Posts

The NSPCA and Gerrie Nel head to the High Court against Live Export by Sea

/in , /by

NSPCA - live export

The National Council of SPCAs (NSPCA) confirms that an urgent application to the High Court has been launched to interdict the impending export by sea of live sheep to Kuwait. The matter is set to be heard in the Grahamstown High Court on Friday, 28 February 2020. This, following the live export by sea horror that took place in October 2019 where sheep were transported to the Middle East in horrendous conditions.

Since the shipment in October 2019, the NSPCA has attempted to gain information from both the exporters and the government, of when the next shipment is scheduled, to no avail. The NSPCA was recently made aware that the sheep are mounting in the feedlot owned by the Page Farming Trust and leased by Al Mawashi in Berlin, Eastern Cape, and there were in excess of 30 000 sheep in the first week of February 2020. This number has increased by another 40 000 since 13 February 2020 – totalling 70 000 sheep. It is clear that an imminent shipment is planned.

Afriforum agreed to assist the NSPCA with this High Court case. Advocate Gerrie Nel leading the team, along with advocates Phyllis Vorster and Gustav Weich. The attorneys for the NSPCA case are Matthew Klein and Justin Powers. The NSPCA is indebted to Gerrie Nel and Afriforum for taking this important case on. The NSPCA has a bevy of esteemed experts, including Australian Veterinarian Dr Lynn Simpson who has first-hand experience on these ships, Professor Gareth Bath, Dr Shaun Morris, as well as our own veterinarian, Dr Bryce Marock. The papers will be served to the following respondents:

  1. Minister of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development
  2. The Director General, Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development
  3. The Director, Veterinary – Public Health, Department of Rural Development and Agrarian Reform, Eastern Cape
  4. The Provincial Executive Officer, Rural Development and Agrarian Reform, Eastern Cape
  5. The MEC for Rural Development and Agrarian Reform, Eastern Cape
  6. The Chief Veterinary Officer Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development
  7. The Director for Veterinary Public Health and Welfare, Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development
  8. The Harbour Master, National Ports Authority
  9. The Director, National Ports Authority
  10. Al Mawashi Reg K2018520686
  11. Dave Muller T/A The Meat Men
  12. John Page
  13. Bruce Page
  14. Glen Page

It has come to light that other exporters wish to export live cattle by sea to the likes of Cambodia. The voyage is even longer than that of the Kuwait exports, it exceeds 21 days.

“This case is not only important for this shipment of sheep, but for all the animals that are destined for this harrowing journey to various countries around the globe – we simply cannot allow the perpetuation and growth of this cruel and brutal trade” explained Senior Inspector Grace De Lange, manager of the NSPCA’s Farm Animal Protection Unit.

Afriforum’s CEO Kallie Kriel emphasises that the action is not intended to stop the trade in animals, but rather the way it is done, bringing about cruelty to the animals involved.

In November 2019, the NSPCA laid criminal charges in terms of the Animals Protection Act No 71 of 1962 against the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development (DALRRD), as well as Eastern Cape Rural Development and Agrarian Reform, Al Mawashi – the owners of the Al Shuwaikh vessel, who have a company in South Africa, the captain of the Al Shuwaikh, the Page Farming Trust, and individuals from the Page Farming Trust following the harrowing days spent at the East London harbour by Inspectors of the NSPCA in October 2019, when approximately 57 000 sheep were loaded for shipment to the Middle East. The matter is with the South African Police Services (SAPS) and the investigation is still ongoing.

Conditions on board the Al Shuwaikh in October 2019, included dangerously high ammonia levels on some of the enclosed decks, widespread diarrhoea, with much of it falling into the feed and water troughs, sheep in respiratory distress, together with other serious welfare concerns. On the dock and feedlot, animals were treated in an inhumane manner, and attempts were made to load sick, injured and lame animals onto the vessel. These sentient beings meant nothing to the handlers and exporters.

The costs incurred thus far have been exorbitant and the matter is far from over. The motion will be heard in Grahamstown in the Eastern Cape, so travelling costs, as well as legal costs are placing huge pressure on the NSPCA’s resources. We appeal to caring citizens to assist the NSPCA with this landmark case. Let us stand together against this abhorrent suffering.

Account Name: SPCA National Council of SA
Bank: Standard Bank
Account No.: 220 639 744
Branch Code: 051 001
Reference: Sheep

The NSPCA Team

Click the DONATE button now and use the reference CARE

Credit/Debit Card – EFT – PayPal – SnapScan

Thank you. Your support means so much to us.

Source: NSPCA

SA’s live wild animal trade with China is “corrupt and riddled with irregularities”

/in , /by
SA's live wild animal trade with China is "corrupt and riddled with irregularities”

MORE than 5 000 live wild animals were exported to China from South Africa over three years. Ban Animal Trading

Over three years, South Africa issued permits to export 321 giraffe to Jinan Wildlife World but when wildlife investigators visited the zoo in China, they could find only 16 giraffe.

“With no legal protection in China, it is impossible to trace the whereabouts of the 305 giraffe no longer at Jinan Wildlife World; or the nine giraffe legally exported to a tiger bone wine factory in Guigang; the 21 giraffe exported to Golden Land Animal Trade – a broker company implicated in the trafficking of wild-caught chimpanzees – and 132 giraffe exported to various unnamed zoos,” says a new report, Breaking Point: Uncovering South Africa’s Shameful Live Wildlife Trade with China.

The “poorly regulated” trade in giraffe between South Africa and China is just one of a raft of glaring wildlife trade violations uncovered in the four-year investigation by the EMS Foundation and Ban Animal Trading (BAT), who analysed hundreds of live animal export permits issued, and shipments authorised between 2016 and 2019 by South Africa’s conservation authorities, and visited the destinations in China where the animals were purportedly sent.

“Our analysis… reveals that the ‘destinations’ that appear on the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) permits are often pure fiction,” says the 118-page report.

“We have also established that the Chinese recipients of the animals usually do not keep them for so-called ‘educational’ purposes but sell them on, either to individuals for possible consumption, to laboratories, to circuses, and sometimes they simply disappear.”

South Africa’s live wild animal trade with China is “extensive, corrupt and riddled with irregularities that are exploited by traffickers”, says the report.

At least 5035 live wild animals were exported from SA to China in the period but this is “likely an extremely conservative estimate” because of the limited permit and export data available to the organisations.

The list of 32 species includes 45 Bengal tigers, 159 caracal, 11 white rhino, 25 African penguins, 23 wolves, 597 giraffe, 45 hyenas, 182 lions, 1394 meerkats, 18 chimpanzees and 35 wild dogs.

The trade is lucrative, with the report showing 100 meerkat sold for R600000, 57 giraffes for nearly R7 million and 18 African wild dogs sold for over R1m, among others.

The report lists 15 exporters and 41 importers, “finding questionable listed information and permit violations in most cases”.

Most of the export permits were in breach of CITES regulations, irregular and “may well have been illegal”.

Some of the South African wildlife traders identified have links with international organised crime syndicates. Illegal shipments of wild animals classified by CITES as threatened with extinction and endangered ”masquerade” as legal exports.

“Animals are traded into a range of theme and amusement parks, circuses, laboratories, zoos and ‘safari parks’ (that are) often untraceable.”

CITES permits operate on a manual system, subject to pervasive fraud.

“False declarations by traders, agents and exporters are ubiquitous, and yet we discovered that not a single offender had been prosecuted to date.”

South Africa’s international live wildlife trade is “large, poorly enforced, indefensible and shameful”.

“The main problem is that the measures that have been put in place to ensure the legal trade are not adequately enforced or policed. Moreover, there is no verification system in place through the CITES Secretariat.

“It is rather a free-for-all and a small number of South African and Chinese wildlife traders benefit from a trade that is iniquitous in every sense of the word. South African authorities repeatedly fail to comply with the very basics of a regulated trade in wild animals.”

On Friday, in response to the investigation, Environment, Fisheries and Forestries Minister Barbara Creecy held an online meeting with the EMS Foundation and BAT, as her department regarded “allegations that the system is being abused in a serious light”.

South Africa, she stated, remains committed to the highest level of compliance with its international obligations. Her department will investigate the allegations over the next three months to find evidence of irregularities and take the necessary remedial action, and review whether remedial action is necessary to strengthen the administrative and regulatory system.

BAT and the the EMS Foundation welcomed Creecy’s commitment to investigate the serious issues raised in their report.

“We also welcome the Minister’s commitment to strengthening the permit system, her commitment to greater transparency within governmental systems, and access to information produced by the department and the provinces.”

Their report states that the “box-ticking exercise” that defines CITES is “dangerous because it creates the illusion of a well controlled system of compliance, efficiency and verification – and therefore protection. Our research has shown this is certainly not the case.”

Francisco Pérez, programme support officer (communications) at CITES, says it has a very robust and detailed compliance procedure.

“The CITES Parties and the Secretariat are fully aware that, as with all regulatory systems, there could be violations. As usual in these cases, we will review the report carefully and will not hesitate to take up any serious breaches of the Convention with the states concerned or bring matters to the attention of the CITES Standing Committee if required…. We should note, however, that the authors oppose the trade in wild animals in principle and view it as ‘inappropriate, counter-productive, unethical and fundamentally unsustainable’.

“The CITES Secretariat respects their views, but this is not the policy of the 183 Parties to CITES.”

CITES has been weak in using its enforcement tools, says conservationist and wildlife photographer Karl Ammann. The level of corruption within CITES’ permit system is a major “but little talked about issue.

“It’s pretty obvious South African authorities have an interest in closing their eyes and having good relations with with some of the traders and dealers and know how the system works.”

BAT and the EMS Foundation say that the international wildlife trade and the captive breeding and farming wild animals is dangerous “because it is increasing opportunities for zoonotic spillover and is the cause of the current pandemic. 

“Covid-19 has provided humanity with a window of opportunity to do things differently and this must include the way we interact with other species.”

The Saturday Star

Source: IOL
By sheree bega

Response to the Red Meat Producers Organisation Regarding Live Export by Sea

/in , /by

NSPCA Live Export

The National Council of SPCAs (NSPCA) is amazed by the statement made by the Red Meat Producers Organisation (RPO) regarding their sudden change in position when it comes to live animal export by sea.

In a statement issued on 21 July 2020 by the RPO, it has extended its support of the trade as long as it is ethically undertaken – ethics and live export go together like chalk and cheese. Live animal export by sea is a trade that is inherently unethical given the undeniable and unavoidable animal suffering that takes place on board these ships.

The RPO have referred to the application of OIE standards and that the government, as the “regulatory authority” should oversee these – but these standards were created for countries around the globe, many of which do not have any animal welfare legislation, these standards simply do not belong in a country like South Africa where animals are constitutionally recognised as sentient beings and there is strong animal protection legislation – legislation that supersedes standards in any event. Furthermore, in our opinion, the government is not capable of enforcing the Animals Protection Act No 71 of 1962, nor would they be impartial.

It is surprising that the RPO have suddenly gone against the decision made by them, and other members of the Livestock Welfare Coordinating Committee (LWCC). In 2012, and later revised in 2019, the LWCC, which the RPO is an active member of, adopted the position to oppose the live animal export by sea – the RPO have now changed their position and have done so on the basis of biased documentation provided by Al Mawashi and KLTT, the Kuwaiti export company, that obviously have high stakes in this operation.

We find it ludicrous that two veterinarians of the Red Meat Industry Forum (RMIF), who inspected the feedlot and an empty ship, can come to the conclusion that sheep should be loaded “as soon as possible”, especially in light of the fact that August is the hottest month in the year in the Middle East – suffering on these ships is exacerbated during the Northern Hemisphere summers.

The Muslim Judicial Council Halaal Trust (MJCHT) issued a press statement reiterating its concern for the welfare of animals, stating that the South African government “could not provide the necessary safety conditions for the animals on sea-vessels”. The MJCHT do not justify the suffering of animals for religious slaughter, in fact, they have stated that animals that are not transported in good physical condition cannot be considered Halaal for slaughter and have agreed that animals should rather be Halaal slaughtered in South Africa.

Read MJCHT’s statement here.

The South African Veterinary Association (SAVA) recognises animals as sentient beings that are capable of experiencing both positive and negative states, SAVA therefore does not support live export of animal by sea for the purposes of slaughter upon arrival when humane alternatives are available. This is in line with veterinary bodies around the world.

The RPO and Agri SA, in our opinion, are regressive while others are becoming more informed – it is apparent, in our opinion, that the RPO and Agri SA are disregarding the cruelty entrenched in this business for profit margins, they are simply apathetic to the welfare of these animals and they should be judged in the court of public opinion. Let the campaign begin.

The NSPCA is opposed to the live export of animals by sea. 

FAQ

Q: Why did the NSPCA not attend the inspection of the empty vessel?

A: The NSPCA has already been on board this vessel when there were animals already on it – this is a better indicator of welfare concerns than an empty vessel will ever be able to reveal. Furthermore, there are reports historically of disasters that have happened on this specific vessel and the countless animal welfare concerns are documented.

The NSPCA’s legal representatives requested that Al Mawashi and KLTT show the NSPCA the improvements that have been made prior to the inspection – this was not provided.

Source: National Council of SPCA’s

South African Veterinary (SAVA) Statement on the Welfare of Livestock Transported by Sea

/in , , , /by

SAVA

South Africa, Johannesburg, 06 August 2020: The South African Veterinary Association (SAVA) is a voluntary organisation representing veterinarians in South Africa. Our approximately 2100 members come from all fields within the veterinary profession and represent both clinical as well as government regulatory aspects. SAVA notes with concern the on-board welfare of live animals transported by sea for the exclusive purpose of slaughter at destination from South Africa to the Middle East. SAVA supports sustainable and profitable livestock farming, but this must happen in conjunction with positive animal welfare.

The OIE is the intergovernmental organisation responsible for improving global animal health and welfare. South Africa is a signatory to the OIE’s Terrestrial Animal Health Code. Chapter 7.2 of this Code recommends how the process of live exportation should protect animal welfare. However, the OIE Code is only a set of guidelines to ensure that basic principles are taken into consideration when member countries develop and implement standards. It sets out the responsibilities of the different role players but does not enforce minimum welfare standards on board these ships. Unlike issues relating to disease, the standards or “guidelines” for welfare carry no sanction. It is also worth noting OIE guidelines are generically created and local circumstances may not be properly considered.

The OIE Code states that “welfare of the animals during their journey is the paramount consideration and is the joint responsibility of all people involved1”. It is the responsibility of the competent authority of the exporting country to establish the minimum standards for animal welfare during loading of the animals and for the duration of the journey. In South Africa, this competent authority is the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development (DALRRD). Both the setting and monitoring of welfare standards for live animal exports by sea are currently lacking in South Africa.

South Africa may lack the capacity for thorough regulation in some regards, however this does not mean that regulations should be ignored. The minimum animal welfare standards are legislated by the Animals Protection Act (Act 71 of 1962). The Act is legally binding and expressly states in Clause 2(m) that any person who “conveys, carries, confines… any animal… in conditions affording inadequate shelter, light or ventilation or in which such animal is excessively exposed to heat, cold, weather, sun, rain, dust, exhaust gases or noxious fumes; or without making adequate provision for suitable food, potable water and rest2”, as well as any person who causes, procures or assists in the above, is liable for prosecution.

Investigations by the NSPCA, as well as reports from well-established independent bodies within the production animal industry in both South Africa and Australia (e.g. Livestock Welfare Coordinating Committee), have condemned the practices surrounding live exportation by sea. The Australian Veterinary Association has raised fundamental concerns with heat stress risk and compliance with the Australian Standards3–5 during these shipments.

Findings include:

  • Severe logistical challenges surrounding the transportation from production sites to the loading site leaves room for errors, such as predisposition to injury and overlooking the loading of unsuitable animals e.g. pregnant or ill animals.
  • High prevalence of diarrhoea and anorexia6 shows that many animals do not adapt properly to the food provided on board, losing body condition and often dying during the journey.
  • High stocking densities makes it impossible to properly inspect thousands of animals daily for behaviour and health problems, as is recommended by the OIE Code.
  • Animals were unable to lie down to rest and cannot easily reach food and water troughs7. Ship movement on waves also makes sheep uncomfortable8.
  • The double-deck design of the ship leads to faecal soiling of food and water troughs on lower levels by animals on higher levels. This contributes to reluctance to eat and the faecal-oral transmission of diseases such as salmonella6.
  • Slippery floors and gaps between decks predispose animals to injuries.
  • Build-up of waste matter combined with poor ventilation resulted in unacceptably high concentrations of ammonia in the air.
  • Hot weather, high stocking density and high ammonia levels contribute to heat stress. Sheep were documented to cluster around fans with open-mouthed breathing, depressed disposition and respiratory rates faster than 100 bpm9,10.

Additional independent observers should be present on board to support the existing veterinary services. Animals are recognised as sentient beings by the South African Constitutional Court and by the OIE. Currently, in South Africa as well as other countries, welfare is often erroneously measured solely by the number of mortalities during the voyage. All of the above findings are considered severe infringements on animal health and welfare and can cause extended suffering and death if not treated immediately and resolved. Animal welfare is often severely compromised long before the point of mortality, and low mortalities should not necessarily be equated with high welfare standards.

Arguments in favour of live export are commonly erroneously based on the concept that religious beliefs of the destination country demand on-site slaughter for consumption. The Muslim Judicial Council Halaal Trust (MJCHT) issued a press statement reiterating its concern for the welfare of animals, stating that the South African government “could not provide the necessary safety conditions for the animals on sea-vessels.”  According to the MJCHT, animals which are not transported in good physical condition cannot be considered Halaal for slaughter11. South Africa has no jurisdiction over how the animals are slaughtered at their destination. Regulations or the enforcement thereof may be minimal, leaving animals to an uncertain and potentially inhumane fate. Slaughter must therefore be conducted at a Halaal abattoir in South Africa, where it can be properly regulated.

SAVA recognises animals as sentient beings that are capable of experiencing both positive and negative states. Fiscal interests of individual exporting stakeholders must not take precedence over the health and welfare of the animals being exported. SAVA supports calls for improved legislation protecting animal welfare within South Africa which will protect our ‘Proudly South African’ reputation, safeguarding the interests of all sentient beings. Until such legislation has been developed and is fully enforced, SAVA is of the opinion that as a humane alternative, sheep and other livestock destined for export for the purpose of slaughter at their destination should rather be slaughtered in South African abattoirs which comply with international religious and cultural (Halaal) regulations. Animals should be slaughtered as close to the site of production as possible, in a manner that will uphold South Africa’s rightful pride in the quality of our meat.

References:

  1. Norris RT. Transport of animals by sea. OIE Rev Sci Tech [Internet]. 2005;24(2):673–81. Available from: https://www.oie.int/fileadmin/Home/eng/Health_standards/tahc/current/chapitre_aw_sea_transpt.pdf
  2. South Africa. Animals Protection Act 71/1962 [Internet]. Government Gazette, 71/1962 Pretoria, South Africa: South African Government; 1962. Available from: http://www.gov.za/sites/www.gov.za/files/Act 71 of 1962.pdf
  3. Department of Agriculture F and F. Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock (Version 2.3) 2011. 2011;17, 106. Available from: http://www.daff.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/1904365/australian-standards-v2.3.pdf
  4. Australian Veterinary Association Ltd. A short review of space allocation on live export ships and body temperature regulation in sheep. 2018 [Internet]. 2018;(May). Available from: https://www.google.com/search?q=A+short+review+of+space+allocation+on+live+export+ships+and+body+temperature+regulation+in+sheep&rlz=1C1CHFX_enAU897AU897&oq=A+short+review+of+space+allocation+on+live+export+ships+and+body+temperature+regulation+in+sheep&a
  5. Australian Veterinary Association Ltd. Heat Stress Risk Assessment Issues Paper VALE Submission October 2018. 2018;(October).
  6. Richards RB, Norris RT, Dunlop RH, McQuade NC. Causes of death in sheep exported live by sea. Aust Vet J. 1989;66(2):33–8.
  7. Australia 60 Minutes. Sheep, ships and videotape: Part one. 2018.
  8. Santurtun E, Moreau V, Marchant-Forde JN, Phillips CJC. Physiological and behavioral responses of sheep to simulated sea transport motions. J Anim Sci. 2015;93(3):1250–7.
  9. Carnovale F, Phillips CJC. The effects of heat stress on sheep welfare during live export voyages from Australia to the middle east. Animals. 2020;10(4).
  10. Pines MK, Phillips CJC. Microclimatic conditions and their effects on sheep behavior during a live export shipment from Australia to the Middle East. J Anim Sci. 2013;91(9):4406–16.
  11. MJCHT. Protect The Rights Of Animals, Don’t Export live [Internet]. Muslim Judicial Council Halaal Trust. 2020 [cited 2020 Jul 8]. Available from: https://mjchalaaltrust.co.za/protect-the-rights-of-animals-dont-export-live/

Source: SAVA