Exporting from Australia

Elsewhere on DAFF

Related Websites

Investigation into a complaint from Animals Australia alleging non-compliance in January 2012 with animal welfare performance measures and targets under the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System

List of Tables

Table 1: Exporters and abattoirs
Table 2: NACC (Abattoir 3): Summary of DAFF assessment of the video footage against animal welfare performance measures and targets
Table 3: ILE (Abattoir 4): Summary of DAFF assessment of the video footage against animal welfare performance measures and targets
Table 4: Classification of findings
Table 5: Classification of findings of this investigation, by exporter
Table 6: Summary of regulatory action options

Executive Summary

On 24 February 2012, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) received a formal complaint from Animals Australia alleging non–compliance with animal welfare guidelines that might involve cattle exported from Australia to Indonesia under an approved Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System (ESCAS). The complaint included video footage that Animals Australia said had been made on 24–26 January 2012. DAFF also received an RSPCA Australia analysis of the same video footage.

DAFF’s investigation of the complaint identified four abattoirs shown in the video footage. DAFF considered that four exporters had the potential to have an approved ESCAS that could have a link to an abattoir in the video footage.

The investigation determined that the slaughter lines shown in the video footage at two of the four abattoirs were part of an approved ESCAS for two exporters, and the slaughter lines at two abattoirs were not part of an approved ESCAS for any exporter.

At the two abattoirs determined to be part of an approved ESCAS, DAFF considers the cattle shown in the video footage made at one of the abattoirs to have been sourced from Australia. In the other abattoir, DAFF considers the cattle are highly likely to have been sourced from Australia.

DAFF animal welfare experts assessed the video footage and determined that in the two abattoirs that are part of an approved ESCAS, there is evidence of non–compliances with ESCAS animal welfare performance measures and targets.

The investigation recommends that the Secretary take regulatory action with regard to the two exporters, North Australian Cattle Company Pty Ltd (NACC) and International Livestock Export Pty Ltd (ILE) with an approved ESCAS that each included an abattoir where non–compliances with ESCAS animal welfare performance measures and targets occurred.

The two other exporters initially identified by DAFF as potentially linked to the video footage were fully cleared of having any connection with the investigated footage. DAFF determined that these two exporters, Australian Rural Exports Pty Ltd (Austrex) and Wellard Rural Exports Pty Ltd (Wellard), did not have either of the relevant slaughter lines in their approved supply chains at the time the footage was taken. In addition, DAFF agrees that the cattle filmed in the relevant sequences were not sourced from Australia. Accordingly, these exporters were excluded from any further part in the investigation.

The investigation also makes observations directed towards closing information and risk gaps that the investigation has revealed in the current process for approval of an ESCAS.

1. Background

On 24 February 2012, DAFF received a formal complaint from Animals Australia of alleged non–compliances with animal welfare guidelines that might involve cattle exported from Australia to Indonesia under an approved ESCAS. The complaint included video footage that Animals Australia said had been made on 24–26 January 2012.

DAFF also received an analysis of the same video footage by RSPCA Australia. The RSPCA analysis alleges a number of minor and major non–compliances with the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) animal welfare recommendations in the ‘Terrestrial Animal Health Code’, upon which the ESCAS animal welfare performance measures and targets are based.

Under the ESCAS framework, Australian exporters must develop and implement a supply chain assurance system, approved by the DAFF Secretary, that:

meets OIE recommendations for animal welfare
demonstrates control through the supply chain
enables livestock to be effectively traced by exporters within a supply chain through to and including slaughter
meets reporting and accountability requirements
is independently verified and audited.

The first consignments of cattle exported under the ESCAS framework left Australia in August 2011.

1.1. Legislation

The legislation that regulates the livestock export industry is:

Export Control Act 1982
Export Control (Orders) Regulations 1982
Export Control (Animals) Order 2004
Australian Meat and Live–stock Industry Act 1997
Australian Meat and Live–stock Industry (Conditions on Live–stock Export Licences) Order 2012
Australian Meat and Live–stock Industry (Export Licensing) Regulations 1998
Australian Meat and Live–stock Industry (Standards) Order 2005.

There is no legislation that prescribes how DAFF conduct any investigation; however, it is sound administrative practice that an investigation be conducted in order to provide evidence to the Secretary, to inform a decision whether there are reasons to exercise regulatory powers under relevant legislation.

2. Conduct Of The Investigation

On receipt of the complaint from Animals Australia, DAFF assessed the video footage to determine whether there was any substance to the allegations of non compliances with animal welfare performance measures and targets. This assessment was done by the DAFF animal welfare experts who developed the ESCAS animal welfare performance measures and targets used to ensure that exporters meet OIE animal welfare recommendations for slaughter set out in the ‘Terrestrial Animal Health Code’. Those animal welfare performance measures and targets are available here:

DAFF also assessed the video footage to identify whether the abattoirs shown were part of any approved ESCAS, and to identify the exporters involved.

2.1. Directions Letter

It is a condition of ESCAS approval that the exporter must provide to DAFF any additional information that DAFF requires. DAFF sent a Directions Letter to each of the four exporters it considered had the potential to have an approved ESCAS that could have a link to an abattoir in the video footage, requiring the exporter to provide specified information relevant to the investigation.

2.2. Information reviewed

The information DAFF reviewed in the conduct of the investigation was:

the formal complaint and video footage sent to DAFF by Animals Australia
analysis of the video footage by the RSPCA
animal welfare assessment of the video footage by DAFF animal welfare experts
ESCAS documentation previously provided by each exporter, including the initial independent audit report
information provided by each exporter in response to the Directions Letter, which included:
- a summary report of any internal investigation
- analysis of the video footage
- the number of cattle exported under ESCAS (including breakdown by consignment and abattoir)
- audit reports
- list of cattle slaughtered in the abattoir
- standard operating procedure (SOP) for the abattoir
- any actions the exporter had taken in response to the video footage.

Two exporters, NACC and ILE gave DAFF information on actions they had taken since the video footage was made. Further details are set out in Annex 3 and Annex 4.

Animals Australia gave DAFF the number printed on a green eartag that they claimed one of the exporters uses to identify their cattle slaughtered at one of the abattoirs seen in the video footage. The exporter proved to DAFF that the number on this eartag showed that it was not used on an animal slaughtered during 24–26 January 2012 when the video footage was made. Further details are set out in Annex 4.

MLA provided information to DAFF on cattle characteristics to aid in the identification of cattle sourced from Australia. MLA also provided information on the Mark 1 and Mark 4 slaughter restraint boxes.

DAFF received information from the Indonesian Ministry of Agriculture on the identity of abattoirs seen in the video footage, and whether they slaughtered local cattle.

2.3. Animal welfare assessment

Officers from the DAFF Animal Welfare Branch, and the Office of the Chief Veterinary Officer reviewed the video footage against ESCAS animal welfare performance measures and targets, which operationalise OIE animal welfare guidelines.

The investigation considered the assessment by DAFF animal welfare experts, and determined whether incidents seen in the video footage were compliant, non–compliant, or inconclusive or not able to be assessed with regard to the ESCAS animal welfare performance measures and targets.

The investigation reviewed the RSPCA analysis of the video footage, and individual exporter analysis of the video footage, but DAFF relied on its own assessment to determine any non–compliances with ESCAS animal welfare performance measures and targets.

2.4. Investigation focus

The investigation focused on the following issues:

whether the slaughter line or abattoir seen in the video footage was part of an approved ESCAS supply chain at the time the video footage was made
whether the cattle seen in each section of the video footage were sourced from Australia
whether the video footage showed non–compliances with ESCAS animal welfare performance measures and targets
if the above three points were confirmed, whether there was any non–compliance with any other aspects of ESCAS
whether the results of the investigation gave reasons for the Secretary to take regulatory action.

3. Investigation Findings

DAFF initially considered that the video footage showed scenes in three abattoirs that had the potential to be linked to the approved ESCAS of four exporters. DAFF assessed individual scenes in the video footage with regard to the approved ESCAS operations of each of the four exporters identified.

One of the exporters, Austrex, identified a fourth abattoir in their response to the Directions Letter. The four abattoirs are named for the purposes of this investigation ‘Abattoir 1’, ‘Abattoir 2’, ‘Abattoir 3’ and ‘Abattoir 4’.

The exporters, and the abattoirs they use, are set out in Table 1.

Table 1: Exporters and abattoirs
Exporter	Abattoir
Australian Rural Exports Pty Ltd (Austrex)	Abattoir 1, Abattoir 2
Wellard Rural Exports Pty Ltd (Wellard)	Abattoir 1
North Australian Cattle Company Pty Ltd (NACC)	Abattoir 3
International Livestock Export Pty Ltd (ILE)	Abattoir 4

It was not possible in the video footage to individually and definitively identify cattle by means of legible eartag number. For the purposes of this investigation, DAFF allocated an identification number from L01 to L10 to each of the ten head of cattle seen being slaughtered in the video footage.

Summary findings of the investigation are set out below. The full investigation report for each exporter is at Annexes 1–4.

A summary of the video footage, showing the abattoirs and DAFF–allocated animal identification numbers is at Appendix 1.

Assessment of the video footage identifies that the use of the Mark 4 box is the risk area in the abattoirs that were part of an approved ESCAS. The report entitled ‘An assessment of the ongoing appropriateness of Mark I and Mark IV restraint boxes’ prepared by the Australian Chief Veterinary Officer (ACVO) states the Mark 4 box generally complies with OIE animal welfare guidelines. The report by the ACVO highlighted the need for sound standard operational procedures (SOPs) and training to ensure the Mark 4 box is operated correctly. The non compliances seen in the video footage demonstrate that these were absent in the abattoirs that were part of an approved supply chain. The ACVO advised that the Mark 4 boxes seen in the video footage had some differences from those assessed in the initial evaluation report. The lack of a head or neck restraint in one box viewed allowed the animal to throw its head around as the manual restraint was not immediately effective leading to poor animal welfare outcomes.

It is appropriate that the regulatory action address the risks identified in these exporter’s chains and provide ongoing assurance that the corrective actions put in place are effective and sustained.

Any regulatory action should be directed towards slaughter using the Mark 4 or other restraining boxes modelled on the Mark 4 box, that is, any restraint box that holds the cattle and allows them to be rotated onto their side prior to slaughter.

3.1. Austrex and Wellard (Abattoir 1)

DAFF initially considered that Austrex and Wellard had the potential to be linked to an approved ESCAS that includes Abattoir 1.

3.1.1. Is the abattoir part of an approved ESCAS?

The slaughter line and the slaughter practices shown in the video footage do not match the slaughter line and slaughter practices of Abattoir 1 for any Australian exporter under an approved ESCAS. Austrex and Wellard have an approved ESCAS that incorporates the use of slaughter floor 1 in Abattoir 1 which was not shown in the footage.

3.1.2. Were the cattle sourced from Australia under an approved ESCAS?

The investigation determined that the two cattle seen in the video footage made at Abattoir 1 were not sourced from Australia under an approved ESCAS.

3.1.3. Is there any non–compliance with ESCAS animal welfare performance measures and targets?

The investigation determined that this question is not relevant because the slaughter floor at Abattoir 1 shown in the video footage was not part of an approved ESCAS, and the cattle were not sourced from Australia.

3.1.4. Is there any non–compliance with other aspects of ESCAS?

The investigation determined that this issue is not relevant because the slaughter line at Abattoir 1 shown in the video footage is not part of an approved ESCAS and the cattle were not sourced from Australia under an approved ESCAS.

3.1.5. Is there reason for the Secretary to take regulatory action?

The investigation determined that there is no reason for the Secretary to take regulatory action against either of the exporters ( Austrex and Wellard) as neither exporter had breached their ESCAS requirements.

3.2. Austrex (Abattoir 2)

During the course of the investigation Austrex identified abattoir 2.

3.2.1. Is the abattoir part of an approved ESCAS?

The investigation determined that Abattoir 2 shown in the video footage was not part of an approved ESCAS for Austrex at the time the video footage was made.

3.2.2. Were the cattle sourced from Australia under an approved ESCAS?

The investigation determined that the single animal shown in the video footage being dressed after slaughter cannot be identified as Australian, because no eartags, ear marks or brands can be seen, nor any distinguishing features to determine the breed.

3.2.3. Is there any non–compliance with ESCAS animal welfare performance measures and targets?

The investigation determined that this question is not relevant because Abattoir 2 was not part of an approved ESCAS at the time the video footage was made, and the single animal shown in the video footage being dressed after slaughter cannot be identified as having been sourced from Australia.

3.2.4. Is there any non–compliance with other aspects of ESCAS?

The investigation determined that this question is not relevant because Abattoir 2 was not part of an approved ESCAS at the time the video footage was made

3.2.5. Is there reason for the Secretary to take regulatory action?

The investigation determined that there is no reason for the Secretary to take regulatory action against the exporter Austrex because the exporter had not breached their ESCAS requirements.

3.3 NACC (Abattoir 3)

DAFF initially considered that NACC had the potential to be linked to an approved ESCAS that includes Abattoir 3.

3.3.1. Is the abattoir part of an approved ESCAS?

The investigation determined that Abattoir 3 shown in the video footage was part of an approved ESCAS for NACC at the time the video footage was made.

3.3.2. Were the cattle sourced from Australia under an approved ESCAS?

The investigation determined that the four cattle seen being slaughtered in the video footage were sourced from Australia under an approved ESCAS.

3.3.3. Is there any non–compliance with ESCAS animal welfare performance measures and targets?

The investigation determined that the video footage showed 14 non–compliances with ESCAS animal welfare performance measures and targets. This number of non–compliances, and the non–compliance with animal welfare performance measures and targets 6.8 and 6.15 for all four head of cattle, indicate a systemic loss of control over animal welfare, to the degree that it is likely that other cattle slaughtered in Abattoir 3 were subject to the same non–compliances.

Although the SOPs at Abattoir 3 are of a good standard, some improvements could be made to detailed procedures. The video shows that Abattoir 3 staff do not properly follow the SOPs, which indicates that additional staff training is required so that animal welfare performance measures and targets can be met.

A summary of DAFF’s animal welfare assessment is set out in Table 2. Further information on the animal welfare assessment is at Annex 3.

Table 2: NACC (Abattoir 3): Summary of DAFF assessment of the video footage against animal welfare performance measures and targets
Animal welfare performance measure or target	Animal ID
Animal welfare performance measure or target	01	02	07	08
6.6 The head is restrained for as short a time as possible prior to sticking, and in no case for longer than 10 seconds	Non–compliant	Non–compliant	Compliant	Compliant
6.8 The head of the animal is kept in extension to prevent the edges of the wounds touching until the animal is dead	Non–compliant	Non–compliant	Non–compliant	Non–compliant
6.9 The method of restraint employed is working effectively	Inconclusive	Not assessed	Not assessed	Non–compliant
6.12 The throat is cut using a single, deep, uninterrupted fast stroke of the knife.	Not assessed	Not assessed	Inconclusive	Not assessed
6.14 Death, indicated by cessation of pulsatile bleeding and lack of corneal reflex and lack of rhythmic breathing, is assured before performing any other procedures	Non–compliant	Not assessed	Non–compliant	Non–compliant
6.15 Animals must not have water thrown on them or be otherwise disturbed prior to confirmed death	Non–compliant	Non–compliant	Non–compliant	Non–compliant

Note:

Inconclusive: The video footage included vision of some actions related to this specific item on the animal welfare performance measures or targets, but it was limited, and not enough evidence could be seen to determine whether the actions were compliant or not.
Not assessed: The video did not show the full slaughter process for all four head of cattle; therefore, some animal welfare performance measures or targets cannot be assessed at all, and some cannot be assessed for all cattle.

3.3.4. Is there any non–compliance with other aspects of ESCAS?

Fourteen non–compliances in total, and the non–compliance with performance measures and targets 6.8 and 6.15 for all four cattle, indicate a systemic loss of control over animal welfare. The fact that these animal welfare non–compliances were detected by an external party, not by NACC’s internal quality control procedures, indicates reduced control over NACC’s ESCAS.

3.3.5. Is there reason for the Secretary to take regulatory action?

Abattoir 3 is part of NACC’s approved ESCAS, and the four cattle seen being slaughtered in the video footage were sourced from Australia and exported under an approved ESCAS.

The video footage shows fourteen non–compliances with ESCAS animal welfare performance measures and targets during the slaughter of the cattle, meaning that it is likely that other cattle slaughtered in Abattoir 3 were subject to the same non–compliances.

The fact that these non–compliances were detected by an external party, not by NACC’s internal quality control procedures, indicates reduced control over NACC’s ESCAS.

For these reasons, the Secretary should take regulatory action with regard to NACC in accordance with the ‘Guideline: Management of Non Compliance: Exporter supply chain assurance system (ESCAS) for feeder and slaughter livestock to Indonesia’.

3.4. ILE (Abattoir 4)

DAFF initially considered that ILE had the potential to be linked to an approved ESCAS that includes Abattoir 4.

3.4.1. Is the abattoir part of an approved ESCAS?

ILE confirmed that Abattoir 4 seen in the video footage is included in its approved ESCAS applications.

3.4.2. Were the cattle sourced from Australia under an approved ESCAS?

The investigation determined that the four cattle seen in the video footage are highly likely to have been sourced from Australia under an approved ESCAS.

3.4.3. Is there any non–compliance with ESCAS animal welfare performance measures and targets?

The investigation determined that the video footage showed 23 non–compliances with ESCAS animal welfare performance measures and targets. This number of non–compliances, and the non–compliance with animal welfare performance measures and targets 6.1, 6.14 and 6.15 for all four head of cattle, indicate a systemic loss of control over animal welfare, to the degree that it is likely that other cattle slaughtered in Abattoir 4 were subject to the same non–compliances.

ILE provided an English translation of Abattoir 4’s SOPs which DAFF reviewed and compared with the ESCAS animal welfare performance measures and targets. The translated SOPs do not adequately provide for a quality management system that would reliably meet the checklist requirements.

A summary of DAFF’s animal welfare assessment is set out in Table 3. Further information on the animal welfare assessment is at Annex 4.

Table 3: ILE (Abattoir 4): Summary of DAFF assessment of the video footage against animal welfare performance measures and targets
Animal welfare performance measure or target	Animal ID
Animal welfare performance measure or target	03	04	09	10
1.10 Livestock are not subjected to procedures that cause pain and suffering	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Non–compliant
6.1 Slaughter of livestock is carried out calmly and effectively	Non–compliant	Non–compliant	Inconclusive	Non–compliant
6.3 The method of restraint employed is appropriate for the size and class of livestock being slaughtered	Non–compliant	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed
6.4 Animals are presented for slaughter without being unduly stressed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed	Non–compliant
6.6 The head is restrained for as short a time as possible prior to sticking, and in no case for longer than 10 seconds	Non– compliant	Non–compliant	Not assessed	Non–compliant
6.8 The head of the animal is kept in extension to prevent the edges of the wounds touching until the animal is dead	Non–compliant	Non–compliant	Non–compliant	Inconclusive
6.9 The method of restraint employed is working effectively	Non –compliant	Not assessed	Not assessed	Non–compliant
6.12 The throat is cut using a single, deep, uninterrupted fast stroke of the knife	Non–compliant	Not assessed	Not assessed	Not assessed
6.14 Death, indicated by cessation of pulsatile bleeding and lack of corneal reflex and lack of rhythmic breathing, is assured before performing any other procedures	Non–compliant	Non–compliant	Non–compliant	Non–compliant
6.15 Animals must not have water thrown on them or be otherwise disturbed prior to confirmed death	Non–compliant	Non–compliant	Non–compliant	Non–compliant

3.4.4. Is there any non–compliance with other aspects of ESCAS?

Twenty three non–compliances in total, and the non–compliance with performance measures and targets 6.1, 6.14 and 6.15 for all four cattle, indicate a systemic loss of control over animal welfare, and reduced control of the approved ESCAS. The fact that these animal welfare non–compliances were detected by an external party, not by ILE’s internal quality control procedures, indicates reduced control over ILE’s ESCAS.

3.4.5. Is there reason for the Secretary to take regulatory action?

Abattoir 4 is part of ILE’s approved ESCAS. DAFF considers the cattle shown being slaughtered in the video footage to be highly likely to have been sourced from Australia and exported under an approved ESCAS.

The video footage shows twenty three non–compliances with ESCAS animal welfare performance measures and targets during the slaughter of the cattle, meaning that it is likely that other cattle slaughtered in Abattoir 4 were subject to the same non–compliances.

The fact that these non–compliances were detected by an external party, not by ILE’s internal quality control procedures, indicates reduced control over ILE’s ESCAS.

For these reasons, the Secretary should take regulatory action with regard to ILE in accordance with the ‘Guideline: Management of Non Compliance: Exporter supply chain assurance system (ESCAS) for feeder and slaughter livestock to Indonesia’.

4. Possible Regulatory Actions

The Guideline: Management of Non Compliance: Exporter supply chain assurance system (ESCAS) for feeder and slaughter livestock gives guidance on the regulatory action the Secretary might take in response to the adverse findings summarised in section 3. The Guideline is neither exhaustive nor prescriptive in nature – it is intended as a guide only.

The Guideline contains information that can be used to classify the findings of investigations as a prelude to determining regulatory action. This information is reproduced at Table 4.

Table 4: Classification of findings
Category	Definition of finding
No confirmed non–compliance	No substantiated information confirming failure to comply with the approved exporter supply chain assurance system or failure to meet the control, traceability or animal welfare outcomes
Minor non–compliance	A failure to comply with the approved exporter supply chain assurance system which is not likely to result in systemic failure or reduced ability to meet the control, traceability or animal welfare outcomes. Potential to affect control, traceability or animal welfare outcomes
Major non–compliance	A failure to comply with the approved exporter supply chain assurance system which is likely to result in systemic failure or materially reduced ability to meet the control, traceability or animal welfare outcomes. A number of minor non–compliances which are likely to result in systemic failure can be considered to be major non compliance. Likely to affect control, traceability or animal welfare outcomes
Critical non–compliance	A failure to comply with the approved exporter supply chain assurance system which has led to the control, traceability or animal welfare outcomes not being met. Certain to affect control, traceability or animal welfare outcomes

Using these classifications, the findings of this investigation with regard to the four exporters have been classified as set out in Table 5. In reaching these classifications, DAFF has had regard to all information available to it through this investigation.

Table 5: Classification of findings of this investigation, by exporter
Exporter	Category of non–compliance	Reasons
Austrex	No confirmed non–compliance	There is no substantiated information confirming failure to comply with the approved ESCAS, nor failure to meet animal welfare outcomes.
Wellard	No confirmed non–compliance	There is no substantiated information confirming failure to comply with the approved ESCAS, nor failure to meet animal welfare outcomes.
NACC	Major non–compliance	The investigation found 14 non–compliances with animal welfare performance targets in video footage of the slaughter of four cattle confirmed to have been sourced from Australia. This large number of non–compliances in a relatively small number of cattle indicates that animal welfare outcomes in the ESCAS are not being met and are likely to affect animal welfare outcomes. The non–compliances with regard to animal welfare are evidence of reduced control of the approved ESCAS.
ILE	Major non–compliance	The investigation found 23 non–compliances with animal welfare performance targets in video footage of the slaughter of four cattle highly likely to have been sourced from Australia. This large number of non–compliances in a relatively small number of cattle, indicate that animal welfare outcomes in the ESCAS are not being met and are likely to affect animal welfare outcomes. The non–compliances with regard to animal welfare are evidence of reduced control of the approved ESCAS.

The Guideline sets out the possible regulatory actions the Secretary may take with regard to exporters. Table 6 summarises these actions.

Table 6: Summary of regulatory action options
Non–compliance	Secretary’s possible actions	Legislative power
Critical non–compliance for traceability, control, animal welfare auditing or reporting Repeated or multiple major non–compliance for traceability, control, animal welfare auditing or reporting	Notice of show cause, suspend licence, cancel licence, vary or revoke ESCAS approval, refuse to approve future NOI or ESCAS or refuse to approve ESCAS which includes a particular supply chain	s 23 AMLI Act s 24 AMLI Act ss 2.44 and 2.46A Export Control (Animals) Order (ECA order)
Critical or major non–compliance for traceability, control, animal welfare auditing or reporting Repeated or multiple minor non–compliance for traceability, control, animal welfare auditing or reporting	Subject the licence to directions, vary or revoke ESCAS approval, refuse to approve future NOI or ESCAS, refuse to approve ESCAS which includes a particular supply chain	s 17 AMLI Act ss 2.44 and 2.46A ECA order
Secretary or delegate is not satisfied that the consignment of live–stock will be the subject of transport, handling, slaughter and related operations which are in accordance with relevant OIE recommendations Any non–compliance for animal welfare traceability, control, auditing or reporting	Refuse to approve NOI and/or ESCAS, apply conditions to NOI and/or ESCAS Approval or refuse to approve ESCAS which includes a particular supply chain.	s 2.44 ECA order
Any non–compliance for traceability, control, animal welfare, auditing or reporting	Apply conditions to NOI and/or ESCAS approval or refuse to approve ESCAS which includes a particular supply chain	s 2.44 ECA order
Any non–compliance for traceability, control, animal welfare, auditing or reporting Insufficient information provided by exporter in NOI application for the Secretary or his delegate to be satisfied that the consignment of live–stock will be the subject of transport, handling, slaughter and related operations which are in accordance with relevant OIE recommendations	Seek additional information	s 54 AMLI Act s 11Q EC Act
Insufficient documentation provided to the DAFF regional office to demonstrate that the consignment has been prepared in accordance with the relevant legislation, importing country requirements and approved NOI/CRMP and ESCAS or (in relation to export permits) insufficient information to demonstrate that the exporter is in a position to comply with the ESCAS	The Secretary or delegate may refuse, suspend or cancel a Permission to Leave for Loading (PLL) or refuse or revoke an export permit	ss 2.54, 2.57, 2.59 (1)(c)(v), 2.60 and 2.61 ECA Order

In Taking Regulatory Action, The Secretary Has No History Of Compliance With Escas To Consider In Deciding On The Most Appropriate Action.

Assessment of the video footage identifies that slaughter without stunning using the Mark 4 box is the risk area in the abattoirs that were part of an approved ESCAS. The report entitled ‘An assessment of the ongoing appropriateness of Mark I and Mark IV restraint boxes’ prepared by the Australian Chief Veterinary Officer (ACVO) states the Mark 4 box generally complies with OIE animal welfare guidelines. The report by the ACVO highlighted the need for sound standard operational procedures and training to ensure the Mark 4 box is operated correctly.

The non compliances seen in the video footage demonstrate that these were absent in the abattoirs that were part of an approved supply chain. The ACVO advised that the Mark 4 boxes seen in the video footage had some differences from those assessed in the initial evaluation report. The lack of a head or neck restraint in one box viewed allowed the animal to throw its head around as the manual restraint was not immediately effective. The poor animal welfare outcomes using the Mark 4 restraint box in these exporter chains can be attributed to problems restraining the head, implementation of sound standard operational procedures and lack of training.

It is appropriate that the regulatory action address the risks identified in these Exporter’s chains and provide ongoing assurance that the corrective actions put in place are effective and sustained.

Any regulatory action should be directed towards the use of the Mark 4 or other restraining boxes modelled on the Mark 4 box, that is, any restraint box that holds the cattle and allows them to be rotated onto their side prior to slaughter and is operated without stunning.

5. Regulatory Actions

The investigation recommends that the Secretary take the following regulatory actions:

5.1.NACC

The Secretary should vary the existing approved ESCAS(s) for NACC to remove Abattoir 3. This abattoir is not used by any other exporter.
If NACC wishes to reinstate Abattoir 3 under its approved ESCAS, the Secretary should require NACC to provide evidence of corrective and preventative action undertaken to ensure that there is no repeat of the observed non–compliances in Abattoir 3.
Once all corrective and preventative actions have been implemented, NACC must arrange for a performance audit to be undertaken at Abattoir 3. Additional audits may be required if the Secretary so directs.
In order to be satisfied that NACC has control of their supply chains, and that there will be no further animal welfare non–compliances, the Secretary should vary the conditions of NACC’s approved ESCAS with regard to those abattoirs in which cattle sourced from Australia are slaughtered without stunning using the Mark 4 (including copy or custom) restraint box. The varied conditions should be:
- a designated animal welfare officer must be present at each abattoir in each of NACC’s supply chains in Indonesia approved under ESCAS, when animals exported by NACC are slaughtered without stunning using the Mark 4 (including copy or custom) restraint box
- as soon as possible after the date on which the Secretary varies the conditions of the approved ESCAS, an independent audit must be undertaken at each abattoir in each of NACC’s supply chains in Indonesia approved under ESCAS, that slaughters cattle sourced from Australia without stunning, using the Mark 4 (including custom or copy) restraint box, according to the following schedule:
  - three audits at monthly intervals, when cattle from the supply chain are being slaughtered
  If these audits show no major con–compliances:
  - two audits at two–monthly intervals, when cattle from the supply chain are being slaughtered.
- the Secretary should reassess the performance of NACC after these audits to decide whether to further vary the approved ESCAS.

5.2. ILE

The Secretary should vary the existing approved ESCAS(s) for ILE to remove Abattoir 4. This abattoir is not used by any other exporter.
If ILE wishes to reinstate Abattoir 4 under its approved ESCAS, the Secretary should require ILE to provide evidence of corrective and preventative action undertaken to ensure that there is no repeat of the observed non–compliances in Abattoir 4.
Once all corrective and preventative actions have been implemented, ILE must arrange for a performance audit to be undertaken at Abattoir 4. Additional audits may be required if the Secretary so directs.

In order to be satisfied that ILE has control of their supply chains, and that there will be no further animal welfare non–compliances, the Secretary should vary the conditions of ILE’s approved ESCAS with regard to those abattoirs in which cattle sourced from Australia are slaughtered without stunning using the Mark 4 restraint box (including copy or custom). The varied conditions should be:
- a designated animal welfare officer must be present at each abattoir in each of ILE’s supply chains in Indonesia approved under ESCAS, when animals exported by ILE are slaughtered without stunning using the Mark 4 (including copy or custom) restraint box
- as soon as possible after the date on which the Secretary varies the conditions of the approved ESCAS, an independent audit must be undertaken at each abattoir in each of ILE’s supply chains in Indonesia approved under ESCAS, that slaughters cattle sourced from Australia, without stunning, using the Mark 4 (including custom and copy) restraint box according to the following schedule:
  - three audits at monthly intervals, when cattle from the supply chain are being slaughtered
  If these audits show no major con–compliances:
  - two audits at two–monthly intervals, when cattle from the supply chain are being slaughtered.
- the Secretary should reassess the performance of ILE after these audits to decide whether to further vary the approved ESCAS.

6. Observations

Three of the four individual sub–investigations made observations with a view to closing information and risk gaps in the current process of approval of an ESCAS. Those observations are consolidated here:

Some Mark 4 slaughter restraint boxes and ‘copy boxes’ or ‘custom boxes’ appear to have no mechanical head and neck restraint, which is different to the original MLA design. There is a risk that such slaughter restraint boxes compromise animal welfare performance measures and targets.

In light of this, the Secretary could ask the Chief Veterinary Officer to review the Mark 4 slaughter restraint box, ‘copy’ and ‘custom’ slaughter restraint boxes when operated with no mechanical head and neck restraint, to assess their compliance with OIE animal welfare recommendations.

The investigation has shown that difficulty can arise in identifying slaughter lines in an abattoir that has multiple slaughter floors and that is to be approved under ESCAS. There can also be difficulty in verifying the identity of cattle seen only on video, if local cattle are also slaughtered in the abattoir or slaughter floor.

For future ESCAS applications, and for existing approved ESCASs, the Secretary could require that the exporter provide the following information on all abattoirs in the proposed or current ESCAS:

identify and provide a detailed description and photographs of all slaughter floors and lines in each abattoir
clearly identify the slaughter lines for which the exporter is seeking approval
indicate whether any livestock other than those sourced from Australia will be slaughtered at the abattoir.
Two of the abattoirs investigated contain multiple slaughter floors and lines, approved and unapproved. In such cases, there is a risk that cattle sourced from Australia could be slaughtered on an unapproved slaughter line.

For future ESCAS applications, and for existing approved ESCASs, the Secretary could require the exporter to indicate how they will manage the risk of diversion of cattle sourced from Australia, from a slaughter floor or line that is part of an approved ESCAS, to one that is not.

In due course, DAFF will take the findings and observations of this investigation, and any action the Secretary subsequently takes, to a meeting of the Industry Government Implementation Group (IGIG), to discuss whether there are any implications for ESCAS, and the broader regulatory framework that surrounds export of livestock from Australia.

Annexes and Appendixes

Note: these documents contain images which may offend some people.

Annex 1

Annex 2

Annex 3

Annex 4

Appendix 1

Summary of Animals Australia video footage provided 24 February 2012 PDF [67KB]
Summary of Animals Australia video footage provided 24 February 2012 Word [44KB]

Last reviewed:
18 May 2012

Contact:
Email Live Animal Exports
About DAFF Biosecurity and Contact details
Media Inquiries