RECOMMENDATION 1: The reviewers strongly support the adoption of outcome- based standards by industry. In order to achieve consistency throughout this review,
it is recommended that an outcome-based model also form the basis of risk management as it relates to animal health and welfare, incident management, and
compliance both in terms of accreditation and auditing.
The outcome-based model will rely on each of the following elements: • Agreed outcomes, as they relate to animal health and welfare;
• Defined performance targets, as they relate to the agreed outcomes; • Tools relevant to the achievement of the performance targets, including improved risk and
incident management; • Compliance imperatives, including accreditation and auditing;
• A Livestock Export Standards and Compliance Organisation LESCO with the commitment and capability to lead and manage these recommendations; and
• Compatibility with federal and state legislation. The success of the outcome-based model can be assessed in terms of consistent delivery of animal
health and welfare outcomes that are acceptable to industry, government and the general Australian community.
SUMMARY: The outcome-based model is reliant on agreed outcomes, defined performance targets, tools relevant to the achievement of these targets, compliance
imperatives, a committed and capable Livestock Export Standards and Compliance Organisation and compatibility with federal and state legislation. The success of the
outcome-based model can be assessed in terms of consistent delivery of animal health and welfare outcomes that are acceptable to government, industry and the
general Australian community.
2.2.2 Agreed animal health and welfare outcomes
2.2.2.1 Animal health and welfare
Animal welfare has emerged as an area of intense international interest, and there is now heightened interest of this issue in relation to animal-based agriculture. Further there have been several key texts
on animal welfare also termed animal well-being in North America in recent years Broom and Johnson, 1993; Ewing et al., 1999.
The definition of animal welfare has only been recently agreed – the welfare also termed well-being in North America of an individual is defined as its ‘state’ as it attempts to cope with its environment
Broom and Johnson, 1993. The ‘state as it attempts to cope’ refers to both: • how much has been done in terms of physiology, immunology and behaviour in order to cope
with the environment; and
24
• the extent to which coping attempts are succeeding Broom and Johnson, 1993. The implications of this definition are numerous:
• Welfare is a characteristic of the animal, not something given to it. Consequently, although welfare is affected by what freedoms are given to individuals and the needs of these individuals,
it is not necessary to refer to these when specifying welfare; • Welfare is a continuum, varying from very poor to very good. Logically, an animal’s welfare is
poor when it is having difficulty in coping, or is failing to cope, with its environment; • Pain and suffering are important aspects of poor welfare;
• Animals use a variety of methods when trying to cope with their environment; and • Welfare can be measured scientifically Broom and Johnson, 1993.
This definition is somewhat at odds with earlier models for animal welfare, including the concept of ‘the five freedoms’, namely freedom from 1 hunger and thirst; 2 discomfort; 3 pain, injury and
disease; 4 fear and distress; and freedom to 5 display normal behaviour Independent Reference Group, 2002. These concepts, while helpful, are now considered to provide a conceptual guide for
the design of animal environments Ewing et al., 1999, rather than a definition of welfare per se. To assess whether an essential level of a freedom has been met, it is first necessary to determine what
the ‘essential’ level is, and then to objectively measure whether this has been achieved.
Animal welfare can be considered to include animal health because pathogens or pathogen-inducing circumstances have an important impact on the interaction between an individual and its environment
Broom and Johnson, 1993. Animal health is defined as a state of physical and psychological well- being and of productivity including reproduction Blood and Studdert, 1988. Logically, indicators of
good or poor health are also indicators of good or poor welfare Broom and Johnson, 1993.
SUMMARY: Animal welfare refers to the state of an individual as it attempts to cope with its environment. Welfare includes animal health, given the important impact of
pathogens or pathogen-inducing circumstances on the environment of an individual. Indicators of good and poor health are also indicators of good and poor welfare.
2.2.2.2 Animal health and welfare during live export
