NSA clarifies its stance on live exports
26th October 2012
Today's edition of Farmers Guardian carried a debate between the NSA and Compassion in World Farming about live exports.
But having been limited by space, NSA Chief Executive Phil Stocker also wrote a longer version of the argument, adding further clarity to the the NSA stance that live exports should continue.
Mr Stocker writes:-
The ‘Ramsgate incident’ has sparked a lot of hot words from all quarters. Not surprising given the appalling outcomes of what happened, and as a result the NSA has been called on by animal rights campaigners to ‘join their campaign to end live exports’. But with a long background in practical livestock farming, and many years spent in an organisation whose approach to animal welfare was accepted as being gold standard, I am convinced that on an industry level the simplistic approach of banning everything will not achieve optimum welfare conditions on the widest possible scale.
I consider myself to be an animal welfarist – I spend most of my time working with farmers, policy makers and others to maximise the health of sheep, to control disease, improve sheep management, and improve the general wellbeing of sheep as a species. But while I am passionate about animal welfare I am convinced we will achieve more for improving welfare by promoting ‘best practice’ at one end of the spectrum, and ensuring compliance with regulatory requirements at the other. Some quarters of the RSPCA must agree with this approach because plenty of their Freedom Foods standards are some way off RSPCA ideals – yet the result is an improvement in welfare conditions for a large number of animals.
Many of the specifics of the Ramsgate incident are not related to export, they are related to livestock management and transport generally, and are an example of ‘2% of the industry letting down the other 98%’.
Since Ramsgate I have received seven letters and communications from people asking NSA to back an end to live exports, and more than three times that number from people saying the RSPCA have got it wrong and are risking damaging a valuable trade that is well governed by regulation designed to protect welfare dependent on the transport concerned. The problem is one of enforcement and a small number of cases where people flout the law or make the wrong decisions.
There is good reason behind livestock transport regulations. Irrespective of whether it is over land or across the water, any journey less than eight hours has certain requirements (and it is worth remembering that it can take less time to get across the Channel and to the end destination than some mainland transport routes). Journeys over eight and less than 24 hours carry additional requirements to protect welfare, including provision of water, insulated roofs, air circulation and ventilation. Any rare journeys over 24 hours require unloading, rest and feed and water.
Of course for sheep going to slaughter it would be preferable to use an abattoir as close to home as possible and transport carcases instead – but with research showing that stress is mostly associated with loading and unloading, these benefits are as much about providing local jobs, adding value locally, and more efficient energy use, as about animal welfare.
A ban on exporting live animals would presumably affect other species too – or would cats and dogs and racehorses be exempt? There is no requirement for air conditioned or insulated cars transporting dogs across the continent, and still many dogs die in hot cars. If not then what are the concerns for sheep? – not the journey clearly, more the conditions of transport, and again this has to be more about ensuring compliance with legal requirements.
The Ramsgate incident caused undue (and regrettable) suffering to around 46 sheep. In the month since Ramsgate, according to information provided to us, more than 80 sheep suffered injury or death by attacks from dogs. Where are the animal welfare organisations’ campaigns to prevent suffering to sheep from dogs, or indeed suffering to the dogs themselves?
As for my warning of unintended consequences of alleged RSPCA actions, the closure of the Ramsgate port for live exports immediately led to an increase in sea travel from further up the east coast. And if the pressure that was allegedly put on officials by RSPCA inspectors did lead to a decision to unload sheep at Ramsgate in clearly unsuitable conditions, then this decision will have resulted in a worsening of welfare outcomes – not a result of the trade but a result of the a bad decision.
Its creating the right opportunities to promote those whose consideration and welfare are exemplary that will result in a desire to do things better, and its hitting those who flout the rules and regulations hard that will discourage practices that no one in society wants to see. Simply calling for a banning an activity that in itself does not present a welfare problem seems to me to be shortsighted.
