Example scenarios and ratings under approved arrangements

Disclaimer

The hypothetical scenarios listed on this page have been created to provide examples of the application of the Performance Management and Compliance Guidelines under approved arrangements for livestock exporters. The scenarios provide limited information about the many variable facets of export consignments and are to be used for illustrative purposes only. The findings below do not necessarily reflect the rating given to future consignments under approved arrangements in all circumstances. Actual consignment ratings are significantly dependant on the individual variables of each consignment.

Detailed information on impact level ratings and livestock exporter performance management, can be found in the department’s Approved Arrangements for Livestock Exporters - Performance Management and Compliance Guidelines.

[expand all]

Scenario—Cattle to Russia by Sea—No Impact

An exporter submitted a notice of intention to export (NOI) 2 000 breeder cattle by sea to Russia.

The exporter prepared the consignment and made a booking for a departmental veterinary officer (VO) to attend the registered premises to undertake their inspection. When the consignment was ready the exporter submitted an application for an export permit and health certificate, declared they had followed their approved arrangement and submitted their core documents.

At the registered premises, the VO conducted an inspection and identified cattle in the consignment that were not listed on the ear tag list for testing and treatment. The VO asked the exporter about this and the exporter realised that some pages of the tag list failed to scan. The exporter rectified the issue within the hour, the VO completed their inspection and found the consignment compliant.

The VO issued an export permit and health certificate for the consignment.

Finding

No Impact.

This is a low level oversight that had no impact on the consignment.

Scenario—Cattle to Indonesia by sea—Impact Level 1

An exporter submitted a notice of intention to export (NOI) 2 500 cattle by sea to Indonesia.

The exporter prepared the consignment and made a booking for a departmental veterinary officer (VO) to attend the registered premises to undertake their inspection. When the consignment was ready the exporter submitted an application for an export permit and health certificate, declared they had followed their approved arrangement and submitted their core documents.

At the registered premises, the VO conducts a sample inspection and identified three animals as severely lame. The VO then inspected all the animals and found a further two lame animals and two with bleeding horn stumps. All other animals were found to be fit for export and all documents provided were in good order.

The VO directed the exporter to remove the identified animals from the consignment.

Finding

Impact Level 1

The failure to remove or identify a small number animals that were not fit for export did not indicate the exporter’s system had failed but indicated that carelessness or short cuts were taken.

Scenario—Cattle to Vietnam by sea—Impact Level 2

An exporter submitted a notice of intention to export (NOI) 3 000 cattle by sea to Vietnam. The consignment included light cattle, heavy cattle and long horn cattle.

The exporter prepared the consignment and made a booking for a departmental veterinary officer (VO) to attend the registered premises to undertake their inspection. When the consignment was ready the exporter submitted an application for an export permit and health certificate, declared they had followed their approved arrangement and submitted their core documents.

When the VO arrived at the registered premise the exporter let them know that as the registered premise did not have enough space so the cattle had not been separated at this stage. However the exporter intended to draft the cattle into light, heavy, horned and not horned lines the next morning before loading the cattle on to the trucks. The cattle appeared to be in otherwise good condition and all documents provided were in good order.

The VO and exporter agreed that the exporter would call the VO when drafting was completed and agreed that the VO would come to the vessel at completion of loading to undertake a final inspection and complete the paperwork. The next day the exporter called the VO to say the drafting was complete and they were starting to load animals.

At the completion of loading animals the VO boarded the boat for a final inspection. Walking through the boat the VO noticed that there were still 30 horned cattle penned with not horned cattle and about 20 light cattle penned with the heavy cattle.

When the VO pointed this out, the exporter made arrangements to move the cattle to properly separate them as soon as possible.

Finding

Impact Level 2.

The problems with this consignment indicated a lapse in the exporters system.

Scenario—Sheep to Malaysia by air—Impact Level 3

An exporter submitted a notice of intention to export (NOI) 1 300 breeder sheep by air to Malaysia.

The exporter prepared the consignment and made a booking for a departmental veterinary officer (VO) to undertake their inspection. When the consignment was ready the exporter submitted an application for an export permit and health certificate, declared they had followed their approved arrangement and submitted their core documents.

The VO conducted an inspection at the approved premises and all  animals met importing country requirements and were fit for travel. All paperwork appeared to be in order.  The VO and the exporter agreed that they would meet at the airport the next day to finalise the paperwork when the crates were to be loaded.

When the VO arrivee at the airport the next day 1 500 sheep were already crated. The exporter said that updated documents including blood test results and a new import permit for the additional 200 sheep was on the way. The additional 200 sheep were prepared at a different premise and had not been inspected by a VO. Because the planned departure time was imminent, the exporter asked the VO to allow the consignment to depart and promised to provide the updated documents to the department as soon as they were received by the exporter, after the flight has left.

The VO consulted with their Principal Veterinary Officer (PVO) who contacted the exporter to discuss the situation. The PVO advised the exporter that their application for export permit and health certificate was going to be refused because the exporter did not have the necessary documentation for the consignment and their approved arrangement had not been followed.

Finding

Impact Level 3

The issues with the consignment indicated a failure of the exporter’s business systems and disregard for processes.

Scenario—Cattle to Indonesia by sea—Impact Level 3

An exporter submitted a notice of intention to export (NOI) 5 000 cattle by sea to Indonesia.

The exporter prepared the consignment and made a booking for a departmental veterinary officer (VO) to attend the registered premises to undertake their inspection. When the consignment was ready the exporter submitted an application for an export permit and health certificate, declared they had followed their approved arrangement and submitted their core documents.

At the registered premises, the VO conducted their inspection and identified that 20 animals in one pen had signs of a respiratory disease. The VO then inspected all the animals and found a further three pens with animals that showed signs of a respiratory disease. A total of 200 animals were unfit to travel.

The VO consulted with their Principal Veterinary Officer (PVO) who contacted the exporter to discuss the situation. The PVO advised the exporter their application for an export permit and health certificate was going to be refused because of the large number of cattle that had been identified as being unfit for export.

Finding

Impact Level 3

The issues with the consignment were critical, the failure of the exporter’s staff and systems to identify and remove animals which were unfit for travel indicated either negligence or disregard for processes.

Scenario—Cattle and sheep to Israel by sea—Impact Level 3

An exporter submitted a notice of intention to export (NOI) 10 000 cattle and 6 000 sheep by sea to Israel.

The exporter prepared the consignment and made a booking for a departmental veterinary officer (VO) to attend the registered premises to undertake their inspection. When the consignment was ready the exporter submitted an application for an export permit and health certificate, declaree they had followed their approved arrangement and submitted their core documents.

When assessing the documents, the VO noted 75 animals tested positive on the laboratory results and asks to see the rejected animals when they arrived at the registered premises to undertake their inspection. There is no-one representing the exporter at the registered premise and the manager of the registered premise said the exporter hadn’t told them they need to remove any animals from the consignment and was unaware the livestock had tested positive and did not meet importing country requirements.

The VO consulted with their Principal Veterinary Officer (PVO) who contacted the exporter to discuss the situation. The PVO advised the exporter their application for export permit and health certificate was going to be refused because test positive animals had not been removed from the consignment and did not meet importing country requirements.

Finding

Impact Level 3

The issues with the consignment were critical. Theyindicated a failure of the exporter’s business systems and negligence or disregard for processes.

Scenario—Cattle to Vietnam by sea—Impact Level 4

An exporter submitted a notice of intention to export (NOI) 2 100 breeding cattle by sea to Vietnam.  The consignment included 290 pregnant heifers.

The exporter prepared the consignment and made a booking for a departmental veterinary officer (VO) to attend the registered premises to undertake their inspection. When the consignment was ready the exporter submitted an application for an export permit and health certificate, declared they had followed their approved arrangement and submitted their core documents.

When the VO arrived at the registered premise one heifer was giving birth, another had recently given birth and a number of the other heifers looked very heavily pregnant.   Because of this the VO asked to see the pregnancy tests to ensure the animals met ASEL standard s1.10(c).  The exporter provided the documents within one hour.

When the VO was assessing the documents, they noticed the dates on the form seemed to have been altered and seemed to indicate the heifers had been tested 20 days ago. The VO called the person who tested the cattle, who advised that the cattle had actually been tested 50 days ago and emailed the VO their (unaltered) copy of the test results.

The VO consulted with their Principal Veterinary Officer (PVO) who contacted the exporter to discuss the situation. The PVO advised the exporter their application for export permit and health certificate was going to be refused because of the large number of cattle identified as not meeting ASEL requirements, and the provision of potentially false and/or misleading information.

Finding

Impact level 4 and suspension of the approved arrangement.

The issues with the consignment were critical. They indicated an intention and/or flagrant disregard for the system and processes and potentially fraudulent behaviour.

Last reviewed: 4 November 2019
Thanks for your feedback.
Thanks! Your feedback has been submitted.

We aren't able to respond to your individual comments or questions.
To contact us directly phone us or submit an online inquiry

Please verify that you are not a robot.

Skip