Frozen halal meat from Australia is sold in supermarkets in the Middle-East alongside meat from animals shipped there live in controversial conditions. Michael Carter reports on the alternatives to live export.

Sheep in Tasmania. Image: Stonestreet's Coaches

Imagine that you’re on a plane going overseas. You’re adequately watered and fed by the stewards even if the legroom isn’t great. Below you is a ship going in the same direction.

There are humans on this ship too, but not many. Most of the ship’s passengers are animals. You don’t know them (who knows a cow?) but they’re there and have been living in the same country as you. They have been raised with the help of your taxes.

They are packed in tightly, as many as 60 000 on a ship (have you ever complained about leg room?). If you’re a sheep, the captain won’t report anything untoward unless two per cent (or more) of you die along the way. Can you imagine this occurring on a flight? And when you arrive overseas and pick up your dog or cat, imagine four or five more pets in the same carrier. This is what that ship below you looks like. This is live export.

Australia is the world’s largest annual exporter of live animals to be slaughtered. According to the RSPCA, Australia sends ‘4 million sheep, 600,000 cattle and 25,000 goats’ overseas every year. The journeys, which can last up to three weeks, are made with economic, religious, cultural and logistical concerns in mind. Yet animal welfare groups have long-held concerns that live transportation is contrary to the health and welfare of animals.

The Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock (ASEL) provide the benchmarks for the welfare of animals in live transport. These standards cover several aspects of live export including sourcing animals from farms, transportation, registered export feedlots, vessel preparation and on-board management.

However, the RSPCA’s 2008 report ‘Australian livestock Export Standards – a flawed process’ – found that the standards are essentially unenforceable in significant ways. Comparisons should be made between native ‘coat of arms’ animals and those domesticated. Why is the live export of kangaroos prohibited under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act? Why is kangaroo meat shipped frozen and not other types of meat?

Live export is often so crowded that it is difficult for animals to reach water or food. But, according to the website of the Australian Livestock Export Animal Welfare Group (LEAWG), “animal care is the first priority for everyone involved in the Australian livestock export industry.”

In such charged debate, you have to look beyond preambles to philosophies, intent and membership. LEAWG’s membership includes the Cattle Council of Australia, the Sheepmeat Council of Australia and Meat & Livestock Australia. The live export industry is powerful and lobbies government in earnest for the upkeep of a near $2 billion industry.

Yet a spokesperson for Live Export Shame says the industry’s influence is unfounded. “Why is it that LEAWG can make such sweeping statements when they do not have control over the live export industry? When they do not audit the live export industry? LEAWG can lay claim to whatever they want. Don’t you think the proof should be in what happens on the ground?”`

What happens on the ground, or sea, is essential to campaigners and their efforts. The sinking of the Panamanian transport ship MV Danny F II in 2009 is a case in point. In December of that year, approximately 30, 000 cattle and sheep were lost in the accident, highlighting the plight of live transport on a formerly Australian-owned vessel.

The main issue here is Halal. More specifically, it is the Australian livestock industry’s approach to Halal-certified slaughter. RSPCA CEO, Heather Neil, stated at the time of the accident that Egypt had “proven it [would] take Australian chilled and frozen meat over live animals, so we should be working on growing our processing capacity, not increasing live exports”.

According to the RSPCA, there are over one hundred certified Halal abattoirs that could viably slaughter animals in Australia. According to the LEAWG website, the live export industry also admits “Australia exports chilled meat to the same countries it supplies with live animals.”

Following similar incidents between Australia and the Middle East the practice of live transport was banned between Australia and Egypt in 2006. As campaigners predicted, countries such as Egypt increased their intake of frozen, pre-packaged meat following the ban.

Yet with the reintroduction of the route, the debate between live transport and export of chilled meat rages on; often to exasperating avenues. The spokesperson for Live Export Shame tells me “over 80% of the animals sent live are slaughtered in slaughterhouses and their meat sold in supermarkets along side chilled Australian slaughtered animals.”

It’s a strong argument for the organisation’s view that “the most economically viable form of export of animals is over the hook: chilled or frozen.”

While under ASEL, the Australian live export industry is considered as having the world’s ‘highest animal welfare standards’ by Meat & Livestock Australia (MLA), “what is on paper and what occurs in reality are different,” says the Live Export Shame spokesperson. “It is important to examine the industry to see if there are mechanisms in place which demonstrate that animal care is a priority.”

This is a recurring theme in the debate. LEAWG’s informative, slick website even hosts a “Myth Busting” section which dispels these assertions by stating that “claims of cruelty by animal rights extremist groups are absolutely untrue”.

Most organisations, like the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA), advocate for a humane method of transport for animals. Their proposal is simple: that animals be humanely killed prior to transport. This method flows into the frozen meat alternative. Talking to and researching animal welfare groups, terms like ‘humane slaughter’ and ‘point of origin’ are seemingly the antithesis of the live export industry.

The industry turns to the economic effect of a wholesale change. They repeat that the export industry is worth “$1.8 billion” annually and highlight the lack of refrigeration in destination countries.

I ask Live Export Shame if live transport is the most viable way of exporting animals internationally. They are matter-of-fact. “We are less concerned with other viable ways of transporting live sheep or cattle than we are with their welfare. We cannot imagine any other way – either ship or air flight – and we would think flying 80, 000 sheep on a plane is impossible.’

The world seems to have moved on since the failures of the Copenhagen climate change conference in December 2009.  But have we moved far enough to reach a decision in Mexico next month? Ben O’Halloran reports.

Delegates of the world will meet again in November this year to discuss how best to tackle climate change. Image: United Nations Photo

Thousands of journalists, world leaders and scientists descended on Denmark last year for the 15th United Nations Conference on Climate Change in Copenhagen.

The media coverage of the conference was unprecedented, even though nothing eventuated from it.

So what’s happened to Mexico?

The 16th UN climate change talks begin next month in Cancun, Mexico, but a lack of interest in this year’s conference suggests a few things have changed since Copenhagen.
The depth of the media coverage during Copenhagen rightly suggested climate change is one of the most important world issues this decade.

More than 15,000 delegates attended COP15 – Barack Obama was one of them and even Arnie “the Governator” was there inviting delegates to meet again in California.

In the lead up to COP15, the media attention was, for the most part, positive and gave communities around the world hope that a treaty would be signed during the course of the conference.

But just days into the conference it became obvious the talks were not going to produce anything fruitful: no reduction of emissions, no binding treaty, no positive outcomes.

Now, 10 months on and a few weeks out from COP16, government leaders are in no better position than before Copenhagen: the Kyoto Treaty is still set to end in 2012 and the world is still no closer to finding a replacement.

So what’s changed? Where is all the hype, controversy and political fighting? Is the Mexico conference doomed to follow COP15?

Media reports about the Mexican COP16 have been few and far between and have barely registered in the Australian media.

Climate talks were held recently in Germany and China but have failed to raise any hope that a result in Mexico will be any different from that of Copenhagen.

The absence of key decision makers and any heads of State makes Mexico’s conference seem less of a show when compared to the filibuster that was Copenhagen.

The Guardian has slammed the BBC for intending to send one reporter to cover COP16 after the BBC reportedly blew its budget covering the Chilean mine fiasco and after sending 30 reporters to cover Copenhagen can now only afford one to cover its TV, radio and online affiliates.

To add to this, several key players have already expressed their belief that the Mexican conference will fail to provide a binding agreement.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, European Union Commissioner for Climate Action, Connie Hedegaard, and UNFCCC Executive Secretary, Christiana Figueres, have said they do not expect a deal this year.

Critics have said we should save the cost, fuel and ultimately the environment by not going to Cancun in November but instead begin gearing up for COP17 in South Africa.

Australian Ambassador on Climate Change, Louise Hand, will be in Cancun with a negotiation team, but without any domestic agreement, which was the case in Copenhagen, Australia’s negotiating power will be weak at best.

Australia is negotiating towards what Ms Hand called a “balanced package”.

But after several unsuccessful attempts to pass carbon reduction legislation and mining sector tax schemes, Australia’s role will be a minor one.

The climate change debate has changed dramatically over the past year.

Opinion polls have revealed a rising level of disinterest and distrust by a public tired of hearing scientists and world leaders argue over the science behind global warming.

This was highlighted in the recent federal election campaign.

As it was during the dumping of former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, for his failure to produce a carbon pollution reduction scheme to address what has been dubbed ‘the greatest moral challenge of our time’.

He was forced to drop his controversial ETS and go to Copenhagen empty handed.

The unpopular ETS scheme has not resurfaced since Rudd’s demise, leaving Prime Minister Julia Gillard to stand behind a Citizens’ Assembly which never was established.

But it seems Australians have moved on since Copenhagen, preoccupied with issues such as hung parliaments and boat people.

There has been little to no coverage of the impending Mexican conference in Australia’s media, save the fact that independent MPs Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor have been appointed to the Climate Change Committee established by Gillard as a replacement for the Citizens Assembly.

COP15 failed for a number of reasons, specifically due to a failure of world leaders to commit to binding targets and disillusionment as to the truth.

So what’s next for climate change, for the Kyoto treaty and the future of our planet?  Will Mexico fail just like Copenhagen?

Reportage Online will provide ongoing coverage during the conference, which runs from November 29 to December 10.

This story was first published on Murdoch Independent.



Attention must be earned at the busy venue of COP15, as Reportage enviro Danish Correspondent, Jeppe Funder, discovers.

Chanting errupts from within the Bella Centre as protesters try to get their message across. Image: Jeppe Funder.

On the wide bridge spanning the huge main hall of the Bella Centre, the venue of COP15, TV crews have set up improvised studios and are chatting with live guests about today’s events, protests and perspectives on the conference. The usual stuff, coupled with the ever-increasing Obamania and the countdown to the arrival of the powerhouse president of the US.

Chanting breaks from beneath the bridge. The shouting is so loud that the host of the afternoon news on Danish television signals the sound guy to turn her ear piece volume up.

“Climate change is now. Climate change is now.” The chanting can be heard all over the conference main floor. Eight African American protesters dressed in colourful outfits are chanting the words again and again, repeatedly putting their hand above their heads and reaching for the ceiling, jumping up and down and moving around in a circle, hands on shoulders.

TV news crews and photographers hurry to the scene from all directions and soon the chanting crew of eight is surrounded by more than 20 cameras. The photographers in front kneel to get the perfect picture, the ones in the back are high on their toes stretching their cameras up as high as possible, hoping to land a good shot. Five minutes after it started it’s all over again and the chanting crowd begin giving interviews to the reporters.

The main floor of the Bella Centre is alive and buzzing. This chanting is a reoccuring event taking place every 15-20 minutes. The end result is the same each and every time. Cameras high and low, flashes, chanting, singing and dancing.

Beside the main hall is the NGO area. When delegates have passed through the airport-tight security with metal detectors and access-card scanners, they are confronted with an avalanche of more than 200 NGOs in special booths set up to get their messages across to delegates: “Go Nuclear”, “Wind is the solution”, “Some call it mangrove forest, we call it land-protection.” These are just some of the countless messages, slogans and posters that litter the conference. Badges and t-shirts free for all.

In the COP15 world inside the Bella Center in Copenhagen, attention is not something you get, it’s something you have to claim.

NGOs and developing nations are in an uproar after a Danish draft agreement showing preference to wealthy countries and abandoning the Kyoto protocol was leaked. Reportage enviro Danish Correspondent, Jeppe Funder, reports from COP15.

Danish Prime Minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen feeling the heat at COP15. Image: Courtesy of Image.net/Getty Images

British newspaper, The Guardian, has published a document claiming to outline Danish Government plans for a global climate agreement. The document has sparked outrage at the Bella Center, as it is alleged to favour rich countries.

The leaked document from the Danish Government is causing havoc at the COP15 negotiations in Copenhagen. The document is said to have been circulating as a draft paper for a global agreement in the past weeks.

One section of the document suggests that some of the Kyoto protocol’s legally binding principals be replaced with ‘political agreements’. This has been interpreted as a huge advantage for industrialised nations.

This is an idea which has not gone down well with the NGOs at COP15.

“It has sparked massive rage,” head of the World Wildlife Foundations climate programme John Nordbo told Danish news-site Berlingske.dk.

Oxfam climate advisor Antonio Hill told the American political journal Politico that “The poor nations are in danger of getting squished like ants in a room full of elephants.”

Reactions from the developing countries are no better. At a press conference inside the COP15 venue, Sudan’s Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping, spokesperson for more than 130 developing nations in the G77 told reporters that the document could severely undermine the negotiations.

“We cannot afford failure in Copenhagen. We must find a way to a fair agreement, but we will not sign an unfair agreement that condemns 80 per cent of the world population to suffering and injustice,” he said.

The Danish Ministry for Climate and Energy issued a press release stating that the document ‘in no way’ represents Denmark’s draft for a new climate protocol.

In a statement sent out to journalists at COP15, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Executive Secretary, Yvo de Boer stated, “this was an informal paper ahead of the conference given to a number of people for the purposes of consultations.”

The Danish Government has passed controversial new laws to detain protesters in the lead up to the Copenhagen Climate Conference. New cage-style holding cells and a vehicle-mounted water cannon are available to local police if protests turn violent. Reportage enviro Danish Correspondent, Jeppe Funder, reports from the UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen.

Controversial cages have been built to hold violent protesters during the conference. Image: Politiken.dk

With COP15 only days away the Danish police force has taken its efforts up a notch.

A new ‘protest package’ of laws has been pushed through parliament and is now to ‘welcome’ protesters during the Climate Conference.

While the heads of states and other climate personalities from all over the world are focusing on sealing the deal in Copenhagen, the Danish police force has been gearing up for one of its biggest challenges ever.

The Government’s protest package has been underway for quite some time and has attracted much attention, as some of the powers given to the police are seen as too harsh. The new laws allow the police to administratively detain people for up to 12 hours without the detainees actually breaking any laws. Furthermore, disturbing the peace and disobeying police orders during protests will result in a minimum of 40 days in prison.

The laws have been under heavy fire since they were proposed in early November. The Danish society of Judges, the Danish Defense Attorneys, the Danish institute for Human Rights and various other human rights associations are among the critics.

In a response to the Danish Parliament the Danish Society of Judges underline that the laws are ‘putting pressure on the rule of law’ in Denmark. Furthermore the laws will put a heavy economic burden on the justice system.

The laws were passed on the November 26. The opposition voted against the protest package and stated that they would like to see the law abolished in January when the Climate Conference is over.

This new protest package could also mean more arrests during the Climate Conference Copenhagen from December 8-17. But since the Danish prisons are filled to the brim already, as Danish national newspaper Berlingske Tidende reported shortly after the laws were passed, the police have found new ways to prepare for mass arrests of protesters.

A new improvised prison has been built in an old industrial warehouse on the outskirts of Copenhagen. 37 cages each measuring 5 by 2.4 meters have been installed in the warehouse. Each cage is designed to hold 10 protesters within the 12 square meters of space in the cage. But ideally no protesters will see the inside of the cages according to the police.

“The criterium for success is that they will never be used. But we have to be prepared,” Deputy Police Inspector Rasmus Bernt Skovsgaard told Danish newspaper Politiken.

Amnesty International condemned the method of detaining protesters. Referring to the UN laws about prisoners, the general secretary of Amnesty International Denmark, Lars Normann Jørgensen, told Politiken that combined with the new protest package innocent people could end up in the cages

“These people have done nothing illegal, and the police have no intention of charging them. They just want them off the street,” he said.

Mr Jørgensen refers to the UN standards for the treatment of detainees, which requires that all detainees must be able to sit, sleep and have enough room for privacy.

“There is a whole list of demands that need to be met. Furthermore the convention says that no detainees can be subjected to degrading or humiliating treatment. Something that will definitely happen in this case,” he said.

The police have responded to the criticism by stating that no one will be detained as long as they do not break any laws.

The Danish Ombudsman is currently looking into the cage issues.

But these are not the only questionable powers that have been given to local police. The new tool of riot police in Copenhagen is a car-mounted water cannon which was shown to reporters recently. NGO’s say the police are sending wrong signals.

Peoples Climate Action leader Lene Vennits is worried that the new water cannon is signalling that trouble is coming up at COP15.

“We’re worried what the public impression of what will be going on during COP15 is,” she told Politiken, referring to the newest addition to police weaponry for handling protesters during the Climate Conference.

The police fully understand the NGO’s concerns and stated that they have no intention of using the water cannon.

“But we have to look at the experiences from other countries. And our impressions is, that someone is going to cause trouble,” Deputy Police Inspector Sten Søder said.

The water cannon demonstration was performed shortly after the release of a video from an organisation called “Never Trust a COP (NTAC)” surfaced on Youtube. In the video, the activists threaten to set Copenhagen on fire during the a planned protest march on December 12. In their own words, the NTAC will, referring to capitalism, “show a dead system how to die”.

Some 30,000 protesters are expected to march from the Danish Parliament to the Bella Center where the Climate Conference is taking place.