The dichotomy between economic and welfare implications Determining the degree of compliance

Comparison of world livestock export standards Page 13 of 58

2.4 The dichotomy between economic and welfare implications

The practice of animal welfare varies considerable among nations depending on cultural and economic factors. To the extent it is accurate, this situation leads to an interesting dichotomy in the rationale for developing and applying animal welfare standards. In some countries the rationale for invoking animal welfare standards is enhanced productivity and higher profits. This argument applies because welfare and profits are positively related where the prevailing standards are low and remain focused on basic considerations such as adequate feed, water, shelter and freedom from disease. These ‘inputs’ all contributed to improved productivity and profitability and as such might become management practices supported by economic principles. Where it is apparent that livestock producers are failing to care for their livestock to the detriment of productivity and meat quality, the blame can be laid at the feet of either inadequate knowledge about the link between productivity and welfare or lack of training and education. The animal welfare standards demanded by first world countries increasingly include measures that have no obvious economic payoff beyond compliance with regulations that might be a condition of doing trade in the first place. Such standards are designed to deliver ‘contemporary welfare outcomes’ and could be perceived as a barrier to trade where they are expensive to implement. It is our contention that livestock export standards in the future will be designed according to changing community attitudes and local circumstances, whilst striving for maximum cost effectiveness. In this event, new standards that fail to meet the imperative of ‘cost effectiveness’ are likely to suffer poor uptake rates and compromise working relations between operators and regulators.

2.5 Determining the degree of compliance

While development and publication of performance standards is no guarantee that the intended outcome will be achieved in every case, we would expect a strong positive relationship between the existence of formal systems and existence of ‘good’ outcomes – particularly over the longer term. In other words, the existence and quality of standards should act as a useful predictor of outcomes. In practice, however, consistent and acceptable performance will, in fact, depend on the country or industry having in place a robust system with many complementary parts – as shown in Figure 2. Whilst a study of this type can report the existence of systems that might be used to test the efficacy of standards, it cannot verify actual compliance by exporters with the standards applying in particular countries. Thus auditing and monitoring with associated penalties for non-compliance are measures that can be used to encourage compliance. However, proof of ‘failure to comply’ is not part and parcel of standards documentation and the results of audits and other forms of ‘verification’ are not necessarily made public. 3 Methodology

3.1 Sources of information