=4791024">The difference</a> between Egyptian cattle, that are led to the fields and back daily, and the Australian cattle, which are only handled a few times a year, cannot be underestimated. Egyptian slaughtermen are well aware that the Australian cattle react in a nervous and unpredictable manner to their movements.</p>
<p>If the job actually is easier with the animal inverted – and there is no evidence that it is – this is an argument for better training of the slaughterman and sharper knives, not inversion. Stunning would obviate any of the above concerns, and is not contrary to Koranic teaching if used concurrently with the knife cut or just after.</p>
<p>If all of this doesn’t seem like déjà vu, cast your mind back to the ban on cattle export to Egypt in 2006. Then, the Egyptian slaughtermen were found to be cutting the tendons of the legs of Australian cattle prior to slaughter, because the cattle were able to be slaughtered more safely after being incapacitated in this way.</p>
<p>Although illegal in the UK and Denmark, livestock inversion for slaughter remains legal in the European Union and is not condemned by the <a href="http://www.oie.int/">World Animal Health Organisation</a> (OIE), the only body to set international guidelines for livestock slaughter.</p>
<p>The Australian government has not been able to develop an <a href="http://www.daff.gov.au/aqis/export/live-animals/livestock/escas">Exporter Supply Chain Assurance Scheme</a> (ESCAS) agreement with Egypt, such as has been implemented in some Asian countries. Through ESCAS, the Australian government hopes to ensure that animals are handled in accordance with OIE guidelines, that they are traceable through the supply chain and that independent audits are conducted to verify compliance.</p>
<p>Although this scheme has clear benefits, its legality is questionable; and indeed the scheme has been rejected by Saudi Arabia, at least. One of the principal objections is on the grounds of fair trade: under WTO agreement, participating countries cannot introduce a trade barrier on animal welfare grounds. Any requirement by ESCAS that animals are only allowed to enter the country if OIE animal welfare guidelines are followed is just such an act of discrimination.</p>
<p>However, the main issue is much simpler than this, and in any case the WTO control of trade is often flouted. It is the poor economic status of Egyptian workers, and in particular abattoir workers, which does not afford them the level of concern for their animals that we have in the Western world.</p>
<p>Western abattoir workers are given the luxury of protection from the violent protestation of the animals during the slaughter process by stunning them beforehand, as well as enclosing the animal in a safe crush during the process and having an orderly line of cattle to kill.</p>
<p>This Australian government renewed ban on export of cattle to Egypt will cost the industry dearly. The collapse of the Egyptian market in 2003-2004, before the Indonesian trade grew rapidly, was highly damaging to the trade and left producers with an uncertain market. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/23294/original/twb42vrr-1367885715.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/23294/original/twb42vrr-1367885715.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/23294/original/twb42vrr-1367885715.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/23294/original/twb42vrr-1367885715.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/23294/original/twb42vrr-1367885715.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/23294/original/twb42vrr-1367885715.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/23294/original/twb42vrr-1367885715.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The ban on live exports to Egypt is likely to be lifted as the industry-damaging Indonesian ban was in 2011.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP Image</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Indonesian trade is still badly affected by the 2011 ban, with the country vowing to build up its own industry rather than accept large numbers of cattle from Australia. Only major shortages in the Indonesian markets have brought a temporary reprieve. Prices in Egypt are traditionally higher than many other countries; hence the financial impact will be even greater than expected.</p>
<p>These short-term bans are becoming a feature of Australian government response to video releases by activist groups. The time for government-approved resumption of the trade appears to be about 12-18 months, but quite likely depends on the financial impact to the producers and the vehemence of their reactions.</p>
<p>The solution, which is so clearly in the best interest of Australia’s livestock producers, is a long-term ban, <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-ten-year-plan-to-phase-out-live-animal-exports-9870">phased in</a> over a period of five years. This would give the trade the time to adapt: build new meatworks in the north of the country, open up new markets to developed countries wanting our high quality product and develop the supply chains internationally. The alternative is the death by a thousand cuts, hopefully in the supine position. </p>
<p>Throughout history humans have reserved upside down crucifixion and burial for people that are not worthy; let’s at least give cattle the dignity of a respectful end to their life.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/13982/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Clive Phillips consults to Voiceless. He has recently received funding from MAF, RSPCA, Voiceless, the Humane Slaughter Association and Humane Society International. He is affiliated with the Queensland Animal Welfare Advisory Committee.</span></em></p>In Enid Blyton’s Magic Faraway Tree, Jo, one of the child adventurers, has a spell cast upon him that forces him to walk upside down on his hands in Topsy Turvy land. Jo survives the ordeal as most humans…Clive Phillips, Centre for Animal Welfare and Ethics, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/105472012-11-05T23:44:06Z2012-11-05T23:44:06ZThe live export of animals will always be a bloody business<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/17291/original/mbxrptyd-1352158938.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Protests against live exports of Australian animals.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Tim Watters</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Although many Australians may feel like they heard the expression “live export” or “live animal exports” for the first time recently, the selling of sheep and cows to be slaughtered overseas has a long history in this country.</p>
<p>Christine Townend, who founded Animal Liberation NSW, and Patty Mark who founded Animal Liberation Victoria (ALV) both tell stories of anti-live export protests dating back 30 years.</p>
<p>In 1985, an Australian Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare conducted an inquiry into the live animal export industry. Its report was not complimentary. It included the observation that “if a decision were to be made on the future of the trade purely on animal welfare grounds, there is enough evidence to stop the trade.”</p>
<p>A ban is a real possibility. New Zealand took the step in 2007, and the live cattle trade with Indonesia was temporarily suspended following the first Four Corners expose in 2011.</p>
<p>Sarah Ferguson’s original report, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2011/s3228880.htm">A Bloody Business</a>, was something of a journalistic triumph. It won her a Logie and a Gold Walkley. The story, aided by the popularity of Lyn White and the pulling power of Animals Australia, resulted in rallies around the country; the signing of petitions; letters to MPs; the temporary suspension of trade, followed by the lifting of the ban. </p>
<p>My institution asked me to address concerned staff and students and for the first time the Quarterly Essay considered animals via <a href="http://www.quarterlyessay.com/issue/us-them-importance-animals">Anna Krien’s Us & Them: On the Importance of Animals</a>.</p>
<p>Much of the controversy generated by A Bloody Business seemed to relate to the Indonesians’ use of traditional rope slaughter; apparently a terrible way to kill large, flighty Australian cattle; and Meat & Livestock Australia’s attempts to aid that slaughter with the installation of specially designed restraint boxes. While the boxes may have made the Indonesian slaughters’ job safer it seemed to make the dying minutes much worse for Australian cattle.</p>
<p>Of those who were able to watch the broadcast, shock seemed to be the common response. Apparently when Australians saw Australian animals being slaughtered without pre-stunning they saw something very different to what Meat & Livestock Australia and LiveCorp had seen while they self-regulated the process in the preceding years.</p>
<p>So with the broadcast of a second Four Corners expose of Australian live exports last night, the question is: have Australian exporters learnt to see the world more like the rest of us? And, can they convince us that what appears to be mass cruelty is actually little more than a glitch in an otherwise good system?</p>
<p>I watched A Bloody Business and Another Bloody Business back to back. The most obvious difference I detected between May 2011 and November 2012 was that Minister Joe Ludwig would not face the cameras in 2011, but was prepared to do so a year later. He had answers ready to go, as did industry. Indeed, in the lead up to the ABC’s broadcast a coalition of live exporters wrote to every member of Parliament assuring them of the outstanding quality of Australia’s live animal export industry.</p>
<p>So what are the industry’s key defences? As far as I can tell there are two: live exports generate wealth and Australia’s involvement is improving animal welfare standards in receiving countries.</p>
<p>The money defence appears to have largely fallen into disuse. It would seem that Australia’s level of disgust at the brutal treatment of Australian animals overseas is such that the promise of wealth for some is an inadequate justification.</p>
<p>That leaves us with the claim that Australia’s involvement in live animal exports is improving animal welfare around the world. While it might be true that as a result of the latest Four Corners program Australia will play a role in teaching Pakistani workers how to carry out large-scale animal slaughter more humanely (although no such agreement has been reached); and while it may also be true that as a result of Australian live exports to Indonesia Australia has been able to improve slaughter methods for Australian cattle in that country, isn’t it also true that at best the only thing Australian exporters are doing is attempting to resolve problems that they generate in the first place? </p>
<p>Aren’t all these welfare problems a result of the very fact that Australian animals are being exported live, half way around the world? If that observation is correct then the “improving welfare in receiving countries” defence is a Catch 22. Live exports generate the welfare problems that exporters are solving via the live export trade.</p>
<p>It is a bloody business and I can’t see it becoming less bloody any time soon.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/10547/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Siobhan O'Sullivan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Although many Australians may feel like they heard the expression “live export” or “live animal exports” for the first time recently, the selling of sheep and cows to be slaughtered overseas has a long…Siobhan O'Sullivan, Research Fellow, School of Social and Political Sciences, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/98702012-10-07T19:33:54Z2012-10-07T19:33:54ZA ten-year plan to phase out live animal exports<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/16173/original/t9dqc498-1349325218.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Phasing out live exports may be the only way to save Australia's northern cattle industry.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP Image/Dave Hunt</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Temporary bans on live cattle and sheep export have undermined confidence in the industry, driving property prices down and diminishing banks’ willingness to lend for long-term improvement. If the industry wants to avoid death by a thousand cuts, it must act now to phase out live export.</p>
<p>A phasing out of export of livestock for meat over the next ten years or so may be a necessity for a viable industry in the long term. It would require careful preparation and arrangements for compensation for those adversely affected.</p>
<h2>Welfare issues</h2>
<p>It is widely recognised that sending animals overseas to slaughter is not the only welfare problem. Indeed it is not even the most important welfare issue for livestock; good nutrition and veterinary care have a much greater impact over the animals’ lifetime. However, live export is a welfare issue that we can fix, and developing a long-term solution will be much better for producers than the repeated temporary bans invoked by government. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/16178/original/6s5hj7s2-1349326313.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/16178/original/6s5hj7s2-1349326313.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/16178/original/6s5hj7s2-1349326313.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/16178/original/6s5hj7s2-1349326313.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=800&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/16178/original/6s5hj7s2-1349326313.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/16178/original/6s5hj7s2-1349326313.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/16178/original/6s5hj7s2-1349326313.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Australia has little or no control over what happens to exported animals.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP Image/Animals Australia</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Most producers care a great deal for their livestock, and many have been deeply disturbed to see how some of the animals that they so attentively nurtured are treated after they’ve left their property.</p>
<p>These welfare problems are not just the multiple stresses that animals are exposed to during the export process, but Australia’s lack of control of the transport and slaughter process after the animals have arrived at their destination port. Regulatory authorities also have little control over practices on the ships: the stockpeople, vets and crew are employed by the industry so there is no independent authority to oversee the process. In other animal-risk situations, such as abattoirs, government inspectors are present: the same should be true on live export boats.</p>
<h2>Markets for meat</h2>
<p>The long-term prospects for beef and sheep meat exports from Australia are good. Demand, especially for beef, is increasing as developing countries become more affluent and change to a Western style diet. This will continue while wealth in Eurasia and the Americas transitions from traditionally wealthy countries to those until recently considered poor. Opportunities for export from Australia to Asia are considerable because of the limited land available in Asia for livestock production.</p>
<p>Introducing a permanent ban over a long period would allow Australian producers to adapt their systems. Meatworks would have to be set up in the north of Australia. For many producers, live export is the only option because of the lack of northern abattoirs. It is not economic to truck cattle thousands of kilometres to the nearest abattoirs, Brisbane or Perth. Abattoirs existed in the north until the 1990s but were phased out as the live export trade grew.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/16175/original/437vch4g-1349325237.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/16175/original/437vch4g-1349325237.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/16175/original/437vch4g-1349325237.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/16175/original/437vch4g-1349325237.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/16175/original/437vch4g-1349325237.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/16175/original/437vch4g-1349325237.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/16175/original/437vch4g-1349325237.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Demand for beef is increasing in developing nations.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Pankaj Kaushal</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Small-scale abattoirs handling some of the northern cattle cannot compete with the high prices paid for animals for live export. Several large-scale abattoirs handling most or all of the cattle would be required if live export is phased out; in fact, it is only if live export <em>is</em> phased out that they could be successful financially. The first is being built just south of Darwin and is expected to be finished next July. Each abattoir would employ several hundred people, including providing potential employment to disadvantaged indigenous communities.</p>
<p>New markets would have to be opened up, but some of the demand that has recently been met by sending live animals could be met by carcases. Ships would have to be adapted to take refrigerated cargo, but efficiency would be increased because they would only carry the consumable product. Carcase comprises approximately half of the weight of each animal, and only about one-half of the carcase is muscle tissue that is eaten. Transporting carcases is therefore cheaper than live animals.</p>
<p>In the short term, the prices that producers receive for their animals would probably fall, making it harder to provide the necessary feed and medications that ensure the welfare of livestock. In the long-term, however, strong world market prices for meat should be sufficient to sustain an efficient industry.</p>
<h2>A more diverse, stronger and kinder industry</h2>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/16174/original/8hhd5bwt-1349325237.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/16174/original/8hhd5bwt-1349325237.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/16174/original/8hhd5bwt-1349325237.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/16174/original/8hhd5bwt-1349325237.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/16174/original/8hhd5bwt-1349325237.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/16174/original/8hhd5bwt-1349325237.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/16174/original/8hhd5bwt-1349325237.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Australian producers could sell more expensive cuts, such as wagyu.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">avlxyz/Flickr</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Exporting carcases rather than live animals would enable producers to grow the type of animal that their land can support. Rather than having to produce steers of less than 350kg for export from northern Australia to Indonesia, those with good quality land can grow their cattle to higher weights profitably at home. </p>
<p>A greater variety of production methods will be possible, to suit the many different markets around the world. There will be a market for animals at different stages of maturity, with different levels of marbling and subcutaneous fat. Carcases from high quality breeds like Angus and Charolais can be supplied to markets that pay a premium. </p>
<p>The market exposure and risk to producers will be reduced by diversifying the countries to which carcases are sent. Exposure and risk are both very apparent in the current situation where one country - Indonesia - dominates the market.</p>
<p>Australia can become a world animal welfare leader in its livestock production systems. Its outdoor environment offers a natural advantage. </p>
<p>People overseas are well aware of our live export issues. Addressing them before any more damage is done to the industry is vitally important.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/9870/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Clive Phillips consults to Voiceless and RSPCA, Australia. He and his students have received funding from Meat and Livestock Australia, Voiceless, RSPCA Australia, HSI, HSA. He is affiliated with LESAG, Qld AWAC and Minding Animals</span></em></p>Temporary bans on live cattle and sheep export have undermined confidence in the industry, driving property prices down and diminishing banks’ willingness to lend for long-term improvement. If the industry…Clive Phillips, Centre for Animal Welfare and Ethics, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/48022011-12-19T03:26:31Z2011-12-19T03:26:31ZAustralia owes Indonesia an apology over live export calamity<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/6531/original/9z5pm7hy-1324253059.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Our conduct has damaged relations with Indonesia and has serious implications for the environment.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Indonesia’s decision to cut live cattle imports from Australia is the clearest example yet of the significant and long-lasting damage that June’s export ban did to relations with our nearest neighbour. </p>
<p>Rarely in history has there been an example of two neighbouring countries being so diametrically opposed in so many ways – culture, geography, socioeconomic status, religion and population density. We may therefore expect some difficulties when dealing with trade between the two countries in such a sensitive commodity as live cattle. </p>
<p>However, the affront to Indonesian pride by Australia’s ban on the trade, apparently without consultation with Indonesian authorities (let alone Australian cattle producers), has set back the trust between the two countries a long way. To act in this way with our closest neighbour, one of the world’s major trading nations since the seventh century, was disrespectful. </p>
<p>It provided the perfect incentive for Indonesian authorities to reaffirm their intention to become self-sufficient in beef production, an aspiration that they have held for at least 30 years. </p>
<p>The only way in which this can happen is by cutting down native forest in less populated islands, such as Sumatra, Irian Jaya and Kalimantan in Borneo, thereby providing jobs to the rural poor, stemming the migration to cities and reducing reliance on imports to maintain food security. Indonesian authorities have been settling people from highly populated Java to Sumatra for over four decades, and with United Nations assistance, provided them with cattle from which to make a living. The transition from forest fringe, small-scale agriculture to cattle farming has met many difficulties: disease outbreaks in the cattle, poor productivity, unsuitable ecosystems for livestock farming, soil erosion and lack of forage for the animals.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/6533/original/9c3tvpvq-1324253491.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/6533/original/9c3tvpvq-1324253491.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=870&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/6533/original/9c3tvpvq-1324253491.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=870&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/6533/original/9c3tvpvq-1324253491.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=870&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/6533/original/9c3tvpvq-1324253491.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1093&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/6533/original/9c3tvpvq-1324253491.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1093&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/6533/original/9c3tvpvq-1324253491.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1093&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The live export industry faces strong opposition.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>I was in Borneo recently and listened with concern and dismay as a Malaysian government minister announced his country’s intention to cut down forest and introduce widespread livestock production units throughout its section of the island within 20 years. </p>
<p>The Indonesian government knows that this is their right, too – and not just in Kalimantan, Indonesia’s section of Borneo. They are planning to do the same on the lesser populated outer islands. After all, Western countries cut down most of their forests centuries ago. But there are so many reasons why this should not happen in the current era. </p>
<p>The Indonesian rainforest has major benefit as a carbon dioxide sink, counteracting the damaging effects of global warming. It is a massive reserve of biodiversity, including endangered species of great value, such as the Sumatran tiger, orang-utans, leopards and pigmy elephants, and it is a potential focus of ecotourism. Eliminate these for cattle farms and you have demonstrated a major breakdown in modern society’s ability to manage the planet’s most valuable resources. </p>
<p>Australia can far more efficiently produce the beef that Indonesians desire in the vast savannahs of the north of our country. There are still concerns about the sustainability of the farming method, the output of pollutants from the cattle and the welfare of the cattle. But if beef has to be produced, let it be produced in the region better suited to the farming system. </p>
<p>If the Australian people insist, and they should, meat can be sent over as carcases rather than live animals. With the development of refrigeration capacity in Indonesia, this will pose few difficulties. The cattle farmers of northern Australia have had a clear signal to accelerate the reinstatement of abattoirs in their region. </p>
<p>We might also advise Indonesia on the wisdom – or otherwise – of moving to a Western-style diet, with increased meat consumption per head and the associated health problems. This would require tact and diplomacy when a significant proportion of the population is malnourished. </p>
<p>The Australian government should approach the Indonesian government with great humility and respect in negotiating the conditions for the cattle trade between the two countries. Indonesia’s rain forests are a treasure that Australia knows the world can ill afford to sacrifice. It also has a long history of confrontation with Western colonial powers that Australia has to overcome. </p>
<p>The mishandling of the live export ban should be publicly acknowledged by the Australian government, and an apology presented to the Indonesian government. </p>
<p>This, together with a major initiative to place the trading and cultural exchange activities between the two countries on a strong growth trajectory over the next decade, may yet restore relations. “Coveting thy neighbours’ ox” is no longer a sin; it may yet prove to be a means of establishing an “entente cordiale” between the two countries. </p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/4802/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Clive Phillips sits on the Live Exports Standards Accreditation Group, a federal government subsidiary. Since 2000 he has received funding from: University Federation for Animal Welfare, Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Meat and Livestock Australia Livecorp, the Australian Veterinary Association, Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, the Wombat Recovery Programme, the RSPCA, ARC Linkage, Morris Animal Foundation.</span></em></p>Indonesia’s decision to cut live cattle imports from Australia is the clearest example yet of the significant and long-lasting damage that June’s export ban did to relations with our nearest neighbour…Clive Phillips, Centre for Animal Welfare and Ethics, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/15622011-05-31T04:09:14Z2011-05-31T04:09:14ZLive animal export: when others do the killing for us<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/1411/original/aapone-20031229000010278617-indonesia-us-madcow-health-original.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The trip to Indonesia is just the start of a horrifying journey for cattle.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Last night, the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/special_eds/20110530/cattle/">ABC’s Four Corners</a> brought the horror of the Indonesian slaughterhouse into Australian living rooms. </p>
<p>The government’s response to images of cattle being hacked to death, having their tails broken and bashing their heads on concrete floors in terror has been merciful and swift. The export of cattle to those slaughterhouses <a href="http://www.maff.gov.au/media_office/media_releases/media_releases/2011/may/ludwig-announces-suspension-of-trade-to-certain-facilities">has been suspended</a>. </p>
<p>But why were we subjecting our cattle to these conditions in the first place?</p>
<p>Australian farmers can often make more money selling their cattle and sheep to the live animal export industry than they can by selling the animals for slaughter in Australia. The lure of the dollar is obviously very strong. </p>
<p>Australia is the world’s biggest exporter of livestock. Livestock exports were worth more than $900 million to the Australian economy in 2008. </p>
<p>For some farmers that money may be a godsend. For others it may be a case of profit maximisation. </p>
<p>But as Animals Australia has demonstrated over and over again, for the animals it is a worst case scenario. For them, death will be a blessed relief but it will rarely come quickly enough.</p>
<p>In Australia, the trip from farm to port can be a long journey. Live export ships leave from a small number of ports, including Fremantle in Western Australia and Portland in Victoria. </p>
<p>Once at port, the animals must become accustomed to eating pelleted food. Sheep who are typically used to grazing can have difficulty with the adjustment. </p>
<p>Those that do not adjust are referred to as “shy eaters”. They will die at sea from starvation. But starvation is only one of a multitude of different types of suffering animals must endure onboard live export ships. </p>
<p>Others include pinkeye, cramped conditions, living in their own feces and urine, and living among the dead, because those that die at sea will be left to rot where they fall until the ship docks and those still alive are unloaded. </p>
<p>After weeks at sea the ships arrive at their destination. This is where the different animal welfare standards in Australia and the countries we export to quickly becomes apparent. </p>
<p>Footage obtained by Animals Australia shows that many animals are likely to suffer at the hands of poorly trained or untrained handlers and may be unloaded without the aid of simple equipment, widely available in Australia, such as suitable ramps so the animals can walk from the ship to the dock. </p>
<p>From there it is off to market or slaughter. Which would be better for the animal is hard to know. </p>
<p>At market they may be tethered for long periods of time, possibly without food or water. </p>
<p>Animals Australia has obtained footage showing purchased animals being stuffed into car boots or tied to roof racks by local buyers. </p>
<p>I don’t know how animals purchased by a family for home slaughter is finally killed, and I don’t want to know. The sight would probably be too much to bear. My hope is that it’s quick. </p>
<p>For those not sold at markets, their destination is typically a slaughterhouse where they will be killed, processed and then distributed. </p>
<p>As the RSPCA and Animals Australia so graphically showed on <em>Four Corners</em> last night, the prospect of death at an Indonesian slaughterhouse is so terrible that the animal suffering is almost beyond comprehension. </p>
<p>So what are the moral issues here? </p>
<p>Let us put aside for the moment the issue of whether killing animals for meat is morally acceptable or not. Let us agree that most people eat meat, most people who eat meat appreciate that their meat comes from animals, and they are also aware that the animals they eat are killed for that purpose. </p>
<p>But, does the manner in which the animal is killed matter? </p>
<p>Does the extent of the animal’s suffering prior to, or during their death matter? And do we have a particular moral duty towards animals bred in Australia, animals we chose to bring into this world?</p>
<p>A comparison to the refugee debate here is edifying. </p>
<p>In response to Australia’s proposal to send asylum seekers to Malaysia, some people have argued that the Government’s approach to asylum seekers is morally problematic because the human rights standards in Malaysia are lower than those in Australia. </p>
<p>Malaysia has not signed key international refugee conventions to which Australia is a signatory. </p>
<p>I think those questioning the morality of Australia outsourcing its refugee “problem” to another country with lower standards raise a valid concern. </p>
<p>Wouldn’t it be nice if we could all side-step our moral duties by getting someone else to do our dirty work for us? </p>
<p>Unfortunately our moral duty doesn’t end simply because we aren’t the ones getting our hands dirty (or bloody), and thank goodness for that. </p>
<p>The problems critics have identified in relation to Australia’s Malaysian asylum seeker plans apply equally in the case of live animal exports.</p>
<p>Australia has laws governing how animals can and cannot be treated. Those laws regulate transportation, provision of food, water and shelter, access to veterinary care and the method of the animal’s death. </p>
<p>They require such things as a lethal blow with a stun gun and the availability of a second stun gun to be used immediately in cases where the first one fails. </p>
<p>These laws also apply to halal slaughter which is regularly carried out in Australia. </p>
<p>The state penalises those who transgress our laws and unions work hard to ensure that working conditions within Australian slaughterhouse are the best they can be. </p>
<p>I do not wish to glorify Australian animal welfare standards, nor our slaughterhouses. </p>
<p>I believe Australia has a very long way to go before animals in this country will be free from pain and suffering. </p>
<p>But compared to the situation in the Indonesia, Australia is an animal nirvana and LiveCorp, the company that exports animals out of Australia, knows it.</p>
<p>So where to from here? </p>
<p>Thanks to the brave work of animal activists, the reality of death for Australian cattle in Indonesia is now widely known throughout Australia and MPs of all stripes are responding with compassion. </p>
<p>It seems clear to me that we do have a a particular moral duty towards animals bred in Australia and that sending those animals on a long, difficult journey, to be followed by a gruesome death, transgresses that duty. </p>
<p>It also seems I am not the only one in Australia to hold that view, and for that I am truly thankful.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/1562/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Siobhan O'Sullivan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Last night, the ABC’s Four Corners brought the horror of the Indonesian slaughterhouse into Australian living rooms. The government’s response to images of cattle being hacked to death, having their tails…Siobhan O'Sullivan, Research Fellow, School of Social and Political Sciences, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.