summary

Live animal export by sea is fundamentally inhumane. The very nature of the practice ensures that suffering is an inevitable consequence. Once animals are loaded onto vessels, they are subjected to prolonged journeys marked by severe stress, motion sickness, physical injury, dehydration, and the constant threat of death.

The environment on board is often horrific—animals are confined in overcrowded conditions with limited ventilation, standing in their own waste and exposed to dangerously high levels of ammonia.

Even before reaching the ship, many animals are transported over long distances while unfit to travel, enduring additional trauma. Once at sea, there is no independent oversight to ensure compliance with welfare standards. With only government-appointed monitors – who are not impartial – on board, any regulations in place become effectively unenforceable.

Tragically, the suffering doesn’t end when the journey does. In many of the destination countries, animals are subjected to brutal slaughter practices, often without stunning or in unregulated backyard operations, where South African welfare laws no longer apply.

The current system lacks credible oversight. By appointing its own monitors, the Department of Agriculture introduces a clear conflict of interest that undermines the credibility of any animal welfare claims.

Once animals leave South African waters, they are beyond the reach of our legal protections. This is particularly concerning given that many importing countries—such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Mauritius—have animal welfare standards that fall well below those of South Africa.

With no enforceable safeguards in place, animals are left completely vulnerable.

Live export by sea also poses serious risks to public health. The mass movement of animals across borders significantly heightens the risk of zoonotic disease transmission.

High-stress conditions, close confinement, and poor sanitation on board create an ideal breeding ground for outbreaks.

These risks are not just theoretical—global health authorities have repeatedly warned that such practices increase the likelihood of diseases that can spread from animals to humans, with potentially devastating consequences.

The live export trade represents a moral failure. It prioritises profit over the wellbeing of sentient beings, turning a blind eye to their suffering for the sake of economic gain.

As other countries—such as New Zealand, Brazil, Germany, the UK, and Australia—have already demonstrated, it is both possible and necessary to phase out or completely ban this cruel practice.

These nations are setting a clear moral and scientific precedent that South Africa has every reason to follow.

Despite claims that live export supports small-scale or emerging farmers, the reality is starkly different.

The vast majority of animals exported are owned by large, commercial farming operations. The narrative that the trade boosts rural development or spreads economic benefit is misleading.

Moreover, South Africa’s continued participation in live animal export comes at a reputational cost, undermining the country’s credibility on animal welfare and ethical farming practices.

At its core, live animal export by sea is not a practice that can be fixed through regulation.

No matter how stringent the rules, the systemic cruelty inherent in the trade cannot be eliminated. Attempts to regulate the process serve only to legitimise what is fundamentally an unjust and unnecessary industry.

Rather than trying to reform the irredeemable, South Africa must move toward a complete and permanent ban.