Opinion: The debate over whether New Zealand should reinstate live exports by sea is back as the Government looks to begin public consultation on the issue.
A ban on the export of livestock — cattle, deer, sheep and goats — came into effect last year after the previous Labour government instigated the move in 2021.
Controversy around the practice had been simmering for some time, but those concerns were thrown into sharp focus following the 2020 sinking of the Gulf Livestock 1, in which 41 crew members and nearly 6000 cattle died off the coast of Japan.
Now, the coalition Government is working to bring back live exports by sea, saying public consultation will begin before September.
Federated Farmers and Veterinarians for Animal Welfare Aotearoa (VAWA) share their thoughts on the issue.
Richard McIntyre, Federated Farmers national board member and animal welfare spokesperson
What was your position on the previous Labour government’s ban on live exports by sea?
Federated Farmers opposed the ban on live exports by sea but recognised the need to drive for even higher animal welfare standards in that industry.
We called for decisions on the future of live exports to be debated on the facts, rather than politics and ideology.
Do you want to see the return of these types of live exports in New Zealand? Why/Why not?
We do want to see a return of live animal exports, but not without new “gold standard” requirements on animal welfare and safety.
The standards that already applied to our live exports before the ban were world-leading, but the industry-initiated NZ Gold Standard programme would put us out in front even further, with such things as:
- The lowest regulated stocking densities in the world during transit;
- A responsible vessel owner programme;
- Minimum standards of vessel quality, that will result in the discontinued use of any ship that poses an inherent or high animal risk;
- A transparent reporting system that measures and reports on animal welfare during the voyage.
Live exports earned New Zealand around $300 million-$400 million a year. That jumped to $524 million in the final year before the ban kicked in. On top of this revenue, the industry generates significant economic activity on our shores for transporters, veterinarians, feed supply companies and others.
What impacts will resuming these live exports have on New Zealand?
Live exports are a significant earner for farmers and offer flexibility when domestic market and environmental conditions are unfavourable – such as during droughts, when feed supply is under pressure. It’s one of the solutions for surplus dairy calves.
The Regulatory Impact statement to the Labour Government as it was considering the ban noted “…livestock exports make a small but important financial contribution to individual farmers by helping diversify their income streams. In addition to fetching premium prices, if export cattle are sold as yearlings, farmers can receive an earlier than normal return on investment.”
In the 10 years to 2021, around 5000 farmers across all regions of New Zealand had supplied breeding cattle for export.
Resumption of the trade, with the highest standards of animal welfare in place – including requirements put on the new owners of the livestock in their place of destination – means New Zealand can exert pressure via trade competition on other countries engaging in the trade to lift their animal welfare standards.
What would you say to people who believe live exports by sea should remain banned due to concerns over animal welfare?
I’d challenge them and ask if it’s really animal welfare standards that they’re concerned about or if they just want to see live exports banned no matter what.
If their concern genuinely is animal welfare considerations, then we should be having a conversation about how we can improve standards and put systems in place to ensure they are met.
Farmers expect to see high animal welfare standards too but there are ways to achieve that without an outright ban on exports.
Federated Farmers’ support for lifting of the ban is conditional on gold standard animal welfare that is transparent and accountable.
Dr Helen Beattie, Managing Director of Veterinarians for Animal Welfare Aotearoa
What was your position on the previous Labour government’s ban on live exports by sea?
I was working for the New Zealand Veterinary Association when the ban was being considered and led its campaign around that but left there before the ban was announced. I strongly supported the ban.
Do you want to see the return of these types of live exports in New Zealand? Why/Why not?
Definitely not. I don’t believe that it’s possible to keep the animals safe during these journeys.
I don’t think it’s ethical to have this “out of sight, out of mind” when we don’t understand how these animals live their lives in the destination countries.
Dr Lynn Simpson said the journey is the start of a “short and miserable” life for animals as a petition to uphold New Zealand’s ban on live exports by sea goes to Parliament today. (Source: Breakfast)
What impacts will resuming these live exports have on New Zealand?
From a reputation perspective, New Zealand was seen to be a world leader by putting this ban in place.
So, it’s entirely regressive to look at reinstating these live exports when all of the evidence suggests that we can’t keep these animals safe and their welfare is very seriously compromised during the voyage.
We have no understanding of what their lives look like at destination, and we also can’t guarantee that they have a high welfare death either – there’s not necessarily stunning before slaughter, so that’s another concern. All of that erodes our reputation as leaders in how we care for our animals.
It’s morally bankrupt when we know that there’s those gaps in our understanding of what the animals’ experiences are and yet we choose to do it anyway.
Additionally, there is the risk of there being another catastrophe like the Gulf Livestock 1 sinking and then that again affecting our reputation because we’re making this decision for the benefit of a small number of people.
What would you say to people who believe these live exports by sea should resume because of benefits to the agricultural economy?
In the big picture, it’s a very, very tiny amount of money.
[Labour said live exports by sea represented 0.32% of primary sector export revenue before it banned the practice.]
It is really insignificant but that’s not to detract from the money that a small number of individuals make from this.
I do have some questions around how those figures have been arrived at. For example, if these animals aren’t going to be sold offshore, if you leave them in New Zealand, is the value of those animals onshore accounted for in that figure? It’s not a zero-sum game, is it? The conversation about the loss of live exports to the economy is pretty nuanced, in my view.
But more than that, it comes back to this bigger picture of the value to the agricultural economy. A huge part of that is around being seen to be leaders in our game.
And that might not be a ‘financial reward’ but being seen to do the right thing, protect our reputation and have ethical practices, I think does matter to how our trading partners view us.