Facebook Twitter

Consultation opens on live export standards

by Beef Central, 30 August 2018
1

The next stage of the review of the Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock (ASEL) is open for public comment until 19 September.

The ASEL review will consider relevant outcomes from the review of conditions for the export of sheep to the Middle East during the northern hemisphere summer by Dr Michael McCarthy.

It will also address feedback from the first stage of the review and outstanding issues from the 2012-13 review of the standards.

Feedback is sought on an issues paper, developed by the Technical Advisory Committee undertaking the review. The paper outlines the key areas the review will evaluate.

The review will examine standards relating to sea voyages and the preparation of livestock for export.

Livestock exporters, animal health and welfare groups, producer groups, those involved in the export chain, and interested members of the public can submit their feedback through the ‘Have Your Say’ website by 19 September.

Industry stakeholders are also encouraged to contact their representative body on the ASEL Review Reference Group to contribute to broader submissions.

The department is implementing a series of changes to improve the sustainability of the trade with improved animal welfare outcomes.

The ASEL review is a key part of this—ensuring that export standards are informed by the best possible evidence.

The Technical Advisory Committee expects to release a draft report for further consultation in late-October.

Source: DAWR. More information is available at https://haveyoursay.agriculture.gov.au/review-asel and http://www.agriculture.gov.au/animal/welfare/export-trade/review-asel.



Reader's Comments


Comment
  • Peter Calder. September 2, 2018

    The ASEL proposal mentions the recent review conducted by Dr M McCarthy but makes no mention of the current investigation of the LAE, Independent Reviewer, Mr P Moss, due for release on September 7th.
    As this work has now been in progress for several months as opposed to McCarthy’s project of but a few weeks, it indicates what appears to be a serious deficiency in the terms of reference.

  • Leave a comment

    (First Name and Surname Required) - read our Comment Policy

    (Required)

    (Required)