Author Topic: Assessing ESCAS  (Read 695 times)

Export News Tasmania

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3017
  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Assessing ESCAS
« Reply #2 on: August 26, 2013, 04:33:03 PM »
Well, that is not entirely true. If you file a Freedom of Information request with DAFF, the information is never 'free' and you will be lucky to get it in 18 months. We filed a FOI requests for vision and documentation from the recent violation in Vietnam (only last month). To access that information, the fee was going to be over $3,100. Then, if the exporter objects to the release of any information, the matter is referred to the Office of the Information Commissioner - and they are 18 months behind in their work (if you or I were 18 months behind in our work we would expect to be sacked, but not these bureaucrats so entrenched in their cover-ups that they have set this process in place). A 'standard' investigation, we are told, takes 6-8 MONTHS. Then, when you get the information, it is useless because in the meantime one or more atrocities will have occurred and been exposed. So there is nothing 'free', accountable nor transparent.

The most interesting investigations reveal that the animals for some reason or another cannot be 'traced', or 'identified' or similar cop-outs. ESCAS was implemented to do precisely that - ensure that the animals were traced/traceable throughout. Not that it was ever about protecting the welfare of a single animal - it's about protecting the EXPORTERS, and not a single penalty of any meaning or substance has been applied against any of them.

Export News Tasmania

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3017
  • Karma: +0/-0
Assessing ESCAS
« Reply #1 on: August 26, 2013, 04:21:57 PM »
      WHEN Four Corners first broke the story of cruelty to Australian cows in Indonesian abattoirs, the Australian government initiated an “acceptable Exporter Supply Chain Assurance system” to better manage live exports. 

   

 
That system included a complaints mechanism, which has now been active for 18 months. So how many complaints have been investigated, and what results have we seen?
 
The assurance system is intended to allow the department to respond to animal welfare problems associated with live animal exports. In theory, the system should mean that the government never again has to suspend the entire live export trade, as has happened in the past.
 
The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) website explains that exporters, auditors and “third parties” can all report breaches under the system. Where the breach is considered to have merit it is investigated further.
 
The deparment’s level of transparency is to be commended. It lists all the complaints it has received and who they were made by. It also provides an overview of the nature of the complaint and the outcome of the investigation. It is rare to see a government department engaging stakeholders to this extent. On the issue of public accountability and engagement, the department scores 10 out of 10.
 
Looking at the complaints and investigations matrix on the department’s website, the first thing that stands out is the extent to which the department is dependent on third sector agencies and private citizens to bring matters of concerns to its attention.
 
Of the 16 complaints lodged, 12 were lodge by animal charities, one by “a member of the public”, and one by an “external party”. Two were cases of self-reporting by exporters. Of the two cases self-reported by exporters, one was the now infamous Pakistani slaughter case that received such media attention that it is hard to image a scenario in which the incident could have gone un-reported.
 
In 18 months, not a single breach has been identified by the department itself. This is despite “report from auditor” being one of the three means by which the department expects to learn of breaches.
 
With 87.5 per cent of complaints coming from animal groups or the community, two questions come immediately to mind. Why are animal groups eight times more likely to spot a problem with live animal exports than those people who are actively engaged in the live animal export trade? And why is the department entirely unable to identify problems itself?
 
Of the 16 complaints lodged with the department, six are marked as “investigation complete” and a further two are marked as “assessment completed”. Assessment completed means that the original complaint was found to be without merit and no investigation was undertaken. One of those complaints was lodged by Animals Australia. The other was by an “external party”.
 
Of those that have been investigated the results are mixed. The outcome of the investigations are often complex. In some cases you get the sense that probably animals suffered, but no technical breach of the system framework was identifiable. In other cases, animal suffering is confirmed, but the picture is too complex to know who is to blame. For example, in response to a complaint by Animals Australia, the department concluded that:

 <blockquote>The investigation found that non-compliance with ESCAS requirements occurred and that this non compliance resulted in animal welfare outcomes not consistent with OIE recommendations. The investigation was unable to determine which licensed exporter exported the sheep.</blockquote> 

So the bureaucrats have now had a good go at Australia’s live animal export trade. Is the world a better place as a result? If you value access to knowledge, the answer is probably “yes”. If you value the systematic reporting of breaches, then you have to conclude that the system would be a complete failure without Animals Australia and the RSPCA, both of which are charities and both of which depend on donations for their operations.
 
Finally, if you like to see someone being punished when animal welfare is compromised, then ESCAS is probably not for you.

30 Jul, 2013 11:30 AM SIOBHAN O'SULLIVAN By Siobhan O'Sullivan, University of Melbourne has previously been a member of both the RSPCA NSW and Animals Australia. She is currently not a member of either

http://www.queenslandcountrylife.com.au/news/agriculture/general/opinion/assessing-escas/2666041.aspx?storypage=0
« Last Edit: August 30, 2013, 08:48:44 AM by WA Export News »