Animal welfare committee must consider more than just animal welfare

The National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee may support the plan to bring back live exports. 
Committee chair Matthew Stone said until the group saw the new plan, it would not be able to form a judgment. 
“We are waiting to see what is presented … in terms of the design of the regulatory system and then of course the technical specification in terms of the actual animal welfare standards and the monitoring requirements. 
“So we’re waiting to see what sort of proposals are presented, and then we’ll offer our revised and updated advice on that basis.” 
The committee (Nawac) is set up as a statutory committee under the Animal Welfare Act, and among other roles is tasked with providing independent advice to the relevant minister on any matters relating to the welfare of animals in New Zealand. 
In 2020 the committee’s submission on the plan to ban live exports was clear that the practice could not continue.
“At present, Nawac considers that the only way to fully protect animal welfare during and after livestock export is to implement option one: a total ban,” the submission said. 
“Nawac considers that the current controls on the export of livestock cannot adequately protect the welfare of animals … Nawac has major concerns around the welfare of animals after they arrive at their destination. Problems will inevitably arise where animals are sent to a destination to which they are not physiologically and/or behaviourally adapted, or where they are not cared for in the same way that would be expected in New Zealand. 
“Considering the significant risk to animals during and after live export, it is extremely unlikely that these risks can be mitigated to a level consistent with New Zealand’s animal welfare strategy.” 
The submission did leave the door open however, outlining a number of areas that the committee would like to see changes in, if it were to consider its support.  
“If any form of livestock export is to continue, it is therefore essential that New Zealanders can be assured that the animals will experience good husbandry and welfare both during transport and for their entire lifetime after they have reached their destination.” 
The committee gave suggestions such as post-arrival reporting going far beyond the current 30-day requirement.
“At a minimum, reports should continue for at least 12 months post-arrival; and ideally longer, for the animal’s lifetime. When considering applications, focus would need to be placed on ensuring that exporters have a good relationship with destination farms and facilities in order to facilitate this.
“To ensure that the welfare of the animals is safeguarded in countries where we have no jurisdiction, New Zealand should also limit export of live animals to countries that have welfare standards that meet or exceed our own.” 
Other suggestions included bringing in regulations to ensure “all livestock journeys are as short as possible”.  
“Nawac anticipates that this would effectively limit live export to transport by air rather than by sea.” 
Smaller consignments and detailed journey reports that were regularly independently audited were also requirements.  
“Welfare assessment and reporting by qualified and experienced observers must go beyond the current observation of mortality and significant health events, in a manner that accounts for the needs of these animals as sentient beings.” 
Crucially the submission also made clear the committee’s position was from an animal welfare perspective. 
“Nawac acknowledges that economic and trade considerations are central to the live animal exports issue. However, as the committee was established to provide animal welfare advice, this submission will focus only on the animal welfare risks and benefits presented by each option in MPI’s discussion document.” 
However, Stone said this time the committee would not be coming at things from this perspective alone.  
“When we’re talking about exports, there are economic imperatives and trade relationship imperatives that sit alongside animal welfare imperatives – it’s that complex policy mix that governments have to work within.  
“And so it’s tempting to make definitive policy judgments on the basis of one element alone but often when you’re looking across policy objectives, some degree of compromise across that has to be made.” 
He said no one wanted to compromise on animal welfare, but there were practicalities to consider. 
“We all want to see the highest standards of animal welfare for animals in New Zealand. But we also know that on farms and in households around New Zealand, sometimes we don’t meet those best standards anyway.  
“So those are operational challenges that we have here in New Zealand. So taking too pure an ideological perspective never really marries with operational realities.” 
“It’s probably also pertinent to note that, to a certain extent, Nawac’s membership has changed since that last piece of advice was offered back in January 2020, over four years ago, and we have new appointments, and new people. And so, we have to leave open the possibility that we update previous advice.”
He said the mandate the committee had was not to simply advocate for the welfare of animals. 
“The statute gives us very clear guidance to consider. We must consider the science, the available technologies and what are understood as good practices. But then we’re also directed by the statute, and encouraged by the minister, to give greater regard (in his recent letter of expectations to us) to the matters of practicalities and economics.  
“So these are certainly matters that Nawac has to consider. We’re not just advocating in the best interests of animals, we’re advocating in the best interests of New Zealand, in terms of developing an animal welfare system within the circumstances, which is that animals are used for farming in New Zealand, and that use is legitimate, as long as it’s humane … and that requires us to get into this very challenging area of considering practicalities and economics.” 
Associate Agriculture Minister Andrew Hoggard, who has responsibility for the Animal Welfare portfolio, has told the committee he expected it to not just consider animal welfare.
“When appropriate, Nawac should undertake or seek more detailed analysis of the impact of its proposals,” Hoggard wrote in his recent letter of expectations.
“It is not intended that inclusion of these criteria override animal welfare requirements, but they do need to be considered where relevant to ensure any proposed minimum standard or regulation is workable.”
Stone said the committee would continue to work on “getting the balance right”. 
“We know that just imposing higher and higher welfare standards on the New Zealand system and farmers is something that they resist for practical and economic reasons and Nawac has to consider those reasons in all of our judgments.  
“And that’s a really challenging thing to do, and we’re always striving to get that balance right, and we’re always open to criticism when people think that we haven’t got it right.” 
Stone also made the point that in recent years the committee had deliberately sought to build up commercial farming experience and competencies within its membership.
“The Act lays out the number of members, so a chairperson and nine other members, and then it lays out a range of knowledge and experience areas that Nawac needs to have. And they include veterinary science, medical science, biological sciences, but then also very importantly the commercial use of animals and, of course, animal welfare advocacy areas as well.
“In recent years there’s been a deliberate effort to build up the experience and competencies in terms of commercial farming knowledge and experience on the committee, and we’re lucky to be served currently by three members with active farming interests. And that becomes very helpful for us when we’re thinking in terms of balancing the animal welfare science and understanding good practices and available technologies with these elements of practicalities and economics.”
Further changes and direction given to the committee are in the works.
“Reform the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee to ensure its functions, membership and mandate are appropriate,” is an agreement solidified in both the NZ First and Act coalition deals with National. 
Policy work on this agreement is underway.