The farmers need not be so worried. Australia already exports billions of dollars worth of frozen meat to many countries including the Middle East. In fact, the live export trade is just a tiny proportion of Australia’s livestock industry.

Australia’s live export trade accounts for less than 5% of the value of Australia’s livestock industries.

Product	Value (A$M)	% of Total Industry
Cattle/calves	$6338	38%
Milk	$2808	17%
Wool	$2394	14%
Lamb/sheepmeat	$1776	11%
Poultry	$1281	8%
Pigs	$878	5%
Live exports (sheep & cattle)	$580	4%
Other livestock products	$461	3%
Total	$16,516
Ref – ABARE (2005) Statistical Tables, Australian Commodities, 12(1), Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics.

 

Out of Australia’s $16 billion livestock trade, live export counts for less than $600 million. This means that the vast majority of Australia’s sheep, cattle and goat farmers can be assured that they will not be adversely affected by the closure of the live export trade.

Some producers, particularly some large cattle producers in the Northern Territory and northern Western Australia, have deliberately geared themselves to produce animals specifically for the live export market. By restructuring to cater for the live export market, they have stopped supplying animals to local abattoirs and caused the abattoirs to shut down.

It is this small group of farmers who are among the most vocal opponents against shutting down the live export trade. The live export industry has adversely affected on other members of rural communities by directly causing the closure of local abbatoirs. The Australian Meat Industry Employees Union (AMIEU) has opposed the live export trade for many years due to the closure of abattoirs throughout regional Australia. The AMIEU say that 70 abattoir closures and the loss of up to 12,000 jobs are directly attributable to the live export trade.

The closure of abattoirs has occurred due to inadequate supplies of sheep and cattle, competition for animals with the live export industry buyers and thus higher prices, which make local slaughter uncompetitive. Local abattoir closures do not only affect individual abattoir workers. The loss of employment created by a major industry, with the resultant departure of families forced to leave to seek employment elsewhere - affects the viability of all local businesses in small rural and regional towns.
Importantly - as the Heilbron Report and a 2003 West Australian Government Meat Industry Task Force report concludes, live animal export competes directly with Australia's chilled meat export trade into the same markets; animals that could be killed and processed here under strict Australian regulations prior to export.

Historically, the live animal export trade has been fraught with problems. The MV Cormo Express debacle was just one in a long series of disasters. It provides farmers with uncertainty, not security and has the potential to impact negatively on Australia's international reputation and other rural export industries.
Clearly, far greater long-term security for both Australian farmers and Australian workers in meat processing industries in Australia could be created through vigorous marketing of Australian chilled disease-free meat to importing countries.

Stop Live Exports recognises that abattoirs in Western Australia are currently experiencing the same staff shortages as the rest of the state. Abattoirs are closing down. In part, this has resulted in some farmers having few. Stop Live Exports supports practical solutions reverse the closure of local abattoirs.

 

... if it continues to export animals there?

The live export industry has recently begun arguing that it can actually help animal welfare by exporting animals to the Middle East. It's interesting to note that this claim has only emerged in the last few years since animal welfare groups have exposed the handling and slaughter practices in the Middle East.

Australia has had a regular live export trade for over 30 years. Australia has continued to ensure the financial viability of Middle Eastern abattoirs by supplying them with our animals. However, in the space of 30 years the live export industry has failed to make any significant improvements for animal welfare in importing countries.

For example, in 2003, current affairs program 60 Minutes aired an investigation conducted in Kuwait by animal welfare group Animals Australia. The investigation exposed the handling and slaughter of sheep. Within 24 hours of the TV exposure, Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) put out a press release stating that they would be holding a four-day animal-handling workshop in Kuwait in the next few months.
In the space of 30 years MLA had taken little or no action to improve the handling of exported animals until it was compelled to do so by public exposure.

LiveCorp, the industry body, has a single veterinarian stationed in the Middle East to oversee the importation of around 4 million animals per year. The live export industry and Australian Government claims that they are improving animal welfare in importing countries. Yet 4 independent investigations by Animals Australia, from 2003 to 2007 show no significant improvement to animal handling and slaughter practices in the Middle East since their practices were first exposed in 2003.

The only way to ensure that animals are handled humanely is to slaughter them in Australia and export them as frozen meat.

We say that if the Australian government and the livestock industries were serious about improving animal welfare they would not transport animals on long, gruelling journeys to have them slaughtered in an inhumane manner on the other side of the world. We say that if they were serious about animal welfare they would refuse to supply animals to importing countries with poor animal welfare standards.

The Middle East loves frozen Australian sheep meat. It is halal, disease free and good quality. The Middle East already imports far more frozen meat from Australia than they import live animals.

The value of live sheep exports to the Middle East for 2005/06 was $297 million AUS. The value of frozen lamb and mutton exports to the Middle East in the same period was $1.119 billion AUS (Ref. ABS).

The Economic Comparison of Live Export Vs Total Meat Exports from Australia 2004/5
(Source: ABS)

Cattle
Live export of cattle:	$464 million (FOB value*)	(623,579 live cattle)
Beef exports:	$4.9 billion	(947,866 tonnes)
Sheep
Live export of Sheep:	$210 million (FOB* value)	(3,236,415 live sheep)
Lamb exports	$701 million	(123,060 tonnes)
Mutton exports	$418 million	(136,718 tonnes)
Total value of chilled meat exports	$1.119 billion
*Free On Board – the value of the animals before loading in Australia

A decline in the live animal trade is likely to be met with an increase in the frozen meat trade. During the previous ban on live sheep and cattle from Australia to Saudi Arabia (1991 - 2000), there was a 3-fold increase in exports of chilled and frozen mutton and lamb to that market [reported in the Heilbron report, 2000] - This is clear evidence that consumers in the Middle East will accept meat from animals killed in Australia.

... from countries with inferior animal welfare standards?

It is difficult to imagine animal welfare standards worse than those conducted by Australia’s live export industry. Australia’s distance from importing countries means that our animals are forced to travel much longer distances than local animals would, and our animals are less suitable for the stress of handling and transport because they have such limited contact with humans. Jones, B & Hart, S 2008, Situation report on the long-distance transportation of live animals for slaughter in Australia and export for slaughter overseas, WSPA Sydney

The journey from Fremantle to the Middle East is the worst journey for slaughter anywhere in the world. Regardless of the slaughter practices conducted in the Middle East, transporting animals to the other side of the world causes needless harm and could be easily avoided by slaughtering animals closer to where they were raised.

No. This is not true. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are the two largest importers of Australian sheep and are extremely affluent oil rich nations. And yes, they have fridges!

Even the Australian government acknowledges that the live trade to the Middle East is not driven by a lack of available refrigeration. (source: ABARE 2008)

One of the major importers of live Australian sheep into the Middle East is Kuwait Livestock Transport and Trading (KLTT). KLTT advertises on its website frozen microwavable meals and a wide variety of processed products produced from Australian sheep. www.kltt.com.kw. KLTT actually imports live sheep which are then butchered and frozen in Kuwait!

Why not spare the animals from the suffering of live export and slaughter and freeze them right here in Australia?

... they are killed in the Halal manner?

Most animals slaughtered in Australia are already slaughtered in a halal manner. Australia has many certified Halal slaughterhouses, with the slaughter of each animal overseen by Muslim officials who are licensed by importing countries. Halal accreditation of meat is administered under the 'Australian Government Supervised Muslim Slaughter Programme'.

For example, the largest sheep meat processor in Australia is Fletcher International, which operates a large abattoir in Albany, Western Australia, and another in Dubbo, New South Wales. All of the animals slaughtered at Fletcher are slaughtered in the halal manner and the animals are sold to various markets, including the Middle East.

Islamic leaders have approved the pre-stunning of sheep and cattle prior to the cutting of the throat. Because electrical stunning is 'reversible', the animal is not injured and still alive, the practice is consistent with Islamic requirements.

Further, during recent investigations by Animals Australia, Australian animals killed in the Middle East were not being killed according to Halal requirements. Similar inconsistencies have been reported by other independent observers in Egypt and other Middle Eastern countries in recent years.

Good question.

Kuwait and Bahrain import significant amounts of both frozen meat and live animals from Australia. Kuwaiti and Bahraini governments subsidise the cost of imported live sheep who are slaughtered in their respective countries. But they do not subsidise the cost of imported frozen meat. This means that Australian live exporters benefit from the effect of the government subsidy but Australian frozen meat exporters do not. (source: ABARE 2008)

Saudis often drive over the boarder to Bahrain to take advantage of the subsidised cost of meat from imported live animals. (source: ABARE 2008)

... the live export industry is banned or phased out?

An economic report commissioned by Livecorp and Meat & Livestock Australia in  July 2006 portrays the industry in positive terms.  (The Live Export Industry: Value, Outlook and Contribution to the Economy, Hassall et al 2006) The live export industry likes to rely on the Hassall Report for its public relations. You may have heard the live export industry quote some of the positive figures in the Hassall Report.

Stop Live Exports challenges the assertions made by Hassall and Associates Australia.

Jobs and the live animal export industry

• The Hassall Report indicates that the live animal export industry directly employs nearly 13,000 people. This is untrue. The majority of the people the report speaks of are already sheep and cattle farmers, stock-hands, stock transport drivers, shearers etc… These people are also employed within the meat processing sector and are not employed exclusively within the live export industry.

Live animal export and Gross Domestic Product (GPD)

• The Hassall Report indicates that the live animal export industry contributes $1.8 billion dollars to gross domestic product per annum. These suggested figures regarding the value of live animal exports are significantly greater than figures published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
• The suggested contribution to the economy represents only 7% of the entire GPD provided by agriculture, forestry and fishing industries. Given this, the use of the word 'contribution' is a little over-generous.

The Hassall Report (2006) fails to address processed meat production, value adding, sheep meat consumption patterns in the Middle East, and the instability of the live animal export industry.

• The Hassall Report fails to estimate the effect of cessation of the live sheep trade in increasing production of processed meat (which may have an additional value of about $250 million) which is likely to make a significantly greater contribution to GDP and job creation in Australia than the live sheep trade.
• The Hassall Report fails to address changing sheep meat consumption patterns in the Middle East away from traditional freshly-slaughtered sheep meat to purchase of prepared cuts from supermarkets and hypermarkets. This change means that increasing numbers of Australian sheep exported live will be slaughtered and processed locally to generate meat products which will directly compete with Australian exported processed meat in supermarkets and hypermarkets.
• The Hassall Report makes no mention of the historical instability and unreliability of the live animal export trade.

A major economic report researched and written in 2000 assesses the impacts of the live animal export trade by respected agricultural economists Dr Selwyn Heilbron and Terry Larkin, provide a very different perspective. The Heilbron Report found that the live sheep export industry directly competes in the same Middle East market with Australian chilled or frozen sheep meat industry products.
 The Heilbron Report also concludes that if the sheep and cattle currently (1999/2000) exported live were instead processed in Australia, a further approximate $1.5 billion would be added to Australia's Gross Domestic Product (GDP), around $250 million more in household income and around 10,500 full time jobs would be created.

Furthermore, there are also major concerns that the disasters that occur within the live animal export industry have the ability to negatively impact on the reputation of Australia's broader and more valuable rural exports. A fact that has been recognized by many members of the farming lobby by the Keniry Review Report (commissioned after the Cormo Express debacle), which was paramount in New Zealand's decision to severely restrict the country's live animal export trade.

NO! Mortalities on board ships have increased in the last year (though there is a downward trend since the high mortality rate of the 1990s); and the on-ship deaths of animals are not comparable with on farm death rates.

It is incorrect to state that reported on board death rates are comparable with the 'on farm' death rates of sheep. Reported mortality rates experienced routinely on live sheep ships are far greater than 'normal' death rates 'on farm'. Estimates vary, but former LiveCorp CEO Mr Kevin Sheill has publicly claimed that the death rates on farms would normally be in the order of 3% per year. [Livecorp media release 20/10/2003]. This figure covers all sheep on farms and thus encompasses the more vulnerable sheep - ewes during pregnancy and lambing, and older sheep prior to being sold.

In contrast, the vast majority of sheep sold into the live export trade are young (usually 2-3 year olds) wethers (castrated males). Australian sheep farmers have said that they would be upset to lose even 1% (over an entire year) of this class of sheep - which they consider to be animals in the prime of their lives.
The on board death rate is around 7 to 10 times the suggested 3% on farm mortality rate.

 
During a 2 to 3 week voyage on ships to the Middle East approximately 1% of these carefully selected 'healthy' sheep will die. On the livestock vessel Al Kuwait, met by Animals Australia investigators in Kuwait
City in November 2003, approximately 1000 of these 'strong and healthy' Australian sheep had died during
a 14 day voyage described by the stockman on board as having been conducted in perfect conditions -
mild temperatures and calm seas.

The MV Cormo Express debacle proved the impacts of transportation by sea. Clear evidence was provided
that the longer these sheep are kept on a ship, the more that will die. On the MV Cormo Express, just under 10% (nearly 6000 animals) died over the 11 weeks they spent at sea - about 0.9% a week, and this despite Australian vets and an independent OIE, the World Animal Health Organisation veterinarian proclaiming the animals were in good health.

... (set up after the MV Cormo Express rejection in 2003) lead to substantial changes for Australian animals during and after live export?

NO! Unfortunately the Keniry Review Terms of Reference only relate to the preparation, selection, loading and shipboard phase of the live export process. Whilst the report made a number of good recommendations, the inherent nature of transportation stress, congregations of large numbers of animals, and transportation to another hemisphere (particularly for all sheep) with the inherent and persistent dangers of the sea, implementation of the report recommendations cannot substantially reduce nor eliminate the current unacceptable animal suffering and mortalities that occur.

Significantly, the Keniry Review had no brief, nor provided any recommendations, in relation to the treatment of our animals in importing countries.

... by the Keniry Review (for voyages over 10 days) protect the welfare of animals on board vessels?

Not really. A shipboard veterinarian may have more than 100,000 animals on board. It is not possible to tell which animals are failing to eat.

Despite the presence of a veterinarian and a nominated 'stockman' on each long haul shipment, sick or moribund animals are not routinely euthanased. Most animals who die on live export vessels are found dead in their pens – they are not euthanased before they reach this point.

A veterinarian and an experienced stockman cannot change the key problems on livestock ships. Nor can these professionals influence the treatment of animals after unloading in an importing country.

To learn about how Australian exported animals are handled and slaughtered in importing countries read the Animals Australia Middle East Investigation Report.

Good question. It is in the interests of some importing countries to keep importing live animals. For example, live imports provide them with jobs.

Kuwait and Bahrain import significant amounts of both frozen meat and live animals from Australia. Kuwaiti and Bahraini governments subsidise the cost of imported live sheep who are slaughtered in their respective countries. But they do not subsidise the cost of imported frozen meat. This means that Australian live exporters benefit from the effect of the government subsidy but Australian frozen meat exporters do not. (source: ABARE 2008)

Saudis often drive over the boarder to Bahrain to take advantage of the subsidised cost of meat from imported live animals. (source: ABARE 2008).

It is in the interests of exporters to continue to export live animals. It is in the interests of a small proportion of Australia ’s producers who produce animals specifically for the live export market and do not wish to restructure.