What are the environmental implications of the live sheep export ban?
I grew up on a mixed (sheep, cattle, cropping) farming property. You can’t live alongside another species without developing an appreciation for their intelligence and their emotions — so the footage from 2017 left me very distressed. And at that point I just disengaged from the sheep industry.
Fears of being subject to that footage again had just turned me off — and so, although I’m usually passionate about checking for independent non-algorithm curated peer-reviewed evidence, I still didn’t look for myself to see if the sheep industry had made any changes.
And I didn’t re-engage until a friend intervened. She asked me if I’d seen what changes had been made in the last few years by the live sheep export industry. So — for the first time in eight years —I did actually look. I was very surprised by what I found.
And, in reviewing the literature, I also concluded that one consequence to the ban on the live export of sheep that has not been sufficiently discussed or explored. It is a very significant consequence for us all.
Natural Capital Accounting Must Be Part Of Decision-Making
Economists and governments now put a dollar value on natural capital.
From the World Bank:
Nature is at the heart of critical development challenges like climate change, food security, health, jobs, poverty, inequality, and fragility….
The World Bank estimates that the global economy could lose $US 2.7 trillion by 2030 (compared to business as usual) if certain ecosystem services collapse (pollination, carbon sequestration and storage, fisheries and timber provision)….
These challenges cannot be effectively addressed unless we bring nature into the center of economic decision making.
(https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/natural-capital)
When land is cared for, our natural capital improves. And improved natural capital has both direct and indirect benefits to the rest of society. Again, this is very well acknowledged —
ecosystem services represent nature’s invaluable contributions to human well-being, economic stability, and environmental sustainability…from pollination and water purification to disease regulation and climate mitigation….Their preservation and enhancement through sustainable practices are not optional but essential for the survival and prosperity of current and future generations.
Farmers, pastoralists and rangers are the stewards of over half of Australia’s land. My estimate is sheep farmers (including mixed farming and pastoral sheep properties) are managing at least 25 percent of Australia’s natural capital.
Farmers Improve Natural Capital — When They Can
The role of the farmer in improving natural capital is not controversial. Neither is it controversial that the considerable cost of improving ecosystems is born by the farmer — much of the agricultural economic literature discusses this. We know that landcare (in other words, the actions that lead to increased natural capital) takes more time and requires considerable capital outlay.
Agricultural economists tell us that in the first years of conservation activity the improvements in productivity (if there are any) will be insufficient to outweigh the additional costs.
Ecological science has revealed that the best regeneration is not done best in the absence of animals. Instead the science tells us that plants, including Australians plants, co-evolved — including co-evolution with grazing animals such as our lost megafauna.
When herbivore grazing (including of livestock) is well managed the result is an increase of in both the amount and diversity of regeneration. More and more different types of plants, birds, native mammals — cleaner water and air — more carbon stored in plants and in soil.
This is all well acknowledged science: land regenerates faster with the right amount of animal disturbance than it does with no animal disturbance at all. Gardeners know this. Why else do we dig, prune and fertilise!
And being able to ‘rest’ country is vital. This too is very expensive — so it is vital to minimise the financial barrier to the farmer for giving country a break from grazing animals. So ensuring stability of markets is absolutely vital for encouraging farmers to make long term investments in conservation.
The actions being proposed by the government have been well-critiqued for the negative impact they will have on industry earnings across the entire supply chain. What has not been sufficiently highlighted is that this financial impact also immediately decreases the capacity of farmers to improve Australia’s natural capital.
Should the ban on live sheep exports go ahead many farmers will no longer have time and the additional funds to participate in the vital work of ecological restoration of Australia’s landscapes and thus natural capital — no matter how much they may wish to.
We know we are in the midst of a biodiversity and climate crisis. It seems all too likely that a live sheep export ban will result in a quarter of our natural capital from being optimally managed to address those twin crises.
So what is the evidence that in banning live export the government will, at least, achieve the goal of improving the lives of sheep?
Is There Still A Welfare Problem In Live Sheep Export?
The Live Sheep Export industry did have a welfare problem. Does it still have that problem? This was the little sum I did in my head to answer that question.
If sheep remain in Western Australia how many do we expect to lose in the paddock and yards over a year despite care being taken? It’s about 2–3 per cent in the paddock over a year.
This, then is surely an acceptable percentage of loss on board a ship?
But, in fact, the recent, independently verified and systematic measurement of sheep mortality in live export has revealed that most years less than 1 per cent of the sheep on board a ship are lost. This is the kind of report I’ve been reading -
If this figure is annualised (average length of journey is 21 days) then it comes in a 3% annual mortality, around the same as in the paddock.
So then I looked at how that was being achieved:
- The live export trade has been redesigned so sheep are no longer on the boats during the Northern hemisphere summer,
- Ventilation systems and environmental monitoring are first class,
- Animal behaviour is closely monitored so that unhappy animals are promptly assisted.
Compared to life in the paddock on a record-breaking run of our hotter-than-ever-before summer days — or in one of our extreme flooding events — could West Australian sheep be safer on board these ships than in the paddock?
Of course, such extreme weather events have been exacerbated by the climate pollution and environmental degradation…returning us to the main argument.
Farmers are key players in caring for land to enhance the natural capital to make us more resilient to climate pollution and other environmental threats. Landcare is an expensive exercise as the payoff in terms of productivity is well down the track. For farmers to make this investment in land they need reliable income for agricultural products — the fact that so many farmers do this anyway is testament to their love for land.
Of course, we all know that reliability in terms of agricultural product price has never been great as our farmers operate in an international marketplace.
However, allowing outdated information — because the sheep industry has significantly changed their practices since 2017 — to further derail agricultural pricing and market access is craziness.
And it would also be crazy for the government not to apply natural capital accounting principles in making their decisions. Australia’s long term health and prosperity depends upon our natural capital.
Deteriorating Natural Capital SeemsA Likely Cost Of Banning Live Sheep Export
So what are the costs to Australia of this decision in terms of global natural capital in both the short and long term?
I have not been able to find a government paper using natural capital accounting methods to assess their decision. Such a paper needs to look at such things as how animal waste is being managed at sea, how much diesel is being used and convert that into numbers. It needs to outline how much more organic carbon is stored in pasture grazed by sheep than when land is converted to mono-cultural cropping (there is a significant difference) and the impact of grazing on reducing carbon emissions from bushfire — and again, convert all this information into numbers.
And it is not as if I’m asking the Australian government to do anything unprecedented here. This type of balance sheet is produced by individual farm businesses because a growing number of farmers are aiming for net zero emissions, with many on track to achieve this by 2030.
So I can’t find any evidence that the government knows what the short and long term natural capital costs are for their decision. Not only that, this actual decision is based on information that is many years out of date.
Farming friends tell me that this is less a decision and more an ‘election promise’ to a group of people who identify as animal rights activists. Now, I am happy to live in a country with activists as I’m one of many Australians who identify as an activist myself.
However, I work hard to ensure my concerns are rooted in scientific evidence as part of my activism. It is uncomfortable and difficult to do. But I don’t expect to be taken seriously without the facts being on my side.
And I expect a government who are serious about doing a good job to also pay attention to the facts. Like most Australians, I’m well past expecting government to ‘keep their promises’ without reference to changed circumstances.
And the circumstances have changed.
The government now needs to factor in:
- huge improvements in sheep welfare outcomes (paid for by the industry itself), and
- the worsening biodiversity and climate pollution crisis.
I’d like to see CSIRO commissioned with providing a natural capital accounting evaluation for and against continuing sheep live export to include in their decision making.
And then I want to see the government to show us their full balance sheet for making the decision. We deserve better than to be governed by people who operate simply on a ‘can we get re-elected’ balance sheet.
Let us see all the evidence for and against live sheep export in terms of overall wellbeing for the planet, for communities and for future generations.