National's animal welfare spokesperson Nicola Grigg says the party supports lifting the ban but introducing more regulation. Photo: Supplied / Summer Jayne / Taranaki Animal Save
Live animal exports by sea could be restarting soon.
The National Party promised earlier this year to lift a ban on the lucrative shipments, which came into effect in April due to concerns for animal welfare.
Between January 2020 and April 2023 more than 400,000 cows took the 15- to 21-day journey to China.
According to welfare activists, they endured intense heat, humidity, a lack of space and unsanitary conditions. Nearly 300 died en route.
"The voyage is harrowing for the animals," said SAFE chief executive Debra Ashton.
"Arriving alive at the destination does not mean the animals haven't suffered. We've seen awful images of animals standing in their own excrement, or animals that can barely move around."
In 2020, an additional 6000 cattle died aboard the Gulf Livestock 1, which sank in a storm on the way to China.
National's animal welfare spokesperson Nicola Grigg said the party supported lifting the ban but introducing more regulation.
"I appreciate an animal being on a ship for three weeks is quite different to roaming around in a pastoral environment," she told RNZ in September.
"However, the market that's going to fill the gap we've left is South America, and those animals will be on a ship for closer to seven or eight weeks. I'd rather see them leave New Zealand in a custom-built ship for three weeks."
But Helen Beattie, managing director of Veterinarians for Animal Welfare said it would be difficult to meet meaningful welfare standards while turning a profit.
"With no constraints on the system and enough money, could you ship cattle and protect their welfare? Yes, if the vessels were purpose-built with effluent control, temperature and humidity control, and appropriate space," she said. "But that obviously comes at an enormous cost."
Lyle Williams is an Ashburton farmer. He said the ban delivered a hefty financial blow to his business, which he estimated at between $100,000 and $200,000 per year in lost income.
Infometrics estimated the wider impact of the ban would cost the country nearly $5 million a year in the short term, and around $320 million per year after that.
Williams said the costs were widespread.
"It's actually affected every farmer in NZ. There's just no demand for heifer calves now, you basically have to give them away."
Calves born this spring that would have sold to the export market for $200 to $300 only brought in $20 or $30, he said.
"There's no growth in the local market. It was the export market that was holding up the value of animals."
Head of Livestock Export New Zealand, Mark Willis, called the ban an unfair punishment.
He said the ships being used just before it was imposed were operating to a near "gold" standard already - even without regulation.
"The animals travel with permanent veterinary supervision," he said.
"I am unaware in the last two years of any veterinary diagnosis of heat stress.
"A perception has been created that livestock export is cruel and the animals are suffering... but those are big words, and when livestock export is done properly, they can't fairly be applied to it."
Up until the ban, the export industry was working closely with government officials to improve welfare outcomes - including proposing an expert group to certify if each vessel was suitable.
Exporters were also willing to verify the cattle arrived in good health at the end of their voyage and were going to a good home.
But according to Helen Beattie, that was an impossible task.
"Destination country animal welfare is completely and utterly outside the jurisdiction of New Zealand," she said. "There are no mandatory animal welfare reporting requirements at an international level and New Zealand has no jurisdiction whatsoever over the welfare of those animals once they get out of quarantine."
The concept of a "gold" standard warranted caution, she added, noting it just meant the best in class.
"It's a nice term to use but you really need to examine what it means. If we are only lifting the standard from being poor to slightly better, that's still not acceptable."
She said lifting the ban - even with a gold standard in place - would be a major step backwards for animals regardless of the economic benefits.
