Developing management systems that will make the live exporting industry sustainable because it is profitable for direct participants and acceptable from a community perspective is difficult because of
the number and complexity of influences that determine performance and outcomes. The situation, illustrating the many risks faced by exporters, is shown in Figure 1.
The export er
Human health safety risks
Animal health welfare risks
Longer-term commercial risks
Short-term financial
risks
Figure 1: Live exporters face many risks
SUMMARY: Achieving prescribed animal welfare outcomes is the key to the industry’s ongoing acceptability to the Australian public. Achieving acceptable
outcomes is difficult in the first instance because of the many inherent risks faced by the industry.
1.3 Weaknesses of the current system
Regulating the industry is difficult in the first instance because there is a gap between outcomes that are acceptable to exporters, and those that are acceptable to the community-at-large. It appears that
economic forces do not always provide the exporter with sufficient inducement to strive for welfare outcomes that at least match those required to make the industry socially acceptable. Regulation is
also physically difficult because live exporting is carried out by vastly different enterprises operating through different ports often remote and seasonal at no set time.
Notwithstanding these difficulties, regulation is required to bring about the alignment of private and social goals. Presuming this to be the case, the challenge for development of a total management
system is to design and implement a combination of regulations and incentives that optimises the economic and social performance of the trade.
17
Currently, accredited livestock exporters are meant to achieve compliance by following the ‘prescriptive
4
standards approach’ as set out in the LEAP handbook March 2001. These standards provide technical ‘advice’ with respect to a range of issues, including selection of animals,
preparation for shipment and use of veterinary chemicals, and are ultimately designed to result in acceptable animal welfare outcomes. The current standards, however, are unable – by definition – to
cope with new risks, or risks additional to those that were considered during Standard formulation. In practice, and as illustrated on a number of occasions during 2002, exporters can comply with the
current standards but still suffer mortality rates that are socially unacceptable. In addition, some exporters might be suffering compound losses because they are not complying with the standards in
the first instance.
The major faults with the current standards can be summarised thus: Technical faults
• There is the dual problem of some exporters complying with the existing standards but still suffering mortality rates that are unacceptably high, while other exporters are not complying with
the standards in the first place and finding ways of avoiding sanctions. • There is no easily identifiable outcome standard, directly linked to animal welfare, that can be
used as a performance target and as a practical measure of compliance with ALES. • No system is available that exporters can use to explicitly identify, incorporate and manage risks,
and particularly ‘high’ risks that might be outside the scope of the existing ALES. • Apart from the recent formation of the Industry Consultative Committee, there is no systematic
capacity for bringing about continuous improvement and monitoring progress within the industry against international best practice.
Administrative faults • Within LiveCorp
5
, there is inadequate separation of powers between administration of the LEAP rules and standards, and achievement via sanctions of compliance. Through time, this lack of
separation has impacted and is continuing to impact negatively on both the development of risk management systems and the implementation of systems that result in effective compliance by
exporters. Other administrative problems that may be symptomatic of LiveCorp’s position include:
− Low knowledge experience barriers to entry allowing people to operate as exporters without any prior demonstration of competency.
− Poor definition of roles and responsibilities in the case of incident investigation. The absence, too, of a clearly defined protocol for investigating incidents including subsequent use of the
findings and experience gained. − Deficient auditing arrangements that are routine and only test exporters in terms of
competency to apply the standards, rather than actual performance of a total management system for achieving acceptable welfare outcomes.
− Some confusion among exporters regarding the respective roles of LiveCorp as the industry’s regulator and AQIS as the government’s agency responsible for Commonwealth legislation.
4
The current standards are ‘prescriptive’ because they make recommendations as to what action should be followed with respect to situations that fall within the scope of contemporary experience.
There are several concerns with this approach. It makes use of authoritarian – and generally negative – terminology, in contrast to the exporter’s own QA manual, which details actions that will be
followed. More importantly, a prescriptive approach is of limited value when exporters are faced with ‘new’ situations, which may involve complex risks. In these circumstances, it will be necessary to
supplement the prescriptive standards with detailed risk management planning, as discussed later.
5
LiveCorp also plays an active role in promoting the industry. This role would appear to compromise its capacity to act objectively in the administration of the standards.
18
SUMMARY: The current system suffers from technical and structural faults. This review puts forward innovative and practical recommendations for addressing each
of the faults identified.
1.4 Aims of the project
